BlogHer - What The Police Said: The Illusion of Protection and What Exactly Was Reported? - Comments

I agree with you. We should

andreea360 — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:02:43 -0500

I agree with you. We should be more careful. Every step in our lives is a threat. Sometimes we feel protected by the police, bust most of the time they don`t do nothing, or they watch or leave.

_____________________
california drug rehab

Agree!

Marianne Richmond — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:41:33 -0500

Like I said..this is way beyond my scope. I am now officially silent.
Marianne

Marianne Richmond
resonancepartnership

Marianne, someone just sent me

shelleyp — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:51:39 -0500

Marianne, someone just sent me a link to a page that has a horrible story about Kathy and published her address and SSN. This event is now attracting the rats, and this could scale quickly out of hand.

I've closed the comments on my post, and am writing others to push it down off the front page. I'm also putting an entr in robots.txt so the item isn't found in Google.

I think we all need to let this die.

And quickly. Peoples lives are being ruined. Kathy's life, and others.

What was reported?

Marianne Richmond — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:14:53 -0500

Shelley,

OK, let me admit right now, the whole thing is way beyond my scope.

I was being facetious when writing "So, this person made the death threats, photoshopped the pictures etc?

Guess its time for a summary/wrap up post...then what happens to all the collateral damaged?"

That is why I ended the sentences with the question mark...I apologize if that was unclear...I am not making any asumptions.

I am sort of back to: Yeah, what did the police say BUT also, what was reported to them?

Marianne

Marianne Richmond
resonancepartnership

Marianne, I apologize for

shelleyp — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 16:43:05 -0500

Marianne, I apologize for monopolizing your comments and I doubt I'll say much more on this topic. But I did want to say one thing to Nordette:

I realize that you're more interested in the bigger issues of stalking and harassment. These are real problems impacting on people, making them afraid to be as free online as they would like. Women have been victim of these more than men, and as such, we should be focusing on the problems overall.

I will say, and this is only my opinion, that I wish women would stop highlighting how terrifying sexual imagery is when attached to violence. In my opinion, this encourages this behavior.

I'm also not sure if the words, "I'm going to rape you and slit your throat" are more heinous than "I'm going to slit your throat". If we don't give these words power over us, does that somehow depreciate the fears? I don't think so.

I don't know if we're even helping women by encouraging us to be afraid. The 'poor dears', to me, don't seem to help.

Women will have to face that in the public arena, stuff like this happens. I'm not sure other than report criminal discussion to the police, what else we can do?

I also regret the fact that the assumption is now that the only acts of discrimination in technology against women are overt ones such as Kathy suffered. The truly dangerous ones are the covert acts -- the subtle discriminations that pervade our industry and wear us down.

We should be talking on these, but we aren't. I share your frustration.

But I know' these people--all of them. If I'm a fly buzzing around, its because there are serious issues related to this event: Kathy is so afraid she can't leave her home; I have lost one friend because of these circumstances, and another was afraid to even post for a long time because of lawsuit threats. These are real people that bad things are happening to.

I do think that Kathy misconstrued a lot of this, and in doing that, caused harm to others. I'm not downplaying what she's feeling, but commenting on the consequences of the actions.

In the long term, I've very concerned at how much power a very popular weblogger was able to bring against those much less popular. That, in itself, should be ringing alarm bells, but isn't being discussed. But, again in my opinion, Kathy's popularity was 'used' to 'punish' less popular webloggers.

I know these are issues that don't seem important or relevant, and I apologize for discussing such here.

Do you know where the one

shelleyp — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:30:16 -0500

Do you know where the one and only post about Kathy in meankids arose from?

From this comment thread. Yes, that is Kathy Sierra asking to be covered next.

Does that change perception of the post in meankids?

Then how do we know the same can't be said of the second weblog. We have an image apart from any other posts or writing. We don't know what the intent was -- the context was gone.

That's why I keep asking: what did the police say.

Marianne

shelleyp — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:23:36 -0500

Marianne

Why do you assume they're one in the same?

After writing this post, you made a leap in assumptions.

PS I forgot the smiley face ;-)

So, the criminal has been charged with the crime?

Marianne Richmond — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 14:19:58 -0500

So, this person made the death threats, photoshopped the pictures etc?

Guess its time for a summary/wrap up post...then what happens to all the collateral damaged?

Marianne Richmond
resonancepartnership

The stalker

shelleyp — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:50:31 -0500

Actually, yes, the person who wrote the comment in Kathy's weblog did come forward. It was his real email address, and he writes like that in other weblogs, too.

He's a 30's something British ex-pat who lives in Spain. He tends to frequent high profile tech weblogs.

This was all identified in Kathy's comments.

He even came in an apologized, though he sounded indifferent about the whole thing.

Nordette, I think your point is excellent, in that a meaningful discussion was lost in the personalities.

Your concerns are on the harassment, while mine is on women in technology. Neither concern was addressed properly.

Would I be on a jury for this? Oh no. But this has been tried in a court of public opinion, which means I will weigh in -- not just because these were people I knew; but because I really don't like to see the powerful tromp on the less powerful.

Anna Nicole Smith? Well, we'll see what CNN brings.

The Anna Nicole of Blogging

Marianne Richmond — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:34:12 -0500

Well,I think you are correct in the sense that the real issue, cyberstalking, has been overshadowed by personalities, accusations, defenses, personal agendas, and yes, Anna Nicole-ism, just to name a few of the lawyers and directions this has taken....and yes, none of those who have blogged about this would be on a jury.

But, I think one of the questions I was asking was: There has been a crime committed , death threats; do we know who this criminal(s) is?

Right now, there is no jury because there are not dots connecting the criminal to the crime...at least as far as I can tell.

Marianne

Marianne Richmond
resonancepartnership

Bloggywood and Dances with ego

Nordette — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:05:07 -0500

Shelley says that we have been asked to be jury, judge and executioner and therefore we need to know what the police response was to Kathy's complaint.

It's interesting that you or Shelley Powers (Shelleyp above possibly?) bring up what "we" need to know and the idea of this case being tried in the court of public opinion. More and more what I see is that people who feel some loyalty to Kathy Sierra have a whole lot to say, and people who feel some loyalty to those she's accused have a whole lot to say.

No member of these groups (pro-Kathy Sierra/anti-Kathy Sierra) would be allowed on a real jury if this case went to court. Judges would say they taint the judicial process.

If tomorrow I held a public panel on harassment, stalking, or bullying in cyberspace, I'd leave members of these two camps out. They're all too close to the subject and seem to be losing objectivity.

I've seen some of these people suggest that Kathy Sierra made a "big production" out of her cyber attacks to get media attention. I've seen bloggers who specialize in technology and the Internet go on and on about this on their blogs, attempting to point out what is and isn't a threat, who can and can't be a suspect, challenging motives. Some sound annoyed that Sierra's getting more attention. Some sound genuinely outraged that their friends like Ms. Sessum and others would be drawn into this mess in a guilt-by-association fashion. Well, that's the nature of mess. If you're standing too close when it hits the fan, you're bound to get some on you.

As an observer of human nature, all I'm starting to see is the signs of Hollywood and Dances with Ego in this whole melodrama. Bloggers now get attention from mainstream media and make headlines. Does the blogosphere have a Bloggywood community complete with prima donnas and strike-the-pose voguers?

Uber bloggers (those who sell books, appear at seminars, get lots of hits, or who may earn money from their activities in the blogosphere) seem to be running wild with the Sierra train wreck. They're putting more attention on the Kathy Sierra mess than on discussions we should be having about the reality of people feeling unsafe online when one person or a group of people decide to harass or bully them and the importance of reporting events honestly online. Increasingly it sounds like some folks' issues are really with Sierra; they don't have any real concern about the meanness behind cyber harassment, stalking, or bullying. Some seem to fear that they themselves may be considered trolls if the Internet community were to police itself.

This Sierra situation reminds me of when Hollywood starlets are stalked. Suddenly every Hollywood star who wants a good publicity shot is out talking about stalking. It's like prominent bloggers think discussions of cyber harassment are about how many times they can use their specific personal experiences and their personal friends as examples, like this issue is all about them, their cliques or their warring factions.

It's not.

Really this entire situation is becoming the Anna Nicole of blogging.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

Fair Play

Marianne Richmond — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:23:24 -0500

Yes, there was not much fair play for anyone in this and way too much guilt by association and guilt by silence....maybe explainable in light of what seems to be the human tendency to find "who did it and ran" BUT in this case "who did what" was not sorted out before the names and the accusations started swirling.

It's a shame.

Marianne

Marianne Richmond
resonancepartnership

"Isn't that one of the

shelleyp — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:30:25 -0500

"Isn't that one of the problems with all of this: Death threats, hideous pictures, mean things, links to mean kids. How do we get from a link to mean kids to an accusation of death threats? The response from the police probably depends on what was being reported."

I agree: the leap between the one and the other was the disconnect.

I think we would have had a different discussion about the images and the posts at the two sites, if they hadn't been linked into supposed death threats and legal action. This latter really changed the dynamic, and not necessarily for the better.

For instance the four people 'accused' felt constrained in how they could respond because they were concerned about threatened legal action. Others then actually accused them of guilt by silence, because they didn't respond.

There wasn't a lot of fair play practiced in this event.

As for the code of conduct, that strikes me as more a way to control and ostracize legitimate criticism than a way of dealing with obnoxious people and threats of violence.

What The Police Said: The Illusion of Protection and What Exactly Was Reported?

Marianne Richmond — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 02:43:58 -0500

Shelley Powers at Burningbird has a great, thoughtful post, called It's All About Control and for the most part I agree with what she wrote.

Specifically, i agree that the "Be Civil" and/or "Do Not Be Mean" buttons as well as a blogger Code of Conduct are not a solution to the kind of behavior directed at Kathy Sierra, Maryam Scoble and others.

For one thing, it kind of reminds me of a comment made by a speaker at one of my children's school...the talk was on parenting and the speaker said that most likely the people in attendance were probably doing things "right" and the people that were not in attendence were the people that probably needed to be. In other words, the people that are all ready behaving in a civil manner will probably be the ones to put the buttons on their blogs and the "uncivil" will not.

Similarily with the code of conduct recommended by Tim O'Reilly...mostly good suggestions and O'Reilly states, "A culture is a set of shared areements that allows us to live together." I just don't believe the trolls are part of the culture so they would be unlikely to adopt or comply with a code of conduct.

Addtionally, what is the consequence for violating the code? For Blogher, or any community with guidelines, violaters theoretically will not be allowed on the site. Thus if a member of the community violates the rules their membership ends. On our own blogs, we don't have to permit behavior (comments) that offends us either. In either case, there are no "punishments" other than removal.

We can state our guidelines of acceptable commenting behavior and probably should. And we can state what we will do if there is a violation. Hit the eject button.

At the end of the day, as we used to say as kids...you can't make me; we can't be made to publish a comment that we don't want to and if we don't monitor comments, and then are offended by something, our only recourse is to delete. There are no fines, jail sentences, or other punishments for violations of a "Code of Conduct."

It all kind of gets back to the Golden Rule, which is more of a Golden Guildeline than a Golden Law...or really an expansion of it; if you behave in a certain manner on your own blog, you will probably attract readers that behave in the same manner. If you are a mean kid, you will set that tone for your blog. So, blog onto others as you would have others blog onto you. Or something like that. But setting the tone and hitting the delete button are the enforcement tools that we have. And as Shelley states, "threat" is in the eye of the beholder. So behold.

And this brings me to Shelley's point regarding Kathy Sierra and the police. Shelley says that we have been asked to be jury, judge and executioner and therefore we need to know what the police response was to Kathy's complaint. Well, I agree that there have been accusations and denials but stepping even further back, we don't know exactly what Kathy reported to the police do we?

Isn't that one of the problems with all of this: Death threats, hideous pictures, mean things, links to mean kids. How do we get from a link to mean kids to an accusation of death threats? The response from the police probably depends on what was being reported.

So, for one thing, harassment and cyberstalking are crimes. Linking to mean kids or even unkind words and "multiple webloggers condemed purely because they did not repudiate their friends, one or more of the Four People mentioned, which included Jeneane"are not crimes that the police would be able to respond to.

Now for my last bit of two cents....a while back, I had an AOL e-mail account; or shall I say I thought it was my email account. My ex-husband (note I use no adjectives, though of course I would like to) in the final days of our marriage was able to simply call AOL and get the password to my email account because the AOL account was in his name. He then not only proceeded to read all my email but began emailing friends of mine impersonating me.

He apparently wasn't very convincing (That wasn't really it; he was seeking confirmation of one of his many theories but since what he wanted to be true, simply wasn't, his questions were just too bizarre) because several people called to ask if I had lost my mind. When I called AOL I was told, too bad so sad, his account and he can do what he wants with it.

My point for this story is that it didn't require any great hacking skills for him to get access to my email and AOL didn't provide any kind of protection for this or for his impersonation. The AOL account was in his name....needless to say, I will never have another AOL account. That was the first hint that I got that there was only an illusion of protection in things. There have been many more. I will save that for another blog....

I have no idea what Kathy Sierra reported to the police or what they told her. It seems a huge leap from Jeneane mean kid link to death threats. But in my experience, sometimes it is just an illusion that we have that we can "call the police" and they will arrest the bad guys or call AOL and they will stop the bad guys.

Technorati Tags: Kathy Sierra, Maryam Scoble, Shelley Powers, Tim O'Reilly, Cyberstalking, AOL, Blogher,