On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:01:45 -0700, "
wrote:

FULL TRANSPARENCY IS IMPERATIVE

Mike Murray's list of arguments advanced in the
Fake Sam-Gordon case was amusing and largely true.

Two points come to mind. I think they were, if
memory serves, Nos. 13 and 15.

If the author of a fake post uses a fairly easily
discernible fake address, is there a possible defense
that he was merely engaging in a dementedly prolonged
exercise in satire? That argument might not be so
legally loony.

I guess a court would have to decide whether a defensible line was
crossed. But the addresses (e.g., and
) were easily discernible only if you'd already been
TOLD they were phony. They looked real. Sam posted several times to
inform people it wasn't really him. So did Gordon. A person not
steeped in rec.games.chess.* could hardly be expected to know this if
he did a Google search and got a lot of hits on these fake posts.

When the fake made physical threats against Marcus using my name,
Marcus believed it was me, at least for a while. Someone might argue
it was a joke, but it was hardly satire.

The second point is one of authorial style. If
Paul Truong can point out distinct differences between
his writing style and the style in thousands of online
messages, then he has a defense. For if it is
difficult to imagine someone being able to burrow into
Truong's computer identity to fake messages so as to
frame the man, then it is even more difficult to
believe that Truong could sustain other styles of
writing over thousands of messages. The issue of
difficulty cuts both ways -- pro-and anti-Truong --
in this instance.

Who knows? There may be software that can perform that sort of
textual analysis. But when the perp sticks with short sentences, few
big words, lots of copy-paste -- it doesn't seem easy to me.

Now, to the issue of appointing an expert and
getting down to cases. Mike thinks that a fairly
simple issue.

I don't.

It ought to be simple. But it isn't.

Unless there is total transparency in the appointment
process -- which there won't be. What precise instructions
will be given to this expert? What will be his writ? Will we
be able to view in full light the process of investigation?

Or will partisans again invoke the issue of privacy as a trump, while
simultaneously claiming the investigation was biased?
....
Based on precedent, we can expect crooked
dealing UNLESS there is total transparency in the
appointment and investigative process.

I agree. We need transparency and full disclosure of the expert's
credentials and the reason for picking that expert over others, and
some view of the report.

And we shouldn't forget that the expert's report can't send someone to
jail or force anyone to pay damages -- that next step would be up to
the courts.