MIT Trying To Block The Release Of Aaron Swartz's Secret Service File
from the sharing-of-knowledge dept
It’s not all that uncommon to see government agencies try to refuse to release information that is subject to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request — but to have a non-governmental third party jump into a FOIA request to seek to block the info from being released? That’s pretty damn rare. But it’s happened — and, amazingly, the third party is MIT, a school that is supposedly dedicated to advancing knowledge. Except, apparently, if that knowledge is going to make MIT look bad.
We recently noted that Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had ordered Homeland Security to release the Secret Service file on Aaron Swartz that had been requested by Wired reporter/editor Kevin Poulsen. However, MIT has now stepped into the case trying to block the release of the information. The judge has consented to putting a stay on the initial order until MIT can file its motion.
MIT’s concern — as it was in a separate legal fight concerning releasing the evidence used against Aaron — is apparently that the released documents will reveal which MIT employees helped with the investigation, and that could lead to unwarranted harassment. However, as Poulsen notes, the documents that have already been released have been redacting those names, so it’s unlikely that these further releases would leave those same names unredacted.
The larger issue, however, is that an institute of higher learning, one which supposedly supports information sharing and knowledge transfer, is intervening in a FOIA case to actively support keeping information from the public. This is quite incredible, and a rather shameful move from the MIT administration, following a string of similarly shameful moves having to do with how it handled the Swartz situation from the very beginning. As Poulsen notes, the situation is incredibly rare:
I have never, in fifteen years of reporting, seen a non-governmental party argue for the right to interfere in a Freedom of Information Act release of government documents. My lawyer, David Sobel, has been litigating FOIA for decades, and he’s never encountered it either. It’s saddening to see an academic institution set this precedent.
MIT was one of the first universities to support open online courses. It has a long history of encouraging the open exchange and sharing of knowledge and information. It seems like quite a departure from its history and mission to suddenly focus on trying to increase the government’s secrecy and blocking access to information.
Filed Under: aaron swartz, foia, homeland security, mit, public information
Comments on “MIT Trying To Block The Release Of Aaron Swartz's Secret Service File”
I’m willing to give them the benefit of doubt. In that case even if they are worried about their employees they could and hopefully will ask the court to allow the FOIA to be processed with the mandatory condition of redacting the names of the involved. Their worries are legit. I can see how an angry mob can harass these people more efficiently than Carmen Ortiz and minions did with Swartz.
Re: Re:
If they are part of the case, their names should be released.
Re: Re: Re:
Their names are already public record. So what they’re fighting for is actually meaningless. I know there’s articles describing the people giving the DoJ information. So to tell me that it should be withheld who had a hand in prosecuting Aaron is telling me that they’d like to hide this under the rug and avoid the consequences of their own actions.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m just playing the Devil’s advocate here. We have seen how an angry mob can harm someone when their collective personalities are hurt. I’m not saying that those employees should not be punished if wrongdoing is proven. There are plenty of cases where the victim or even the perpetrators names are kept secret to protect them. Yes, PROTECT the perpetrators. Justice should not be served by an angry mob lynching or something. Besides, what if the names are disclosed and in the end they find out there was no wrongdoing from one of the employees mentioned? They’ll have already suffered a great deal of public harassment by then.
That said, Jay does have a point.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think this was the point of the Founding Fathers in making your accusers public. The “angry mob” can’t hold secret accusers in check when they abuse people.
Re: Re:
except:
1. can’t that excuse be used for any/ALL requests: that someone somewhere might be harassed/threatened by anyone for anything ? ? ?
thus, enabling the powers-that-be to gut the FOIA…
2. no, i DO NOT give them the benefit of the doubt; did they give Aaron the benefit of the doubt ? no, fuck’em…
3. i have little-to-zero-doubt this is the usual ‘reason’ for gummint secrecy in general, and FOIA requests in particular: someone with power/influence was going to be embarrassed (and probably rightfully so)…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Re: Re:
Isn’t revealing which MIT employees helped with the investigation part of the information? There’s nothing to be ashamed of if they didn’t do anything illegal, immoral or unethical.
Re: Re: Re:
Isn’t revealing which MIT employees helped with the investigation part of the information? There’s nothing to be ashamed of if they didn’t do anything illegal, immoral or unethical.
There have been bomb threats and death threats and the like (I’m sure they came from some of Mikey’s fans). I don’t think the desire to protect these people is pretext. As far as the computer vulnerabilities go, I don’t blame them for wanting to keep those under wraps either.
Mikey’s just mad at MIT and venting. Poor boo. It’s hard to be a little angry Hitler man.
Some people expect to be made immune to the repercussions of their actions.
MIT was one of the first universities to support open online courses. It has a long history of encouraging the open exchange and sharing of knowledge and information. It seems like quite a departure from its history and mission to suddenly focus on trying to increase the government’s secrecy and blocking access to information.
They support the exchange of knowledge and information, but that support is not unqualified. When that knowledge or information could lead to harm to its staff or computer systems, then it’s different. Are you just not into nuance, Mike? I don’t get it.
I can make the same complaint about you. You pretend like you’re supportive of the free exchange of knowledge and information. Yet, you have been going apeshit the past three weeks setting up your system so that any such knowledge or information that comes from me gets trapped in your spam filter. You are to this day blocking my home IP and MAC address. You were blocking certain keywords and links.
You can pretend all you want, but the fact is that you were deliberately adding MACs, IPs, keywords, and links that I was using so your spam filter would pick them up rather than get published on your site. I’m using a proxy right now to publish this because you are still blocking me.
No need to lie and pretend like it’s just your automatic spam filter doing it. Your spam filter didn’t automatically start scooping up the phrase “Mike’s Greatest Hits” after I tried to use that phrase to criticize you. You did that.
Re: Re:
AJ, you keep spouting this lie about you being censored, but it’s just that, a LIE.
This censorship accusation is…Absolutely. 100%. F.A.L.S.E.
You’ve posted numerous comments over the last few days in your typical trolling mode and they’re all here. You are not being censored, outside of some of your most egregious posts getting (rightfully) caught in the spam filter.
No one believes you are being censored and no one believes you are here for any other purpose than to lie, troll and disrupt.
This is just a new tactic you’re taking, similar to your “Why you no debate me?!!!1!”. This is just “Why you censor me?!!!1!!”.
Re: Re: Re:
AJ, you keep spouting this lie about you being censored, but it’s just that, a LIE.
It is a fact that right now, Mike has it set up so that any post that comes from my home internet connection gets scooped up by the spam filter.
Ask Mike if you don’t believe me.
It’s impossible to have a conversation on Techdirt when your posts are scooped up by the spam filter, especially since they often may sit there for hours and hours. Moreover, Mike was choosing not to publish my comments if they were critical of him. That’s censorship.
That’s not the spam filter automatically catching my posts. It was Mike deliberately sending my posts to the dead letter office of his spam filter. For a while there, each new proxy I would switch to would be immediately added to the list and sent to the spam filter.
Sometimes just one post critical of Mike, no matter how polite the criticism, would result in a keyword, link, IP, or MAC being blocked and sent to the spam filter.
Mike was also scooping up any posts that included the following words: “bawk,” “run away,” “Mikey’s Greatest Hits,” and “Mike’s Greatest Hits.”
Those phrases are now not being scooped up by the spam filter, because, presumably, Mike decided to stop censoring those words. He added those words to the filter manually, and he removed them manually.
If Mike is not censoring me, then why can’t I post from my home internet connection?
Mike, are you ever going to actually discuss this? Or are you just going to keep pretending like you don’t know what I’m talking about as you did last night?
Well, it’s Mike. So I fully expect a bunch of games, weasel words, and the like. I know that Mike won’t actually discuss what he’s done honestly. Mike doesn’t do honest discussion.
And to prove I’m right, I challenge Mike to admit that he is to this day routing all posts that originate from my home internet connection (without a proxy, obviously) to his spam filter.
Can you admit that, Mike?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are replying to another poster not speaking to Mike. No need to write his name every fourth word.
I’m sorry but any post containing “bawk” probably deserves to be hidden, it adds nothing to the discussion and pisses off other users.
I don’t even know why you come here, you don’t do anything except bitch about a spam filter that is correctly catching your spammy comments. Add some value and maybe, just maybe, it’ll stop happening.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you didn’t want your comments spam blocked, you shouldn’t have been spamming.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“It is a fact that right now, Mike has it set up so that any post that comes from my home internet connection gets scooped up by the spam filter.”
Do you have proof of that “fact”? I doubt it.
Even if this is true, all it proves is that one IP address seems to be reported a suspiciously high number of times, or gets caught spamming idiotic links that get caught in the normal spam filter anyway. Neither of these prove any nefarious – or even human – intervention on TD’s part. But, they might prove something about you.
” If Mike is not censoring me, then why can’t I post from my home internet connection?”
It’s a shame your cowardice prevents the rest of us from looking through previous threads to see which posts of your have been approved after you’ve started whining like a toddler about censorship. Most genuine posts get approved some time after they’ve been filtered. In my experience, any of the rare comments of mine that get caught in the spam filter appear a couple of hours later once manually approved. it would be funny to see how many of your are given the same treatment. Alas, your dishonesty doesn’t allow comparison by anyone but Mike or his staff – and him even looking at your IP address causes more childish tantrums, as we’ve seen many times.
“Mike was also scooping up any posts that included the following words: “bawk,” “run away,” “Mikey’s Greatest Hits,” and “Mike’s Greatest Hits.””
..and this is the speech for which you can’t understand the reasons for being censored? Try acting like someone who’s actually managed to leave the schoolyard once in his life, you’ll be amazed at how differently people treat an adult with some level of maturity.
Stop being a childish lying asshole, and you might get treated like an adult too.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is a fact that right now, Mike has it set up so that any post that comes from my home internet connection gets scooped up by the spam filter.
I have no idea of how Techdirt’s spam filters work, but if it was my system and a certain IP address repeatedly got reported as “abusive, spam, trollish, or otherwise inappropriate” by the community day after day, then I would have it automatically scoop those up too.
Perhaps if you didn’t make so many comments that get reported you would have less of a problem. Just my 2 cents.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I have had anonymous proxies that work fine. Once I use that proxy to post one thing critical of Mike, that proxy is immediately blocked and posts from it routed to the spam filter. This is Mike silencing a critic, plain and simple.
I’ve had hundreds of posts “reported” thousands of times in the past several years, and never was my route of posting on Techdirt flagged like this. It’s only in the past month that Mike has made a concerted, deliberate effort to prevent me from criticizing me. Ask him yourself, Gwiz.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No one believes you because you’ve proven yourself to be a flagrant LIAR.
Honestly, you’ve no one to blame but yourself. I have absolutely no…NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA…sympathy for you.
There are consequences for the type of trollish and childish behavior you exhibit here on a daily basis. If the spam filter is catching a good portion of your comments, all I can say is “Yay! Go spam filter!”
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Haha. Hi sockpuppet! Good to see ya.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Gee, it’s almost like you started posting repeated spam messages this past month.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Since you compare Mike to a schoolyard bully, let’s go with that scenario. We’re the kids in the schoolyard talking and you’re the whiny brat who’s constantly screeching about things that make no sense or simply to annoy people. The spam filters would be the equivalent of the teacher coming out to drag your sorry ass to detention, so the rest of us can continue to talk undisturbed.
And you’re confused about why, at some level, your speech is getting blocked?
If Mike is blocking you actively, (and that’s a big if), then I support him. Not because you are being critical, but because your are NOT! You are annoying, deceitful, whiny, and selfish. I don’t have to ask him if he is blocking you: where he to reply in the negative, I would believe him on that alone, since he’s earned our trust. I wouldn’t have to ask to see every one of his logs: his word is good enough for me.
You? No-one trusts you. If you were to say the sky is blue and water is wet, I’d conduct experiments first to verify it. That’s how little your speech matters around here. You have worked extremely hard to ruin your reputation here AJ. That is an extremely scarce resource and the only one capable of fixing it is you. If you are actually finding yourself blocked, then tough shit. You have no-one to blame but yourself. You have not once criticized on this site, but instead launched constant attacks.
I look forward to the day AJ no longer frequents this site. The day he does, I will party like its 1999.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
i’m me-tooing this…
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
A man is only as good as his word. When it comes right down to it, this is all we have. Like you, I have never seen anyone work so hard to ensure that his word is meaningless.
Re: Re:
Nobody believes you.
Re: Re: Re:
AJ is a frustrated little boy crying, “Look at me!” then throwing a tantrum when we don’t.
“Censorship” now means, “My comment was reported by the mean ol’ TD readers, none of whom support me,” in the AJ lexicon.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When my posts get reported by you guys, that’s censorship. When Mike blocks my MACs, IPs, keywords, and links that I use to criticize him, that’s censorship.
He’s censoring me because he’s not man enough to actually discuss anything that matters on the merits. He hates that I keep reminding everyone of how he runs away rather than defend what he publishes.
I love it. The censorship blast from the past month has only made me schedule even more hours in my day to criticizing Mike. Ha.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You are the one who isn’t a man. You are a child. A man would stand his ground when criticized and calmly discuss things. A man would use proper English.
Yes or no, AJ, did you on multiple occasions, have comments with nothing more than farm animal noises?
How many comments of yours actually quote a line, comment or phrase you disagree with, then calmly and politely show where that’s wrong and what you believe, without resorting to childish namecalling?
How many comments of yours, whether published on the site or not, make reference to you as some sort of lone ranger, the one person who dares disagree with the evil that is Mike Masnick, so as to assuage your own ego?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
When you’re scheduling hours in your day to post childish insults and whine how no one likes you, you should realize you have a problem.
I realize there’s a social stigma attached to psychiatric counseling, and that’s a horrible thing. But AJ, please go seek professional help.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Maybe if you were able to put together some kind of meaningful, coherent posts, this might not be the case.
All I’ve ever seen out of you is persistent petulance.
But… but.. the merits!!!
Re: Re:
“MIT was one of the first universities to support open online courses. It has a long history of encouraging the open exchange and sharing of knowledge and information. It seems like quite a departure from its history and mission to suddenly focus on trying to increase the government’s secrecy and blocking access to information.”
They support the exchange of knowledge and information, but that support is not unqualified. When that knowledge or information could lead to harm to its staff or computer systems, then it’s different. Are you just not into nuance, Mike? I don’t get it.
I can make the same complaint about you. You pretend like you’re supportive of the free exchange of knowledge and information. Yet, you have been going apeshit the past three weeks setting up your system so that any such knowledge or information that comes from me gets trapped in your spam filter. You are to this day blocking my home IP and MAC address. You were blocking certain keywords and links.
You can pretend all you want, but the fact is that you were deliberately adding MACs, IPs, keywords, and links that I was using so your spam filter would pick them up rather than get published on your site. I’m using a proxy right now to publish this because you are still blocking me.
No need to lie and pretend like it’s just your automatic spam filter doing it. Your spam filter didn’t automatically start scooping up the phrase “Mike’s Greatest Hits” after I tried to use that phrase to criticize you. You did that.
So you are saying that Masnick is a slimy hypocrite? That’s hardly news.
Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit. The only hypocrite is you, AJ.
Re: Re: Re:
So you are saying that Masnick is a slimy hypocrite? That’s hardly news.
I know, right? What’s hilarious is that Mike is now pretending like he has no idea why MACs, IPs, keywords, and links that I use to criticize him were being routed to his spam filter.
My home connection and my iPhone connection were both blocked within 24 hours of each other. I’ve been using those connections for over 3 years to criticize Mike. They have never been blocked before. Then both get blocked on the same day.
That’s not an automatic spam filter. That’s Mike trying to silence his #1 critic because he can’t stand that I criticize him.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Paranoia, megalomania, and in other posts obsessive and compulsive behavior centered on a particular person. AJ, get help.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AJ are you adding multiple personalities to your list of psychosis?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn’t stress over it. Masnicks army of sycophants, lickspittles, toadys and unctuous pissboys may be in denial regarding his laughable hypocrisy. But everyone else see him for the slimy, lying hypocrite he is.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I wouldn’t stress over it. Masnicks army of sycophants, lickspittles, toadys and unctuous pissboys may be in denial regarding his laughable hypocrisy. But everyone else see him for the slimy, lying hypocrite he is.
Don’t worry. I know that other than a handful of the most ardently faithful (and his obvious yet pitiful sockpuppets), people know I’m not lying about this. I may be a lot of things, but I’m not a liar. People know me so well by now that I don’t even need to log in or use a consistent IP address–they still know it’s me. Mike went turbo Chinese dictator there for a while. It cracks me up no end. I love this place.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
people know I’m not lying about this. I may be a lot of things, but I’m not a liar.
Actually, you’re an admitted liar when it comes to Mike.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121121/23215021120/copyright-maximalists-attempt-to-downplay-significance-rsc-report-chanting-their-mantra-copyright-is-property.shtml#c2773
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
LOL! That’s the only example you can find. I love it!
And, as I have explained more than once since, Mike’s apology was very insincere and I wasn’t being very serious when I made that offer.
But, yeah, if you want to brand me a “liar” based on that one thing, go for it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You called yourself a liar you poor insignificant excuse for a person.
Re: Re:
You think a spam filter isn’t capable of detecting words accompanying a link being spammed over and over and over?
Re: Re: Re:
You think a spam filter isn’t capable of detecting words accompanying a link being spammed over and over and over?
I know that Mike manually added the phrase “Mikey’s Greatest Hits” to the spam filter.
On June 18th, I was attempting to post something that was critical of Mike. He was going completely apeshit behind the scenes trying to prevent me from posting it. I titled the post “Mikey’s Greatest Hits.”
That phrase had only appeared on Techdirt once before (back in April). See for yourself: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Atechdirt.com+%22Mikey%27s+Greatest+Hits%22
So it’s not like that phrase was being spammed all over Techdirt. Mike manually added it to the spam filter so I couldn’t use it in my post that was critical of him.
To get around this censorship, I uploaded the post to pastebin: http://pastebin.com/J2njiPPZ
Then I posted that link on Techdirt.
Right after that, Mike started filtering that link so no one could post it on Techdirt. He didn’t want that criticism of him to be seen.
To get around his block of that URL, I started using link shorteners such as bit.ly. Each time I would post the new shortened link, Mike would add that link to the filter so nobody could post that link.
It’s hilarious to me that you guys don’t believe that Mike would so desperately try and silence a critic. No wonder he’s too embarrassed to discuss it honestly now.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I know”
No, you don’t. You have a theory that’s unsupported by any real facts, based on things that have other completely different alternative explanations – explanations that don’t even need human intervention, let alone personal intervention from one person.
It’s no surprise that you could make a definitive claim based on subjective and incomplete evidence. But, it is consistent with your failure to even address the correct opinions of the people you regularly attack here and the overall subjects being discussed, so it;s not surprising.
“Each time I would post the new shortened link”
So, it never entered your tiny mind that the spam filter automatically filters shortened links no matter who they are posted by? Not least considering that the posts they appear in are (presumably) regularly flagged by the community as spam? No intervention required, yet you obsess over a personal vendetta that’s probably not even happening…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Out of curiosity, a test:
http://bit.ly/U2fE
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
…and another test
http://bit.ly/U2fE
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
OK, apparently that bit.ly link doesn’t get caught (it’s just a shortened link to Techdirt). Maybe that link’s allowed, or the fact that’s I’m not a regular troll/spammer means the other factor of my post didn’t trigger a filter. It would be interesting to know how the posts are filtered, though I suspect that AC’s favoured conspiracy against him isn’t the reason.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Wow, PaulT. Slow down and listen what I’m telling you.
On June 18th, Mike was so upset by my post entitled “Mikey’s Greatest Hits,” that he started blocking that phrase.
I then posted the link to pastebin. Mike started blocking that link.
I then posted a shortened link using bit.ly: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130617/01573323504/senator-lindsey-graham-defends-nsa-surveillance-arguing-about-something-entirely-different.shtml#c45
Mike blocked that link. And the game of whac-a-mole went on and on from there.
I did not say that Mike is blocking all bit.ly links. He did not.
He blocked that one link.
He is no longer blocking that link. So if you try and post it now, it will go through.
Understand?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
I understand that you have incomplete facts, no evidence and a preferred narrative. Other explanations are available and they’re equally valid. I’m sorry if this doesn’t mean that you word is suddenly the truth, but that’s the way it is.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Ummm, what’s been blocked? Those old links are there just fine.
Getting caught in the spam filter awaiting moderation is not “blocked”.
Basically, you are whining about having your comments “delayed”. Grow up.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Mike was deliberately routing my posts to the spam filter based on MACs, IPs, keywords, and links. Those posts would sit there for several hours. Posts critical of Mike were not posted. My posts were being deliberately kept from view. Every time I moved to a new anonymous proxy, that avenue of posting would shortly thereafter be routed to the spam filter.
Give me a break with pretending like that’s not censorship.
If posts are routed to the spam filter to be published hours later, that eliminates the ability to carry on a discussion in the comments as we’re having right now. If posts routed to the spam filter are never eventually published (and there were many posts of mine that were not), then that makes it impossible to have a discussion.
Mike has spent the past month censoring me. Trying to brush it off as just being the spam filter is 100% total bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
And for longer than that, you’ve been outright spamming and being abusive. You even continue it now with your incessant whining about censorship and misrepresenting why it is happening (it has nothing to do with you disagreeing with him, and everything to do with you constantly spamming and hurling insults).
If Mike is blocking your comments now, more power to him. He’s shown you much more tolerance than anyone else would ever have done.
And no, blocking you isn’t even close to hypocrisy. Either you understand this and you’re just lying, or you are just being dumb. Your choice.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Maybe that link’s allowed, or the fact that’s I’m not a regular troll/spammer means the other factor of my post didn’t trigger a filter.
I think it’s more to do with the latter fact. When I first started posting links and swears, my next comment would be held for moderation, but I never post spam links or swear very regularly, and that’s probably why my posts always go through immediately now.
I addressed you to answer AJ’s question because it’s easier than (read: preferable to) reading his crap.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You are confused. My original pastebin link WAS being blocked. Here’s the link: http://pastebin.com/J2njiPPZ
When I switched to shortened versions of it, those were eventually blocked too.
But Mike is NO LONGER blocking those links. Nor is he blocking keywords.
The only thing that I know of that he’s still blocking is my home and iPhone MACs and IPs.
It wasn’t that he was blocking all pastebin or shortened links. He was blocking only those links that pointed to my pastebin post criticizing him.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“The only thing that I know of that he’s still blocking is my home and iPhone MACs and IPs”
He’s blocking your MAC addresses? As in, no matter whether you use 3G or a public wifi the iPhone’s still being blocked? That seems… unlikely.
“He was blocking only those links that pointed to my pastebin post criticizing him.”
Again, there’s other explanations that don’t involve a personal vendetta. A short time-limited block on URLs contained in posts that have been reported by the community would be sufficient.
But even if true, haven’t your lying, screeching, derailing posts consisting of little more than personal attacks given him more than a good reason for him to try to block you? I know that if this were one of my local bars, you’d have been kicked out and barred for life long ago for your conduct. Why is it wrong that a website could do the same?
Freedom of speech only means the government can’t block you not that a private entity can’t kick you out of their property. If he is blocking you, Mike still gets kudos for doing so without resorting to removing anonymous comments, blocking all links or other tactics often used by less open communities.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Yeah, I found that pretty hilarious, too. It presumes that Mike is so awesomely powerful that he can accomplish the impossible!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So, it never entered your tiny mind that the spam filter automatically filters shortened links no matter who they are posted by? Not least considering that the posts they appear in are (presumably) regularly flagged by the community as spam? No intervention required, yet you obsess over a personal vendetta that’s probably not even happening…
The first time I would post the link, it would get published immediately. Then, after a while, attempts to republish the link would get routed to the spam filter. If the spam filter was automatically parsing shortened links, then they would not have gotten through the first time.
I know it’s really hard for you to accept that Mike was acting like a douchebag while desperately (and futilely) trying to silence a critic. But it’s true.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Then, after a while, attempts to republish the link would get routed to the spam filter.”
OK, so how many of the posts where your original link appeared were reported as spam/troll-filled idiocy? I suspect 100% knowing your history – which would indicate why the link would also be filtered in future posts. Again, no human intervention required, let alone a personal attack by the object of your obsession.
“I know it’s really hard for you to accept that Mike was acting like a douchebag”
I have nothing to base it on except for your claims – which have other, more logical explanations based on the facts at hand. Do you have any other objective facts to provide, or is that it?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
LOL! You just can’t accept that Mike would be such a douche.
I consider that a win. Mike’s behavior was so desperate that even his biggest fan can’t believe it.
Ask Mike.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I’m sure Mike will be along to comment if he cares enough to do so. I don’t, I’m just wasting time while waiting for the after work drinks on this fine sunny day.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
And there we go. Game, set and match. When challenged to provide objective, hard evidence, you give up. You retreat. You don’t bother. You just retort with another baseless claim.
We, the TD community, would be very interested and outraged if Mike were to suddenly become what you claim he is. However, he isn’t. All the evidence points to him not being the avaricious censor you claim him to be. When you are directly challenged to provide evidence that he is, you fail. Given the above response, you have lost any and all rights to being taken seriously on this site.
I honestly don’t know how you were raised, but surely your parents would have told you that when saying someone is doing wrong, you have to back it up.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right after that, Mike started filtering that link so no one could post it on Techdirt. He didn’t want that criticism of him to be seen.
To get around his block of that URL, I started using link shorteners such as bit.ly. Each time I would post the new shortened link, Mike would add that link to the filter so nobody could post that link.
It’s hilarious to me that you guys don’t believe that Mike would so desperately try and silence a critic. No wonder he’s too embarrassed to discuss it honestly now.
My, my what a libelous web you weave.
One would think a lawer-wannabe would, at the very least, be mindful of his own statements. If that’s your level of attention to details, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t consider hiring you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
One day I’ll post what I really think about Mike. It’s not pretty. The short of it is that I don’t think Mike has one honest bone in his body. I don’t he is physically capable of having an honest discussion.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You want to suck his dick. That is what you have shown us how you really feel about Mike. You know he is married right?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, yes, you don’t think a spam filter is capable of detecting your spam.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s conceivably possible. But it’s clear as day that Mike has been manually routing my posts to the spam filter.
That’s the only explanation for why “Mikey’s Greatest Hits,” which was not a phrase that had been spammed, was all of the sudden blocked. That’s the only explanation for why a random TOR exit node that worked fine for posting positive things (I tested it) was all of the sudden blocked once used to say one thing negative about Mike.
Don’t fool yourself. Mike went on a little tirade like a Chinese dictator there for a few weeks.
Is Mike here denying what I’m saying? No. That says it all.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Mike has denied it. Just yesterday as a matter of fact:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130716/16411823827/judge-aereo-case-was-decided-incorrectly-because-i-dont-like-previous-ruling.shtml#c1741
Just because his answer doesn’t satisfy your tin foil hat delusions, doesn’t mean it isn’t the truth.
To be honest, all things considered, I’ll trust Mike’s version over yours any day of the week, twice on Sundays,
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Mike has denied it. Just yesterday as a matter of fact:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130716/16411823827/judge-aereo-case-was-decided-incorre ctly-because-i-dont-like-previous-ruling.shtml#c1741
I love that thread. Thanks for linking to it. Mikey there is pretending like he has no idea who is making the post (me!) he is responding to, yet everyone else in that thread knows that it’s me. And his pretending like he has no idea how my posts were ending up in the spam filter (despite his deliberate routing of my posts based on MACs, IPs, keywords, and links) is just priceless. It’s just AWESOME how untruthful Mikey can be.
You sockpuppets are hilarious. I love this place.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Mike has denied it. Just yesterday as a matter of fact:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130716/16411823827/judge-aereo-case-was-decided-incorre ctly-because-i-dont-like-previous-ruling.shtml#c1741
I love that thread. Thanks for linking to it. Mikey there is pretending like he has no idea who is making the post (me!) he is responding to, yet everyone else in that thread knows that it’s me. And his pretending like he has no idea how my posts were ending up in the spam filter (despite his deliberate routing of my posts based on MACs, IPs, keywords, and links) is just priceless. It’s just AWESOME how untruthful Mikey can be.
You sockpuppets are hilarious. I love this place.
P.S. Oh lookie. I went to post this very response, and Mikey’s spam filter tried to censor me. The anonymous IP being blocked is 66.187.73.92. The reason you are able to read this very post is because I switched to a non-censored IP. But yeah, Mikey’s not a big censoring douchebag. Not at all.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
So. You’re desperately trying to gain access to a website you believe to be blocked to you by using spoofed MACs, proxies, public and/or other peoples hardware and IP switching.
You’re a liar, you’re a troll and now by your own admission and BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION you’re a fucking pirate. Read up on CFAA, you little twerp – and get lost.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Let me try and make it as simple as possible. Even if every single one of your claims were true (and for the record, I don’t believe a single word that comes out of your mouth), the problem is you are untrustworthy. Your reputation is shot. We automatically distrust and disbelieve everything you say. So there’s no point going on about IP addresses and keywords. You could be right, but through your own actions, no-one here trusts a word you say.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I love that thread. Thanks for linking to it. Mikey there is pretending like he has no idea who is making the post (me!) he is responding to, yet everyone else in that thread knows that it’s me.
That’s a load of crap, AJ. At least from my point of view.
I read that thread and I didn’t realize it was you until you started in with the “rabid fanbase” crap. Up until that point you expressed your opinion in a very civilized manner, even approaching eloquent. Which in turn earned you a response from Mike.
Any other sane person might learn a small lesson from that, but of course, you didn’t.
truth
MIT made circle mud that lovely lil game for fbi purposes to begin a neat lil project on AI , and what not….they do stuff for feds none of you know aobut in secret as this obviously would show….and all i have to say is SPYING IS WRONG THEY ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR A LOT OF IT.
Especially since the drink or die raids ( go on google those )
FUCK MIT
As a student currently there
I am disappointed (to say the least) by many of the actions taken by the administration.
the questions that come to mind has to therefore be ‘what the fuck are they scared of?’ and ‘what are they trying to hide?’ the next thing to ask is who has decided to go down this road and why? lastly, for the time being at any rate is, what have the Feds told MIT to do and why, plus what have they themselves still got to hide?
questions, questions, questions. it all adds up to another government/security agencies bullying exercise that needlessly cost the death of a brilliant mind, one that could have done the USA a hell of a lot of good, if it were not for the attitudes of a few people.
Didn't think they'd have to face the music?
Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking when they conspire with others to commit crimes against humanity.
If the individual who is “frightened” was really worried what people would think of him/her after the fact – why did they do what they did to begin with?
I don’t have a ton of respect for people who do things they know others will frown upon if they find out.
As an example, whenever I do IT work for companies, I refuse to “spy” on their employees for them – I will usually give them the tools to do it themselves (its their equipment, their company after all), but I refuse to do it for them.
I always think to myself: How would I feel if this individual ever found out? What would I say? How would I feel if I was in their shoes?
Now, on the other hand, if they’re fucking with me directly, all bets are off – you’re going down bitch. And I’d be happy to explain it to your face 😉
Ok this is one for US attorneys.. If the FOIA is towards a government department and a third party is now asking for it to be stopped based on information they supposedly willingly gave the government department how does a NON government department that is not beholden or mandated to by the legislation that involves FOIA have any freakin standing whatsoever in this matter?
Re: Re:
PS: Caveat to the answering.. it is ONLY for attorneys who have actual experience in the practice of law for at least a few years with REAL clients and not fresh graduates.
A word of advice
If Mike really wants to get rid of our most unfavorite troll, there’s a ‘ban’ option in his back end of the site.
I’d suggest he use it soon. This arsehole is cluttering up threads and taking bandwidth that could be better served by using it to communicate, not troll.
As for the argument at hand: MIT is sorta warranted if it’s actually proved that the names of their employees will be disclosed unfairly in the FOIA request-I can see that.
But what if: MIT has some techies that help the NSA do some of the this stuff, and they’re scared crapless that fact will become known?
After all, MIT is where all the techy type stuff gets taught-and I’m sure more than a few NSA people are grads of that finer institution of learning.
Bet they would not like to have those links exposed. Leads to embarrassing situations: “Oh, gee whiz, you matriculated at MIT, and you’re working for the NSA…wonder if they’re helping collect all that information, too.”
Re: A word of advice
Which would be useless in this case. Ban options only work on sites that require registration to comment, unless you’re going to ban an IP address — which is pretty much pointless.
Re: A word of advice
Oh, gee whiz, you matriculated at MIT…
I did? I must have been really drunk at the time.
Wrong word/term
How about “graduated from” instead of “matriculated” at MIT?
Of course with their past record of hiring GED grads,the NSA is definitely not going to hire too smart people. It might lead to more exposure. Just what they need.
About that ban? How about making everyone register so we could know who the dirtbag is that is making everyone’s post so hard to thread through?
I wouldn’t mind-but then again, I’m registered here, too.
Re: Wrong word/term
No need for a ban, would be useless, and the community is quick enough to flag the spam comments anyway. As to who it is, that would be AJ.
Any time someone starts whining about people ‘being too cowardly to debate them’, or apparently ‘Blocking IP/MAC addresses due to excessive spaming(though he’d never be honest enough to admit to spamming the site)’, it’s pretty much a given it’s AJ.