Re: Fwd: Re: Hunting for Mr Badmouth (mostly O.T. and long)

[Charley Hamilton <chamilto () uci edu>]

Rockit,

Short comment:  There is inadequate evidence presented in the OP for
anyone to make a moral judgement about the OP and his reasons for
trying to "track" the individual in question.  The OP asked a technical
question, and if you feel morally offended by the question, ignore it.

That said:

Rockit wrote:

>  "short of a court order" ? Can't prove libel ? (and yes, the burden of proof
>  would be upon you...so I am assuming that this person is actually telling 
the > truth about the "company") Sounds like a vendetta to me ! (after reviewing
> your email header, it's a personal address, not a company one, which doesn't
> help your case any !)

I would argue that one reason for using a personal email over a company one,
assuming your review of the headers is correct, is to keep this from becoming
a public issue until after it has been addressed privately.   Possibly, the 
company does not permit posting to mailing lists from comany accounts.
How do you know why the email account used is personal, if, in fact, it is?

You have assumed the person (Mr. Badmouth) is telling the truth, when in fact 
you have no supporting evidence for the case.  Does this tendency to assumption 
on the part of the uninvolved public (e.g. you, Rockit) in itself not argue
that the company in question should be able to pursue (at least) bilateral 
communication with the poster?  How can such communication be established 
without response from the alleged defamer?  Are we not entitled to defend 
ourselves against our accusers?  I recall something about that appearing
in US case law, as well.

Anonymity should not be a mask behind which one can hide when making untrue 
statements about any entity, corporate or otherwise.  If it's true, present
your evidence and permit the entity to rebut.  Otherwise, state the fact
that you don't like the entity and leave it at that.  False assertions are 
inappropraite.  Period.

>  There are way too many companies and individuals trying to manipulate the
> justice system when it comes to the internet, especially in the civil courts,
> because the laws don't support imagined criminal wrongs. So, I have one
> question for you....ever hear of the first amendment and freedom of
> speech ???

I agree that there is currently a race to over-regulate the internet
in ways which are largely inappropriate and under-informed on the part
of the government, as well as abuses and misuses on the part of many major
corporations and industrial associations.  I do not agree that this
is a pertinent issue, here.  Libel is libel, whether in print or
electronic media.  If it is actually libel, this is not an imagined
wrong.

Although I do not generally agree with Engels on matters, I believe
his assertion, "Your freedom ends where the freedom of others begins,
and only there.", is pertinent to this discussion.  A person's freedom
to make a statement, printed or otherwise, should not enable the person
to make defamatory comments about another entity (human or otherwise).
This would infringe on the entity's right to pursue happiness.
I seem to recall that appearing in U.S. founding doctrine, as well.

I don't generally like MS software, but to assert that my first amendment
rights permit me to call all MS software "intentionally and unrecoverably
flawed" is IMO simply overreaching the scope of the law.  Granted, IANAL,
so there is a strong possibility that I'm wrong.  However, given that
defamation, libel, and slander laws exist, I am pretty sure there is *some*
legal limit to free expression, and there certainly is a logical limit (see
Engels' assertion above).  If I started to call you a dirty SOB and
refused to give proof you were both unwashed *and* a canine, you would
have grounds for suit.  Period.

>  I can only hope that no one in this list will help your vigilantism
>  styled tactics of violating someone's civil liberties !

Vigilantism?  The OP's questions seemed to aim at tracking
someone who had allegedly defamed a company with which I assume
the OP is affiliated, based on the OP.  It says nothing about what
the plan is for what to do *after* the person is identified and
contacted.  Perhaps there is a plan to serve the person with a legal
summons.  If there is no evidence presented by the alleged defamer to
support the position, and the alleged defamer is not identified, how
is the company in question to determine whether or not the charge is
true and present adequate evidence to a judge to obtain such a court
order?  Of course, obtaining an order might be easier than I think,
but I doubt it.

Just my $0.02.

Charley





---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training Federal, September 29-30 (Training), 
October 1-2 (Briefings) in Tysons Corner, VA; the world's premier 
technical IT security event.  Modeled after the famous Black Hat event in 
Las Vegas! 6 tracks, 12 training sessions, top speakers and sponsors.  
Symantec is the Diamond sponsor.  Early-bird registration ends September 6.Visit us: www.blackhat.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------