Techdirt. Stories filed under "lies"

Yet Another Leak Shows NSA Lied About Not Being Able To Geolocate Data It Scoops Up

Mike Masnick — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 00:23:09 PDT

And... yet another leak of NSA surveillance capabilities to The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald (who damn well better get a Pulitzer Prize for this) suggests pretty strongly that the NSA has directly lied, multiple times, when asked to disclose how many people it had spied on in the US. As we've noted for a while, the NSA has claimed that it was not possible to determine how many Americans it had data on. In a letter to Senator Ron Wyden, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had stated:

While it is not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed...

An NSA spokesperson also said that it was not possible to figure that out:

Judith Emmel, an NSA spokeswoman, told the Guardian in a response to the latest disclosures: "NSA has consistently reported – including to Congress – that we do not have the ability to determine with certainty the identity or location of all communicants within a given communication. That remains the case."

But, as Greenwald reveals, the NSA appears to have a program, called Boundless Informant (quite a name, huh) that does exactly that. The leaks are coming fast and furious at this point, and I doubt they're going to stop soon.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Bayer Fights India's Compulsory Licensing Of Cancer Drug By Claiming It Spent $2.5 Billion Developing It

Glyn Moody — Mon, 4 Feb 2013 05:40:46 PST

Back in March last year, the Indian government announced that it was granting its first compulsory license, for the anti-cancer drug marketed as Nexavar, whose $70,000 per year price-tag put it out of reach of practically everyone in India. Nexavar's manufacturer, the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer, naturally appealed against that decision, and the hearing before the India Intellectual Property Appeals Board (IPAB) has now begun. Jamie Love has provided a useful report on the proceedings; here's his summary of what's at stake:

The outcome of this trial, which focuses on the cancer drug Nexavar, is a matter of first impression for the IPAB, and is expected to set precedents on a wide range of issues, including the permissible grounds for granting compulsory licenses, the relationship between the India patent law and the TRIPS Agreement, and the setting of terms and conditions for the compulsory license, including the royalty rates.

Clearly, then, this is a crucially important battle for both sides, and Bayer has started throwing around some huge R&D numbers in an attempt to convince the IPAB that it should be allowed to retain its monopoly in India to recoup those costs: Bayer presented a January 9, 2013 affidavit from Harold Dinter which made the claim that from 1999 to 2005 Bayer had spent "2 billion euros (approximately US$ 2.5 billion) in the identification and development of anti-cancer molecules leading to the successful approval of Nexavar in 2005." Dinter did not provide detailed support for the numbers, but said they were based upon Bayer's general R&D outlays for anti-cancer drugs, including but not limited to Nexavar, and that the estimate was supported by a new December 2012 study by Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz, Jon Sussex and Adrian Towse, published by the Office of Health Economics (OHE). Despite its name, the OHE is not part of the government, but rather a largely industry funded private consulting firm. The study itself was paid for by AztraZeneca. Dinter and Bayer's lawyer also made extensive reference to the work of Joseph DiMasi, an academic who is also a drug company consultant.
In other words, it's the usual "don't worry about the details, just take our word for it" lack of transparency that characterizes the entire pharma industry. But this $2.5 billion is insanely high, even for an industry that regularly inflates the outlay on drug development by an order of magnitude. As well as the generic implausibility of such a high figure, Love cites a number of specific reasons why it's extremely unlikely. You can read the details in his post, but here's a key section: Bayer's partner in the development of Nexavar is Onyx Pharmaceuticals. Onyx published annual estimates of its R&D spending on Nexavar.

…

Bayer paid for all research from 1994 to 1999 ($26.1 million), and this included research on several compounds in addition to the one now marketed as sorafenib/Nexavar. From 2000 onward, Bayer and Onyx split the R&D costs 50:50, and Onyx's share of the R&D costs were $134.8 million. The outlays on the entire R&D program that lead to the 2005 approval of Nexavar for Kidney cancer were $26.1 + (134.8 x 2) = $295.7 million. Of the $295.7 million, only a fraction was spent on the development of Nexavar for kidney cancer, and some of that benefited from a 50 percent tax credit under the US Orphan Drug Act.

To the put the entire $295.7 million into perspective, ignoring the tax credits, that represents a little more than one quarter of the current global sales for sorafenib/Nexavar, a product that will maintain its monopoly in most markets through 2020.

$295.7 [million] is also just 11.8 percent of the $2.5 billion estimate that Bayer wants the IPAB to accept as its R&D costs.

No wonder that Bayer was unwilling to explain how it arrived at that extraordinary figure. But it's hard to see how the pharma company expects to win this case citing numbers that are basically an insult to the intelligence of India's experts.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Officials Duel Over Social Media Personal Data

Timothy Geigner — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:04:00 PDT

As the UK continues to struggle with their laws and the impact on free speech via social media, its citizens are receiving mixed messages from government officials. We've got competing ideas going on here, with one side advising citizens to give social media sites false information and the other suggesting that citizens should be encouraged to do the exact opposite.

Andy Smith, an internet security chief at the Cabinet Office, said people should only give accurate details to trusted sites such as government ones. "When you put information on the internet do not use your real name, your real date of birth," he told a Parliament and the Internet Conference in Portcullis House, Westminster. "When you are putting information on social networking sites don't put real combinations of information, because it can be used against you."

It apparently didn't occur to Smith that internet users might also be afraid of their own governments, but it would't seem to be a controversial opinion that citizens using government sites should probably be giving accurate information. His remarks were focused on what he called "trustworthy" sites versus those users were unsure of, which makes the idea rather benign. Despite social media sites and other sites, like YouTube, encouraging the use of accurate user information, one would think that inputting a fake name or fake birthday would't have much of an impact overall. In addition to perhaps providing some low-level defense against fraudsters, as is Smith's focus, anonymity is an important component of free speech.

Not so fast, says MP and all-around hand-wringer, Helen Goodman. That false data used to keep away the fraudsters? It's that kind of thing that promotes criminal behavior.

His advice was described by Labour MP Helen Goodman as "totally outrageous". She told BBC News: "This is the kind of behaviour that, in the end, promotes crime. It is exactly what we don't want. We want more security online. It's anonymity which facilitates cyber-bullying, the abuse of children. I was genuinely shocked that a public official could say such a thing."

That is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous. There is a rather wide swath of false or inaccurate data on social media sites. People concerned about the aforementioned fraudsters. People concerned with data mining by the sites they're visiting. Parody social media accounts. None of that "promotes crime". And, while anonymity may embolden some folks that want to engage in bullying (let's do away with the "cyber" prefix please; bullying is bullying), are any us of really ready to say that the benefits of anonymous speech, whether online or elsewhere, should be undone for the sake of a "for-the-children" argument? This is, of course, not to say that I am unsympathetic to the plight of children being bullied. But that situation is not a catch-all rebuttal against free speech.

In the end, it's important to divorce policy from arguments that are essentially an appeal to emotion. I'd probably consider the absolute need for fake data due to fraudsters a bit on the paranoid side, but an attack on anonymity that boils down to a "for the children" quote is wholly unconvincing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Directors Guild Boss Insists That Everyone Against SOPA/PIPA Was Duped

Mike Masnick — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:02:00 PST

We're still waiting for the supposed "new tone" of the conversation from Hollywood following its failed attempt to expand copyright/anti-piracy laws for the 16th time in the last 3 decades. There were some early claims that the widespread protests had made Hollywood realize that rather than passing bad legislation by working out deals with "friendly" Congress people in backrooms, it wanted to have a "conversation" with those who opposed SOPA/PIPA.

Well, Taylor Hackford, the head of the Directors Guild of America, apparently has a different opinion on all that. He went on the Pat Morrison radio show to go off on a wild rant about how everyone against SOPA/PIPA were duped via lies from companies like Google who want to protect all their profits. What was amazing was the number of blatantly false statements Hackford made in making his argument. Beyond the fact that he ignored tons of very legitimate concerns from engineers, online security experts and First Amendment scholars who clearly were not "duped," he also makes a bunch of statements that don't pass the laugh test.

For example, he repeatedly claimed that the movie industry employs two million people -- and he mocked the tech industry for not employing many people at all (and implying that they mostly employ people outside the country). According to the Congressional Research Service, the movie industry actually employs 374,000 people. Further research showed that jobs in actual film and movie production have been growing. Meanwhile, a recent study showed that just the Facebook apps economy alone created nearly 500,000 jobs. That second number may be exaggerated somewhat, but comparing how many jobs the movie industry has created with how many the internet industry has created isn't going to make Hackford look very good.

Then there was the specific attack on Wikipedia, where he first said that Wikipedia was a "stalking horse" (and he suggests an unidentified "they" convinced Wikipedia to shut down). Then he says that by shutting down:

"They robbed the public of important information in order to make their point"

The "they" is still not identified, but a good way to demonize opponents is to take away any identifying marks, so it's this mysterious "they." But, seriously? Robbed the public? This from an industry which has repeatedly pushed for extensions to copyright term -- something that actually does take away content that the public was supposed to have a legal right to? I recognize that Hollywood has trouble understanding what "robbed" actually means, but Wikipedia blocking access didn't rob anyone of anything. But, if we're going to go with Hackford's claim that withholding content from the public is theft, then, as Derek Kerton suggests, doesn't that mean that the movie release windows that Hackford and his buddies in Hollywood rely on are "robbing the public"? After all, it's withholding information -- and it happens for a lot longer than the one day that Wikipedia went dark (and for which there were easy workarounds).

Of course, even more ironic was that while Morrison's show is nominally a "call-in" show... people who called in were told that Mr. Hackford was not allowing any calls during his segment. Instead, people were left to comment on the radio show's website... where the vast, vast majority of folks were quick to pick apart Hackford's ridiculous claims and ask the station why it didn't have anyone expressing a counterpoint.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Lies Of NBCUniversal's Rick Cotton About SOPA/PIPA

Mike Masnick — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:01:44 PST

Chris Hayes, over on MSNBC, decided to be the first to seriously break the mainstream cable news' boycott over SOPA/PIPA with a big debate on the bill -- mainly between NBCUniversal's top lawyer, Rick Cotton, and Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian. Chris's opening discussion is quite good, and suggests he's certainly sympathetic to all of us who are vehemently opposed to the bill. You can watch it below: Alexis does an excellent job in the brief time he's given to speak (though Cotton gets probably four times the amount of time to speak), but what I wanted to focus on, are the lies of Rick Cotton, because it's simply despicable. He flat-out lies about the bills -- and, even worse -- does so in a manner that implies that it's everyone else who's lying about the bills. He kicks it off by insisting that the bills only apply to sites that are "wholesale devoted to theft." That's simply not true. He actually uses the word "wholesale" maybe two dozen times (at least). The text of PIPA -- the key bill at this point -- says that a site is considered "dedicated to infringing activities" if it "has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" infringement. That does not mean that the site is "wholesale devoted to theft." Under this definition, of course, a site like a YouTube (if it were based on a foreign domain) would be questionable, given that it has no significant use other than enabling infringement. That doesn't mean that it's always used to infringe, but it's main use absolutely enables or facilitates infringement. Cotton may want to believe the language says otherwise, but it does not.

Second, Cotton gets pretty angry about the "disinformation" around the bills, and insists that the bills "would not effect a single site in the United States." This is false. As we've explained repeatedly, while the targets of the legislation are sites with foreign domain names, the entire remedies section is about US sites -- meaning that they will have significant compliance costs, and potential liability under these laws. Furthermore, the anti-circumvention provisions of the bill are not limited to just foreign sites. Alexis pushed back on the anti-circumvention point, and Cotton claimed that Alexis was "simply wrong." But he's not. Cotton is "simply wrong" here again. Cotton claims that we should debate what's in the bill, and he should try reading the bill. In fact, Alexis has said that Cotton admitted after they were off the air that he was correct that the anti-circumvention provisions were not limited to just foreign sites. But that doesn't do any good for those who saw the segment but don't know the specifics.

Next, he claims it's totally wrong that a small amount of "legitimate activity would be threatened by this legislation." To be fair, Cotton and his buddies already got the power to take down tons of "legitimate activity" with the last copyright expansion bill they passed a few years ago, the ProIP bill. Either way, he's still wrong. Tons of legitimate content can and will be put at risk under these bills. We've already seen that companies -- including NBCUniversal -- have wrongly declared publicly that certain sites are "rogue" sites, despite the fact that they have tons of legitimate content. If you believe that Cotton and NBCUniversal will suddenly get better at finding sites that really only deal in infringement going forward, you haven't paid much attention over the last decade or so. Under existing law, we're already seeing legitimate websites taken down, and legitimate speech infringed upon. Hell, even the one prominent legal scholar who agrees with Cotton, Floyd Abrams, has admitted that protected speech would be censored under the bill.

Next, Cotton claims that the internet is "lawless" and that this whole thing is really a policy debate about how we finally put laws on the internet. This is, to put it mildly, insane. As Alexis points out in response, there are tons of laws that apply to the internet, and directly apply and are used every day to deal with infringing activity. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. In fact, as Alexis notes, the DMCA is regularly abused by copyright holders to go way beyond what the law is supposed to allow.

Towards the end, Cotton claims that when a court in the Netherlands ordered The Pirate Bay blocked in that country, traffic to the site dropped by 80%. That's a flat out lie. I mean, ridiculously false. First off, considering that the legal fight over that has continued for years, and the court only ordered ISPs in the Netherlands to actually block The Pirate Bay... five days ago -- and gave them 10 days to comply -- I'm curious as to how he knows how much impact such a court order has had (er... will have) on traffic to The Pirate Bay. Separately, in every other place that has ordered such a block, traffic to TPB has actually gone up, not down, because the court order to block tends to give the site more attention. Just to make sure, I asked someone in the Netherlands if TPB was blocked for them, and he sent me the following screenshot showing that it's totally accessible (though, they're warning about the new ruling!). Either way, Cotton was flat out, 100%, totally lying about these "stats" from the Netherlands. No such block has occurred. All in all, this is the same duplicity that we've been seeing from SOPA/PIPA supporters for the last few months. They attack those of us with facts on our side as spreading disinformation, but when you look at the details you realize that it is, in fact, they who are flat out "wholesale" lying. Rick Cotton should be ashamed, and NBCUniversal should admit to its errors. Chris Hayes promises to cover the topic in more detail again in the future, and he should challenge Cotton on the multiple false statements he made.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Another Day, Another Story Of Police Lying... Only To Be Found Out Due To Video Of The Incident

Mike Masnick — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:36:30 PDT

We just had a post about how a video of police showed that they lied in arresting a guy. Josef Anvil points us to a similar, but slightly different, story that took place in Chicago. In this case, Debra Green was in a car in a funeral procession, yelled at the driver of a car who was weaving in and out of the line of mourners' cars. Turns out the driver was an off-duty cop, Sylshina London, (rushing to get to work) who decided to arrest Green for misdemeanor battery charges. On what basis? Well apparently London claimed that Green threw a bottle at her and hit her in the face. Green was actually convicted.

The problem? It took a year and a half, but investigators finally realized that some of the incident was caught on police video... and it showed that London's window was shut at the time she claimed Green threw a bottle and that bottle hit her head. Even worse, London repeated that story under oath in court as part of what got Green convicted. Cook County prosecutors have now dropped the conviction and have apparently filed charges against London instead.

It's stories like these that, once again, remind people why it should be encouraged to film police -- and why honest police shouldn't have a problem with it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Lies, Damned Lies And Facebook Evidence Get FBI Involved In Divorced Couple's Spat

Mike Masnick — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:27:00 PDT

In a story that sounds like a movie plot with a few extra twists in it, last week a man, David Voelkert, was arrested for putting a GPS device on his ex-wife's car. The backstory behind this is that the ex-wife, Angela Voelkert, had created a fake Facebook profile of a 17-year-old girl, named Jessica Studebaker, and then befriended David to try to "get him to talk" in a way that would provide her ammo in their custody battle. We've been hearing how Facebook evidence has become pretty standard these days in divorce cases, so I guess creating a fake persona to try to dig out some extra info is the obvious next step. David Voelkert was apparently extremely forthcoming with the fake teen, telling her how he had put a GPS device on Angela's car, and said something about harming Angela. He also spoke of taking his kids and "disappearing." Angela reported this to the authorities, and the FBI stepped in and arrested David over the GPS tracking while investigating the rest.

And that's where the case turned strange.

After holding him for four days, federal prosecutors have dropped all charges against David. Amazingly, he provided them with a sworn affidavit that he'd had notarized before all of the incriminating messages were sent to "Studebaker," a letter saying that he believed his wife was behind the account and was trying to "tamper" with his life:

I received a friend request from a one Jessica Studebaker. From the start of that friend request, I was under suspicion that it was not a real person, but my ex-wife or someone she knows. I am talking to this 'person' on Facebook via messages through the Facebook mail system. I am lying to this person in extent to gain positive proof that it is indeed my ex-wife trying to again tamper in my life. Anything said in the chat to her from me cannot be held as truth and I am chatting to this person in attempts to prove to my court that my ex-wife will not leave my personal life alone.... The lies that I am placing in this chat is for her to bring such up in court on the 8th day of June, 2011. I need proof what my ex-wife has been doing.... In no way do I have plans to leave with my children or do any harm to Angela Dawn Voelkert or anyone else....

Federal officials checked with the person who notarized the letter, confirming that it was indeed written and signed prior to the messages actually being sent... and realized that they had no case at all.

So how long until the movie rights to this story are sold?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Court Slams FBI For Saying It's Okay For The Federal Government To Lie To A Court

Mike Masnick — Fri, 6 May 2011 12:12:00 PDT

A few months back, we pointed out how the EFF had discovered that the FBI was extremely arbitrary in how it redacted information on Freedom of Information Act requests. There are specific rules about what should be redacted and what should be allowed. However, the EFF received the same documents from separate requests, and found totally different sections redacted. Not only did this suggest how arbitrary the process was, it also allowed them to see some of what was redacted in the "other" document -- and discover that it never should have been redacted.

Now, the EFF is pointing to a recent ruling that shows the FBI apparently feels it's free to go much further than just arbitrary redacting. In a different case, a district court has slammed the FBI for both lying about what records it actually had in response to an FOIA request by pretending certain records did not exist (even though they did) and then redacting portions of the document, claiming that they were outside the scope of the request... when they were not. The court is clearly not pleased. It also did not buy the government's silly claim that revealing that the FBI lied would be a threat to national security or that it's fine for the federal government to simply lie to a court, in the name of "national security."

After court ordered the FBI to submit full versions of the records in camera, along with a new declaration about the agency’s search, the FBI revealed for the first time that it had materially and fundamentally mislead the court in its earlier filings. The unaltered versions of the documents showed that the information the agency had withheld as “outside the scope” was actually well within the scope of the plaintiffs’ FOIA request. The government also admitted it had a large number of additional responsive documents that it hadn’t told the plaintiffs or the court about. Id. at 7-8.

If these revelations weren’t bad enough, the FBI also argued FOIA allows it to mislead the court where it believes revealing information would “compromise national security.” Id. at 9. The FBI also argued, that “its initial representations to the Court were not technically false” because although the information might have been “factually” responsive to the plaintiffs’ FOIA request, it was “legally nonresponsive.” Id. at 9, n. 4 (emphasis added).

The court noted, this “argument is indefensible,” id. at 9-10, and held, “the FOIA does not permit the government to withhold responsive information from the court.”

It really does seem like our federal government tends to believe that there should be no oversight of it at all. It's almost as if they feel that the basic principles of checks & balances within the government is a nuisance which it can ignore.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Reporting On Someone Claiming An Opponent 'Lies' In A Heated Debate Is Not Libel

Mike Masnick — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:12:28 PDT

Reporter Amy Wallace wrote an article late last year for Wired Magazine about the extremely heated and somewhat controversial debate over child vaccinations. In the course of the article, she quotes people from both sides. At one point, when one of the main doctors who supports vaccinations discusses the woman who has become the face (and voice) of the anti-vaccination crew, he responds to some of her claims by noting "she lies." Apparently, those two words resulted in her filing a defamation lawsuit against the doctor and the reporter, Amy Wallace. Thankfully, the court was quick to totally reject this argument (pdf):

Several Fourth Circuit cases make clear that including a remark by one of the key participants in a heated public-health debate stating that his adversary "lies" is not an actionable defamation. Indeed, both the nature of the statement -- including that it was quoting an advocate with a particular scientific viewpoint and policy position -- and the statement's context -- a very brief passage in a lengthy description of an ongoing, heated public health controversy -- confirm that this is a protected expression of opinion.

The ruling goes on to discuss this in much more detail, pointing out that "she lies" is not the sort of statement that the court should be spending its time on, to determine its veracity. Instead, for there to be libel, there needs to be an actual statement of fact that is provable one way or the other. Looks like another lawsuit that appears to have been filed more to silence a critic than for any legitimate reason has been quickly shot down by the courts. Good for them.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Shepard Fairey Destroys Evidence, Goodwill; Harms His Case For No Good Reason

Mike Masnick — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:30:00 PDT

On Friday morning, someone "working with" Shepard Fairey alerted me that some news was coming out that day about his lawsuit with the Associated Press over his famous Barack Obama poster: I finally got the "official" statement from Fairey late on Friday, just as I was about to leave work for the weekend, and the whole thing was so ridiculous that I just figured I'd leave it until today. Apparently, Fairey, for absolutely no good reason, tried to destroy evidence and then lie about which photo he actually used to make his poster. He's now come clean about this, and while he's right in his statement that this shouldn't have any impact on the underlying case, it certainly doesn't help. It was already pretty well known that Fairey was hardly the poster child of fair use -- given that he has a history of going after others who copy his own work, despite being an "appropriation artist" himself. But, even so, this is beyond dumb -- something I don't say lightly.

Fairey still has a very strong fair use claim -- which is entirely separate from the question of whether or not Fairey did something incredibly stupid here. Even if he used the image the AP claimed he did (which he now admits), it still seems like this is an obvious case of fair use. But destroying evidence and lying -- especially when there was no good reason to do so -- just harms his credibility and makes it that much more likely that he'll lose his case not for any legitimate reason, but because of his own separate actions in dealing with this case. There are important fair use issues at play here, and Fairey just made it that much harder to maintain the high ground.

While some are pointing out that this is the sort of thing that happens when copyright laws always seem to stack the deck against fair use, that's still no excuse for lying and trying to destroy evidence. Yes, the system sucks, but doing something like this only harms an otherwise strong case.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Michael Robertson Wants To Crowdsource Proof Of EMI's Lies: You Lie EMI Bookmarklet Available

Mike Masnick — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:04:46 PDT

EMI has been involved in a lawsuit with MP3Tunes for a while now. The whole lawsuit seems weird, since MP3Tunes is about creating a storage locker for the songs you already have. But one of the points that MP3Tunes made in response to EMI's claims is that EMI was lying in saying that it has never authorized MP3s to be available online. Yet, MP3Tunes had found plenty of promotional tracks that EMI had clearly put online, and it was wondering why others were allowed to link to them, but EMI claimed it was infringement for MP3Tunes to point to those same songs. In presenting this point in court, MP3Tunes has been looking for more evidence of authorized EMI mp3s, and Michael Robertson has announced the "You Lie EMI" bookmarklet (found via Hypebot), that lets anyone help MP3Tunes find more authorized EMI mp3s. Basically, as you surf around, if you come across authorized songs that are available, you can click the bookmarklet, and it checks to see if the artists is an EMI artist, and then lets you submit the details. Whatever happens with the lawsuit itself, it's cool to see someone crowdsourcing data for their defense.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Does Email Make You Lie More?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:30:00 PDT

Does a more impersonal means of communication make it easier to... stretch the truth? Apparently, a new study found that people tend to lie more in email when compared to a written note (paper?!? pens?!?). The study involved people being given a pool of money and asked to divide it with someone else, who they could communicate with either via email or via written note. While pretty much everyone lied about the total amount of money, those who communicated over email lied by even bigger amounts. The writeup doesn't really suggest why this is, but it makes you wonder what factors could be involved. People often talk about how sitting at a keyboard can make people "mean," but they usually attribute it to the anonymity factor. However, could the "coldness" of typed words feel less personal as well?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story