identity theft
E. Robert Tisdale
E. Robert Tisdale <e.robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
Note that this is *not* <E.Robert...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Keith Thompson
I'm posting this followup for those who have ERT killfiled.
It appears that someone has been posting as "E. Robert Tisdale"
<e.robert...@gmail.com>; ERT of JPL says (and I have no reason to
doubt) that this isn't him. (It did seem a bit odd that ERT would be
asking for a C99 tutorial.)
It's conceivable, I suppose, that this happens to be someone else with
the same name, but it's more likely that someone is attempting to
masquerade as ERT for some reason.
To whoever is posting as e.robert...@gmail.com: Knock it off.
Post as yourself or under a pseudonym if you like, or not at all.
We've had our quarrels with the real ERT, but that doesn't mean we're
going to tolerate identity theft.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Old Wolf
Obviously. His post wasn't a troll.
CBFalconer
> E. Robert Tisdale <e.robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Note that this is *not* <E.Robert...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Oh, maybe it is the new ERT, abandoning his trolling and
misinformation. We can always hope.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
infobahn
Did he (the gmail guy) claim that it was?
Keith Thompson
I think that using "e.robert.tisdale" as an e-mail address in a
newsgroup with a regular poster by that name is effectively such a
claim (unless, by a remarkable coincidence, the gmail.com user happens
to have the same name).
Richard Bos
> "E. Robert Tisdale" <E.Robert...@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
> > In article <1109278095.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > E. Robert Tisdale <e.robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Note that this is *not* <E.Robert...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
>
> I'm posting this followup for those who have ERT killfiled.
>
> It appears that someone has been posting as "E. Robert Tisdale"
> <e.robert...@gmail.com>; ERT of JPL says (and I have no reason to
> doubt) that this isn't him. (It did seem a bit odd that ERT would be
> asking for a C99 tutorial.)
However, the initial post in that thread (which does ask for "a textbook
to replace K&R2" that "should explain all of the new C99 features", and
has Message-ID <cvj8o0$qpm$1...@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov>) _is_ by ERT of JPL.
Only the follow-up comes from GMail.
Richard
Ben Pfaff
> I think that using "e.robert.tisdale" as an e-mail address in a
> newsgroup with a regular poster by that name is effectively such a
> claim (unless, by a remarkable coincidence, the gmail.com user happens
> to have the same name).
Do we even know that the guy with the JPL address has that name?
--
"I'm not here to convince idiots not to be stupid.
They won't listen anyway."
--Dann Corbit
CBFalconer
> infobahn <info...@btinternet.com> writes:
>> "E. Robert Tisdale" wrote:
>>> E. Robert Tisdale <e.robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Note that this is *not* <E.Robert...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
>>
>> Did he (the gmail guy) claim that it was?
>
> I think that using "e.robert.tisdale" as an e-mail address in a
> newsgroup with a regular poster by that name is effectively such
> a claim (unless, by a remarkable coincidence, the gmail.com user
> happens to have the same name).
While I don't have any special sympathy for Trollsdale, any such
fake identity needs to be stomped on early and often on general
principles. It is actually pretty harmless, because I suspect a
large proportion of c.l.c regulars have ERT in the plonk bin
already.
Of course ERT should have complained to gmail in the first place.
In the past such free email accounts have been remarkably
cooperative in shutting down impersonators.
Thomas Stegen
> Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> writes:
>
>
>>I think that using "e.robert.tisdale" as an e-mail address in a
>>newsgroup with a regular poster by that name is effectively such a
>>claim (unless, by a remarkable coincidence, the gmail.com user happens
>>to have the same name).
>
>
> Do we even know that the guy with the JPL address has that name?
Whether E. Robert Tisdale is a real name or not of someone working
at JPL is highly irrelevant. It is by this handle we know this guy
and anyone using a "fake" handle with the same name to cause
confusion is in the wrong.
--
Thomas.
Keith Thompson
A bit of searching on groups.google.com shows 3 articles posted by
e.robert...@gmail.com, all in comp.lang.c, and all within a few
minutes on February 24. The headers indicate that they were posted
through groups.google.com from an ISP in Quebec.
Mark McIntyre
<cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Of course ERT should have complained to gmail in the first place.
>In the past such free email accounts have been remarkably
>cooperative in shutting down impersonators.
Its neither identity theft nor preventable. If either were the case, then
every older John Smith would be busy suing the parents of every younger
John Smith for identity theft.
Its identity theft when someone claims to be you, not when someone
coincidentally has the same name.
Or did personal names get copyright protection over the pond, along with
software, and I didn't notice? :-)
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Keith Thompson
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:27:59 GMT, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer
> <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course ERT should have complained to gmail in the first place.
>>In the past such free email accounts have been remarkably
>>cooperative in shutting down impersonators.
>
> Its neither identity theft nor preventable. If either were the case, then
> every older John Smith would be busy suing the parents of every younger
> John Smith for identity theft.
>
> Its identity theft when someone claims to be you, not when someone
> coincidentally has the same name.
>
> Or did personal names get copyright protection over the pond, along with
> software, and I didn't notice? :-)
If the gmail poster actually has the same name, it's obviously not
identity theft. If the name in question were "John Smith", a
coincidence of names would be likely.
But "E. Robert Tisdale" is not a common name, and the gmail user
posted using that name in the same thread that E. Robert Tisdale of
JPL had posted to. When I posted a followup, I didn't even notice the
site name; if I had, I would have assumed that ERT of JPL was simply
using a gmail address.
The most likely explanation is that someone, probably in Quebec, is
deliberately using a gmail.com address to masquerade as ERT. It might
even be a comp.lang.c regular trying to annoy ERT (for the record,
it's not me). I have no idea whether it's illegal or grounds for a
lawsuit, but it does appear to be a form of identify theft.
There are other possibilities. The gmail user could really be named
"E. Robert Tisdale" (and either didn't notice that there's already a
regular in this newsgroup with the same name, or didn't bother to
mention that he's not the same person). The real ERT of JPL could be
playing games with us (and has gone out of his way to post through an
ISP in Quebec, and is blatantly lying about not being the same
person). But I don't think either of these explanations is likely.
I agree that the real ERT should complain to gmail; perhaps he's
already done so.
At this point, the best thing for the fake ERT to do would be to just
go away. Since groups.google.com still shows only 3 articles from the
gmail user, he or she may have already done so. I suggest dropping
this until or unless we hear something more on the topic from either
of the ERTs.
Alan Balmer
<markmc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:27:59 GMT, in comp.lang.c , CBFalconer
><cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Of course ERT should have complained to gmail in the first place.
>>In the past such free email accounts have been remarkably
>>cooperative in shutting down impersonators.
>
>Its neither identity theft nor preventable. If either were the case, then
>every older John Smith would be busy suing the parents of every younger
>John Smith for identity theft.
>
>Its identity theft when someone claims to be you, not when someone
>coincidentally has the same name.
Do you know that to be the case? Possible, of course, but seems
unlikely.
>
>Or did personal names get copyright protection over the pond, along with
>software, and I didn't notice? :-)
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerc...@att.net
Mark McIntyre
<alba...@att.net> wrote:
>
>Do you know that to be the case? Possible, of course, but seems
>unlikely.
Last time I checked, the principle of "innocent till proven guilty" still
applied.
Of course, in 72 hours, this may no longer apply in the UK, what with the
latest plans to introduce internment without trial. :-(
Keith Thompson
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:51:59 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Alan Balmer
> <alba...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>Do you know that to be the case? Possible, of course, but seems
>>unlikely.
>
> Last time I checked, the principle of "innocent till proven guilty" still
> applied.
In a court of law. This is not a court of law; we have no authority
to put anybody in prison, and nobody has been accused of a crime.
Because of that, we're not bound by the same rules of evidence. We're
free to apply common sense.
Randy Howard
markmc...@spamcop.net says...
> Of course, in 72 hours, this may no longer apply in the UK, what with the
> latest plans to introduce internment without trial. :-(
a surprise now?
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
infobahn
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:51:59 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Alan Balmer
> <alba...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >Do you know that to be the case? Possible, of course, but seems
> >unlikely.
>
> Last time I checked, the principle of "innocent till proven guilty" still
> applied.
It has never applied. The principle is closer to "not found to be
guilty of this crime until proven guilty of this crime". Judges and
policemen are perfectly aware that /everybody/ over the age of about
two days[1] is guilty of some crime or other, and that therefore there
is no such thing as an innocent.
[1] In case you're wondering, "breach of the peace" if nothing else!
> Of course, in 72 hours, this may no longer apply in the UK, what with the
> latest plans to introduce internment without trial. :-(
The UK has been going to hell in a handbasket ever since Queen
Victoria died. This is just part of a continuing trend. Will the
last free man to leave the UK please turn out the light at the
end of the tunnel?
Walter Roberson
Mark McIntyre <markmc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
:On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:20:05 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
:<ks...@mib.org> wrote:
:>In a court of law. This is not a court of law; we have no authority
:>to put anybody in prison, and nobody has been accused of a crime.
:>Because of that, we're not bound by the same rules of evidence. We're
:>free to apply common sense.
:*ahem*. You err.
:I /strongly/ suspect that the *instant* you make a public allegation, you
:place yourself into a legal situation and must be prepared to apply the
:same rules of evidence that a) you'd expect to be judged by yourself and b)
:would be applied in a court of law . If this were not so, then the laws of
:slander and libel would not exist...
Slander and libel are most often civil charges rather than criminal
charges. There is an important distinction between the two WRT the
"rules of evidence". Civil suits only require "balance of probabilities",
and civil suits have more leeway to apply "common sense" than do
criminal charges.
The laws regarding slander and libel vary greatly from country to
country.
In the USA, it is an absolute defence to standard libel suits
if the remarks made were true, but there is a relatively new
law, "malicious libel" for which the truth of the remarks is irrelevant
if it can be shown that the remarks were made with "reckless disregard"
for the truth [think tabloid journalism].
In Canada, truth is not an absolute defence, but there is a long
list of defences having to do with public debate and reasonable
-belief- that the matter was true; the circumstances under which
truth is -not- a defence have to do with making remarks which go
inordinately "beyond what is reasonable under the circumstancs".
In the UK, truth isn't very much of a defence at all, as best
I can tell: the question is more whether it was "necessary" to publish
it at all: if the person's reputation was hurt by the publication then
they can often win even if every word of it was true. This, incidently,
is why the famous Usenet Libel cases were all run in the UK.
So... libel and slander are strange legal beasts, not really
comparable to anything else; effectively, the rules of evidence
are different for them than for other matters -- and in many countries,
"common sense" doesn't work very well when it comes to slander and libel.
--
Contents: 100% recycled post-consumer statements.
Mark McIntyre
<ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>Mark McIntyre <markmc...@spamcop.net> writes:
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:51:59 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Alan Balmer
>> <alba...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Do you know that to be the case? Possible, of course, but seems
>>>unlikely.
>>
>> Last time I checked, the principle of "innocent till proven guilty" still
>> applied.
>
>In a court of law. This is not a court of law; we have no authority
>to put anybody in prison, and nobody has been accused of a crime.
>Because of that, we're not bound by the same rules of evidence. We're
>free to apply common sense.
*ahem*. You err.
I /strongly/ suspect that the *instant* you make a public allegation, you
place yourself into a legal situation and must be prepared to apply the
same rules of evidence that a) you'd expect to be judged by yourself and b)
would be applied in a court of law . If this were not so, then the laws of
slander and libel would not exist...
--
Keith Thompson
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:20:05 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
> <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>>Mark McIntyre <markmc...@spamcop.net> writes:
>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:51:59 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Alan Balmer
>>> <alba...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Do you know that to be the case? Possible, of course, but seems
>>>>unlikely.
>>>
>>> Last time I checked, the principle of "innocent till proven guilty" still
>>> applied.
>>
>>In a court of law. This is not a court of law; we have no authority
>>to put anybody in prison, and nobody has been accused of a crime.
>>Because of that, we're not bound by the same rules of evidence. We're
>>free to apply common sense.
>
> *ahem*. You err.
>
> I /strongly/ suspect that the *instant* you make a public allegation, you
> place yourself into a legal situation and must be prepared to apply the
> same rules of evidence that a) you'd expect to be judged by yourself and b)
> would be applied in a court of law . If this were not so, then the laws of
> slander and libel would not exist...
I have repeatedly acknowledged that it's possible that the person
posting as "e.robert...@gmail.com" really is named E. Robert
Tisdale, and really isn't the same person as E. Robert Tisdale of JPL.
Do you honestly think that's the most likely explanation?
I have also said, and I'll say again now, that the most likely
explanation is that someone, for whatever reason, attempted to deceive
us by posting with the name "E. Robert Tisdale". I'm not worried
about being sued for libel for stating this obvious conclusion, one
that any reasonable person would reach.
But if you're so worried about it, perhaps you should worry about me
suing you for accusing me of commiting libel.
This whole thing is ridiculous.
Richard Tobin
Walter Roberson <robe...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
>In the UK, truth isn't very much of a defence at all, as best
>I can tell: the question is more whether it was "necessary" to publish
>it at all: if the person's reputation was hurt by the publication then
>they can often win even if every word of it was true.
There is a public interest defence. And I'd be interested in your
definition of "often" - can you provide some recent examples?
>This, incidently,
>is why the famous Usenet Libel cases were all run in the UK.
Are you suggesting that there has been a "Usenet Libel" trial in the
UK where the defendant lost even though they were telling the truth?
From the cases I've seen reported, the situation in practice is not
very different in Britain than in countries where truth is an absolute
defence.
-- Richard
Walter Roberson
Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
|In article <cvt2np$3kn$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
|Walter Roberson <robe...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
|>In the UK, truth isn't very much of a defence at all, as best
|>I can tell: the question is more whether it was "necessary" to publish
|>it at all: if the person's reputation was hurt by the publication then
|>they can often win even if every word of it was true.
|There is a public interest defence. And I'd be interested in your
|definition of "often" - can you provide some recent examples?
I am thinking of the example of the celeb photographed exiting from
a rehab clinic after having publically said that she had not had
any drug problems; if I recall correctly, the celeb won the case on
appeal, on the basis that the public interest in the matter did
not outweigh the celeb's right to "privacy", even though the celeb
was apparently lying the public.
:>This, incidently,
:>is why the famous Usenet Libel cases were all run in the UK.
:Are you suggesting that there has been a "Usenet Libel" trial in the
:UK where the defendant lost even though they were telling the truth?
When it comes to libel, "truth" can be a matter of interpretation.
In at least one of the Usenet Libel cases, I agreed with the
criticisms that sparked the trial, and considered the comments
to be fair under the circumstances, and would not consider the
plaintiff's reputation to have been "harmed" by the explicit
phrasing of what many people were likely thinking about the plaintiff.
None the less, the defendant lost completely under UK law, with the
judge effectively ruling that the defendant did not "need" to
make the remarks.
You will have to forgive me if I do not make clear which case
I am thinking of: I have no wish to be sued by the plaintiff of that
case.
--
"The human genome is powerless in the face of chocolate."
-- Dr. Adam Drewnowski
Richard Tobin
Walter Roberson <robe...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
>I am thinking of the example of the celeb photographed exiting from
>a rehab clinic after having publically said that she had not had
>any drug problems;
Presumably you mean the case of Naomi Campbell, in which she sued the
Daily Mirror for "breach of confidentiality", not libel. Even
Campbell did not claim that the Mirror could not report that she was
being treated for drug addiction. The publication of details of her
treatment and a photograph were found to be a violation of her privacy
that outweighed the public interest.
>if I recall correctly, the celeb won the case on
>appeal, on the basis that the public interest in the matter did
>not outweigh the celeb's right to "privacy", even though the celeb
>was apparently lying the public.
No, it was accepted by both sides that the fact that she had lied did
make it be in the public interest for the Mirror to report the fact of
her treatment. It was the publication of a photograph, not reporting
of facts, that determined this poarticular case.
>You will have to forgive me if I do not make clear which case
>I am thinking of: I have no wish to be sued by the plaintiff of that
>case.
I can't really argue with that.
-- Richard
Alan Balmer
<markmc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:51:59 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Alan Balmer
><alba...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>Do you know that to be the case? Possible, of course, but seems
>>unlikely.
>
>Last time I checked, the principle of "innocent till proven guilty" still
>applied.
It's *presumed* innocent until proven guilty. And has nothing to do
with probabilities.
>
>Of course, in 72 hours, this may no longer apply in the UK, what with the
>latest plans to introduce internment without trial. :-(
--
Mark McIntyre
(Walter Roberson) wrote:
>I am thinking of the example of the celeb photographed exiting from
>a rehab clinic after having publically said that she had not had
>any drug problems; if I recall correctly, the celeb won the case on
>appeal,
and quite right too
>on the basis that the public interest in the matter did
>not outweigh the celeb's right to "privacy", even though the celeb
>was apparently lying the public.
and what businesss of our is it that she had a habit, and was embarassed /
ashamed to admit to it?
Don't get me started on 'public interest', the blasted law was introduced
to protect people revealing stuff that was important for the public to know
(crooked arms deals, illegal health & safety stuff etc), but has been
subverted to mean "stuff that people want to read about". Gah.