General Discussions

**Learning Newbie** · 07-13-2007, 12:19 PM

Have you heard about this one? The guy has been posting for years in IRC under the handle "Rahodeb" which is a mash up of his wife's name, Deborah. The messages are about how great Whole Foods is, and how all of their competitors suck.

This came out right when his company was in the process of buying a rival, and now the feds won't let them. Last I heard, they're investigating whether any laws were broken. The guy on the news said "it's not a crime to use a pseudonym, the question is why, and to what effect?" When they start with "it's not a crime" that means they think it should be. They're also trying to decide whether the comments represent his personal opinion or his company, and whether they're actionable slander / defamation.

A couple years ago, some dufus who ran part of Boeing started a set of rules about employees can't date each other, can't discuss their love life on the clock, all that stuff, and then got caught cheating on his wife with his secretary. How'd they find out? Office emails.

On "The Office" last night, Michael Scott had a tryst with his boss, and was bragging to a friend who didn't believe him. He said he's looking at a naked picture of her on his computer right now, and the guy still didn't believe him. There's a long pause, while you think "Nobody could be that stupid." Then he says "Okay, I'll email it to you." A moment goes by, the guy doesn't get the email, then he says "Oh, wait, I just got it from someone else." Instead of parker@company.com he sent it to packing@company.com, to the warehouse guys that hate him.

What do people think about the Whole Foods thing? I think people have a natural right to use handles, and that has a long tradition on the net. Mine symbolizes how even approaching my mid-40s, I still have a lot to pick up in life. I also think that things I say don't represent the place I work for, but if I started and owned the place it would be a different story.

Also what do you think about how often someone goes out and buys a length of rope, ties it to the nearest digital tree, and then hangs themself? Don't people know everything that happens on the net leaves a record somewhere, and if you try to cheat you'll eventually get caught?

**Republikin** · 07-13-2007, 03:25 PM

I don't get it, so its supposedly illegal to slander a company if you own a competitor?

Hmm, should I not slander stock.xchng then even if I do believe their community to be stuck up and anti-American?

**Learning Newbie** · 07-13-2007, 03:39 PM

Well, I think you're allowed to say bad things about your competitor, or even companies that you aren't competing with. Like "WalMart is the devil, and how can we be surprised at poison dog food when they put Mom & Pop stores out of business and sell cheaper Chinese goods?" Nothing illegal about me saying that, and it's even a good point.

But say you began saying things about stock.xchng, not that they're anti-American, but that they're financially insolvent and going to fold any day now if they don't get bought out. Say you were also using a pseudonym to fool people, to hide the fact that you have a personal financial stake in the info (or mis-info) you're spreading.

Is that illegal? Should it be? I don't know. People spam this forum saying "Hey there's a new web site I just heard of it's great check it out" when it's the same one in their signature, or if you look into whois it's registered to them. Offline, that's illegal. If you ever walk up to a 3 Card Monty know that the other players are all in on it, you're the only one who's gambling with real money. 100 years ago people sold all kinds of tonics, and paid shucksters to stand in the audience and be cured miraculously.

Oh, and slandering a person or company is always illegal, whether you use your real name or not, online or offline. So is defaming their character. Slander is saying it out loud, defamation is in print. I haven't been following this, but last I heard, they weren't really sure which one the internet is more like. But you aren't allowed to say false things about another person to discredit them. Although it's a get sued offense, not a get locked up in jail one. And it's only untrue things - truth is a surefire defense against slander.

**Republikin** · 07-13-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

But say you began saying things about stock.xchng, not that they're anti-American, but that they're financially insolvent and going to fold any day now if they don't get bought out. Say you were also using a pseudonym to fool people, to hide the fact that you have a personal financial stake in the info (or mis-info) you're spreading.

For future reference, this is one of the details you shouldn't summarize into...

Quote:

The messages are about how great Whole Foods is, and how all of their competitors suck.

If he was spreading false financial information this may be considered securities fraud and that I understand much better than his just saying company b sucks.

**Learning Newbie** · 07-13-2007, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Republikin

For future reference, this is one of the details you shouldn't summarize into...

I must be a little slow today, but I don't understand what you're saying? I picked a bad example?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Republikin

If he was spreading false financial information this may be considered securities fraud and that I understand much better than his just saying company b sucks.

Good point. Maybe someone decided it would get better ratings to try something new? Elliot Spitzer got a promotion for suing the record labels. Actually I'm not sure, maybe you can answer this: is security fraud something that can only happen when you misrepresent your own company, or could Exxon commit SEC fraud against BP?

It would be a horrible mistake if they tried to outlaw usernames, like the kind you choose instead of your parents choosing for you. But I think the prosecutors are looking into the combination of factors, not just any one of them. A fake name, acting like a customer or someone who just follows the industry and not someone on the inside, and then a takeover of the company you were targeting in a negative PR campaign, that's a lot. I don't know if it's illegal or not, but it's clear he was up to no good.

You call yourself Republican even though your parents named you Dave, and you aren't even a registered Republican. ( That's a plus in my book, by the way. ) But nobody would dream of going after you, because you aren't calling yourself Republican to fool people, and you take full credit for your brain child. All of your actions together show you're a stand up guy, a honored member of the community that's moving things forward.

Reading between the lines, I think you're saying it's dumb to have laws that depend on "it's obvious" or "you can tell" as the criteria?

**Republikin** · 07-13-2007, 04:46 PM

I was basically saying that you left out the details of what exactly this guy was saying (spreading negative financial information) and replaced it with him just saying the other company sucks. I think there is a significant difference between the two.

I'm no expert but I believe securities fraud (aka insider trading) can be done even if your not a part of any company. If you create a rumor in order to devalue a companies stock in order to buy it at a lower price this is considered insider trading (I think, like I said, I'm no expert).

Your right, that is basically where I stand with any law. I'm a huge fan of "beyond a reasonable doubt" even if it means letting murders go free.

**highanddry** · 07-13-2007, 05:03 PM

What does 'anti-american' even mean? I think I may be

**Learning Newbie** · 07-13-2007, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Republikin

I was basically saying that you left out the details of what exactly this guy was saying (spreading negative financial information) and replaced it with him just saying the other company sucks. I think there is a significant difference between the two.

You know, I do that more often than anyone would realize. Even me. I think I get ahead of myself, and just assume if I know the details, everyone does. I gotta slow down a little and make sure everything makes sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Republikin

I'm no expert but I believe securities fraud (aka insider trading) can be done even if your not a part of any company. If you create a rumor in order to devalue a companies stock in order to buy it at a lower price this is considered insider trading (I think, like I said, I'm no expert).

I think you're right though. I remember reading about some mob bosses from New Jersey about 15 years ago, who used to buy stock "on margin" (that means you buy it, get it today and it's yours, but you pay next week at next week's price) and then sending goons to sabotage the different company's equipment, cut break lines and stuff like that, open a pipe to flood a warehouse, so the stock price went down after they already sold it, and had to pay back half what they sold it for. The prosecutors were never able to prove breaking and entering to file common criminal charges, but they convinced a jury it wasn't a coincidence every time they bought stock on margin, catastrophes started happening - sort of like they got Capone on tax evasion instead of murder. I'll have to see if I can find more details on that one.

But that means they should use the laws that are already on the books, instead of asking the court to make up new ones, huh?

**Republikin** · 07-13-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highanddry

What does 'anti-american' even mean? I think I may be

You tell me then.

**Republikin** · 07-13-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

But that means they should use the laws that are already on the books, instead of asking the court to make up new ones, huh?

I was taken to court once because my insane neighbor hated the fact that my computer interfered with the AM band (must have been a manufacturing error, either way I am positive it was my power supply). We went before a magistrate and I expected him to say the exact same thing all the cops had told me and him every time he called the cops to complain, that it wasn't illegal and they have no right to tell me to stop using my computer. Instead, the magistrate said that he was going to present the case to the judge, and with a big grin he said, "we may be making new law here".

I'm sure what he meant was precedence rather than law but just the fact that there are people in our judicial system that even think this is their role bothers me.

**Learning Newbie** · 07-13-2007, 06:27 PM

I'm not all too bothered by who it is that makes the laws, I mean congress versus a court, it's still someone else I have to submit to. (And for the record, I agree with you that it's better for a scoundrel to go free, than for all men to loose their freedom. Voltaire?)

What really bothers me is the guessing game. There's a concept called "ex post facto." They can make it illegal to burn gasoline and drive a car on Monday, and we'll all have to stop. But they can't prosecute me for driving to Blockbuster today if it isn't illegal yet. Drug makers (not Pfizer, but the meth lab in a trailer) used that as a loophole until they made it illegal to make drugs almost exactly like already illegal ones. It also means if we just got rid of slavery now, slave owners would be immune, because at the time it wasn't illegal to own slaves.

The thing is we need some consistency, so we know what we can and can't do. And if courts have the unique power to change laws at a whim, that makes it a lot harder to be part of a community, or to run a business. That's just too disruptive.

And then if it's congress making the laws, congress is elected, but judges are appointed. Whether you think he's doing right or wrong, Lamar Alexander is showing political courage by doing what his constituents are demanding, instead of what the party line wants. Judges don't have people who elected them to answer to.

Holy crud, I sound like a right winger, and yesterday I actually defended something George W Bush said on my blog. I think the sky is falling.

**seolman** · 07-13-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Republikin

I'm no expert but I believe securities fraud (aka insider trading) can be done even if your not a part of any company. If you create a rumor in order to devalue a companies stock in order to buy it at a lower price this is considered insider trading (I think, like I said, I'm no expert).

I nit-picking here but Insider Trading is actually defined as having knowledge of an event that will likely affect the share price of a publicly traded company and acting on it (i.e. martha-stewarting) prior to the event becoming public.

Having said that, someone "inventing" events is not much different, and it won't be too difficult for prosecutors to tie the dates of his postings to the dates he actually traded stock to see if his manipulations were actually designed to result in a financial gain for himself or a close associate.

**highanddry** · 11:24 PM

Quote:

You tell me then.

You said it.

That makes you an anti-anti-american.

**Republikin** · 07-13-2007, 11:34 PM

Huh? Are you trying to be confusing?

The reason I asked you is because you obviously already have the answer that you want, hence, "I think I may be". In other words, I wasn't going to walk into your flame bait.

**ForrestCroce** · 07-14-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

A couple years ago, some dufus who ran part of Boeing started a set of rules about employees can't date each other, can't discuss their love life on the clock, all that stuff, and then got caught cheating on his wife with his secretary. How'd they find out? Office emails.

Was the guy actually breaking a law? I remember he was breaking some kind of corporate policy on "personal matters" but not so much the details. Anyway, the guy probably thought the IT guys who work the Exchange Server would protect him. Or his receptionist if (s)he deals with the guy's email.

I worked in IT for a company that was being sued, and the other side wanted every email from everyone above mid-level manager that mentioned any of a list of products. The head of our department didn't want any part of it, so he took a week off and hired two temps to hit print and collate what came out. It filled too many boxes to count, and the lawyer made a fortune reading through all of it.

That was really a wake up call. The most personal thing I'll send through a work email account is "Check out whatever IT thing, it doesn't apply to this project but it's good tech knowledge in general." You just shouldn't mention anything you wouldn't be comfortable with the whole company knowing in a company email. Or the media, if you have a semi-important job title.

**highanddry** · 07-15-2007, 05:14 PM

haha you said 'flame bait'.

I just meant to imply that I am totally at odds with American policy both National and Foreign right now, though I still love living here... for now

But I wanted to qualify, or ask rather what you considered anti-american.. I guess you don't have to tell me`!

**Republikin** · 07-15-2007, 07:02 PM

Anti-American certainly isn't someone who disagrees with this countries leaders. Thats the beautiful thing about citizenship in a republic.

**highanddry** · 07-16-2007, 04:00 PM

Well thats the thing. In a representative democracy, you can't really be anti-american. Its more than just diagreeing with policy for me, its a long list of things that I wont get into as I havn't heard anything that you consider anti-american. I think anti-american is confusing. I wont base my response on what I assume you mean so I guess thats where I end it...

**Learning Newbie** · 07-16-2007, 05:48 PM

That's a fair comment. "Anti-American" can be a confusing label. We had a troll in here called Vasectomy, who called me "Anti-American" for recommending a way to help people in the developing world, make a small profit, and get a high PR backlink. The guy told me if I want to help "vietnam people" (actually it was about 3/4 the world's population) and not Americans, that's Anti-America. I disagree. Lending somebody in Albania $25 can make a big difference in their life, and they'll pay you back after about a year. Lending someone $25 here won't buy them a bottle of their favorite alcohol. I don't see how anyone could say it's Anti-American to choose your battles and putting your energy where it will do some good.

I think Bin Laden is Anti-American. No question, right? And Tim McVeigh? I'd say Michael Moore, too. That one is open to debate, but I think he's enough across the line.

But now and then somebody will say "America shouldn't torture people" and be called "Anti-American." That's something I don't understand. I could say "Iraqis shouldn't kill Americans and hang their bodies from a bridge." Remember Falluja? But I don't have my say in what Iraqis should do. I'm an American, I can write my congressman and say "I live in your district, I'm registered and I vote. America should [whatever]" and have some influence. Not much, but some. In Iran or North Korea, I have no influence whatsoever. China should respect human rights more, but I can't make them. If I say "America should respect human rights more" it's not that I hate America and love the Chinese "Communist" Dictator Party, it's that I'm putting my energy where it can do good.

Liberals get a bum rep for this. We're called Anti-American for offering constructive criticism. But there's also unconstructive criticism, just for the sake of saying negative. That's not a crime, but might pass as Anti-American.

Then we have the last group, they don't just complain for the fun of it, but they don't actually build and explode bombs, either. Still, they complain, and do everything they can short of violence to hurt America. I would call Ken Lay of Enron Anti-American. And I would say Michael Moore is Anti-American when he tells the leaders of other countries to be less like us.

Another question is what does it mean to love America? You actually have more freedom and a higher standard of living in some northern European countries than here. But you don't have the distinct American culture. Some of our culture is bad, like Paris Hilton getting so much attention, but we're clever, we form tight-knit neighborhoods and help the people we know, we have some kind of a bond with the people we see every day but don't know. What I love about America isn't that I'm allowed to tell anyone who'll listen that Count Cheney is Satan incarnate. It's that by and large all the Americans I've ever met have been upstanding people. And I'm proud to be one of them.

I think Bush should be impeached. But I'd vote for Republikan of this thread before I would vote for John Kerry.

**highanddry** · 07-16-2007, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Tim McVeigh?

I would say he was an extremist, but not an anti-american. I love America, because no one knows comedy like Americans.

As far as Bush vs Kerry - It's like south-park said "its always a race between a douche and a turd sandwich"

Good post Learned* Newbie