
Jacob Appelbaum: Inconsistencies in Rape Allegations - treigerm
http://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-08/jacob-appelbaum-rape-allegations-contradictions
======
dalke
The described inconsistency is in the account by the pseudonym 'River', which
was one of the "unidentified individuals [who] posted several specific
instances on a website in which they anonymously accused Jacob Appelbaum of
having sexually, emotionally, physically abused them."

Since then, several of those unidentified persons have identified themselves.
According to Wikipedia, three of them are Honeywell, Macrina, and Lovecruft.

The piece characterizes Appelbaum's statement as "the statements from "River"
were completely fabricated." Neither he nor Zeit say or imply that the
accounts of Honeywell, Macrina, and Lovecruft were incorrect. In fact, the
Zeit piece does not mention them at all.

Casting doubt one account does not immediately cast doubt on all accounts.
Otherwise it would be easy to set up the proverbial false flag operation.

As a reminder, the reason the Tor project "released" (to quote
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum#Allegations_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum#Allegations_of_sexual_misconduct)
) is because: "many people inside and outside the Tor Project have reported
incidents of being humiliated, intimidated, bullied, and frightened" by Jacob
Appelbaum, and that "several experienced unwanted sexually aggressive behavior
from him." Steele made no mention of rape claims published on the anonymous
website.

The decision, at least as publicly given, was not due to any rape allegations.
One does not need to be charged by the police before a company can fire a
employee who, say, steals from petty cash.

~~~
mpweiher
Well: a second person who was listed as a "victim" came forward to dispute she
ever was victimised in any way, and that the account of her experience was
severely manipulated. (It has since been taken down).

So that's at least 2 of the accusations that are somewhere between plain false
and maliciously fabricated, with nothing on the veracity or lack thereof of
the rest.

I don't know the guy, or what happened, but colour me suspicious, especially
when you consider how the allegations were/are being made: not in any legal
forum, but in a glossy PR website + campaign.

Doesn't pass the smell test.

~~~
dalke
As a general point of order, one does not need to have a "victim", in scare
quotes or otherwise, in order to be in violation of an organization's
policies.

For example, a school may prohibit a teacher from engaging in a sexual or
emotional relationship with a student, even if both the teacher and the
student want the relationship. Similarly, between a supervisor and employee,
or between a military officer and a private.

Such behavior may be grounds for dismissal, even though a relationship between
consenting adults is _not illegal_ and therefore has no reason to be "in any
legal forum".

As I pointed out, even when something _is_ illegal, as when an employee steals
from petty cash, the employer does not need to present the case in a legal
forum before dismissing the thief. So your strong desire for presenting in a
legal forum also does not pass the smell test.

~~~
mpweiher
The article is not about Applebaum's dismissal from the Tor project, it is
about the rape/abuse allegations. Allegations that so far appear to be at best
false (1 case apparently completely fabricated and withdrawn on request by the
alleged "victim" [and FYI, the scare quotes are entirely appropriate here], 1
other case contradicted by witnesses).

Depending on the organisation and the relationship to that organisation, no
reasons are necessary whatsoever to sever a relationship (for example in the
US almost all employment relationships are "at will").

So what exactly _is_ your point regarding the content of the article, which,
again, is about the rape/abuse allegations?

~~~
dalke
I started "as a point of order" because my followup comment wasn't about the
content of the article but about aspects of your reply that do not make for a
useful argument. I will address only one.

You say you are suspicious because a legal forum wasn't involved in the
accusations. But sexual harassment is a broad topic, and includes many things
which are not illegal. There is no reason for a legal forum be involved for
harassment which isn't illegal.

For example, you brought up the reports of an observed interaction between
Applebaum and Bähring. Nothing in that interaction was illegal. Hence there is
no reason to believe it will be discussed in a legal forum.

My point regarding the content of the article is that the author only
mentioned the anonymous accusations. Anonymous accusations are generally
treated as less reliable than those made by people who identify themselves -
which is why I'm surprised you put so much trust in "River"'s story that
you're now willing to reject the accusations of Honeywell, Macrina, and
Lovecruft. My point is to question why the author didn't mention those named
accusers, and remind HN readers about the named accusations.

My other point is to highlight how the author is concerned mostly with the
legal topics, when most the issues accusers (I just read jacobappelbaum.net)
have with Appelbaum appear to be sexual harassment, bullying, and other
activities which are not illegal. I wish to highlight the author's omission,
and remind HN readers that the accusations aren't limited to rape accusations
or to illegal activities.

(P.S., it's "Appelbaum" not "Applebaum".)

~~~
mpweiher
This is getting ridiculous.

Once again: serious accusations were made. Where the most serious of those
accusations were examined more closely, they did not hold up even one little
bit. Of the two that were apparently examined more closely, one turned out to
be made up completely, the other was refuted by witnesses.

The other (less serious, AFAIK) accusations were _not_ examined independently.
Instead the accusers were asked and action taken. So basically: accusation =
conviction.

One of the incidents recounted apparently/reportedly involved a consensual
BDSM threesome where he ignored the safeword. Hmm.. To me, this would be a
_completely_ private matter that those involved had no business bringing into
the public sphere (except consensually), and it certainly has nothing to do
with work. Yes, there are people overstepping bounds, but that would be the
accusers. What you do is handle the matter privately, or, if the case warrants
it, within the legal system.

> But sexual harassment is a broad topic, and includes many things which are
> not illegal.

Really?

"At the regional level, both the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe
(COE) address sexual harassment as illegal behavior"[1]

> (P.S., it's "Appelbaum" not "Applebaum".)

> you brought up the reports of an observed interaction between Applebaum and
> Bähring.

Hmmmm...nits to pick...

> how the author is concerned mostly with the legal topics

YES. That is the point of the article. The accusations that would have had
legal ramifications were false. The others were not examined, so nothing was
said about them. You keep criticising the article for things that it isn't
about. Do you also criticise articles about Linux filesystems for not
mentioning DB2? What is your agenda?

> activities which are not illegal

Well, here directly from the site: "Sex _crimes_ are underreported", he is a
"sexual predator". Pray tell me how sex "crimes" are not "illegal"? Them being
crimes and such.

This whole campaign, and it certainly looks like a smear campaign, seems to be
based on a motte-bailey technique[2]: it shouts and insinuates sexual predator
and rapist, to inflict maximum damage, and when challenged retreats to "well,
all we're saying is he's not a nice guy". Not being a nice guy does not
warrant this type of smear campaign, whereas the type of behaviour insinuated
needs legal clarification, otherwise it is slander. You can't have it both
ways.

As far as I can see, all this is is anonymous slander, and that makes it clear
why it's anonymous: slander is a crime and would have serious repercussions
for the accusers. (And since two of the most prominent accusations turned out
to be false, it really _is_ slander).

[1]
[http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/svaw/harassment/explore/1whatis.htm](http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/svaw/harassment/explore/1whatis.htm)

[2] [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-
bric...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-
motte/)

------
mpweiher
German title is "Severe Doubts about Rape Allegations".

Isn't it weird that all these data privacy/whistleblower activists are being
targeted by rape allegations that are more than dubious?

~~~
douche
Funny, that. Doesn't tend to increase anyone's credibility when they have the
scarlet R hung on them, even if it eventually gets crossed out.

