Linux Developer Who Issued Bogus YouTube Takedowns Threatens Techdirt With Legal Action For Publishing His 'Private Information'
from the the-only-way-to-fix-my-stupid-is-MORE-STUPID dept
On January 6th, Techdirt published a story covering YouTube takedown abuse perpetrated by Antoni Norman, the developer behind the Pinguy OS Ubuntu/Linux hybrid. Apparently, Norman had engaged in some abusive behavior on the Cup of Linux Mumble chat server, supposedly while intoxicated. This resulted in a 3-month ban from the server and Cup of Linux site. This was extended to a lifetime ban after Norman issued bogus takedown requests on Cup of Linux instructional videos featuring "how to" instructions for setting up Pinguy OS created by Shawn Patrick Ryan (aka "Spatry").
Over the previous few years, Spatry (whose videos were targeted) and Norman enjoyed a friendly relationship. At no point during those previous years did Norman have any issue with Spatry's use of Pinguy OS trademarks. Now, after being banned for his own misconduct, Norman suddenly developed a deep concern for the Pinguy OS logo. The takedowns he issued resulted in Spatry removing 29 videos (6 were directly named in the takedown request) from the Cup of Linux channel.
Given the context, Norman's takedown requests appeared to be nothing more than retaliation for his banning.
Shortly after the post went live, Norman contacted me via email. Obviously unhappy with the unflattering coverage, he proceeded to throw a bunch of legal stuff at the wall in hopes of something sticking. The entire email exchange is included below. Norman's end of the conversation is in italics. Mine is in bold. Any interruptions for commentary will be in brackets and not indented, for clarity.
-----
Could you not post my personal email.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150104/07534229594/developer-issues-bogus-takedowns-against-cup-linux-youtube-channel-retaliation-being-banned-abusive-behavior.shtml#comments
I am also pretty sure it isn't exactly legal posting legal documents online.
-----
You mean this email that anyone could find with no trouble? (See attached screenshot from GoDaddy registrar records.)
I'll redact it from the screenshot in the story. And as for your assertion about legal documents: you're wrong.
- Tim Cushing
-----[Norman has since updated his registration with a proxy email address. Here's the screenshot of the registration info I emailed to Norman.]
-----[This is Norman's first legal salvo, a link to a page supposedly meant to prove his point about the publication of private info, but one that actually works against him and for us.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publishing-personal-and-private-information
-----
I've updated the picture with a redacted version. What you've cited doesn't help your argument.
-----
Here's the part I believe Norman thinks helps him:
The legal claim known as "publication of private facts" is a species of invasion of privacy. You commit this kind of invasion of privacy by publishing private facts about an individual, the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person.And here's what directly follows it:
This legal claim can only be successful, however, if the facts in question are not legitimately newsworthy.In the context of this blog -- which has continuously covered these sorts of abuses for longer than 15 years -- this is newsworthy. The inclusion of Norman's email address in the screenshot of the takedown request verifies the fact that Norman was actually behind the takedowns. Hence: newsworthy. Also, contrary to his claims, not private information, no matter how badly he wishes it to be.]
-----[Here are screenshots backing up my claim that I contacted Norman and Spatry roughly simultaneously (within three minutes of each other).]
You do understand what you have published isn't legal? You are sharing a legal on going private matter?
-----
A takedown issued to a public YouTube account isn't a private matter. That Spatry chose to publicize this is his prerogative. Us reporting on it is a matter of public interest because the takedown appears to be retaliatory, rather than justified.
Almost everything in that link you sent involves the exploitation of personal information for advertising goods and services. Techdirt has been around for 15 years and has covered this sort of thing on numerous occasions, so it's not as though your "private matter" is being "exploited."
Your personal email address is a matter of public record. It is in your domain registry. I have redacted it as a FAVOR to you. I also gave you a chance to respond to this and tell your side of the story BEFORE publication. I sent an email to you asking for a response at the same time I sent one to Spatry. You chose not to respond until two days ago and you really haven't offered anything more than complaints with no legal basis.
---------------
[Back to Antoni Norman:]
-----
Due to Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), I have to have valid contact information for the domain.[Norman digs deeper, citing UK law referring to lawsuits containing a court-ordered injunctions forbidding the publication of certain facts. A YouTube takedown is none of these things.
What you have published has nothing to do with my domain.
As the legal matter you have published is still ongoing by law I can not comment on the case until it has been resolved.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/contempt_of_court/
-----
Right. You have to have valid contact information. I'm just showing you that anyone can find your email address, even if I redact it.
And as for the rest, OK. Spatry feels like commenting on it. and we obviously have. So, if you have no comment, so be it.
-----
Furthermore, if Norman was so concerned about the exposure of his email, he could have paid GoDaddy a little extra to hide those details (which he has now done). You have to provide contact information to registrars but you are not required to expose it to the general public.]
-----[Norman keeps supplying these two URLs as if they're suddenly going to turn into relevant legal precedent. As has been confirmed by Spatry, no further legal action has been pursued by Norman, so no stretch of the imagination will turn an automated, third-party takedown system wholly unrelated to civil actions into a lawsuit where actual "contempt of court" charges may be levelled.]
But you understand by publishing that article that you have impede a legal case and broke "Contempt of Court Act 1981" and "Publication of Private Facts".
Do you have any comments about this? Did you knowingly know you was open to getting sued by publishing private information and discussing an open legal matter?
-----
Have you filed a lawsuit against Spatry or have you only issued a takedown via YouTube? Because what you're linking to applies to ongoing legal action in terms of a TRIAL, not an action involving a third-party tool to report infringement.
Also, you're dealing with the wrong jurisdiction.
-----
-----His final email contained a few more vague threats and the sort of apology no one means when they say it.
Do you have a legal department contact Ican to forward to my legal representative to talk about damages?
-----
There is contact information available at the website.
-----
Can you just send me the email/website? I can't find anything on the site. If not I will just get my legal representative to find it.
-----
Do that.
-----
OK thanks. I will forward these emails to her tomorrow when the office opens and we will go from there. Any info you can give on how she can contact your legal representative will help speed things along.This post will be updated if we hear from Norman's legal rep, but I'm not holding my breath. Norman has no legal basis for his claims of "impeding a case" or "publishing private information" or anything else he threw out during our conversation. What it looks like is an attempt to intimidate Techdirt into issuing an apology or pulling the article... or whatever. Norman's obviously unhappy but he seems unsure of where to focus his efforts.
Honestly I am sorry you have been dragged in the middle of this, but you posting that article has impede the case and made things a more complicated.
What is for certain is that Norman is either unwilling or unable to learn from his mistakes. He was given a chance to salvage his reputation but instead has decided to double down on matches and accelerant. He's a respected developer, but he's swiftly shedding what's left of that respect with an unfortunate proclivity for retaliation and bluster.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: abuse, antoni norman, dmca, free speech, pinguy linux, spatry, takedowns, threats
Companies: pinguy os, techdirt
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Second: the "crap like this" is most likely a massive amount of hate mail generated at him for his take down claim, rightfully deserved regardless who/what/when/where the spat in question.
Third: Keep digging the hole there, genius. The more "privacy" complaints the more attention it draws. Is it eloquently colorful this person reads TD yet fails to see the irony?
Here. Have some Iron-Knee(tm). A 5000mg dose should be more than ample to fix this ill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bonus points if they fail to avail themselves of privacy services after getting so worked up. More bonus points if they're part of a company, and could put down work contact information and still don't do even that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Have you tried to get a LLC or any other article of incorporation? Let alone a standard business license? You are required to provide a valid street address and phone number, else you will not get said article. There are businesses that don't yet have a business location for these, and some property owners won't lease to anybody that doesn't have a business license of any kind. So some folks give out their residence info thinking that they can change that once they get both their licenses and business location. And guess what they forget to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They then scream and yell and threaten, and try to pretend the information is private when someone republishes the information which can be looked up in a grand total of two minutes. Sometimes they'll continue to do that, instead of moving to secure the information they supposedly want to keep private.
The number of people who are incapable of managing contact information they provide, and incapable of taking it as a lesson to be more careful in the future (rather than a reason to throw a temper tantrum) is astounding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
P.O. Box?
It costs some money, and the post office isn't really all that helpful, but it works for most cases. You can also use a third party "Mail-Boxes Etc." like approach in renting space there. The added advantage of this is that you can have them collect packages for you so you don't need to have them arrive on your doorstep.
Anyone who uses a real home address for their website (who doesn't want that to be made available,) is just lazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have done so numerous times and yes, you are required to provide valid contact information. However, it doesn't have to be yours. I used PO boxes in my early career but eventually shifted to using my attorney's address and phone number instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
On the other hand, I rather do know that it's public, so complaining if someone uses it does seem a little silly.
I knew it would be public when I registered it, but also knew it would be pointless to "privatize" it.
Why people don't realize that information is public is something I can't explain. If the information for registration lists your name, then all someone has to do is Google your name, and registration information that's public shows up.
...some people shouldn't use the internet. It's kind of like someone who has only rode a horse their entire life suddenly getting a car. Everyone else needs protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I commented before reading the other already posted comments. "Shut up" seems more productive, as you cynically agreed.
Or, have another beer, whatever. It doesn't go well with popcorn though. Makes you all bloated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry that i just honed in on that one bit, i just personally feel very strongly enough about that, that i felt it needed saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Registering a domain requires registering a valid point of contact with ICANN. A "privately registered domain" is really another entity (usually the registrar, such as Go Daddy) putting themselves as the point of contact, and then forwarding you any correspondence (digital or otherwise) associated with that domain.
What you're paying for is the cost of that forwarding. Some companies may tack some profit on there, which is a bit reprehensible, but it's not as if it's a zero-cost thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
with..
"No. We unknowningly knew."
Think that would have given him a headache.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We've already x ammount of pages of NON legal scriptures, we dont need folks creating even more NON laws to impose on others based on their personal wants.......personally, i believe in the big ones, the basic ones, the REAL ones, so unless you beleive its ok to take someones life in non self defence, for instance, im pretty sure you believe in the basic laws too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every responsible, professional, ethical domain owner. "Private" registration is for spammers, phishers, and other assholes, which is why there are multiple blacklists focused on exactly those domains.
If you want to speak anonymously on the Internet -- as I'm doing here, well, sort of -- that's fine. Absolutely no problem with it. But if you want to operate part of the Internet anonymously -- and controlling a domain and thus its DNS is operation -- then that's a major problem. You MUST be publicly accountable to your peers -- that is, everyone operating some part of the Internet -- if you want to do that.
Allowing "cloaked" or "private" registrations was one of the very stupidest things ICANN has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that honor. There are tens of millions of domains (more likely: a few hundred million) which have been mass-registered by abusers hiding behind exactly that mechanism and then used for spam, phishing, malware distribution, anything and everything else...and then abandoned. (Source: 14 years of research into domain registration patterns and what's likely the largest database of abusive domains.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's also for people that wish to register a fully qualified domain name for a website, have no place of business it could be registered to instead of their home, but they really don't want to be handing out their home address and personal phone number to every crazy that they come in contact with.
Naturally spammers and such will abuse privacy. They'll also hack people's computers or email accounts to send spam from them, leaving people to be stuck with their email addresses locked and their websites black listed, with no clue of what's going on. So "spammers and other assholes use it" is not much of an argument against privacy. They'll use anything and everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2. If you really, really, REALLY think that your "private" registration is private, you're truly naive. Registrars leak data all the time, some of them no doubt because of poor security but some of them probably because employees are taking under-the-table payments for it. (After all, insider threats are very difficult to defend against.) Some of that data ends up for sale on the open market -- I know, I've seen it.
3. Almost without exception, everyone who has a "private" registration botches it when it comes to actual operational practice. That is, they go through the trouble and expense of paying for the private registration, then they blow it by accidentally disclosing their identity anyway. So unless someone have a pretty good grasp of opsec, they're going to undercut themselves anyway.
4. And I shouldn't have to point this out, but if you want to speak anonymously -- and that's a good thing -- then DON'T START BY TELLING SOMEONE WHO YOU ARE. Remember the old adage: two can keep a secret if one of them is dead. There are many, many ways to use the Internet to speak with varying degrees of anonymity -- and more all the time. Use one of those. Don't register a domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
2. So, privacy isn't really privacy, but it's still too private because criminals might use it? You are undermining your own arguments quite well here.
3. Citation? Besides, so what? Most people botch their firewall configuration, backups and patching, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have them. Also, you're arguing that because amateurs can get a domain name and screw up configuration, professionals should not have it either. That's a real argument in your head?
4. Your argument is literally - if you don't want to give away private personal information, you should not be allowed a voice. Yes, there's many ways to speak - unless you want to set up any kind of identity - business or personal - that requires a domain, then you should have no privacy?
You really are full of it, Mr. "I know what I'm doing, just BELIEVE me OK, because I won't prove it..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I stated -- quite clearly and repeatedly -- that I fully support anonymous speech on the Internet.
I do not support, in fact, I strongly disapprove of, anonymous operation of the Internet.
If you can't extract that from what I've written, or if you can't comprehend the difference, then we're done here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah well, fuck you. I strongly believe otherwise. I run a tor relay daemon on my box, because I want anonymous freedom loving others to have it to work with. No, I don't care what they're doing with it. Some may be kiddie porn a-holes, *many* others will be trying to teach their governments' a lesson. Go for it!
Any box anywhere is a potential server to some client process out there. Fuck you. Have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why should people who wish to have a FQDN be punished with a lack of privacy simply because they don't have a business to mitigate the expenses? Why can't they pay some larger organization a significantly lower expense to handle the PO Box and non-personal phone number? That's more or less what Domains by Proxy and other such services work out to.
RE #2: That security breaches and privacy violations occur is no reason to abolish privacy.
RE #3: It's not about maintaining perfect privacy and concealment of identity. It's about making looking up your home address and personal phone/email something longer than a two minute process. The user with a website named bloggityblogblot.wordpressblogspotclone.com should not have more privacy than the user with the website techdirt.com simply because they've availed themselves of a FQDN.
RE #4: Great. And if you don't want the NSA reading your email, just don't use email. If you don't want the police or the FBI, or the NSA tracking everywhere you go via cell phone, just don't use a cell phone. People like fightcopyrighttrolls.com should either remain silent or accept direct harassment from folks like Prenda.
In short, I don't find "B-B-B-B-Bu-Bu-But spammers make use of those services!" "A-A-A-An-And people screw up their attempts to keep their information private!" to be particularly compelling arguments. The first is the same argument as saying we should ban encryption because criminals can use it, and the second is the same as saying NSA spying on a massive scale is ok because a bunch of people post their personal information on facebook.
As long as the privacy services forward attempts to contact the site owner in a timely manner, they should not be a problem. If failures on their part end up being a problem, the solution is not to abolish privacy. The solution is to make provisions allowing for better privacy directly at the registrar, so that domain owners can be contacted through the registrar, without having to have their personal information show up in whois searches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Heck, I got my first PO Box when I moved once, so I wouldn't have to deal with "We're Moving" USPS hassles so much. Ended up having the thing for 20 years and use it for business and occasional personal items where I don't want to risk things getting stolen out of my mailbox (bank statements, etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm going to assume that you're like one of those bad cops we always hear about. You've spent 14 years dealing with the shit of the web. So much shit that you can't see the good any more and instantly assume that anything less than your idea of perfect must also be shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you want to run your small corner of the Internet: that's a beautiful thing. Run a mail server, or a web site, or an FTP server, or whatever. Participate. Contribute. Be part of this great thing that we seem to have accidentally built. I'm all for it: let a thousand flowers bloom.
But...with great power, comes great responsibility. Your mail server can be abused to send spam. Your web site can be abused to host malware. Your DNS server can be used in amplification attacks. And so on.
The power that you have to reach the entire planet with your operation is balanced by your responsibility to ensure that these things don't happen. (Or, if they do, that you stop them ASAP. Everybody makes mistakes.) You need to be accountable to everyone else who is running their mail servers and their web servers and their DNS servers. You need to be reachable, visible, and known. That's the admission price for responsible participation in the Internet operational community.
You might not want to pay that price. Okay. No problem. But then don't be an operator: be a user. (And in 2015, "being a user" lets you do all kinds of things that you couldn't do as a user in 2005 or 1995 or 1985.)
But don't ask for the power if you aren't ready for the responsibility. That's not fair to the entire rest of the Internet. It's selfish.
And even if you're wonderfully qualified, amazingly diligent, and entirely error-free, and thus could argue that you don't NEED to be identified and/or contacted because you have never and will never cause a problem: you're not, you know. All of us, even the best of us, screw up. Or get hacked. And when that happens, as it's happening to someone somewhere as I'm typing this, you need to be accountable to your peers (which is "everyone else operating a piece of the Internet, no matter how large or small").
Because in the places where this isn't true, where we don't have responsible, known, identified operators, we have spam and phishing, malware and network hijacking, kiddie porn and carding, DoS attacks and brute-force probes, and everything else. The problems are enormous, and oh by the way, YOU'RE paying for them because all of us who are impacted -- which includes your web host, your home ISP, your merchants, your email provider, everyone -- aren't eating the costs: we're passing them on to you. And everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not that complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Come over to the dark side. I have no trouble whatever from not hiding my email address. Anyone thinking hiding their email address will save them from anything are delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do I get the feeling that you're one of the ACs that regularly posts here with random "facts" that either represent only part of the truth - or the opposite of that?
Yes, those people utilise those services - but so do their victims. People retain private information on their domains because they don't want to be spammed, not because they don't with to be spammed, solicited or contacted in any way other than that posted on their site. ICANN require real contact information, so they ask the registrar to make sure only ICANN gets it. If they are breaking the law, then the registrars can release the relevant information - with a court order of course.
Is that good enough, or is this another of those threads where we end up in a unique fantasy world because you can't take the fact that tools can be used for multiple purposes? Do you also support banning unlisted telephone numbers, sealed court documents, and the many other ways in which people can ask for public information to be kept private, or is this something unique for some reason?
"(Source: 14 years of research into domain registration patterns and what's likely the largest database of abusive domains.)"
Oh yeah, the old "I won't provide my sources or credentials but I *know* and you just have to believe me". That's always a good argument. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Eh... I think I'll take him at his word on that. I've worked for a registrar before, and a common pattern of domains that show up in the abuse department is that most used the private registration service.
The problem is, there's a huge selection bias in his sample. He's seeing only those domains that cause problems, not the copious quantities of private domains registered for legitimate privacy / anti-spam (digital and physical) reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, that's also the next part of the argument. Even if he is telling the truth about his experience, he's woefully biased. He's literally rejected every honest reason for having a private domain, and is then making his arguments from that faulty position. The argument literally seems to be - people shouldn't have privacy, because it makes my job harder.
Sorry, that doesn't fly when the government is demanding easy access at the expense of rights and privacy, let alone some anonymous admin. It's like arguing with the fools who always come in here and claim that VPNs have no use outside of piracy - their position is already so biased and skewed from reality, it's unlikely to be swayed by mere facts.
It just bugs me when people to to argue from a position of authority, but refuse to provide any evidence or credentials. They need to back up their claims or find an argument other than "you have to believe me because I'm X". As he himself claims - anonymity comes with a lack of inherent trust, so either prove claimed credentials or find an argument that doesn't depend on them being trusted.
His argument's still faulty even if he changes his angle, but at least then we won't be starting from a major fallacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy does not equal illegal activity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy does not equal illegal activity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't believe that everyone's email should be shared with the world, however believe that they should be held accountable if they are doing something illegal on their site. That's is pretty much the extend of GoDaddy's responsibility to the registrant. If the registrant chooses to hide their email from public eyes as they only want to use their primary, that is their choice. I'm sure if it was any other way, they would probably just create a secondary email address as I outlined above specifically for the site registration and may either not check it or will forward it to their primary address (depending on factors such as spam, angry messages, etc). They may not choose to check it at all if people start sending hate messages to it. It's there essentially as a dummy account. A placeholder in order to register a site. Again, it's their choice.
I have to admit though, Antoni was being a genuine douchebag here. After all the coverage that Spatry gave him and this is how he pays it back... It's sad. Whatever, his choice if he wants to run his reputation as a developer down the toilet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, it appears not to sit well with him to get what he wanted and the public recognition that goes with being hard headed and sort of an asshole.
Congratulations on your 15 minutes of fame, Antoni. You know it could have had a better outcome had you a better attitude. It's all on you. So go look in the mirror at the fella that caused all your headaches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clueless
The boy is simply not paying attention. How many times has this been tried, and failed, over the last few years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is actually wonderful, encouraging news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this is actually wonderful, encouraging news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you are going to make empty legal threats to a blogging site, read some articles on the site first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this case, Fantasyland at Disney World.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then didn't bother using their analytical mind to digest the information and gain the knowledge in their benefit.
Instead, they post links, hoping the other sides are also hacks that doesn't read the linked information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just love seeing the threats get so easily dismissed.
By far my favorites articles of yours are of you responding to threats.
Although I did spend about a minute looking, and couldn't find a legal contact link either. There's a general contact page, but no reference to a Legal department (unless the the 'Sky is Rising' is that). Although I'm not a lawyer, so I don't care enough to keep looking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please take a pillow into the closet and pound that tantrum out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
antoni.norman@gmail.com
This is my favorite one; he's asking for PayPal donations to be sent to the email address that he now suddenly considers to be private information.
Also, WhoIs info currently cached at who.pho.to and inpk.
(screen grabs of referenced sites)
Not to mention Pipl and Spokeo.
Lighten up, Francis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Going to make a new batch of popcorn and enjoy the fireworks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever happened to SLS?
Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tech Dirt Legal Department Response
Signed
Dewey Cheatem and Howe,
attornies at law
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just incase that kinda sounds sarcastic, it was not....thumbs up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have no interest in who is threatening Techdirt until it's actually possible it may go somewhere. Even your responses to these emails are bait. You've got to have the last word, despite the proper behavior when dealing with legal threats- ignoring them or forwarding them to legal.
Feed the want-to-be legal terrorist/troll, get a really long infotainment peice. Journalism at its finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A lot of the time, the reason for bogus threats is due to an attempt to save face, their attempts to try and hide something that they've done. By making their actions public like this, you show that attempting to do so will backfire, big, hopefully causing them to think before sending the next laughable threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please Sir, may I have some more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if we get entertained, that's icing on the cake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, opinion blog at it finest. Get off your high horse and learn the difference between the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sadist.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Whatever floats your boat ... I'm listening to youtube-dl output. Whatta century!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad the developer is an a-hole. I have read good things about PinguyOS, but if the developer is such a bad actor, I will not even touch his distro. He goes against the ethos of the free-software/open-source movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...can you clarify this statement, please? Why do other people running their own corners of the internet need my personal information (name, address, heck - even personal email as opposed to work email) in the event that I get hacked?
The first sentence I agree with, but you're conflating it with the second sentence, and they're just not the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I never said they need your personal email address: if you're running a resource for work, then logically, they should have access to your work email address -- at least.
The sad reality of the Internet in 2015 is that anyone and anything can be hacked at any time. The second sad reality is that -- quite often -- those hacked resources are immediately repurposed to attack someone or something else. Thus if your little corner of the Internet is hacked, it's not just your problem, it's OUR problem, where "OUR" means "everyone else on the Internet". That's the price we pay for having highly interconnected communities.
So if you get hacked, or even if you're just successfully attacked (see "amplification attack" for an example), then all of us who affected need to know who's running that little corner of the Internet. We need a way to reach you, and oh, by the way, if one of the things taken out by that attack is your email service, then we need some OTHER way to reach you, because clearly, that one won't be working.
This is trivially easy to deal with -- so much so that I'd say anyone who can't solve this problem is probably not someone who should be permitted the privilege of running even a tiny corner of the Internet because they're highly likely to screw it up. Get a PO Box or equivalent. Get the cheapest cell phone plan available. ($9/mo here.) Use that address and that phone in your registration. AND get at least one outside email address (that is, one not related to your operation). Don't use a freemail provider: they all suck horribly. Pay Hushmail or whoever a few bucks a year for it.
Now you have an email address, a phone number, and a physical address that you can use in your domain registration. Your registrar can't leak or sell your real email address, your real phone number or your real physical address because they don't have it. But the Internet community knows who you are, has a working email address for you, has a working phone number for you, and in extremis, has a working mailing address for you.
AND, if you really want to demonstrate that you understand your baseline responsibilities to the greater community, then go read RFC 2142 and do what it says. It's not hard. It'll take you twenty minutes to set up. And it will provide a standardized way for people not only to contact you when you're causing a problem, but to alert you when YOU have a problem...which many people are kind and generous enough to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...and if you're not? What if your work address is not suitable, even if you are running it for some kind of business address?
I understand your professional frustration, but you're really ignoring a lot of reality here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From someone who used to kind of like Pinguy OS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antoni Norman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you have a point, or did you think that pasting an 8 year old URL from an opinionated source without further commentary was enough to prove a point? At least reference how you're sure the law hasn't changed and the summary in that case is so directly relevant to the one talked about here that it applies in some way, even if you can't be bothered to say how it's relevant. Make an effort other than pasting the first URL you find.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not saying you're lying, I'm just saying that a claim from a less-than-reliable publication that was written about a specific judgement 8 years ago, presented by someone anonymously without comment or citation, is not convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.copyright.com/Services/copyrightoncampus/content/digital.html
Copyright Law: Fact and Fantasy:
http://www.johnbetts-fineminerals.com/jhbnyc/articles/copyrigh.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hope I didn't break your sarcasm meter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know that linking to whatever you happen to agree with on the first page of a Google result isn't convincing, right? Are you allergic to primary sources and reliable sources, or are they just not saying what you hoped they would?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Make sure to respect the rights, however imaginary, of other people while abdicating all of your own rights to personal expression. Can never be too careful.
Or in other words, lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://randazza.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/bill-cosbys-lawyers-i-declare-confidentiality/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can if it's fair use. Such as, say, a part of commentary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that was for only part of an email that was forwarded. This whole article is based on private emails that is getting ad income. Not for part of an email that has been forwarded
The whole posting the registration details after they made it private seems to be bad etiquette.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
another BS (blanket statement).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't mean, though, that they can't be reproduced without the author's permission. The biggest reason for that is fair use, which has already been discussed a bit, but is very poorly-understood. To address it fully would require a book, but commenting on a copyrighted work is one form of fair use that will allow someone (like, say, Tim) to reproduce a copyrighted work (like Norman's emails) without the author's (or copyright holder's) permission.
Another major point is that facts can't be copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The goal of the article seems to be to shame Mr. Norman.
If the emails were a take down notice I would understand it falling under fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Norman didn't want to be ridiculed, perhaps he should've considered that before throwing lies and threats around.
Seriously, the kind of people you copyright fanboys will defend are pathetic, and the lengths you'll go to (hopelessly) sing their praises are beyond sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which one? The one that revealed that Norman was trying to abuse the legal system to take down some videos he didn't like, or the one where he threatens to abuse the legal system because someone reported on it?
Both seem like news to me.
"It seems like all he did was ask for the his email to be removed and that he thought "Publication of Private Facts" was being broken."
...and he was apparently wrong on both counts and had his request refused, although the information he complained about was redacted anyway. If the story had ended there, we probably wouldn't be reading this, but here we are...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems Tim forced Mr. Norman to privatize his domain name registration only to publish the information anyway. The article is nothing more than bait to anger Norman.
The fact Tim used Norman's emails without the author's permission under fair use could also be argued. With far use the perpetrator has to defend their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only by the loosest definition of the word that only applies to people who literally have no spine.
"It seems Tim forced Mr. Norman to privatize his domain name registration"
How? By... noting information that he already made pubic? If he didn't want the information out there, then why was it out there by his own hand? After the image of the email had been redacted and he changed the live version of the WHOIS information, why did he continue?
"only to publish the information anyway"
The publication took place BEFORE the original article. Why is that so hard to grasp? The original article only repeated information that had already been published.
The information was public. There's no law against publishing public information, otherwise the domain registrar is also breaking the law, as is every site you can use to query domain registration information.
"The article is nothing more than bait to anger Norman."
No, the article is a response to someone who's been threatening the author for doing nothing illegal and who continued to do so even after the information in original post had been redacted.
Now, you may argue that he should have kept it private, but it's also clear that Norman wasn't going to back down when the conversation was just the two of them, whether you believe it's petty to go public or not.
I'd argue that the use of the original text is to prevent against the next typical forms of defence when bullies are caught out ("I didn't say that", "that's out of context", etc.). So, it's a defensive move, not an offensive one.
"The fact Tim used Norman's emails without the author's permission under fair use could also be argued."
Then why does your previous paragraph ignore this? You seem to be defending only one part of the argument here, by your own definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How so? I don't see any of the usual indicators of harassment (in the legal sense) here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There doesn't have to be anything "newsworthy" to qualify for fair use. (Among other things), all that's required is that it's used as part of commentary and/or discussion.
Which is a good thing, since what's newsworthy and what's not is an entirely subjective call. For some people, this isn't newsworthy. For others, it certainly is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Antoni Norman better hope nobody makes a satircal parody of his actions and emails. That would be nice lesson in fair use for Mr. Norman and the AC (if they are different people)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]