Oh Wow - Never Post About NATs On A Board Again!

[jIgG]

there are companies out there who do nothing
but dig trough widely used software titles, including Microsoft's,
and firefox and pick any name looking for security holes, bugs and what not and announce them out to the public

in fact if I'm not mistaken that's how Microsoft was forced to
go in and start fixing Windows XP and delay what became known as Vista

they wouldn't fix security issues they were told about
and those who found them announced it to the world
to have something done

so if the security issues with NATS are true
not sure why they'd think they're more special then
MS in having their security problems aired for the world to see

if this reporter lied or whatever on purpose sure sue her
but NATS is also going to have to prove they did not in fact
have security issues.

The whole thing ends up drawing even more attention

[Squirt]

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.

That's true and that perspective has affected my view of community recently.

If a community is a group of people who care so little about others that they are willing to be silent when there's a threat to the community, so they feel safe and can maintain their bottom line, then the community is weak.

If the truth, with links, is considered a threat, or drama, then the community gets what it deserves for silencing people with integrity because there will be no voice to speak out when the scam artists come slithering back in. Newbies, and the unsuspecting in the community, will get sucked.

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.

It sucks, but it's probably true in every field of business.

Online businesses seem to have unique issues that brick and mortar establishments haven't had before the internet.

It's amazing how offline reputations can be so completely different then online reputations. This is why people should post online, about what's happened offline, more often.

My sense of online communities has always been the same as real world communities.. look out for them and they'll look out for you, but I've since discovered that this isn't the case in online porn webmaster communities. You are only looked out for if it's convenient and safe. People tend not to share really helpful information, and people keep their mouths shut when releasing helpful information would be perceived as drama or conflicting with a companies online persona.

As you stated, this is why Cybersocket, NATS/TMM, and others have been able to do what they do.

To thwart this I've started supplementing my online connections with lots of offline communication to exchange valuable information that people just don't post out of fear. I should have done this years ago but I was just a bit daft and far to altruistic.

[kmanrox]

the old adages 'think before you speak' and 'choose your enemies wisely' certainly come into play here.

[StunnerJesse]

I do not see how they could/would win.

Imagine if Microsoft went around suing every single person that exposed a security threat?!

All too often you have to publicly expose something before any action will be taken.

It is a sad reality of today.

[gaybucks_chip]

I do not see how they could/would win.

The issue is money.

TMM owns a bunch of member sites, and it also owns Segpay, so they have money. This one blogger probably doesn't have a lot of assets. If TMM's attorney drags things out with a ton of discovery and pleadings and so forth, there isn't much the other party can do.

It sucks, but the system isn't really about equality. It's a lot more about how much money you have. If you have more than the other party, you can intimidate, threaten, delay, and run up the other person's bill to your heart's content, and in all but a few states, that's legal.

[StunnerJesse]

The issue is money.

There is only going to be one winner and I can predict it this very second with 100% accuracy:

The Lawyers

[djdez]

Is anyone at all concerned with how this blogger wrote 'tmm threated to kill a client? I don't know for sure, but it sounds like the blogger said an anonymous source told me their lives were threated by TMM. No serious journalist would have included that without 1) being allowed to name the person who was threated or in this case the source 2) verifying it with 2 different other sources who heard it as well which they would have mentioned this in the article 3) heard it themselves on a tape which they would have said they heard and kept a copy of it.

The only time you are able to say or write something without any regard is on a bathroom wall. If you're turning your blog into a bathroom wall without regard to journalist ethics you diminish the value of real news.

I'm sorry but no one has the right to make serious allegations and not be able to back them up. Lets take a look at another angle. If I blogged that I was told by a former model of XYZ that after a shoot they were given beer and after they passed out he was locked in a cage for two days... should I be allowed to write about this without naming the model? Perhaps, but should I be allowed to do this without verifying it with other sources or without seeing a copy of a tape? Should I be allowed to write about this even though there was never a police report made about it? Is it ok for me to blindly accept what an accuser is saying about someone else as the truth and pass it off as factual news to my readers? God I hope not. I tend to want my news to be more than a gossip rag, which by the way do get sued all the time and they lose a lot too.

[gaybucks_chip]

Yes, this blogger probably went a bit over the line.

But on the other hand, TMM did everything possible to squash this story, and it's well known that they squelched OC3 networks early on when they first noticed the problem, and did the same to many other program owners who independently discovered the problem over the ensuing YEAR that the security breach was known to them, but they failed to notify anyone.

And, even worse than that, some programs, after the breach was made public, sent out incredibly evasive statements to their affiliates, dodging whether or not their program had actually suffered a breach, and instead offering weak self-serving notices that they'd "done all updates recommended by TMM", when what affiliates really needed to know at that point was whether that program (and therefore, potentially, the affiliate's information) had been compromised.

Free speech isn't free. It has a high cost, and one of those costs is allowing people to say things that they believe to be true without fear of punishment. I suspect that blogger believed everything that she wrote about the situation, and if that's the case, then her statements very clearly do not rise to the standard required for a libel or defamation case, which requires the accuser to prove both that the libeling/defaming party *knows* that what they are saying is false, and that the libeling/defaming party intended, with malice, to harm the aggrieved party.

It may not be the answer you want to hear, but it's the way our laws work. If a company undertakes a libel or defamation action without proof of both of those things, then they're essentially trying to strip away that person's right to free speech, and I'm sure that TMM knows that by threatening people with legal action, a lot of people won't want to spend the money money to defend a frivilous defamation action (which can easily cost $50-100,000) and will simply shut up. And that is not OK. (It's also why there's legislation preventing such things in California.)

Yes, I can agree that nobody likes hearing bad things said about them. But I don't know of any other company in this industry where, over and over, you keep hearing stories of people being threatened into silence, and that is not a good thing.

[Lee]

But on the other hand, TMM did everything possible to squash this story, and it's well known that they squelched OC3 networks early on when they first noticed the problem, and did the same to many other program owners who independently discovered the problem over the ensuing YEAR that the security breach was known to them, but they failed to notify anyone.

I think, like with a lot of the 'bad' stuff that happens in the industry, many feel like they can put disinformation, or simply no information out there at all because for the most part, adult webmasters simply dont seem to care about a person or companies prior history.

Im sure most of us reading this thread right now can rattle off 5+ companies or individuals who in the last few years have caused some kind of financial or personal issues to individuals or, the gay webmaster community at large that many others reading this thread wont know about because... It has simply been forgotten.

Cybersocket, AVN, Epoch, SameBB, MaxPowers, were the 5 who came to mind immediately, many companies and individuals still do business with these individuals or companies because they simply are not aware (or care about) their past histories because 'drama' and 'censorship' has been turned in to a defensive tool by these same individuals and companies, enabling those threads to simply be cast aside as nothing more than just that 'drama' even when the reality is, they are being posted to inform the greater webmaster community about shady business practices.

Like with John at NATs threatening to sue anyone who posts negatively about TMM or NATs on a wide range of boards, as you said Chip, it puts a lot of people off from posting, because they simply are not able to afford a lengthy court battle.

For the most part anything that is posted these days which may cast a bad light on a company is put down to 'drama' and the person posting it is considered to be a 'troll' on many boards just looking for attention.

Of course, these companies and individuals also have schills working with them spreading dis-information, like in the case of the TMM/NATs breach, almost as soon as the mainstream media got hold of the story, posts started to appear on a wide range of message boards discussing how the 'industry' could protect its image, resulting in stories of how the 'breach' was incorrect, never happened and was simply 'drama'.

I guess what im saying is, so long as you are a company with the perception of 'power' the bad deeds you do go un-noticed and ultimately forgotten by the masses except for a small few who make a point of remembering their past histories, perhaps if more people paid attention to the 'drama' and who is doing the labelling of such threads/posts as such, these companies and individuals wouldnt be able to get away with it time and time again, but i guess that is to much to ask for, afterall most webmasters would sell their own mothers if it meant they could make a couple of extra signups.

Regards,

Lee

[djdez]

The right to free speach is a two way street between you and your governments. Thats it. There is no other right to free speach.

[Lee]

The right to free speach is a two way street between you and your governments. Thats it. There is no other right to free speach.

That would actually be incorrect.

The freedom of speech is a HUMAN RIGHT which unfortunately, means everyone has it, irrespective of whether or not they are speaking out against an individual, corporation or government.

Saying that freedomn of speech is something between a citizen and a government is basically saying you are okay with censorship which, we all know you arent based on your previous history on GWW, unless you are just against censorship when your friends are the ones doing the posting.

Regards,

Lee

[gaybucks_chip]

The right to free speach is a two way street between you and your governments. Thats it. There is no other right to free speach.

I'm not certain what you mean here. The First Amendment guarantees a level of freedom of expression that is almost unparalleled in any other country, and with very, very few exceptions, the courts have been consistent in upholding those rights. Yes, the Bush administration attempted to trample all over those rights, but fortunately it was an enforcement issue rather than actual changes in the law.

I don't really see how it's a two way street; as Lee said, it's a protection that is pretty fundamental to our political system.

[raymor]

The right to free speach is a two way street between you and your governments. Thats it. There is no other right to free speach.

I'm not certain what you mean here. The First Amendment guarantees a level of freedom of expression that is almost unparalleled in any other country, and with very, very few exceptions, the courts have been consistent in upholding those rights.
...
I don't really see how it's a two way street; as Lee said, it's a protection that is pretty fundamental to our political system.

I believe the point djdez was making is that the first amendment only bars
the federal government from censorship and other similar infringements of
free speech - it in no way affects one party's ability to sue another. The wording
of the first amendment is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ...

So the first amendment doesn't say "NATS can't sue you for libel after you've
said something". Rather, the first amendment is concerned with what congress
can and cannot do. Further, several high court decisions have well established
that the first amendment bars the government from preventing the speech AHEAD
OF TIME (censorship), but is not a protection from prosecution AFTERWARDS
if the speech is unlawful on it's face (threatening someone) or is unlawful in it's
intended effects (conspiracy to commit a crime, libel).

Where I disagree with djdez is that djdez implies that the first amendment, and
other similar laws elsewhere, CREATE the right of free speech. In fact the bill
of rights does not claim to create or establish any rights. What it does is bar the
government from INFRINGING on already existing rights, rights which the
founders felt were part of being human - "endowed by their creator". That rights
cannot be created by governments is also clear if you consider the definition
of a right. A right is something that the government cannot legitimately take away.
Obviously if the government gave you your rights, the government could take
them away. Since govt can't take away rights, govt must not have given them.

So yes, the constitution only prevents the government, and by it's words only
the federal government, from infringing on rights. The first amendment doesn't
have any affect on libel and slander suits. On the other hand, the first amendment
does recognize, by implication, that a right to free speech already existed before
the government was created. Since the right always existed, there must be some
limit to how much one person can interfere with the rights of another.

In fact, that limit is defined by the rights of the other person. The blogger has the
right to say what they will. NATS has a right to do business without malicious
interference by someone lying about them, falsely accusing them of making death
threats. The right of one person to earn a living probably takes precedence over
the right of another to attack them with lies, I would say.

[gaybucks_chip]

In fact, that limit is defined by the rights of the other person. The blogger has the right to say what they will. NATS has a right to do business without malicious interference by someone lying about them, falsely accusing them of making death threats. The right of one person to earn a living probably takes precedence over the right of another to attack them with lies, I would say.

And while the laws of slander, libel, and defamation do, in fact, provide a means of redress for someone who makes false accusations, our legislators have set the standards for proving libel and slander and defamation pretty high, most likely recognizing the chilling effect such laws could have on speech. And that's basically my point. These laws aren't written to prevent someone's feelings from being hurt, they are written to address actual damage to a reputation, and further protect speech by ensuring that unintentional speech isn't punishable.

In this case as I understand it, under the law, unless TMM can prove that the original poster knew what she was saying was false, and intended to harm TMM, then defamation and libel has not occurred. Of course, the problem is, nothing in our current system prevents TMM from dragging her through the courts and bankrupting her, all the while knowing that their case doesn't meet the legal standard, and they will therefore lose. But even if they do lose, the blogger has lost a fortune in legal fees, not to mention the stress of dealing with the situation. And so, even if TMM loses, she still loses also.

I do understand that TMM doesn't want people going around saying nasty things about them. That's obvious given their history of threats of legal action and other actions to silence people. The difference here is that the act of saying nasty things that happen to be true is protected at a very high standard, and the people at TMM are not stupid, and have to know this.

The part I don't get is how anyone with a brain can possibly think that pursuing this course of action can possibly enhance or benefit one's reputation. At best, such a course of action will discourage others from speaking publicly about your product in a negative way, but I would think that the damage to one's reputation that results from going around suing (or threatening to sue) anyone in sight would be far, far worse than the honest expression of opinion or disclosure of fact about your product.

[Squirt]

People should have integrity and post the truth on boards, not spin/lie to save their ass or a companies bottom line as it doesn' pay off because they are usually outed, but you have this woman guilty before the trial is over, which is not how the American legal system works.

All evidence to date shows she had complete regard for the information she was disseminating , not a lack of regard. As the article states, Shellee Hale is a contributor to the Wall Street Journal and Business week that's been writing on internet security issues for 5 years. She's hardly some loon writing on bathroom walls like you try to paint her.

When you read her blog dated April 26th regarding this issue you can see she's quite sane and level headed. She definately doesn't look like a crazy bathroom wall writing loon. See pic below.

Is anyone at all concerned with how this blogger wrote 'tmm threated to kill a client? I don't know for sure, but it sounds like the blogger said an anonymous source told me their lives were threated by TMM. No serious journalist would have included that without 1) being allowed to name the person who was threated or in this case the source 2) verifying it with 2 different other sources who heard it as well which they would have mentioned this in the article 3) heard it themselves on a tape which they would have said they heard and kept a copy of it.

The only time you are able to say or write something without any regard is on a bathroom wall. If you're turning your blog into a bathroom wall without regard to journalist ethics you diminish the value of real news.

I'm sorry but no one has the right to make serious allegations and not be able to back them up. Lets take a look at another angle. If I blogged that I was told by a former model of XYZ that after a shoot they were given beer and after they passed out he was locked in a cage for two days... should I be allowed to write about this without naming the model? Perhaps, but should I be allowed to do this without verifying it with other sources or without seeing a copy of a tape? Should I be allowed to write about this even though there was never a police report made about it? Is it ok for me to blindly accept what an accuser is saying about someone else as the truth and pass it off as factual news to my readers? God I hope not. I tend to want my news to be more than a gossip rag, which by the way do get sued all the time and they lose a lot too.