
Jacob Appelbaum’s response to accusations by the Tor community - byoogle
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1soorlp
======
rdl
So far, the only thing I'm fairly sure of is the "jacobappelbaum.net" and
"@DieJakeDie" social media efforts are doing more harm than good, and were a
horrible idea.

They might make a not-extremely-guilty person look worse than he is, or make a
horrible person somehow sympathetic to people who think he's "also a victim",
but they don't help.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
OK, what would you do, then?

If the people he's exploited stay silent, then he can keep doing it!

Going through the legal system isn't much help in a community which is
distrustful of it.

Complaining to the person in question, well, they've tried that, and it did
nothing.

And if they don't group their stories together, then it's harder for people to
find the accusations against him. There is strength, and more importantly in
this case, credibility, in numbers.

~~~
petertodd
> And if they don't group their stories together, then it looks like there's
> few accusations against him.

As long as the accusations on that site are made anonymously, it doesn't look
like there are any concrete accusations against him.

~~~
vintermann
I'd be surprised if acquaintances of Appelbaum can't piece together who are
making these accusations. That's the point too, they probably want to warn
people without outing to the world exactly who suffered what.

But that also means there's enough info that the same people could easily
speak up in Appelbaum's defense if the allegations are untrue - since they're
a lot about stuff he's done in public. They haven't so far.

~~~
petertodd
Without specifics, there's not enough information in the allegations to
attempt to speak up in defense - if you didn't personally witness one of these
alleged assaults, you would be loath to say they didn't happen on a different
occasion. Perhaps Appelbaum is careful in choosing victims, perhaps the
assaults never happened. You just don't know, so you say nothing.

Putting specific details to the allegations on the other hand would make that
quite possible - a lack of defense in that case would be an indication that
the accusations were true. But without specifics that's not the case.

------
justcommenting
Former Tor Project Executive Director Andrew Lewman's perspective might be
interesting on this topic, but the DailyDot story was the only one for which
I've seen him quoted ([https://www.dailydot.com/politics/jacob-appelbaum-tor-
projec...](https://www.dailydot.com/politics/jacob-appelbaum-tor-project-
sexual-misconduct/)).

Notably, Lewman volunteers at Transition House
([http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/10/01/technology-used-as-
wea...](http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/10/01/technology-used-as-weapon-in-
domestic-abuse-cases/)), founded IPVTech (Intimate Partner Violence tech), and
appears to work/volunteer with other organizations associated with victims of
domestic and/or sexual abuse ([http://wiki.lewman.is/CV#work-with-trauma-
victims-including-...](http://wiki.lewman.is/CV#work-with-trauma-victims-
including-victims-of-domestic-abuseintimate-partner-violence)).

Perhaps Lewman was unaware (this seems unlikely given the DailyDot article's
reporting of "mishandling" or "botching" the situation), but it would surprise
me if someone with that orientation turned a blind eye to the alleged
behavior.

------
nabla9
In cases like these, most people (like me) who read these exchanges have no
idea what is true and what is not. Either there is rape or not. If not, there
is libel and slander. In any case Internet publicity is not correct place to
get justice.

~~~
nisa
There is a pretty clear common theme displayed on the Twitter accounts of
people that are in this community and know each other personally. These are
also not outsiders but trusted members of the community. So far the response
is either silence or acknowledgement of the accusations. This is not a trail
but it looks like the attempt to remove a toxic person from this community to
prevent harm to others. This does not mean that he is guilty of the
accusations but a lot of persons related to CCC congress, hackers, Tor members
univocally agree that it's a good idea to have him step down and exclude him.
There seems to be enough personal backstories that everyone seem to agree it's
the right thing to do.

At least that's my impression from the outside. This is not some kind of
government orchestrated smear campaign, rather an effort to prevent harm.

~~~
nabla9
>At least that's my impression from the outside.

It has no value. We who are outsiders in the drama can't contribute and our
impressions can be false. Some of use are just drawn into the drama and can't
avoid taking sides.

Creating impressions is how internet drama works.

~~~
powera
If outsiders can't contribute, why are you commenting on it (twice!) here?

~~~
mwfunk
Fine, contributing in the form of saying "we can't contribute here" is the one
way in which we can contribute. Happy? That seems pretty obvious, no need to
call people out for supposed double standards.

------
captainmuon
In cases like this where it is word against word, I think it is important as
an outsider to hedge your bet. Act as if the allegations are true and false at
the same time.

Assuming they are true: make sure to create a safe space (virtually, in real
live, and in discourse) for potential victims. Don't put the accused person on
sensitive community functions. Take (this and further) accusations very
seriously. If someone doesn't want to deal with him, don't push the matter and
don't ask why. You want to avoid retraumatization of potential victims, and
you want to create a climate where affected people can feel safe. You should
give people raising these accusations the benefit of doubt, and resist the
urge to dig for proof or to argue about what actually happened or not.
Especially given how hard it is for victims to get recognition and justice by
going through the "official" channels, i.e. court. (This is basically the idea
that is discussed as "power of definition" among feminists in Germany; I'm not
sure how it's referred to in other countries, a quick search didn't come up
with much.)

Assuming they are false: It's rarer than most people think that accusations of
sexual abuse are falsely raised, but it is still a possibility. Especially
given that he is a exposed public figure and possible target for "character
assassination". Any scenario could be possible, from personal revenge to a
smear campaign by an intelligence agency. One should protect oneself from this
possibility, whether it is real or not. Don't exclude him from your
communities. Don't stop using his software, don't judge or punish him. Don't
give him the punishment of shunning.

Basically you have to do an impossible balancing act. You don't want to
perpetuate this patriarchal shit that lets men often get away with sexualized
violence. But you also don't want whoever might be _abusing_ this claim
(agencies, personal enemies, ...) to win. So the only sane course is to be all
about protection of victims, providing a safe space etc., but not punishing
anybody.

~~~
geofft
> _Any scenario could be possible, from personal revenge to a smear campaign
> by an intelligence agency._

It's also worth being aware of the possibility that Jacob Appelbaum is
_himself_ an agent of an intelligence agency (either a plant, or someone
turned informant once they realized they could blackmail him and that a creep
is a useful informant), and his behavior is a way to maintain his power and in
turn the intelligence agency's.

Argument 1: [https://inciteblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/why-
misogynists-...](https://inciteblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/why-misogynists-
make-great-informants-how-gender-violence-on-the-left-enables-state-violence-
in-radical-movements/)

Argument 2: [https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-
nickf4rr-35c32f...](https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-
nickf4rr-35c32f13da4d)

 _" But really, I thought, why would Jake be so defensive about some random
[lightning talk] that might have otherwise gone completely unnoticed? If I
were a government operative hell-bent on destroying the global hacker
community, what would I do differently from what Jake is doing now?"_

I don't think this is particularly likely over the simpler explanation that
he's a non-government-affiliated creep, but if we're going to give credence to
"A government agency that hates Tor was behind this," it's worth looking at
all the possible ways a government agency might get an advantage out of the
situation.

~~~
Chris2048
While conspiracy theory is a risky proposition, in this case the agencies
involved _are_ known for such things. COINTELPRO, prism etc, so it's no
entirely implausible to raise such concerns.

~~~
tptacek
First: no, this is not plausible.

Second, a question: exactly what is it that people think Jacob Appelbaum did
to make him Public Enemy #1 of any government? He's not an especially
important Tor contributor. Tor is not only funded by the US Government, but it
began as a project at the Naval Research Lab.

He's a spokesperson for Wikileaks, and Wikileaks has gotten itself engaged in
serious legal issues with the US Government, but he's far from the only person
who's done that, and it's not at all clear why anyone should believe he's ever
had an important operational role with WL (as opposed to being an advocate).

Why would Appelbaum be singled out for "black ops" like this while Glenn
Greenwald is spared? Greenwald had an operational role in leaking intelligence
secrets from the US Government; not only that, but he's still sitting on a
large cache of documents and gradually leaking them out.

A Wired article today suggested that Appelbaum had "close to rock-star status"
in the hacker community. Which community would that be? His reputation in the
_security_ hacker is minimal; he's known primarily for being known.

What's so important about Appelbaum that he'd be a state-level target? For
_any_ government?

~~~
geofft
I think you've conflated the conspiracy that I'm suggesting with the
conspiracy suggested by the comment above me. To be clear, I don't think
either of these conspiracies are plausible: the simplest theory that fits the
evidence is "He's a creep". But I'm suggesting a very different conspiracy
from one Appelbaum is insinuating: not that the government has beleaguered him
with false accusations, but that the accusations are true, and that the fact
that they are true is somehow related to him working for the government.

It's clear that his force of personality -- his "rock-star status", his "known
for being known", etc. -- was able to censor talks at 30C3 (if Nick Farr's
story is true, which I think it is). Is it so unlikely that this is the only
time he did something like that? There are other reports of him passing off
research as his own when it was actually by other people, and people being
advised to let it go and not draw his ire. He's able to silence people in the
security community, which is very powerful.

It's implausible that he _himself_ is an enemy for his own work, but that's
not what a mole or informant is for. It's somewhat more plausible (though,
again, I think still unlikely) that he was a long-time informant, and his goal
was to provide coercion about specific things being done in the security
community and to silence specific voices.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> There are other reports of him passing off research as his own when it was
> actually by other people, and people being advised to let it go and not draw
> his ire.

Where are those reports though?

~~~
geofft
There's this one:

[https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739672273783652353](https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739672273783652353)

[https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739672512720576513](https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/739672512720576513)

I recall seeing a few other claims along these lines on Twitter, but Twitter's
ability to search your own timeline is atrocious.

~~~
tptacek
There is perhaps no journalist on the entire Internet less trustworthy.

~~~
adrienne
Why? What's your beef with Norton?

------
byoogle
Previously:

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11831629](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11831629)

2\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11837901](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11837901)

~~~
smartbit
3\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842301](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842301)

with this [0] notable comment "Now that Nick has written his story however, it
goes back on the front page of HN and the comments here basically support it
as totally credible. ... Don't get me wrong, I very very much think that Nick
should write up his story and feelings. But I think a lot of people need to
examine themselves closely for why they couldn't believe the women who shared
their stories yesterday, but now can today."

Jake doesn't mention Nick Farr's accusation. I've been missing Nick the last
years at C3 too. Now I know Nick's side of the story, I wonder how the CCC
Vorstand [1] and Jake react to censoring the Lightning Talk?

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842977](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11842977)

[1] [http://www.ccc.de/vorstand](http://www.ccc.de/vorstand)

~~~
petertodd
> "But I think a lot of people need to examine themselves closely for why they
> couldn't believe the women who shared their stories yesterday, but now can
> today."

I think this shows how putting your reputation on the line when you accuse
someone makes the accusation itself far more powerful and likely to believed;
remember that no-one has yet publicly and non-anonymously(1) accused him of
rape directly, but rather, have only said that others have accused him.

I hope that if these allegations are true, people in addition to Nick Farr
will have the bravery to go public with them - that's what's needed to
actually put a stop to abusers.

1) In this context, "non-anonymously" includes commonly used pseudonyms of
course - the legal names of people aren't what's important, but rather the
identities they commonly use.

~~~
hackuser
> I think this shows how putting your reputation on the line when you accuse
> someone makes the accusation itself far more powerful and likely to believed

I agree, but that has to be balanced with the costs, and especially the costs
to rape victims.

------
fredgrott
What is strange:

First, both the accusers and the accused should have their day in court. It
should not be debated any other way.

That being said the TOR project had an obligation to be transparent about this
situation and failed to do so..

Some of us do in fact run open source projects and should we abide by TOR's
example when we are confronted with the situation of accusations of illegal
acts by a project contributor?

~~~
y7
Courts aren't about truth finding, they're about establishing whether there's
enough evidence that a specific crime was committed. Something like Nick
Farr's story[1] is, if true, not against the law, but it does display
behaviour that can be really detrimental to a community.

1: [https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-
nickf4rr-35c32f...](https://medium.com/@nickf4rr/hi-im-nick-farr-
nickf4rr-35c32f13da4d)

------
throwaw11122334
jacobappelbaum.net is hosted on github at:

[https://github.com/cephurs/jacobappelbaum.net](https://github.com/cephurs/jacobappelbaum.net)

Cephurs was an op in a channel run by the law enforcement folks who took down
LulzSec:

[http://www.xeroflux.net/uploads/Operation_Anon_Rat.pdf](http://www.xeroflux.net/uploads/Operation_Anon_Rat.pdf)

Kinda suspicious.

~~~
grapehut
Totally can't be law enforcement, they forked the repo "FuckNSA".

------
devishard
Quite frankly, why is this on Hacker News?

Maybe Jacob Appelbaum raped someone, maybe he didn't. That's not anyone's
business except Appelbaum's, his accusers', and the legal system's. It
_certainly_ is not a public concern, and it's irrelevant to Tor.

~~~
y7
I found it interesting to read. Appelbaum is relatively well-known in tech
circles, and I use HN to keep me updated on "what goes on in tech circles" \--
whether that's gossip or new technological developments.

~~~
devishard
"I found it interesting to read" is not a particularly good reason to drag
someone's name through the mud for crimes he hasn't been convicted of.

------
PollenBull
Jacob was an asset to the community. I really want to believe him (hopefully
time will tell)

~~~
daxorid
If he was plagiarizing original research and raping other community members,
he was most certainly _not_ an asset to the community.

~~~
rndmind
He was an invaluable and founding member of the TOR community. I have deeply
seated suspicions that something fishy is going on.

~~~
daxorid
I'm curious how he was 'invaluable' if the accusations of plagiarism are true.
Other people are responsible for his contributions, in that case.

The technically incompetent but socially competent taking credit away from
where it is due ought to be a well understood phenomenon here at HN. Why give
him a pass if this is the case as well?

------
Fej
I don't know who to believe anymore.

------
DyslexicAtheist
jacobappelbaum.net is a fake:

[https://twitter.com/ValbonneConsult/status/74046605073149952...](https://twitter.com/ValbonneConsult/status/740466050731499520)

[https://twitter.com/ValbonneConsult/status/74046629719723212...](https://twitter.com/ValbonneConsult/status/740466297197232128)

Also whatever he might have done will now be drowned out by these false
accusations. Mob mentality is as bad as whatever he might have done.

~~~
jubalfh
aren't you easily persuaded…

------
WhatIsThisIm12
Personally I don't even think these stories should be on HN... nothing good
can come from them because all anyone can offer is pure speculation.

Now, in the interest of speculation, I have some conspiracy theories to
suggest. Normally I wouldn't post conspiracy theories, but I think
conspiracies have _way_ more validity when you're talking about the security
community.

So, check out these links:

\- [https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-
manipulation/](https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/)

\- [https://theintercept.com/document/2014/02/24/art-
deception-t...](https://theintercept.com/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-
training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/)

Then consider these conspiracy theories:

1) Jacob Appelbaum works for an intelligence service and was compromised, and
this is their way of pulling him from the field

2) Jacob Appelbaum works for an intelligence service and was compromised, and
this is _a rival intelligence service 's_ way of pulling him from the field

3) Jacob Appelbaum does _not_ work for an intelligence service, but rather is
the victim of a smearing campaign by an intelligence service

My personal opinion is that the guy is an asshole, his (ex-)friends are fed up
with him, and they severely overstepped their bounds in attacking him. The
line about "what you have to do with a sociopath" (paraphrasing) was
particularly alarming for me; that was a clear signal of desire for
vindication.

------
Chris2048
> It's rarer than most people think that accusations of sexual abuse are
> falsely raised

How do you determine this?

~~~
Houshalter
According to this essay, about 3% of men will get falsely accused of rape in
their lifetime: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/17/lies-damned-lies-and-
so...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/17/lies-damned-lies-and-social-media-
part-5-of-∞/)

The real number is impossible to determine, but is uncomfortably high.

~~~
espadrine
May I argue that it is uncomfortably low? The estimated percentage of women
that are the victims of sexual assault is an order of magnitude higher.

(See for instance
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault_in_the_United_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault_in_the_United_States_military#Recent_statistics))

> _23 percent of women and 4 percent of men reported experiencing unwanted
> sexual contact_

Even worse, 3% of false positives is a twenty-eighth of the percentage of
unreported rapes:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States)

> _Only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police_

~~~
devishard
>> According to this essay, about 3% of men will get falsely accused of rape
in their lifetime: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/17/lies-damned-lies-and-
so...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/17/lies-damned-lies-and-so..).

>> The real number is impossible to determine, but is uncomfortably high.

> May I argue that it is uncomfortably low? The estimated percentage of women
> that are the victims of sexual assault is an order of magnitude higher.

If I'm reading you correctly, you seem to think the solution to the problem of
rape is to falsely report _more_ men?

How does arresting non-rapists for rape prevent rapists from raping?

~~~
greghatch
I don't think you're reading the comment correctly. The comment is not
proposing that falsely accusing more people will solve any problems.

EDIT: gender agnostic phrasing

~~~
devishard
Can you propose an alternate meaning to the part I quoted that makes any
sense?

~~~
espadrine
“The problem is not the number of false reports of rape. The problem is the
number of true non-reported rapes.”

------
elcapitan
Why did this post disappear from the front page? Can't find it on the first 20
or so pages listed neither.

~~~
dang
It was flagged by users and set off some software penalties.

I'm not convinced that this story belongs on Hacker News. The mandate of the
site is "stories that gratify intellectual curiosity", and it seems pretty
clear that both the curiosity and gratification here are more voyeuristic than
intellectual. Arguably the appropriate scope for the story would be the
smaller online community of people who are personally and professionally
affected by it.

On the other hand, the HN community is clearly interested, Tor is a
longstanding topic here, the discussion has been better than it might (edit:
though it has now gotten significantly worse), and if we're going to have it
at all we shouldn't have only one side of it. So I've turned off flagging on
this post and reduced the software penalties.

~~~
peterwwillis
But this doesn't have anything to do with Tor. A story that says "X is no
longer working for Tor" would be fine, but this is clearly just dragging out
the Paparazzi nature of famous people in a scandal.

~~~
djcapelis
If you go back to the submission where it was just the "X is no longer working
with Y" story, then a good portion of the commenters on that story felt that
it wasn't a good story for HN and if there was a real story to share it would
be in follow up posts.

I can't imagine what a story on this topic would look like for everyone to
agree it belonged on HN.

Maybe that means that none of them do, but I'm not sure that conclusion is
right. I think it is best to generally prefer sunlight to silence, even when
the sunlight doesn't produce as much value as we'd like to see.

------
venomsnake
> Not only have I been the target of a fake website in my name that has
> falsely accused me of serious crimes, but I have also received death threats
> (including a Twitter handle entitled ‘TimeToDieJake’).

Credit where credit is due - the guy has learned his lesson about how to
properly play the part of the social media victim.

------
geofft
There's a good analysis of this statement at
[https://medium.com/@frabyn/decoding-jake-
appelbaum-9fa75d060...](https://medium.com/@frabyn/decoding-jake-
appelbaum-9fa75d060310) that decodes the statement and points out what it says
and doesn't say.

------
powera
This Medium post summarizes my take on this statement better than I can. TLDR
"I can’t directly say the allegations are false."

[https://medium.com/@frabyn/decoding-jake-
appelbaum-9fa75d060...](https://medium.com/@frabyn/decoding-jake-
appelbaum-9fa75d060310#.fxsslnv0k)

~~~
rue
That dissection is pretty poorly made. First, the author “paraphrases”
Applebaum’s use of “vicious and spurious”:

> I can’t directly say the allegations are false.

Then, a few lines below, the author quotes Applebaum as saying:

>> I want to be clear: the accusations of criminal sexual misconduct against
me are entirely false.

I’m not taking sides here (it’s important that possible abuse is brought to
light!) but this lawyer is straining his credibility.

~~~
acqq
If you quote Appelbaum, quote the Bynum's "translation" too:

> Appelbaum: I want to be clear: the accusations of criminal sexual misconduct
> against me are entirely false.

> Bynum's translation: I’ll never be convicted of a crime.

That is, Bynum claims that Appelbaum never claims "I haven't done it" and
instead intentionally uses "criminal" (versus "civil," for example).

[http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-
cases-v...](http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-cases-vs-
criminal-cases-key-differences.html)

------
bitL
Seems like the only way to work on privacy projects in the future is to become
voluntarily castrated...

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
"Don't rape anybody" is probably an easier way.

~~~
bitL
Given false claims epidemics you have in the US these days my solution seems
the only feasible one that can stand up in court. Guess why Linus is never
allowing a lone female to be alone with him even for a few seconds?

~~~
exolymph
> Given false claims epidemics you have in the US these days

Citation needed.

~~~
retrogradeorbit
I don't think its an 'epidemic' as the poster exaggerated, but it does happen.

I don't know about the US, but in Canada the Jian Ghomeshi trial is one recent
example that comes to mind. Both the Ghomeshi trial and the Canadian trial of
Gregory Alan Elliott show that there are indeed types of people out there who
lie to bring charges, or increase the weight of charges bought against
someone. And it shows they will lie all the way up to and through a court
case, until cross examination (or in Elliott's case an insider tip off of
conspiracy) unravel the lies.

I don't know what to think in this case but it is not something you can rule
out completely.

~~~
jubalfh
I'm not sure bringing up Gomeshi's case as an example of false accusation is
such a very good idea, though.

------
chris_wot
I guess I'm just trying to understand why police weren't involved. There a
story on the blog he refers to of him taking advantage of a woman when they
were completely intoxicated and allegations she was raped by him and his
friends.

~~~
DanBC
Look how how rape victims are treated by police and the courts.

It's not surprising that people are reluctant to report rape and sexual
assault.

Here's one, where the perpetrator was seen by other people assaulting someone
who was passed out drunk: [http://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2016/jun/06/stanford-sexu...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2016/jun/06/stanford-sexual-assault-case-victim-impact-statement-in-
full?CMP=twt_gu)

He still said the sex was consensual, and his lawyers put that women through
hell.

~~~
sievebrain
I guess you mean they're treated badly?

The legal system in western countries is very biased in favour of rape
accusers. Shield laws are a concrete manifestation of that. Often police are
told to automatically believe any rape accusation even if their common sense
is telling them it's likely to be false. And so on.

Yes, if you make a serious accusation against someone, their defence lawyer is
going to ask difficult questions. You're attempting to make _their_ life
literally hell, by jailing them for a long time. Being asked a few questions
is in no way comparable.

~~~
openasocket
>The legal system in western countries is very biased in favour of rape
accusers.

This is patently false. Conviction rates for rape are far lower compared to
other crimes[1]

>Shield laws are a concrete manifestation of that

Shield laws make it so news reporters cannot be forced to reveal their
sources, I don't see what this has to do with rape cases.

>Being asked a few questions is in no way comparable.

Being forced to re-experience a traumatic event by a party determined to
discredit you is pretty horrible.

Also, you should look at the case linked. The accused was found assaulting the
girl in an alley by third party witnesses, and received six months probation.

[1]Kelly, Lovett and Regan, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape
cases, 2005

~~~
sievebrain
Conviction rates don't mean much by themselves because anyone can cause
conviction rates to rise or fall by adjusting how many complaints are accepted
and turned into cases at the police reception desk. The fact that conviction
rates are lower than for other crimes just means that people are more likely
to report unprosecutable cases: either because the accusations are false, or
because there is no evidence.

There are 'rape shield laws' which is what I was referring to:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law)

> Being forced to re-experience a traumatic event by a party determined to
> discredit you is pretty horrible.

So what? Being accused of rape is also pretty horrible and being jailed for it
is VERY horrible. People who aren't willing to go in front of a judge and jury
for these cases are one source of dropouts and the low conviction rate, but
they must have known that'd be a part of the process when they made a
complaint.

~~~
openasocket
> The fact that conviction rates are lower than for other crimes just means
> that people are more likely to report unprosecutable cases: either because
> the accusations are false, or because there is no evidence.

If there routinely isn't enough evidence to convict an accused rapist, that
would imply that the system isn't biased against the accused.

>There are 'rape shield laws' which is what I was referring to:

Sorry, I should have caught that. It appears this term refers to a bunch of
different laws pertaining to rape cases in different jurisdictions. The
general idea, that the victim's sexual history is not admissible evidence,
makes sense to me. Whether or not the victim had multiple sexual partners or
was promiscuous is irrelevant to the facts of the case, and serves only to
hurt the victim's reputation. In many of these cases all we have to go on is
the testimony of the accuser and the accused, so it is easy for these cases to
devolve into character assassination. Obviously this has to be done in such a
way that it does not infringe on the rights of the accused to mount a defense.
Is there some specific provision in these laws you disagree with, or the
entire concept?

