Be careful what you say here

[Paperclip]

This is crap.

http://newsok.com/message-board-oper...?tm=1218746798

By Tony Thornton
Staff Writer
McALESTER — An Internet message board administrator today filed a formal objection to a subpoena ordering him to surrender information about people who posted on his site.

Meanwhile, McAlester police confirmed the subpoena is part of a criminal libel investigation for comments critical of District Attorney Jim Miller.

It remained unclear today who authorized the investigation, which apparently targets a Web site called the McAlester Watercooler (mccooler.net) and its administrator, Harold King.

King said two police detectives delivered the subpoena to him Tuesday. The subpoena orders King to supply by Saturday the names, addresses and other identifiers for 35 people who posted under pseudonyms.

King's objection states that he won't comply because the subpoena doesn't state who authorized it. Therefore, he wrote, "I consider the subpoena to be invalid."

The objection automatically forestalls the requirement on King to deliver the documents.

Miller told the Tulsa World he considered some comments on the Watercooler to be libelous.

Oklahoma is among 16 states with criminal libel laws still on the books, according to the Student Press Law Center. Most recently, Utah abolished its law in 2007.

An openness-in-government expert today said the subpoena "smacks of intimidation."

"It's outrageous for a district attorney to investigate criminal libel for criticism made against him. ... If he believes he has been libeled, he should sue civilly," said Joey Senate, past president of Freedom of Information Oklahoma and an assistant professor of journalism at Oklahoma State University.

[Curly Bill]

We mostly libel each other on here, so we're probably good.

[soonersn20xx]

Without knowing what was said, it's hard to know if it's an intimidation tactic or legit.

[yermom]

now i'm glad i registered as Rusty Shackleford

[olevetonahill]

We mostly libel each other on here, so we're probably good.

Yea it aint like we Have time to pick on outsiders
when we Have setem , sicem and Buttercup

[KC//CRIMSON]

now i'm glad i registered as Rusty Shackleford

I'm posting as Lloyd Christmas using an air card from somewhere in Maine.

[Animal Mother]

Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Doesn't our state get enough bad pub without this sh!t for brains going off over internet postings?

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. But please don't throw sticks and stones.

[Curly Bill]

Yea it aint like we Have time to pick on outsiders
when we Have setem , sicem and Buttercup

...and we got them bunch of lefties to call Socialist and Commies and stuff like that.

[Chuck Bao]

Indeed.

Thailand is taking it a step further. As of Aug 23, all organizations, including Internet cafes, hotels, schools and private companies, will be required to keep a log of 90 days of internet traffic data so that the police can crack down on forwarding of porno pics and libelous posting on message boards.

This only makes sense only if the police already have the ISPs handing over home traffic data about users.

This is not a good idea.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/130808_Ne...008_news11.php

From Aug 23, private firms, organisations and government agencies will be required to store all internet traffic data for 90 days so it is available as digital evidence for police. Pol Col Yannapol Youngyuen, commander of the Bureau of Technology and Cyber Crime at the Department of Special Investigation, said the IT Ministry order has no exceptions and will include banks, hotels, schools and internet cafes.

He said digital evidence gathered from computers is useful in tracking those engaged in cyber crime.

Cyber offences, ranging from email forwarding of pornographic pictures to posting libelous messages on forums, are on the rise, Pol Col Yannapol said, but police agencies find it hard to gather the evidence to bring the perpetrators to justice.

He said internet cafes will also be required to collect information to identify computer users, such as ID cards, time of logging in and sites visited. Shops that fail to heed the rules will face fines up to 500,000 baht (about US$17,000), he said.

[soonersn20xx]

Even if their identities are revealed, there seems to be to much assumption that an email address or someone giving a false name implicates otherwise innocent individuals.

I lost a job when a disgruntled employee spoofed my email address and sent a threatening letter to my boss. The company assumed my guilt based on simply my email address and was terminated almost immediately despite the fact I provided information that the email was bounced from some server in Ireland and had documentation from Yahoo that the email was not sent from their servers.

Local law enforcement wasn't interested in pursuing the person that perpetuated this b/c they had bigger fish to fry. And I was not in a financial position to hire a lawyer and fight this, so I am left with an employment history that is still haunting me. When speaking to perspective employers maybe I should just lie about this incident because when I try to explain this, their eyes seem to gloss over and maybe they're making the same assumption of guilt as my original employer did. So any constructive suggestions would be appreciated.

But the moral of this story in relation to the thread is, also be careful of what someone says pretending to be you on here.

[Paperclip]

Nice to know your password is safe.

[yermom]

Even if their identities are revealed, there seems to be to much assumption that an email address or someone giving a false name implicates otherwise innocent individuals.

I lost a job when a disgruntled employee spoofed my email address and sent a threatening letter to my boss. The company assumed my guilt based on simply my email address and was terminated almost immediately despite the fact I provided information that the email was bounced from some server in Ireland and had documentation from Yahoo that the email was not sent from their servers.

Local law enforcement wasn't interested in pursuing the person that perpetuated this b/c they had bigger fish to fry. And I was not in a financial position to hire a lawyer and fight this, so I am left with an employment history that is still haunting me. When speaking to perspective employers maybe I should just lie about this incident because when I try to explain this, their eyes seem to gloss over and maybe they're making the same assumption of guilt as my original employer did. So any constructive suggestions would be appreciated.

But the moral of this story in relation to the thread is, also be careful of what someone says pretending to be you on here.

you could send threatening emails to the prospective employer from your prospective employer's email

that sounds really ****ty. how long ago was that? i'd be working at getting that employer to back off on explaining why you no longer work there... it's pretty easy to prove that anyone can send mail as anyone else

the email headers should be the key there

[Tulsa_Fireman]

This is not a good idea.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/130808_Ne...008_news11.php

Bangkok.

heh heh heh.

[soonersn20xx]

that sounds really ****ty. how long ago was that? i'd be working at getting that employer to back off on explaining why you no longer work there... it's pretty easy to prove that anyone can send mail as anyone else

the email headers should be the key there

This was about 4 years ago, and I think the dumbass IT guy for the company failed to explain to the boss because it made him look incompetent. I don't think the IT guy even thought about the email header information because I was the one that pointed it out to him in my defense to the company HR that I had not sent it.......he didn't even want to give me a copy of that falsified email.

But imagine, if you're an employer with 10 applications from equally qualified individuals and you see one with: Fired due to a spoofed threatening email, which stack do you think my application ends up in? Hire or do not hire.

I think I might be better off if I just say I quit from that job and don't give permission to contact the employer. Even though they represent almost 8 years of my employment history.

[mxATVracer10]

That employer cannot by law explain to your prospective employer the reason for termination. I believe all that can "legally" be released is hire/term dates and if you are eligible for re-hire....

[Hamhock]

That employer cannot by law explain to your prospective employer the reason for termination. .

what law?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

8 years? with one gig? wow. personally, i'm stretching it to stay on the same gig a year.

[yermom]

how about 11

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

i just don't see how you put up with the politics for that long. 6 month projects seem to be about the best amount of time for me. get in, deliver, get out, everyone is still happy...

[tommieharris91]

Even if their identities are revealed, there seems to be to much assumption that an email address or someone giving a false name implicates otherwise innocent individuals.

I lost a job when a disgruntled employee spoofed my email address and sent a threatening letter to my boss. The company assumed my guilt based on simply my email address and was terminated almost immediately despite the fact I provided information that the email was bounced from some server in Ireland and had documentation from Yahoo that the email was not sent from their servers.

Local law enforcement wasn't interested in pursuing the person that perpetuated this b/c they had bigger fish to fry. And I was not in a financial position to hire a lawyer and fight this, so I am left with an employment history that is still haunting me. When speaking to perspective employers maybe I should just lie about this incident because when I try to explain this, their eyes seem to gloss over and maybe they're making the same assumption of guilt as my original employer did. So any constructive suggestions would be appreciated.

But the moral of this story in relation to the thread is, also be careful of what someone says pretending to be you on here.

Tell Homey to take a look at this post and peem him any other pertinent info. If what you say is true, then this is a wrongful termination. No one deserves bad information like this on their resume.