Printable View
I hadnt heard about this until now, seems like TMM/Nats dont like it when people post about their security breaches/fuckups on webmaster message boards...
http://www.xbiz.com/news/107439
Yet again it seems like NATs is trying to strongarm customers and webmasters to keep quiet about issues that could have wide reaching consequences for those using their script.
Regards,
Lee
Oh and interestingly enough....
After filing this lawsuit until today, it would appear that NATs/TMM have issued fixes for no less than 4 security updates LOL
Regards,
Lee
oh popcorn time :D
my thoughts on this are that when security breaches pop up its good to act fast in shutting down those loop holes and update the software as soon as possible before huge harm is done. Ventilating the breach is not doing any good other than helping others jump on the waggon and exploiting it on other systems within hours of disclosing the breach.
However if I would've found out about a breach, had contacted the developing company and waited a few days and when nothing happens, I'd made it public so that others could save themselves from harm.
So what damages did TMM receive except a strong growth in revenue since than? oh right - it could've been better :D hehe
edit: i think companies should have to prove that they got damages like lets say find people that didn't buy their software for that very reason or name the losses from those not-buyers... like the RIAA with copyright thefts "ohhh we lost a trillion in sales due to copyright infringements"... no, get y'alls books on the table and prove it, damnit :D
The action they've taken against this woman, and their previous security issues, makes me see NATS / TMM in a bad light.
Suing to silence people, or strong arming others to silence them, just demonstrates a weakness and bullying that most webmasters in our industry shouldn't tolerate. Notice that the article states that part of the suite is trying to force her to reveal her sources WTF? She's written for the Wall Street Journal and Business Week, I hope they fail.
TMM has a long history of this. In fact, the major security breach that happened a year and a half ago had been going on for over a year. TMM knew about it and did nothing (they claimed they thought it was limited to a very few installs) and yet when OC3 Networks discovered a bunch of their customers who used NATS had the problem and attempted to warn people about it, TMM threatened to sue them and got them to shut up. It was only because a few courageous people described what was happening, and a bunch of people discovered that they also had the problem, that TMM was forced to admit the truth.
I know of another very large straight program that used NATS very briefly and found a ton of problems with it, but it too was threatened into silence.
Squirt i agree, i dont remember exactly when it was but a few years back when they had that MAJOR breach that hit all the mainstream media outlets, they were denying it even happened publicly on the boards for weeks prior to it getting publicized.
From my own interactions with NATs owners/reps on the boards and seeing how they react to others, it certainly isnt a software product i would be willingly using, that being said, i know there are program owners that swear by NATs.... Despite all the obvious pitfalls and hurdles we have all heard about over the years, real or not.
Regards,
Lee
I think it is well-established in US law that reporters cannot be forced to reveal their sources, so I have no doubt she will prevail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
I just hope that she was careful with her "allegeds"!
I worked with said company at a previous job and it was *** a **** experience.
Asteriks in place, of course, to protect myself! :)
Mary,
You actually bring up a good point there, specifically, are informative posts made on blogs and message forums considered 'newsworthy' in the eyes of the law?
We know true journalists do not have to give up their sources but what about the lowly blogger or adult webmaster posting on an industry message board to assist others and get this type of information 'out there' when at the time, it was glaringly obvious that TMM/NATs was trying to stiffle the information from becoming public knowledge?
Regards,
Lee
That is going to be a very interesting litmus test...
I could easily argue that a blog and a professional forum are both sources of information dissemination, and therefore protected by the same agreements. Freedom of Speech, freedom of information.
They could get her for liable, if she wasn't careful with the "allegeds", however.
With the new trend towards prosecution with online information (facebook, myspace pages, etc.) it could go either way for this person. But I think a reasonable judge would find in her favour.
To play devil's advocate, if in fact she did what she's accused of, posted things
that were untrue, AND did so with reckless disregard for the truth, TMM has
a point.
She didnt though.Quote:
Originally Posted by raymor
From what i understand she basically posted about that huge security breach they had a few years back, before it hit the mainstream media and TMM/NATs tried to stop it from becoming public knowledge.
Unfortunately for NATs, its only an accusation if it isnnt true, i really dont see what they are gaining through this other than showing how low they will actually go to stop people finding out about important issues with their software.
Regards,
Lee
Every attorney I've spoken with has said that libel and defamation cases are nearly impossible to win.
My understanding is that the standard is that you have to post or write something that's false *knowing* that it was false, *knowing* that it was likely to injure the other party, and doing so with malice and intent to harm the other party.
It's the last two that are very, very tough standards to reach.
Of course, filing a lawsuit and driving someone to financial ruin trying to defend it can also be an effective way of shutting people up. Fortunately, in California, that's illegal. Unfortunately, in New Jersey, it's not.
The thing I don't get is how a company like TMM can possibly think that suing people who speak about security breaches can possibly help them in the long term. Maybe it gets people to shut up for fear of being sued, and if so, perhaps that's the reasoning behind it. But I look at any company who does that sort of thing, and has a history of threatening other people with the same thing, and the only thought that comes to my mind is that they are either incredibly insecure about their public persona, or they have something to hide.
For a lot of companies these days litigation is becoming a part of their business model :(Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
What is interesting though... TMM/NATs always post on GFY how they are 'pro' free speech but it appears only when it isnt about them LOL
Regards,
Lee
Odd ... can you be pro free speech while using the legal system to silence people?
Can you be an open forum while banning people from posting the truth, with links?
I dunno it all seems dodgy to me these days.. behind the scenes manipulations to silence those with knowledge from posting the truth and suing those who post public knowledge of a corporations flaws.. it wreaks of desperation to me.
True it's hard times but pacifying the masses is not a successful business strategy, at least not in my experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Not in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Complicated, and depends on the rules of the forum, but in general, forum operators try to walk a line between openness and keeping an environment that's inviting to posters. It is not an easy task making moderation decisions, but in general, I believe that presentation of facts that do not impinge on an expectation of privacy, and particularly when the facts might be useful to the community, should generally be an acceptable action.Quote:
Can you be an open forum while banning people from posting the truth, with links?
Integrity comes at a high cost. Most people would rather be silent and avoid delicate topics than risk alienating or angering people, because they don't want to affect their businesses or public perceptions. That's why Cybersocket got away with what it did for so long; people had the perception that they had the ability to destroy businesses, even though that wasn't the case. And that's why certain other companies are never spoken badly of publicly, while many people who have worked with them know that things are not what they appear to be, but won't say so publicly.Quote:
I dunno it all seems dodgy to me these days.. behind the scenes manipulations to silence those with knowledge from posting the truth and suing those who post public knowledge of a corporations flaws.. it wreaks of desperation to me.
It sucks, but it's probably true in every field of business.