
“But he does good work.” - jarcane
https://medium.com/@violetblue/but-he-does-good-work-6710df9d9029#.axjt9r4e2
======
danso
I typed this response to a comment that called the OP "mostly bullshit" and
that if someone does wrong, it is incumbent upon the victim to file charges or
forever hold their peace. The comment was flagged so I couldn't submit what I
typed, so I've pasted it here.

I agree that it's hard to find black and white in accusations...but I'd argue
that even the judicial system leaves more than enough gray to argue over. And
because of that, I don't believe that things are ever as simple "if something
is wrong, file charges" \-- just like it's never as easy as "if you love
someone, put a ring on it."

I'll likely have the privilege of never having to file charges for rape, but
once I had to file charges as a victim of armed robbery. Even though I had
plenty of evidence, in hand and forthcoming (Android location tracing)...I had
a hell of a time convincing a detective that I wasn't faking a robbery for
insurance purposes, just because I wasn't clear exactly what block i was on
when it happened. I can't even fucking imagine what it is like convincing the
system that sexual assault (or even harassment) has happened, but I imagine
the friction is enough to deter people from taking necessary action until it's
too late. It seems that some of these victims are able to talk themselves out
of thinking that a colleague truly did wrong, and when others step up, they
realize their mistake in being quiet.

~~~
dantillberg
Edit: Oops, I misread the parent, and I agree that yes, seeking legal help in
a case like this is much harder than with robbery, which is hard enough.

\-----

Robbery doesn't really make for a good comparison here:

\- Did you fear for your own physical safety (e.g. that the thief or their
friends/etc might retaliate) in reporting the crime to the police?

\- Did you known the thief? Did you have friends in common, or did you work
together? Will you possibly see social retaliation from the thief's allies for
reporting their behavior?

\- Does everyone involved, including the thief and the police, agree on what
defines acceptable/legal behavior, or are you going to be argue with the
police and others that just because you wore a sexy dress didn't mean that you
"wanted" someone to steal your phone?

~~~
danso
Yes, I agree, robbery doesn't make a good comparison with rape because I had
every reason to make the accusation of robbery, and such allegations are made
on standards of evidence that most people agree on. Even though I _knew_ it
was going to be a pain in the ass, it was something that I had to do because
1) hard to file a insurance claim without a police report 2) kind of hard to
just let a gun-wielding robber run around. I've had stuff stolen from me and I
didn't report it, but armed-robbery is a whole different thing. I did feel
paranoid for a few days afterward...after all, he had complete access to my
phone and may have gleaned personal information from it before I was able to
remotely lock/wipe it.

That said, it was still comically annoying to convince the detective. I was
asked if I had been drinking (yes). I was asked why did I walk home before
going to the police station (because without a phone, I had to get on the
Internet to look up the nearest police station). I was asked why I didn't call
911 on a pay phone (...because, it literally did not occur to me that pay
phones still work...?). I was asked why I walked from Chelsea through a
"lively" section of town (Bleecker Street in Greenwich Village), a place known
for prostitution, when I could've taken a more direct route (because it's a
nice night, and I literally get lost everytime I wander off the grid in the
West Village).

To say that the detective didn't believe me is an understatement. He actually
accused me of soliciting a prostitute, and that my "lost" items were a result
of me getting in over my head with a savvy prostitute.

But I didn't feel terribly offended because I knew I had evidence that could
place me at the time of the incident, and other hard facts, such as how the
robber ended up using my Netflix account to watch "Prison Break" in the days
following the robbery.

A rape victim has none of that assurance. Even if the rape kit comes through,
unless the rape is stranger rape, the rape kit does not contain hard facts
about consent or intent. All those questions that were asked of me are going
to be asked of the victim...except with far more difficult insinuations. After
I told my roommate of my interrogation by the cops, she proceeded to tell me
of her friends' similar stories...such as how a (female) cop was insistent on
asking the victim why she would ever invite her friend (the accused) up to her
apartment for tea.

And then there's the difficulty of answering those questions after having
recently suffering the physical and emotional trauma of being raped. I have no
idea what that feels like; my attacker was a jerk but otherwise left me
unharmed.

~~~
dantillberg
Thanks to another poster, I realized I'd misread your last paragraph as "yeah,
it's hard to go to the police, but I did it, too." Sorry! I totally agree with
everything you're saying here.

------
epberry
Wow this is messed up. This guy is clearly a predator and it's pretty shocking
that he was able to operate in this way for so long. As much as women can be
marginalized and harassed at tech companies I can easily see how the problem
could be much worse with organizations like the Tor Project or Wikileaks that
don't necessarily have professional management.

> These are causes, not just jobs or consulting gigs. They are symbols for
> fighting injustice, and crusading for those at risk of exploitation. Their
> reputations are fraught and fragile. To attack a person in them is to attack
> the movement. They are also male-dominated organizations, in the male-
> dominated realm of hacking, where very few of the men are willing to accept
> that their hacker heroes, team bosses, and conference buddies might be doing
> really, really fucked up things to women.

Above was the passage that struck me the most and seems like the most
contributing factor for Jake's inexplicably long tenure. When you are
constantly under attack by the powers that be it might seem rational to brush
aside accusations against one of your most prominent members and plow ahead.
Obviously this was a disastrous decision, both for the women involved and the
organization.

EDIT: a word.

~~~
aomurphy
Being part of a small dedicated group fighting for a cause absolutely leaves
you open to this, even when the ideals you are fighting for are against that
very goal. You can see it all the time in far left groups, there are often
similar sorts of deals going on, like this:
[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/09/socialist-
wo...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/09/socialist-workers-
party-rape-kangaroo-court)

Anecdotally, I've met/heard of lots of creepy guys (almost always guys) at
these sort of highly motivated ideological groups. There's a strong in-
group/out-group thing going on.

I assume far right groups can be similar, but I've never been involved in one.
Also it's less interesting, since they generally don't jump up and down to be
called feminist.

------
kendallpark
This one of the most disturbing pieces I've read on this topic. Disgusting.

"When harassment, sexual or otherwise, requires a cost-benefit analysis, you
have failed."

~~~
arenaninja
> "When harassment, sexual or otherwise, requires a cost-benefit analysis, you
> have failed."

I don't really agree with the quote. Harassment can be too loosely defined.

> "It was a close call as to whether his benefits outweighed his liabilities."

I disagree with this one more strongly though. I mean from the author's
writing, this guy was off-the-charts.

~~~
mordocai
Right, I believe the author's intent was that when you consider something the
person is doing to be harassment and you still have a cost benefit analysis
about whether to keep them, you have failed.

------
pwenzel
> CULT OF THE DEAD COW is known for a lot of things, but treating people
> horribly is not one of them. If communities are to thrive and remain
> relevant we have to do some housecleaning from time to time. As we have
> become aware of the anonymous accusations of sexual assault, as well as the
> stories told by individuals we know and trust, we’ve decided to remove Jake
> from the herd effective immediately.

[http://w3.cultdeadcow.com/cms/2016/06/cult-of-the-dead-
cow-s...](http://w3.cultdeadcow.com/cms/2016/06/cult-of-the-dead-cow-
statement-on-jacob-appelbaum-ioerror.html)

------
fhood
Sometimes the hardest part about dealing with people like this is that they
seem to have multiple personalities. Thus a person that to me (white male)
seems like a great guy, may not be that same person at all when they interact
with others (women or minorities for instance). It can be really difficult to
reconcile the person you know with the person that other people are
interacting with, and when glimpses of this less pleasant personality show
through in casual comments and the like, it is all too easy to write them off
as jokes, because no one wants to believe that their friend is a bad person.

~~~
ScottBurson
Such a person wouldn't necessarily even be abusive to all women. They tend to
choose the most vulnerable as their victims.

In this case we've seen a group of women publish a statement saying "Appelbaum
never treated us like that" [0]. Well, it's nice that he wasn't a jerk to
absolutely every woman he ever met, but that really doesn't prove anything at
all. (At least the statement is fairly carefully worded so as not to dismiss
the possibility that Appelbaum harmed others... but I still have to wonder if
it was a good thing that they published it.)

[0] [https://ourresponse.org/](https://ourresponse.org/)

------
adwn
> _Most of the outlets are having a hard time wrapping their heads around how
> this could go on so long within arenas whose missions are to fight against
> injustice and power imbalances, and to champion whistleblowers._

I see no dichotomy whatsoever. In fact, I would even say that individuals and
organizations that pursue a "higher calling" (in this case, freedom from
governmental authority) are more willing to sacrifice some less-valued members
for the higher good – as evidenced by statements like "But he does good work".

Besides, not everyone who belongs to an ideological organization is in it for
the ideology; some are there for the power and influence they can achieve from
rising through the ranks. Judging by the descriptions given in this article,
Jacob Appelbaum appears quite power hungry and manipulative.

~~~
vkazanov
I believe this is true for all organisations implying hierarchy, explicit (big
enterprises) or implicit (as in hacker communities): some people join the
ranks _only_ to be able to enjoy domination at the top of the pyramid.

------
camperman
A blog is no substitute for due process. Appelbaum may be guilty of all of the
things he's been accused of, he may be guilty of none of them. Let's see some
formal charges, sworn witness statements and court proceedings before we
decide. False accusations can and do happen all the time.

~~~
pjc50
_False accusations can and do happen all the time_

No, accusations are labelled as false all the time; genuinely baseless
accusations are much rarer.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Maybe you have to live longer to experience this. Have encountered false
accusations more than once in my life (not about me, but I knew they were
false). If I'm typical, then they happen all the time everywhere?

~~~
pjc50
False accusations of sexual harassment in particular, or accusations in
general?

~~~
dragonwriter
> False accusations of sexual harassment in particular, or accusations in
> general?

False accusations of sexual harassment do, in fact, happen (and, should a
general perception that they do not occur become widely recognized, it would
be reasonable to expect that that alone would make false accusations more
common -- the general acceptance of the belief "no one would lie about X"
encourages lying about X.)

------
infodroid
Why does it seem like people working in tech have such a hard time keeping
their personal and professional lives separate?

I'm not just talking about incidents of poor conduct.

It's also the fact people are exchanging insults and serious accusations over
blog posts.

It's not like the observers have the facts and evidence to make fair
judgements on these matters.

The whole trial by social media is really embarrassing to the profession.

~~~
MollyR
Probably because people have been encouraged to think of coworkers as friends
or family. My personal suspicion is simply the rise of social media enables
mob like behavior over due process and rule of law.

~~~
incongruity
And, I'd bet some of that encouragement happens because work-life balance is
non-existent in many places and/or many people in tech simply don't have a
deep social network outside of work because they tend to be
younger/unmarried/relocated, etc.

------
smoyer
From an older guy (and happily married) guy to the male population in tech.

If you see behaviors like this and let it happen, you're complicit ... if
you're in a position of authority (someone's boss) and you let it happen, you
may also be criminally liable.

But it's far worse ... what I hope is a small minority of bad actors are
defining the definition of male in our culture. Since there's an even smaller
number men who are willing to speak out against them, and an ocean of those
who don't want to be involved in the middle, only a mere whisper of voices are
countering those who, to be honest, tend to be the loud-mouth, misbehaving
misogynists. It's time for the gentlemen to step up their game.

<PROCLAMATION>

If you're being harassed, sexually or otherwise, within my earshot, I will
take action to stop it. I'm not offering hugs of consolation but rather to
stand between you and the abuse. I will protect you (potentially a stranger)
as I would a member of family or any of my close friends. Those of us with
spouses, daughters (and sons) want safe places for them to work too!

I originally wrote "If you're a woman being harassed ..." but realize there
are many cases where a bully is harassing someone who shares their gender. And
in the corporate world, there are always predators taking credit for others
work (according to recent studies, it's the psychopaths that rise to the top).

I've had a long career in technology, and in theory have enough of a
reputation that I can afford to spend some political capital. I think the
younger men who are "just starting out" have a bigger voice than they realize,
but they need to band together. Let's take back the organizations that have
degraded to this point ... when there's nowhere left for people like Applebaum
to work, I still won't feel sorry for him.

What's it going to be boys? ... are you willing to step up your game? To
behave like men? Or better yet, to become a real gentleman?

</PROCLAMATION>

~~~
mafribe

       are you willing to step up your game? 
    

I'm going to step up: what are you doing concretely to stop dead false
accusations?

What are you doing to counter the blatant misandry in current harassment laws?
To wit, you wrote "If you're a woman being harassed ..." this is a blatantly
sexist question. What if you are a man being harassed by a woman?

~~~
smoyer
I've admitted I'm old ... I grew up with my father teaching me I should
"protect the weaker sex". Note that "Weaker sex" is _NOT_ the same thing as
"inferior sex" and my father, to this day, treats my mother as his partner.

Of course, I was also conditioned (thanks Disney) to want to be the knight in
shining armor who comes to the aid of the damsel in distress.

So while I intellectually know it applies to everyone, I felt safe admitting
that my original sentence contained some stereotypical ideas. And while we're
at it, I know plenty of girls and women who could kick my butt - those ladies
that fall into that category can feel free to be my knight in shining armor if
they see me being harassed.

A funny story from my high-school days - our sociology class was assigned to
perform an act that fell outside the social norms. I spent a few hours one day
opening the doors for anyone who entered our local mall. One woman (who still
went through the open door) asked me if my parents would be embarrassed that
they'd raised such a male-chauvinist pig. I have no idea where it came from
but my response was "They think they've raised a gentleman - if you'd held the
door open for me, I only would have said 'Thank you'". Why is it that I often
only think of the clever thing to say minutes or hours after the moment has
passed?

~~~
mafribe
Thank you for your thoughful response, in particular reflection on the strong
tendency to encourage men to "whiteknight".

There is an interesting convergence between feminists and conservatives, in
that both seek to demonise and curtail male sexuality as much as possible.
They do it for different reasons though.

Social conservatives believe sexuality should be channeled into nuclear
families because stable monogamous nuclear families are best for society and
also best for the individuals involved. Without conventional families they
belive فتنة (Fitna) will rule.

Feminists OTOH do so for altogether different reasons, indeed they loath the
stable monogamous nuclear families.

For reasons that are beyond what can be easily discussed in a HN post,
feminists have won this battle for now, and use social conservatives as
enforcers, something the latter don't realise because they fundamentally don't
understand that they are being taken for a ride. In the long run social
conservatives will win though, because they have way more children than
feminists (male and female). Feminist attitudes will simply die out.

~~~
tripzilch
Interesting ideas but I have some big doubts about the last statement.

> In the long run social conservatives will win though, because they have way
> more children than feminists (male and female). Feminist attitudes will
> simply die out.

You know the film _Idiocracy_? It's a hilariously satirical scifi story based
on the premise of "intelligent people reproduce way less than stupid people,
therefore intelligence will die out".

Which is a very funny idea, but it's just not how selection works.

Your example is doubtful for slightly different reasons. Historically, the
selection pressure on pieces of information (Feminist attitudes) has always
been strongly tied to the reproductive ability of the medium it is embedded in
(people). However, that is changing, information is getting loose, first as
artifacts, writing, but today it even has forms of agency (computing). The
world population will stagnate, which also factors into it. Spreading your
genes used to be, but really is no longer a guarantee to also spread your
ideas.

Or maybe look at it the other way, if things work the way you describe, where
did Feminism come from in the first place? How could it ever gain mainstream
traction in an environment filled with reproducing conservatives? It's a bit
absurd. Also, if the process you describe only affects "the long run", what's
stopping Feminism from popping up over and over again in the short term?

~~~
mafribe
I know Idiocracy, and I like Mike Judge, but I don't really believe that (much
of) intelligence is heritable, at least in the way the film suggests.

I base my prediction that feminist will die out not so much on abstract
theories of information transfer and evolution, but on what I observe in the
world.

    
    
       where did Feminism come from
    

This is an interesting question, and I could comment at length on this
subject, but maybe HN is not the right venue for this subject matter,
especially as what I'd say goes against the ruling SJW orthodoxy.

------
lusen
our cultural environment gives us a bias toward downplaying the problem of
rape and sexual harassment. i've found this thought experiment helpful in
exploring bias:

rape is torture. for some it is worse than murder.

sexual harassment is aggression. for some it is worse than being punched in
the face.

how would you feel if someone at your work murdered or punched someone else?

how would you feel if there was a systemic cultural inequity such that 1 in 3
people could expect to be murdered or punched at some point in their life?

ps - the opposite of rape (bully) culture is nurturance (support) culture.

~~~
hashberry
What about "up-playing" rape? In an account of one of Jacob's assaults[0], the
victim wrote: "he was rubbing my clit and rimming the edges of my vagina" and
then below she wrote according to German law this is rape with a maximum of 10
years in prison. Was this torture and worse than murder?

[0] [https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/the-forest-for-the-
trees....](https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/the-forest-for-the-trees.html)

~~~
pyrale
For some it is. There's a reason suicide is much higher among victimes of
rape.

------
adrusi
This article presents evidence that Appelbaum was a creep, but theres a big
gap between creep and rapist. Pseudonymous accusations don't make for very
compelling evidence.

Regardless, my intuition is inclined to accept his guilt, not that I, or
almost any of the internet commenters, are really qualified to pass that
judgement.

But when these cases arise, I can't help but think how easy it would be to
manufacture a rape scandal, especially against a charismatic man, _especially_
if they're a creep. I would think that security-minded people would be the
first to realize this, but alas. Every time there's a public reaction like
this, with the accused being fired and publicly shamed before any rigorous
investigation even begins, we show potential defamers that the strategy works.
It's a hard problem, because we want to support victims, but we can't ignore
the fact that the accused could be the greatest victim of all.

We have to postpone judgement in cases like these, until stronger evidence
emerges, else we risk creating an environment where everyone has to live in
fear of false scandals. We can't let that get in the way of reporting on the
case, but at least we shouldn't give any credance to crap like the "skewering"
article refuting Appelbaum's denial [1] (what statement of denial _would_ have
convinced the author?) and we shouldn't be respecting statements like in the
Wired article [2]:

 _Shepard also says she’s spoken directly with one of Appelbaum’s alleged
victims, who told Shepard in February of this year that Appelbaum had raped
him or her. “Sadly… I think it’s the damn truth. He’s a charismatic, socially
dominant manipulator,” Shepard writes to WIRED. “I absolutely believe the
accusers.”_

He's a charismatic, socially dominant manipulator, therefore he raped this
woman? Does muscularity implicate someone in a mugging? The fact that you
spoke with someone who spoke with an alleged victim and they were convinced,
is meaningless, considering how many people are convinced of Appelbaum's guilt
without knowing almost anything about the case.

[1] [https://medium.com/@frabyn/decoding-jake-
appelbaum-9fa75d060...](https://medium.com/@frabyn/decoding-jake-
appelbaum-9fa75d060310#.gbx8qswsk)

[2] [https://www.wired.com/2016/06/tor-developer-jacob-
appelbaum-...](https://www.wired.com/2016/06/tor-developer-jacob-appelbaum-
resigns-amid-sex-abuse-claims/)

~~~
masmullin
> we risk creating an environment where everyone has to live in fear of false
> scandals.

I think this is an interesting concept and needs to be brought more to light.

------
893helios
It's a bloody mess really. [http://theindicter.com/the-weaponising-of-social-
part-1-the-...](http://theindicter.com/the-weaponising-of-social-part-1-the-
crucifixion-of-ioerror/)

~~~
jamespo
that's a very long-winded way of also saying "but he does good work"

~~~
srtjstjsj
It's a long-winded way of saying that the anti-ioerror camp is led by a group
that has logical inconsistencies and possible dishonesty throughout its
accusations, is attacking the people it claims to be trying to get justice
for, and is scortched-earth inviting harassment upon uninvolved people who
happen to live in ioerror's building.

~~~
jamespo
The "anti-ioerror camp" is not a single group, the idiots attacking the
building have very little support I would imagine.

------
mcguire
Well, there is a bright side to all this.

Social engineering is still the easiest, most successful approach to breaking
any security infrastructure. Intelligence agencies have a long history of
using sexual-antic-related blackmail as a lever against their opponents.

But if nobody cares, it becomes somewhat more difficult to apply the lever.

------
moon_of_moon
Applebaum's side of the story:
[http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1soorlp](http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1soorlp)

~~~
kemayo
The article links to that, and also to this "decoding" of it:
[https://medium.com/@frabyn/decoding-jake-
appelbaum-9fa75d060...](https://medium.com/@frabyn/decoding-jake-
appelbaum-9fa75d060310#.4oh9b8jgo)

~~~
moon_of_moon
Why decode it? Take it at face value:

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

"I’ve dedicated my life as a journalist, activist, and longtime member of the
Tor Project to advocating for the transparency of public processes and to
speaking out about the necessity of privacy, security, and anonymity. These
are ideals that I will continue to uphold, despite the vicious campaign that
is currently being waged against me."

This guy spent two years in foster care when he was a kid. That kind of
adversity, in my opinion, rears character.

~~~
kemayo
I think the point the "decoder" is making is that his denial is very carefully
worded, and even taking him completely at face value, "I didn't do anything
bad enough that I should be arrested for it" is a long way from "I didn't do
anything wrong, and shouldn't be removed from this community".

~~~
jessaustin
It reminds one of that episode of Dresden Codak in which Kim reacts to
slanderous online articles:

KR: I'm not a criminal; I've never even been convicted of a felony in this
state!

BB: That's an oddly specific phrasing.

------
gooseyard
If a guy like this were to get a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis, what do you
suppose it'd be? Not that I feel bad for the guy, mind you, rather I feel it'd
be helpful to the community of people who have been affected by this kind of
behavior to have an accurate name for it other than just saying the guy is a
douchebag.

I knew a guy in college who had some aspects of this guy's behavior and was
diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder (tragically, he fully
embraced his condition), but I only have an armchair knowledge of psychiatry
and I'd be interested to hear what somebody with experience has to say about
it.

~~~
musha68k
I can recommend Pieter Hintjens' "Psychopath Code" if you want to learn more
on how human/social predators operate:

[http://hintjens.com/blog:_psychopaths](http://hintjens.com/blog:_psychopaths)

Edit: I neither know the accused nor the writer of that piece, I just wanted
to share that there's lots of layers to reality and that this book was eye-
opening to me in that regard.

------
Bartweiss
Can anyone fill me in on more details of the Snowden connection there?

The rest of this article is quite thorough, and this topic certainly deserves
more public discussion of what went wrong and what should be done in the
future. Obviously this episode should unsettle those who have concluded that
the claims are true, and even those who are uncertain should take a look at
how these issues circulated for so long without being brought to a head.

The Snowden comment, though, confused me. Appelbaum accepted an award on his
behalf, but as far as I knew that's about the extend of it. CCC and Assange
have been tied into the community for long enough to have heard these things,
and I can understand the comment about how they should have vetted Appelbaum.

Snowden (to my knowledge) had no real connections in this community, and
Appelbaum only stepped up to bask in his glow once he was in hiding and
largely restricted from 'vetting' others. There might be questions about why
no one else who knew the claims stepped in, but barring more evidence I have
trouble with the claim that Snowden has something to answer for.

I don't want to push too hard on one off-hand comment in a much larger piece,
but I've already seen this used as ammunition to discredit Snowden: "If his
actions are so good, why did he have anything to do with Appelbaum?" It seems
like a bad meme to spread without some explanation of why he should have known
about as-yet-unpublicized accusations.

------
srtjstjsj
> I turned to Jake and said, “I think you have me confused with a certain
> blonde blogger,”

Who is that referring to? Is the audience supposed to know, or was that in
inside reference

~~~
jessaustin
It might not have referred to anyone. She was trying to derail his bullshit,
not have an engaging conversation.

------
_greim_
Setting aside for the moment the facts of this particular case, I thought the
article makes a good point in general.

> When harassment, sexual or otherwise, requires a cost-benefit analysis, you
> have failed.

------
CGamesPlay
All of the commentary here is hedging against this anonymous rape claim. What
bothers me is that if we throw that argument out there is still clearly some
huge injustice going on here. With this hook the commentators here are seeking
to disarm the entire rest of the argument. The nail in the coffin for me was
when the Tor leadership acknowledged the harassment evidence but allowed it to
continue. That's inexcusable.

The actual criminal allegations should be settled in court.

------
clavalle
Perhaps I am being stereotypically Texan here, but sometimes I wish there was
space in our legal and ethical system to kick someone's ass for behavior that
doesn't reach the level of provable criminality but that still calls for more
than a sharp rebuke, public shaming, or ostracism. Our current status quo of
'violence is never the answer' seems to give assholes a bit too much wiggle
room to make the rest of us suffer.

~~~
jessaustin
In many jurisdictions, that space does exist, because cops and prosecutors are
comfortable "looking the other way" when it's clear there is a reason to do
so. It is to Texas's credit that much of that state is such a jurisdiction,
but in fact much of the fly-over country is.

Of course, a fake-ass "anarchist" like Applebaum might file a civil suit for a
well-deserved ass-kicking, but that's still sunlight.

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
Among all the problems with this kind of folk justice is it tends to
"criminalize" things like "breathing while black" or "looks gay".

~~~
jessaustin
What you're talking about is (and especially, has been) a real problem, but
that's because of institutionalized racism and prejudice, not because LEOs
look the other way when an asshole deservedly gets his nose busted. Not least
because many of the jurisdictions that have institutionalized racism of this
sort would be quick to jump in if a "stereotypical" white-dude asshole was on
the receiving end.

However, perhaps something about this works better when all parties are in the
same "community", in a sense. The situation under discussion seems to fit that
mold.

------
ihsw
So why hasn't anyone smashed his face yet? Surely an insufferable sexual
failure like Applebaum should've attracted that kind of attention.

Did every single person -- every victim, bystander, and authority figure --
deftly slink away or obediently succumb to his forcible coercion?

Maybe I'm just a violent individual with anger issues but I would've had no
problem with physically correcting his behavior.

------
peterwwillis
_> Most of the outlets are having a hard time wrapping their heads around how
this could go on so long within arenas whose missions are to fight against
injustice and power imbalances, and to champion whistleblowers._

So, again, this was basically personal power within an in-group. It can happen
in literally any in-group, because it's a social dynamic, and social dynamics
don't follow the ethos of an organization, they follow human heuristics.

The "stories" make for juicy reading, but the details of this case aren't
special. Jake's is one of the most blatant, obvious, ongoing examples i've
heard of, but similar situations happen in a variety of ways, usually far less
obvious. Since the hacker scene is very much an exclusive in-group of
outsiders, this kind of person is much more accepted there. But you'll still
find these kinds of situations everywhere.

------
DanBC
It's really important that we understand why it's hard for people to stand up
against abuse. It's very easy to say "I would", and maybe you would, but we
see time and time again that it's hard for people to make that stand.

~~~
m_t
I don't know why your comment seems downvoted.

I think it is a very valid question. How, as an employer, as a community, can
we make sure negative or abusive behaviour is dealt with correctly?

------
mhewett
Some possibly useful advice: if I'm at a conference and someone I sort of know
says, "This one speaker is being an ass. He's pestering me about another
speaker." I'm like, "yeah, yeah that's part of being an organizer".

But if that person says, "Can you help me? Bill Smith is harassing me." Now
they've got my attention.

In this case I don't know what the exact dialog was, but if you want help be
sure to ask for it and state clearly why. People will respond more
proactively.

------
serg_chernata
I am completely on her side and this dude seems sketchy.

However, Macrina's story mentioned in a different article[0] sounded very very
strange to me. I simply don't understand how Macrina, a working professional
adult, can follow that kind of logic. To me it simply sounds like she made a
mistake and now regrets it.

[0] - [http://gizmodo.com/another-woman-has-accused-jacob-
appelbaum...](http://gizmodo.com/another-woman-has-accused-jacob-appelbaum-of-
sexual-ass-1782035625)

~~~
dTal
It sounds scarily real to be. Being manipulated is a thing, and this ticks all
the boxes: she was tired/hungover, he wouldn't take no for an answer, he
continued talking about mundane stuff to maintain an atmosphere of normality
even while applying strong pressure, she only found the strength to resist
after being dragged (literally!) outside of her comfort zone.

It rings very true and does not sound like the kind of story someone would
make up for attention.

------
HarryHirsch
Everyone who advocates for codes of conduct needs to have a hard look at the
Appelbaum story and answer cogently how a code of conduct would have defended
against Jacob Appelbaum. That's the great weakness, they do not work at all
against anyone in an elevated social position.

~~~
zellyn
Most codes of conduct I've seen would have helped by:

\- making it explicit up-front that the behavior described is considered
unacceptable by the community, which would help victims know that they have
the support of the community

\- publicizing a way of reporting inappropriate behavior

\- setting up some kind of group governance for acting on reports

All of those things seem incredibly helpful. And I'm sure I've missed some.

~~~
HarryHirsch
Storytime: Sometime ago had materials stolen by a student who felt the need to
get back at me. The kid did have a lengthy record of erratic behaviour, and I
did report the incident to police. It caused great displeasure within the
department, because the parents were wealthy and possible donors.

I'm convinced that the student handbook prevents non-sexual harassment of
staff, and it's equally true that police and HR are the go-to contacts for
that type of incident.

The employee and student manuals _are_ the applicable codes of conduct. It's
true that the workplace owns the problem now, and that there can be a pattern
established (and one for myself as well), but come again about the incredible
helpfulness! The world isn't black and white, and groups value peace, but they
also value money and presenting a united front. The often value the latter two
more than the peace of a fellow at the bottom of the totem pole.

~~~
zellyn
I wasn't arguing that a code of conduct solves all problems, especially those
of abuse of power. Just that it would help a lot.

Sounds like you had a bad experience: I'm sorry to hear that. Imbalance of
power is never fun… :-(

------
NetTechM
Well, if he did it, he deserves whatever the judge gives him.

Seems like there is a ton of twitter drama surrounding this, which I tend to
avoid so I'll leave it at that.

------
srtjstjsj
How did the Kink thing stay quiet so long? There you have a corporate
situation, with real lawsuit money on the table, and (I expect) sympathetic
management.

------
simula67
Does the flags on the comments affect if the story itself get flagged ?

------
33a
Well. Now I'm disgusted and freaked out for the rest of the day.

------
throvwavvay
What is the point of having a trial by media like this? If we want social
change, could we first define the requirement for trial by media?

We got statements from the accusers. We got statement from the accused. We got
statement from people who are not victims but claim to speak for them (ie
prosecutors). We got people who are neither the accuser nor accused, but
instead talks in favor/against a conviction (ie lawyers). We got a jury, ie
all the comments here on HN and articles on media platforms. All that is
missing from a real court is the unbiased judge who can specify the rules and
finalize a judgement.

For those 100+ comments in here, particular those that make a direct or
implied judgement, do you think we should replace the court system by articles
like this? The current justice system has problems. It requires time, energy,
and often capital from victims. Sometimes the guilt gets away. Sometimes the
innocent get locked up. There is a lot of fear of not being believed. A lot of
self-doubt. Privacy is lost for both the accuser/victim and
accused/perpetrator. Social relationships can be destroyed, and risk of
retaliation is high. Trial by media really sound as a tempting solution, and
all we need to give up seems to be that of a impartial judge and the rules.

 _notes_ : Its fun to see the up and down votes in real time.
1->4->2->5->1->3\. The Zero replies make for a interesting discussion.

------
shasta
Is there really a big problem with acceptable/legal behavior not being agreed
upon? Isn't the problem usually that the guy claims "it was consensual?"
Similarly, when police consider what a woman was wearing, isn't usually in the
context of figuring out who's story they believe? In other words, the police
aren't thinking "well, she wore a sexy dress and followed him to his room and
therefore deserved to get raped" but rather "well, she wore a sexy dress and
followed him up to his room so maybe his claims that it was consensual are
true." I get that you don't want police to blame the victim, but isn't it just
as/more important that they correctly figure out who the victim is?

~~~
lusen
> "well, she wore a sexy dress and followed him up to his room so maybe his
> claims that it was consensual are true."

how is that reasonable? maybe we should ask what _she_ claims and what _he_
wore.

but wait, what clothing indicates whether someone is a rapist? tshirts and
tatty jeans? polo shirt? suit? of course clothing implies nothing.

why does her wearing "sexy" clothing -- to say nothing of "sexy" being all
about the male perception and desires, as if her own clothing can't be worn
for her own reasons -- imply anything about her desire for sex?

> "isn't it just as/more important that they correctly figure out who the
> victim is?"

if you're only asking men their opinion, and believing whatever assumptions
you want to make about women based on their clothing rather than their word,
the system is already tilted towards men getting want they explicitly want,
and women not being listened to.

i'm not saying believe rape victims without scrutiny. i'm saying have a little
more compassion and support and actually listen to their _words_ as much as
you listen to the man's words, and care about their clothes as much as you
care about the man's clothes.

~~~
threatofrain
When the police and justice system collects information about clothing, sexual
history with defendant, alcohol and other drugs, they do so because these are
legally relevant facts to establishing a narrative that's otherwise often too
lacking in material basis.

The police and justice system wish to know these facts so they know the
strength of some legal narrative and what counternarratives can be supported.
Wearing sexy clothing fits a narrative of consensual sex. Sexual injuries fits
a narrative of sexual assault. Drug use damages the credibility of any party.
Prior relationship with defendant can fit narratives about the likelihood that
someone might agree to sex.

These are facts that defense will ask, and it's best for the prosecution that
the police ask first on their terms to control the progression of fact
discovery, as opposed to letting the defense ask first on their terms.

Why not be interested in what the man was wearing? Maybe because the
prosecution, in anticipation of defense strategy, thinks it won't matter. The
job of the police is not to act as a neutral 3rd party to the justice system,
proportionally investigating claims on the strength of their merits. The
secondary job of the police is to set up cases for the prosecution, even if
it's unfair to the defense. The primary job of the police, and any agency, is
to establish its own credibility, robustness, and scope as an agency. Note
that I am speaking descriptively, not prescriptively.

~~~
DanBC
> Drug use damages the credibility of any party.

I agree that victims are often doubted because of drug use. (I think that's an
error by police; instead of doubting the victim they should be treating the
victim as a vulnerable person who was more likely to be abused)

But can you show me any examples where a rapist who claimed he had consent was
doubted because he had been using drugs?

It feels as if the doubt only goes one way.

~~~
threatofrain
It's not an error by police to ask about drug use, because it's the police's
job to control fact discovery while setting up a case for the prosecution. The
prosecution cares about drug use because they're trying to evaluate the
strength of defense narratives.

Imagine a situation where the government doesn't ask first, and instead
defense asks first on their terms. That's incompetent.

------
js8
I disagree with the black and white view of morality that the article
espouses. If people do something wrong, they should be punished, but banning
them from community entirely seems a little medieval to me.

People are human, and sometimes they are complicated, and can do good and bad
at the same time.

~~~
gnaritas
> I disagree with the black and white view of morality that the article
> espouses.

What on earth are you talking about?

> If people do something wrong, they should be punished, but banning them from
> community entirely seems a little medieval to me.

He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from
the community.

Anyone who introduces people to you by lying and saying you give good head in
a business context is absolutely someone who needs to be completely
ostracized, this is an abusive person with some serious disorder who should
have been fired the first time that happened. That is not ever OK.

~~~
js8
> What on earth are you talking about?

Specifically, this: "When harassment, sexual or otherwise, requires a cost-
benefit analysis, you have failed."

And this: "When someone harasses, humiliates, discounts, abuses, threatens,
stalks, takes action to harm someone, no — they do not do good work."

> He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist
> from the community.

Assuming he is a rapist (he hasn't been convinced), then yes, he should be in
jail. But even then, he shouldn't be entirely prevented to participate in
coding on Tor or political activity or whatever he was doing.

> Anyone who introduces people to you by lying and saying you give good head
> in a business context is absolutely someone who needs to be completely
> ostracized

I disagree. I don't think a person like that should be _completely
ostracized_. Yes, he should get a different job, something that perhaps
requires less social skills.

Let me ask you, in practice, what are you going to do with all those
ostracized people? If you're American, I am not surprised with your views -
that's the way how you got the largest prison population on the planet. But I
don't think it's a way to run a civilized society, I am sorry.

A case of Hans Reiser came to my mind. I don't think he should be ostracized
and prevented to commit any new code in his life (assuming he wants to), and
he is a murderer. Or that we should reject ReiserFS or its concepts in jest. I
am sure there are many other examples from history.

~~~
dpark
> _But even then, he shouldn 't be entirely prevented to participate in coding
> on Tor or political activity or whatever he was doing._

You think that if this guy literally raped people he should not be excluded
from the community he exploited and damaged? What the fuck, dude?

If the stories coming out about this guy are true, then he is dangerous. He
should be excluded from the community, not as some sort of vigilante
punishment, but to keep others in the community safe. If you know someone has
a pattern of hurting others and you choose to keep enabling them, then it's
your fault, too.

Hans Reiser is an interesting comparison because he didn't murder his
_coworkers_. It's one thing to say "everybody deserves a second chance". It's
an entirely different thing to say that everyone deserves a second chance with
the very same people they victimized. Do you think Reiser's in-laws are
morally obligated to invite him to their holidays once he's served his time?

~~~
js8
> You think that if this guy literally raped people he should not be excluded
> from the community he exploited and damaged?

Duh, no, and I already explained my position in other comments. Perhaps I
should have written "society" instead of "community" in the original comment,
that would have been clearer. Any community should be free to shun him, or not
to do it. And community which doesn't shouldn't be called out for not doing
it.

Your question is a little loaded, because you assume that the community feels
it was damaged. But maybe it doesn't.

~~~
dpark
> _Duh, no, and I already explained my position in other comments. Perhaps I
> should have written "society" instead of "community" in the original
> comment, that would have been clearer._

I don't think anyone here has actually proposed that Appelbaum be excluded
from society as a whole. It is, however, perfectly legitimate to tell
people/communities/society, "Hey, be wary of this guy. He has a history of
abuse."

> _Any community should be free to shun him, or not to do it. And community
> which doesn 't shouldn't be called out for not doing it._

It's absolutely reasonable to call out a community for not doing the right
thing. If a community is enabling members to do terrible things, they should
be called out. If a community is enabling abusers, or sheltering thieves, or
otherwise hiding unethical or criminal behavior, it's perfectly correct to
say, "Hey, you're an accomplice to the crimes you're enabling." To say that no
one should call out the Tor community for enabling Appelbaum is to say that no
one should have called out the Catholic Church for hiding child molestation.

> _Your question is a little loaded, because you assume that the community
> feels it was damaged. But maybe it doesn 't._

Clearly at least part of the community feels that Appelbaum has done damage.

~~~
js8
> I don't think anyone here has actually proposed that Appelbaum be excluded
> from society as a whole.

Well, that's how I read the original article (it's an appeal to all tech
people to shun him) and some of the comments.

> If a community is enabling abusers, or sheltering thieves, or otherwise
> hiding unethical or criminal behavior

But we don't know if he was criminal. It's a matter of justice to decide that.

In any case, I meant my original quote assuming that the person gets actually
punished if they are found guilty. If they have been punished for their deeds,
why should any community be necessarily required to add to that punishment?

> To say that no one should call out the Tor community for enabling Appelbaum
> is to say that no one should have called out the Catholic Church for hiding
> child molestation.

It's not the same. Tor community is not preventing criminal investigation.
It's perfectly OK to call out community for interfering with justice (since
they are part of the society). But it's not OK to call out some community
because it doesn't do extra punishment to people who we consider morally bad.
(Also, the Catholic Church case has another dimension which is hypocrisy.)

~~~
dpark
> _But we don 't know if he was criminal._

You're reading selectively. I also mentioned abusers and unethical behavior.
You overlooked that because it doesn't fit into your "justice system"
narrative.

> _But it 's not OK to call out some community because it doesn't do extra
> punishment to people who we consider morally bad._

Yes, it absolutely is. The problem here is you're worried about _punishment_
when you should be worried about the _community_. Shunning someone is partly
about punishment but it's also largely about protecting the community. It is
perfectly right to say "hey, you have predators in your midst and it's hurting
some of your community members while you look the other way." The Catholic
church issue is extremely relevant because it is the same scenario at a higher
level of severity. Predators preying on the weak should be called out, and if
the community doesn't do it, they should fully expect those outside the
community to do so.

Your concerns here are especially nonsensical, though, because it's actually
community members calling this guy out.

~~~
js8
I am worried about the community. But I consider abusers to be part of it,
whether you like it or not. I believe that shunning them out completely is
worse than trying to rehabilitate them (which means some punishment plus some
forgiveness).

I see this as a variation of a NIMBY problem. If you consider community as a
sort medieval thing, which needs to be protected from outsiders at all cost
anyway, it's a perfectly valid strategy to deal with abusers by shunning them
out.

But modern world is not like that. The abusers have to live somewhere in the
society, and if they are not allowed to interact with others, you will get a
bigger problem. And arguably, USA applies this strategy the most from all
developed world, and it is a cause of considerable problems.

And I am saying again, what I specifically disagreed with was the call to
other groups to shun him.

~~~
dpark
I don't think that continuing to include serial abusers is in any way
rehabilitating. It's just enabling.

I'd be interested in hearing how allowing someone with a consistent pattern of
sexual harassment continue to participate in the community will result in
anything other than more of the same.

To be clear, shunning this guy from the community isn't likely to result in
him being a homeless criminal. He has marketable skills and clearly people
have in the past ignored his behavior because it was beneficial to business.
He can undoubtedly find a job. What he might not find after this is a position
of power and influence, which is a good thing. (Of course assuming the
accusations are largely true.)

~~~
js8
> He has marketable skills and clearly people have in the past ignored his
> behavior because it was beneficial to business. He can undoubtedly find a
> job.

But isn't this what the OP argues against? That nobody should consider him
having good skills because he is a harasser?

And regarding him having "position of power". I actually wish no one had a
position of power, ever. I would even argue that the whole concept exists to
facilitate sexual selection, and that's the reason why many people (of both
sexes) will want it to exist.

~~~
dpark
Sure. I'd agree that the OP is arguing that basically no one should employ
this guy. I don't quite agree with that, but I also don't think that it's a
real concern because _someone_ will employ this guy whether it's a good idea
or not.

Regarding power, I don't agree with your assessment. Positions of power exist
to provide social structure. Yes, positions of power are relevant to mating,
but humans would have power structures even if we started reproducing
asexually. If you put a dozen people in a room and ask them to accomplish
something, leaders will emerge, because the alternative is disorganized,
undirected, and wasted energy.

~~~
js8
> ask them to accomplish something, leaders will emerge, because the
> alternative is disorganized, undirected, and wasted energy

There are studies that indicate that the "natural leaders" will be
predominantly men, because of intervention from both sexes (both sexes see by
default dominant women as worse than dominant men). And I don't think
alternative is necessarily wasted energy, for example democracy is a pretty
good alternative. It's hard to say what would happen if we were asexual, but
maybe we would all readily agree on having democracy.

~~~
dpark
Democracy is specifically a method for placing people into positions of power.

~~~
js8
No, that's too simplistic definition. You're talking about representative
democracy, but that's just one of the about 4 possible options how to
implement democracy, which is at the core about everybody having same power in
decision-making.

