Thunderfoot hacking FtB - Allegedly

[Coito ergo sum]

Thorough answers to all the misrepresentations in this thread can be found by carefully, calmly and with an open mind reading the links found here:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaes ... l-crusade/

In short; no one at FtB has been trying to get anyone fired, TF is NOT a 'whistleblower", he violated privacy, trust and his word, and the potential for very serious harm to some of the FtB bloggers (including some who had nothing at all to do with the drama that got TF's knickers in a twist to begin with) are very real.

Get the facts before shooting your mouths off.

Errr.... the whole issue of the email distribution list came after they booted him from the blog for voicing the wrong opinions.

And, this was not a violation of privacy. If you have an email list that people can subscribe to and you let people subscribe to it, then they have access to the emails. And, just because you say "these are confidential" doesn't mean that the people receiving them are under any legal obligation to keep them secret.

FtB's position on this is contrived, and their actions have been craven.

[Coito ergo sum]

Facts from threethoughtblogs?

Sorry I'm not clicking the link, I refuse to give them a penny or my valuable nanoseconds.

So I remain skeptical.

You mean you remain wedded to your preconceptions and can't be bothered to look at all sides of the story. That's not what I call skepticism...

Logically, then, you must find the FtB and Skepchicks to be, well, not skeptic...

[Coito ergo sum]

You mean you remain wedded to your preconceptions and can't be bothered to look at all sides of the story. That's not what I call skepticism...

All sides of the story are not necessarily equal. I have looked at the explanations of what thunderf00t did, and while it's ethically rather dubious, at the level of eavesdropping and breaking someone's trust, it certainly isn't hacking or anything illegal.

"Ethically dubious" is a nice way of putting it. Sleazy, immature and creepy would be n=more accurate. As for the legality I'm not so sure; don't know if it would rise to the level of a criminal offense but if I were T-foot I'd be worrying about civil liability.

He re-enrolled in the email list. It's the system FtB created. If a person goes there and enter an email address etc to be on the list, and they let the person on the list, then they can't complain when that person read the emails. And, just because the emails say "these are confidential emails" doesn't mean anything. Try putting "this email is confidential" on your emails, and see if there is any obligation on recipients to not show them to anybody else....

[A Hermit]

I won't read FTB anymore... not until it once again shows
itself to be a place where critical thought and dissent are
allowed. I love PZ... but I am not impressed with his creationist
behavior. He has lost a lost of respect from me.

There are 36 blogs there, some with multiple bloggers. Try Camels with Hammers, or Crommunist, or Black Skeptics, or Mano Singham or Richard Carrie if you don't like PZ. It's awfully unfair to dismiss and demean all of those fine people because you don't like something PZ said.

I don't read FTB for the same reason I don't go to Chick Fil A.

FtB serves greasy fast food? I hadn't noticed....

On the other hand Chik-Fil-A funds hate groups and fights to prevent gays from having civil right and pushes a radical right wing political agenda, while FtB includes a number of gay and transgender bloggers and is taking a lot of heat from people like T-Foot precisely because they think that standing up for minorities and for women is important. In fact T-Foot's declaration that such concerns were a "non-issue" and a waste of time and that people shouldn't be talking about them was what set off the whole drama... So I'm afraid I don't see your point here...

[Robert_S]

Well A Hermit, I admit you have a point there. A few FtB folks might not be the measure by which to make sweeping statements about the entire network.

I mean, a network has a lot of different members and making broad general statements might cause "splash damage". Kinda like judging an entire forum by one thread.

[Coito ergo sum]

I won't read FTB anymore... not until it once again shows
itself to be a place where critical thought and dissent are
allowed. I love PZ... but I am not impressed with his creationist
behavior. He has lost a lost of respect from me.

There are 36 blogs there, some with multiple bloggers. Try Camels with Hammers, or Crommunist, or Black Skeptics, or Mano Singham or Richard Carrie if you don't like PZ. It's awfully unfair to dismiss and demean all of those fine people because you don't like something PZ said.

Interesting... imagine that.... "dismissing and demeaning" a whole community of people, because you don't like something one of them said....

Huh... where have we seen that before? I, wonder....

[A Hermit]

He re-enrolled in the email list. It's the system FtB created. If a person goes there and enter an email address etc to be on the list, and they let the person on the list, then they can't complain when that person read the emails. And, just because the emails say "these are confidential emails" doesn't mean anything. Try putting "this email is confidential" on your emails, and see if there is any obligation on recipients to not show them to anybody else....

So if you gave me a key to your house then later decided you didn't want me in your house anymore, told me to stay out but forgot to get the key back I would have the right to go into your house and take your stuff?

Really?

This is ethics 101 for goodness sake; when TF clicked that box saying "I agree to the terms..." he did make a commitment to keep that stuff confidential. And when was told he wasn't welcome anymore, his name was removed from the list and he did NOT have permission to log back in. He was informed of this and can't claim ignorance. Just because they made it easy for him for sneak back in doesn't mean he had a right to do so.

Once again I recommend reading John Welch's excellent comments here:http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ment-75731

and here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck ... ment-75748

As he makes clear, Welch is no fan of FtB but he does seem to know something about the technology involved and apparently has more of a moral compass than TF and his fanboys do...

[Sean Hayden]

One of the reasons y'all rub people like me the wrong way is because you can liken what TF did to someone breaking into your home.

It is just so bizarre, you know?

More reasonable may be to talk about someone throwing a tantrum. His behavior is embarrassing enough without having to liken it to behavior that is beyond the pale. I really think it is important to use analogies that aren't hyperbolic if your point isn't humor. I don't think you're trying to be funny.

[pErvinalia]

He re-enrolled in the email list. It's the system FtB created. If a person goes there and enter an email address etc to be on the list, and they let the person on the list, then they can't complain when that person read the emails. And, just because the emails say "these are confidential emails" doesn't mean anything. Try putting "this email is confidential" on your emails, and see if there is any obligation on recipients to not show them to anybody else....

So if you gave me a key to your house then later decided you didn't want me in your house anymore, told me to stay out but forgot to get the key back I would have the right to go into your house and take your stuff?

Really?

This is ethics 101 for goodness sake; when TF clicked that box saying "I agree to the terms..." he did make a commitment to keep that stuff confidential. And when was told he wasn't welcome anymore, his name was removed from the list and he did NOT have permission to log back in. He was informed of this and can't claim ignorance. Just because they made it easy for him for sneak back in doesn't mean he had a right to do so.

Ridiculous rhetoric noted.

[Coito ergo sum]

He re-enrolled in the email list. It's the system FtB created. If a person goes there and enter an email address etc to be on the list, and they let the person on the list, then they can't complain when that person read the emails. And, just because the emails say "these are confidential emails" doesn't mean anything. Try putting "this email is confidential" on your emails, and see if there is any obligation on recipients to not show them to anybody else....

So if you gave me a key to your house then later decided you didn't want me in your house anymore, told me to stay out but forgot to get the key back I would have the right to go into your house and take your stuff?

If I didn't want you in my house and took the key back, but then the next day you asked me for the key and I gave you a key, I wouldn't be surprised if you went into the house.

This isn't a house, but my analogy is closer to the mark than yours. Here, we have a website which has a process for people to get onto this email list. If they allow a person to sign up and go on the list, then that's their problem. If an email distribution is really confidential, then only those properly vetted will be allowed on. If you set up an automated system that lets people on that you don't want there, then that's, again, your problem.

Let's be honest here. The reason the FtB folks got upset about the contents being (partially) brought to light is that when they think they have the cloak of anonymity, their true colors come out, and they admit to each other that they want to "drum people out of the community" and make them "pariahs."

Fuck -- how many FtB-ers do you think applaud Wikileaks and that soldier, Bradley Manning, who broke HIS promises to keep US military information secret? Look at the comments to this article: http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/201 ... y-ecuador/ and http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ ... ivate-cia/

So.... Bradley Manning breaks the law by releasing information he is duty and legally bound to keep secret. He transmits the information to a third party, and by-and-large FtB-folks are four-square in his camp. Here, there is no legal duty on the part of Thunderf00t to not sign up to the email list, and there is no legal duty to keep any of the emails confidential in the first place, but as a matter of "morals" and netiquette, it was dirty pool, so "drum him out of the movement," and "make him a pariah..." --- right?

[A Hermit]

Interesting... imagine that.... "dismissing and demeaning" a whole community of people, because you don't like something one of them said....

Huh... where have we seen that before? I, wonder....

Oh happens all the time I'm sure; I remember a certain rape "joke" that did just that for example...

[A Hermit]

If I didn't want you in my house and took the key back, but then the next day you asked me for the key and I gave you a key, I wouldn't be surprised if you went into the house.

Even if I took the key without asking? Just slipped it out of your pocket? `cause that's more like what TF did...diod you even bother to read Welch's explanation of why this is was so reprehensible?

This isn't a house, but my analogy is closer to the mark than yours. Here, we have a website which has a process for people to get onto this email list. If they allow a person to sign up and go on the list, then that's their problem. If an email distribution is really confidential, then only those properly vetted will be allowed on. If you set up an automated system that lets people on that you don't want there, then that's, again, your problem.

VIctim blaming..."she was asking for it, she shouldn't have parked the car in that neighbourhood, shouldn't have left that window open, shouldn't have worn that short skirt..."

Carelessness or inattention by the victim of a violation does not excuse the person who consciously chose to violate them. Ethics 101 again...

Fuck -- how many FtB-ers do you think applaud Wikileaks and that soldier, Bradley Manning, who broke HIS promises to keep US military information secret? Look at the comments to this article: http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/201 ... y-ecuador/ and http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ ... ivate-cia/

Read this: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... leblowers/

Comparing what TF did to what whistleblowers do is an insult to real whistleblowers . The FtB folks were not breaking any laws, violating any agreements, nor are they in a position of power over others where the conversations on that listserv would have threatened anyone else's well being. TF calling himslef a whistleblower is just more evidence of his megalomania.

This is not a case of whistleblowing; it's a case of a sad little boy with a massive sense of entitlement behaving in a sleazy, unethical manner to get 'even" with someone and hurting a lot of innocent people in the process.

[A Hermit]

One of the reasons y'all rub people like me the wrong way is because you can liken what TF did to someone breaking into your home.

It is just so bizarre, you know?

More reasonable may be to talk about someone throwing a tantrum. His behavior is embarrassing enough without having to liken it to behavior that is beyond the pale. I really think it is important to use analogies that aren't hyperbolic if your point isn't humor. I don't think you're trying to be funny.

He entered a place where he had no right to be, violated the private space of others, spent weeks surreptitiously recording private conversations, made copies of private personal documents...no I don't think the analogy is bizarre at all.

If you really think there's no harm here why don't you give me your e-mail password?

[Sean Hayden]

I do believe he has done harm, and I do think his behavior is unethical and embarrassing. However, it is not like breaking into someone's home -for either party, and I think that's a good thing.

[Coito ergo sum]

If I didn't want you in my house and took the key back, but then the next day you asked me for the key and I gave you a key, I wouldn't be surprised if you went into the house.

Even if I took the key without asking? Just slipped it out of your pocket? `cause that's more like what TF did...diod you even bother to read Welch's explanation of why this is was so reprehensible?

No, of course not. But, he did not take the key without asking. He used the method for obtaining the key that was set up by FtB. FtB GAVE HIM THE KEY.

Yes, I read Welch's explanation.

This isn't a house, but my analogy is closer to the mark than yours. Here, we have a website which has a process for people to get onto this email list. If they allow a person to sign up and go on the list, then that's their problem. If an email distribution is really confidential, then only those properly vetted will be allowed on. If you set up an automated system that lets people on that you don't want there, then that's, again, your problem.

VIctim blaming..."she was asking for it, she shouldn't have parked the car in that neighbourhood, shouldn't have left that window open, shouldn't have worn that short skirt..."

Carelessness or inattention by the victim of a violation does not excuse the person who consciously chose to violate them. Ethics 101 again...

No, this was not mere carelessness and inattention. This was a system set up by FtB. Anyone setting up a system to keep people off a confidential email distribution would not allow people to sign up like that.

Fuck -- how many FtB-ers do you think applaud Wikileaks and that soldier, Bradley Manning, who broke HIS promises to keep US military information secret? Look at the comments to this article: http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/201 ... y-ecuador/ and http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/ ... ivate-cia/

Read this: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... leblowers/

Comparing what TF did to what whistleblowers do is an insult to real whistleblowers . The FtB folks were not breaking any laws, violating any agreements, nor are they in a position of power over others where the conversations on that listserv would have threatened anyone else's well being. TF calling himslef a whistleblower is just more evidence of his megalomania.

This is not a case of whistleblowing; it's a case of a sad little boy with a massive sense of entitlement behaving in a sleazy, unethical manner to get 'even" with someone and hurting a lot of innocent people in the process.

I didn't use the word whistleblowing. I was talking about a real case of someone violating a legal duty not to disclose information -- Bradley Manning. In the case of TFoot, he had no such duty. All you're talking about is netiquette. FtBs wanted to have an email list where they could carp on about their plans to destroy people and run them out of the community, or make pariahs out of them.