
In Chatlogs, Celebrated Hacker and Activist Confesses Countless Sexual Assaults - alphabettsy
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/19/16675704/morgan-marquis-boire-hacker-sexual-assault
======
kevinburke
Several comments in this thread seem to purport that we shouldn't say or
assume anything about the truth of the matter until he is proven guilty in a
court of law.

That's a really ridiculous standard, for a few reasons:

\- The standard of proof in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt",
which is a very high bar to meet. (FWIW, I think it meets it in this case). We
made it that high because _we would rather a guilty person walk free_ than put
an innocent person in jail. The costs of you and I incorrectly choosing not to
associate with someone are far lower. There are other standards for guilt in
other cases, such as "more probable than not" in civil trials.

\- A prosecutor may believe a crime has occurred but decline to bring a case
for a number of reasons (limited budget, jurisdiction, statute of limitations,
difficulty or unreliability of evidence, because they think they don't have a
good chance to win)

\- We make decisions all the time about who we'll partner with, who we hire,
who we fire, based on standards far lower than this. In general it's not a
crime to be an asshole but you'd never say I should wait until it's proven in
court before deciding not to hire one.

There's more than enough evidence about this person specifically, and in most
cases, for me/you to feel fine never associating with this person, or working
with an organization he's involved with, ever again, even if a court of law
never gets involved.

~~~
Scarblac
That is reasonable for individuals. But it's on here, in Google, lots of other
sites -- millions of people who had never heard of him now form an opinion of
him based on this article (or just the comments, or the headline). It's
probably career destroying.

That's in effect more like jail time than like some individuals shunning him.

~~~
geofft
A career is not a right. The ability to access food, water, and shelter—life,
liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—are rights. I hope he gets a
job and a roof over his head. I don't hope he gets any more glowing profiles
in the media.

There are plenty of careers I'm more worried about than his, starting with
those of his victims, and probably continuing to those who could have been
famous hackers were it not for the accidents of their birth.

~~~
Idontknowmyuser
the right for a fair trial with a Presumption of innocence IS A RIGHT. trial
by media does not honor that right.

~~~
geofft
No, there is no right to a fair "trial by media". Quite the opposite in fact:
restricting the media to a government-defined standard of "fair" would
infringe upon a free press. In general, the free press is most important when
it is reporting on a legal situation that opposes the government's narrative.

The right about trials is about a fair trial _by the government_ , and is a
check on the government's power to punish.

~~~
Idontknowmyuser
NO, I disagree the right of a fair trial holds regardless of the system. it's
about the accused not the system. otherwise lynch mobs would be justified.

~~~
geofft
A lynch mob is not justified because a lynch mob goes on to _enact punishment_
, usually via hanging, which is murder.

If you are using the word "lynch mob" in a rhetorical way to refer to people
who are not depriving you of life, liberty, or property, arguments about
actual lynch mobs do not apply. A so-called "lynch mob" that merely has
opinions about you and does not do anything to you is not unjust any more than
a high school mock trial club is unjust. A so-called "lynch mob" that has
opinions about you and goes on to do entirely legal things, like exert their
free speech rights to publish their opinions about you, is not unjust, either.

~~~
Idontknowmyuser
responding now might be inappropriate but for the record: one of the main
premises of my response is that public ostracization is used as a form of
punishment. ( I stated if in one of the previous comments).

historical data support my claim as wikipedia points: "Public humiliation is
the dishonoring showcase of a person, usually an offender or a prisoner,
especially in a public place. It was regularly used as a form of punishment in
former times, and is still practiced by different means in the modern era."

------
mlazos
Something that gives me hope in the recent wave of sexual assault revelations
is that I think we are getting closer to a point where victims are getting
more comfortable reporting what has happened. As long as this trend continues
this will allow opportunity for the justice system to actually work as
intended because victims might feel comfortable enough to report what has
happened before the statute of limitations has expired.

------
stareatgoats
Innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) has been put to the test and
found lacking in the current wave of revelations. The main reason for this
seems to be that too many appeal institutions have been protecting perps, out
of some notion that such abuse is not important enough (or something!).
Complaints have not been taken sufficiently seriously to start serious
investigations leading to serious consequences. This is the situation which
actually legitimizes public shaming of the perps, and which will allow victims
(women mostly) to get a fairer hearing moving forwards, and not continue to be
told to keep quiet and endure, or worse. And so we can hopefully expect to
return to upholding 'innocent until proven guilty' once these (seemingly new)
moral standards have taken hold even in places of authority. Because that is
one of the hallmarks of a civilized society.

~~~
geofft
It's also important to remember that innocent until proven guilty is a check
on the otherwise unchecked, absolute, and final power of _the state_ depriving
a citizen of their fundamental rights by imprisoning them. If you are not a
state, it may well still be a good ideal, but it's not nearly as binding on
you—in much the same way that e.g. free speech is also a good ideal for
individuals and companies but you are not obligated to avoid having opinions
on the content of speech the way the state is.

~~~
anigbrowl
Obviously, but the idea that we can only have one standard or the other seems
like a false dichotomy. Maybe we should be looking at how to take a more
Bayesian approach to legal decision-making.

~~~
geofft
Sure. The legal system does sort of support that - the standard of evidence in
a criminal trial is a lot higher than in a civil suit. It's quite possible to
be in a situation where for some reason the government cannot punish you for a
crime (maybe failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, maybe expiry of the
statute of limitations, which is also a check on the government's power), but
someone can publish that you have committed a crime, and another suit will
decide that what they've said is true enough to avoid them having libeled you.
Or they can find you in breach of a contract where you said you wouldn't do
what you did, etc.

(My understanding is that this is basically why you sometimes see contracts
banning illegal behavior. It's hard to prove illegal behavior to the extent
required to throw you in prison, and that's a good thing, but it's easier to
find you in breach of contract.)

------
mynewtb
That person being 'Marquis-Boire', a name I have never heard before.

------
jnordwick
I am hoping more of those involved in technology come forward. I've heard
horrible stories from others, and tech isn't immune to this national cleaning
house that is long overdue.

#metoo isn't just for the entertainment industry.

------
deftturtle
Whatever became of Jacob Appelbaum? Plenty of people have accused him of
sexual assault, but it's been months since I've heard anything.

------
tomjen3
Corndoge below has been downvoted so badly that I can no longer reply, but he
does have a point: the proper place to solve this is through the courts, not
through the press.

~~~
Buldak
> the proper place to solve this is through the courts

Solve what? The question of whether he should be imprisoned or face other
legal penalties, yes. But it's a mistake to conflate that with dealings with
Marquis-Boire in general.

