DOJ takes bloggers laptops over reader comments left at Wordpress hosted blog
financialpost.com
financialpost.com
Here's the opposite side of the story with its own biases: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/12/computers_of_crimi...
1) Yes, the author confused Penn State with the UPenn. The Financial Post should probably correct it, but I find it excusable that a Canadian author writing in a Canadian paper might not properly distinguish them. This did not cause me to discount the rest of the article.
2) Yes, it's one sided. It's an opinion piece in the comment section, and labelled as such. This is indicated by the breadcrumbs at the top reading "Home / Opinion / FP Comment".
3) No mention of email hacking? What about the "link to a zip file posted online at a Russian Web address" that "contained 5,000 emails written by some of the most prominent names in climate science." Sure, it didn't use the word hacking, but for all we know it might have been an inside job. Unless you have personal knowledge to the contrary? (cue the police coming to seize your computers)
4) Wait, they didn't seize his computers because of one particular comment left on his blog by someone unknown? You do realize that Tallbloke is not a suspect in the case, and that his computers were seized _explicitly_ in an effort to track down the source of that comment containing that link? Is this the first time you've come across this story?
5) "Seems like this is written by a conspiracy nut". Well, that's a matter of opinion, but "seems" is an odd word choice. As the byline mentions, she's the proud author of the "recently published exposé of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert." I haven't read it, and so can't comment on its quality. Have you? I've read some of Matt Ridley's books, though, and he called it "one of the most important pieces of investigative journalism in recent years". (http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/delinquent-teenager)
5) I do appreciate the link. In particular the part where he retracted his clearly libelous statements, in which he coyly refers to "certain things that could be misinterpreted", as if "the seizure of computer equipment that appears to be linked to the storage and dissemination of the stolen documents" might have a completely different meaning Mr Tatershall's legal jurisdiction? And the part where he offers Mr Tatersall space for a response in return for not "pursuing legal action that was previously suggested"? Was this perhaps added after you read it? Or is that the part you are calling attention to?
This strikes me as a rather poor excuse (if it's intended as such). I agree nobody should expect an opinion piece to be vigorously researched, cited, etc....but all opinions are not equal. There's a difference between someone who is just casually writing their thoughts with the understanding that they are not fully vetting them...and someone who is clearly biased and pushing a particular agenda.
> Wait, they didn't seize his computers because of one particular comment left on his blog by someone unknown?
Well, we can't know all their reasons...but based on the facts so far...no they didn't. They seized them because he referred to a possible hacker as "our old friend" and wrote an article/linked to the hacked emails....AND because a potential hacker commented on his blog, possibly leaving evidence in his account/on the server...then refused to cooperate with the investigation.
Are they justified doing so? I don't know. I think the "old friend" comment is innocent. I also think based on what we know it's pretty frivolous. Unless they have some clear evidence linking this guy, I think they are overstepping their bounds. Of course they might have it...they're not gonna say.
One thing I would also say is that I don't think this guy is being treated any differently than anyone else who gets in the way of any government investigation (that is to say, poorly).... I hope climate change denialists don't hold this up as some sort of proof of their conspiracy theories.
I didn't really intend it to excuse the quality of the content, only to assert that it's allowed to be one-sided. My view (biased, but not self-interested) is that the piece is both well researched and biased, and that the research produced the bias. The author isn't author casually writing scattered thoughts, but rather reiterating the book that she's spent the last year writing. She may be wrong or misleading, but she's spent a lot of effort learning about the subject.
Well, we can't know all their reasons...but based on the facts so far...no they didn't.
You're right. I'm presuming that Tallbloke was merely an running a blog that allowed comments, rather than a conspirator. I conclude this because there were three blogs being investigated simultaneously, and I find it highly unlikely that all of them are colluding. But I guess we'll have to wait to see how it turns out. If they have inside knowledge not yet released, I'd have to revise my thinking.
I hope climate change denialists don't hold this up as some sort of proof of their conspiracy theories.
I'm sure some will, but I don't think there's any monolithic set of denialists. On the blogs in question (http://climateaudit.org/, http://noconsensus.wordpress.com, and http://tallbloke.wordpress.com, all more skeptical than denialist), most of the commenters seem to be concentrating on the civil liberties aspect. It's seen as a precursor of the potential downsides of SOPA. There's a lot of libertarian beliefs among the skeptics.
But I did genuinely appreciate the link. As you might gather from my response, I've been seeing mostly a different side, and I think it's good to have contrast. For contrast of contrast, here's Tallbloke's response: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/winter-solstice-pa...
Reading the two, I'm struck by the difference in tone. I like Tallbloke's better, but am uncertain if that's a subconscious reaction to his message, or simply a preference for different style of prose. ButI agree that the combination is better than any single source.
Also works if a blogger is your competition or you just don't like them.
Kudos to Matt for not obeying any kind of gag order.
I guess the future is government hassling people for having knowledge, can't have that.
Did they use a "National Security Letter" for this without judicial review?
No, scratch that. I quite like my mother-in-law, and I wouldn't own a Porsche in a pink fit. Revised version:
The definition of a mixed blessing: a conspiracy nut is prevented from lying about important stuff by a government that wouldn't know Freedom of Speech if it bit them on the arse.
There was apparently another hacking last month. This might have influenced the police to act aggressively. http://www.desmogblog.com/climategate-hackers-slither-again-...