July 20, 2006
From the desk of Jane Galt:Tee hee
From James Joyner:
This morning, I learn that lefty blogger extraordinaire Glenn Greenwald–who is a famous constitutional scholar, has a bestselling book, is quoted by important Senators and media types alike, and has risen to the heights of blogitude in a mere nine months–has had his IP address stolen by at least three people. Thankfully, they have so far used it only to write blog comments praising Greenwald. But, surely, this could be used for ill, too.Shawn, Patrick Frey, and Ace all have details.
I hasten to note that I haven't been following the Glenn Greenwald dust-up that apparently spawned this . . . er . . . theft. Nor do I think that sock puppetry is wrong, exactly, though it sure is embarassing if you get caught praising yourself. The trouble with John Lott was not that he used sock puppets -- including on my site; it's that his research problems made it impossible to rely on his results. The sock puppetry was just the most excruciatingly publicly humiliating aspect of it all.
Nonetheless, I doubt we'll be hearing much more about his sock puppets from the left. And a good thing, too, as it's more sad than relevant. Why kick a man when he's down?
Of course, I expect that Mr Greenwald has a few more weeks of twisting slowly and painfully in the wind . . .
Update Glenn Greenwald implies that it was his partner, David, who made the posts. In support of this assertion is that they don't quite read as if written by a native English-speaker (his partner is Brazilian).
The problem, David is that everything you are saying that Glen should address, he already has. He explained clearly that Markos cannot and does not exert leverage over a single word he writes or doesn't write, and already explained what Townhouse is:I cant speak for him, but I wouldnt answer you either, you keep ignoring the answers he gave, which suggest that youre interested in accusing, not in learning.
Finally, you want a negative proven. What evidence could exist to show this conspiracy doesnt exist?
Counting against that theory: neither does the blurb on his website.
For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters.
. . . and the author's rather astonishing skill at creating realistic-sounding GMail addresses based on variants of the anglophone names used by whoever was manipulating the sock puppet.
It really doesn't matter, does it? After all, having your wife, boyfriend, or mother defend you using a puppet show isn't much less embarassing than doing it yourself.
Posted by Jane Galt at July 20, 2006 1:23 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksBecause he's a pompous jerk-wad who spends his days talking about how vicious and underhanded everyone is when they attack him, how vile and deceptive they are.
And then it turns out, his denials notwithstanding, that he's been sock-puppeting.
And really, Mr. Greenwald, claiming that other people could have that IP address, when the style and tone of the comments are virtually identical, is really beyond ridiculous. If you didn't write those posts, your partner did. Have the fortitude to stand up and defend his actions, or admit that you did them, but don't try to hide behind absurd concept that everyone who lives in Brazil will rehash a summary of your CV combined with a personal attack in exactly the same way. It absolutely shreds your credibility.
It shredded John Lott's; turnabout is fair play.
IP addresses are not fixed items. Depending on the network you might not have even a true network routable address. In Pasadena, Champion Broadband my ISP, used DHCP to assign internally routable addresses. Many people in the city would have had the same IP address to routable internet. It's not that it's just a "home connection" - depending on the number of IP addresses the Brazilian ISP has and how they have set up their network - literally thousands of people could have the same IP addres. This is also true in the US with many AOL users. Why? Because AOL runs pretty much everything through their caching servers in Virginia - they don't want their users to have real (ie routable on the Internet) IP addresses as that would be incredibly expensive. I visited most of those blogs and it's apparent no one is a network engineer. This isn't to defend someone if he using socket puppets. It's just that most people have NO idea how large scale ISP networks are set up and think that EVERYONE full IP address.
BSD
readers here may want to check Mr. Greenwald's website where he posts his strong denial. As poliblog points out, assuming this is a real issue at all the most likely explanation is that Greenwald's partner is using multiple aliases. [oooh-convene an ethics panel!!]
the "tee hee" comment is just contemptible. absent a lott more evidence, greenwald should have enough credibility from his long history of quality posting to get at least a presumption of innocence.
Brian De Spain of Pasadena misses the point.
All three blogging identities posted the same exact talking points from the same script---all in defense of Greenwald.
And Francis, I think you're failing history here.
Greenwald has a record of lying.
Keep in mind, simply because someone denies something, that does not mean they're telling the truth.
You remind me of Saddam's minister of information who was giving press conferences denying that we were dropping bombs on Iraq...as we were dropping bombs on Iraq.
I don't live in Pasadena. I merely have a home there. And as far as defending Glenn - I wasn't. I merely pointing out that most people are trumpeting the IP address as if it actually means something. It doesn't. Could it be Glenn' partner? Most likely. Is he saying anything untrue? Nope. Is it "reprehensible"? Hardly - they are fucking commments on a blog. You cannot take them seriously. Should his partner not done that- probably not. But really I see anonymous posts all the time that spew specific talking points and others that spew racist bile. What's the real point? That anonymous comments are not to be trusted?
"Greenwald has a record of lying"
Some evidence of some sort is required for such a broad claim. Hell - A single example would be useful.
the "tee hee" comment is just contemptible.
How dare Jane giggle at the embarassments of others!
Greenwald says:
I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address.
Sort of a soft-pedal denial. He can always claim someone else in his home made those posts without admitting anything.
It's a rather lame denial.
I was laughing at James Joyner's deadpan, not Glenn Greenwald; I think sock puppeting is sad, not funny.
It's not that soft pedal. His "Those in the same household have the same IP address" is pretty clear that it is someone in his household who isn't Greenwald. Ok it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out who that might be. So his partner anonymously supported him by posting similar comments under different names - WOW! Anonymous comments are not to be trusted. That's why I post under my real name myself. There are too many anonymous comments that out there that don't merit discussion. Let's be clear we are talking about three comments on three seperate blogs out of thousands of similarly anonymous comments from God knows who.
That's why I always make sure to keep strict control of my fiancee's internet activities. After all, it isn't like she's an adult human being or anything. What if she wandered off into a comment thread without considering how it could reflect on me?
The war Jane supported so vociferously has turned into a nightmare with no way out. Tee hee!
Ted, I'm not saying he's responsible for it . . . I wouldn't be responsible if my Mom made up a name here and started defending me to you. But I'd still be pretty embarassed if she got caught.
Luckily, Mom still hasn't gotten the hang of this internet thang . . .
I suggest that a sage observation from your occassional commenter "dearieme" is called for.
I find Ted's heteronormative assumptions to be offensive yet sadly representative of the patriarchy he props up despite his protests to the contrary.
Brian and others, the "my boyfriend did it" excuse would probably be more believable if one of the sock puppets hadn't claimed to have emailed Greenwald for a clarification and then posted what he claimed was an email from Greenwald.
It's not proof. But it does cast doubt on the excuse. I mean, I've never emailed my roommate about anything. Not when I can just ask her what's up.
So his boyfriend falsified a claim that he "emailed" Glenn. What's the big deal there? Glenn is in a difficult position because when your wife or significant other does something stupid, they are still your wife and or your significant other. I mean why would Glenn admit anything? He could have said, "It's not true. Who you gonna believe me? Or this other guy with his screen captures" Instead he said "it originated at my house but I didn't do it."
That's a gently as you can put something.
It's not a roommate - it's his lover and one he has dedicated spending half his time in Brazil to.
Anonymous comments are not to be trusted. That's why I post under my real name myself. There are too many anonymous comments that out there that don't merit discussion.
Mere letters on a page. "Brian DeSpain" could be an invented or even stolen pseudonym, and nobody this side of a criminal prosecutor could ever turn up enough evidence to prove otherwise. You could even be sock-puppeting yourself with aliases, and if done carefully, nobody could prove that, either.
Here's something interesting to ponder, though: You claim to post under your real name, and you freely reveal that you have multiple places of residence, one of which is in Pasadena, but that this is not where you live. This tells any casual observer (1) that you are probably a man of some material wealth, (2) that you divide your time amongst multiple locations, and (3)approximately where to find a location into which you have probably invested some of your wealth, but at which you do not spend a majority of your time. Moreover, you post frequently on Internet forums, sometimes in ways that reveal your approximate current geographic locale.
Congratulations; it might take six months to plan, but you've just set yourself up for a spectacular robbery.
Also, if you are a man of some material wealth and have an interest in two or more homes, that probably means you have a decent credit rating; and since your real name and at least one of your approximate geographic residence(s) are known, enough peripheral details can probably be researched to find other critical personal data.
Congratulations again; you've just set yourself up for a targeted identity theft, possibly as a post-script to the aforementioned robbery.
Still feeling smug about non-anonymous posting? I hope none of these things befall you, but either you've got a nifty little charade going, or you are quite possibly naiive.
What is required is one of those shrewd observations from you occassional commenter dearieme.
anony-mouse - Nope I am not naive and yes I am setting myself up for robbery for someone who really wants to take the time. I have recently taken precautions against identity theft (the one good thing in the bankruptcy bill) after someone attempted it. As far as physical theft, that'a nearly impossible since the house in New Mexico where I spend most of my time is not easily accessible (it's driveway is pretty long and I kept Tibetan Mastiffs around). The house in Pasadena is in a neighborhood where theft would be very difficult. So am I smug? No. This identity theft thing happened less than one month ago. Am I going to change posting as my real identity? No. I feel standing substantively behind your real opinions is an important stand to take. It also make you more accountable in what you write. You need spend more time thinking about what you write since your name is attached. BTW I am not the Imp Heads studios Brian DeSpain. For years I was #1 on Google for my name - it just goes to show that it difficult to beat the legions of rapid RPG/card game fans out there.
"It's not that soft pedal. His "Those in the same household have the same IP address" is pretty clear that it is someone in his household who isn't Greenwald."
The posts were nearly identical. They weren't done in isolation by someone in the household.
"They weren't done in isolation by someone in the household."
Liontooth all that proves is it was DONE by the SAME person. What do you mean 'in isolation'? Could you mean that Greenwald directed his lover to make the posts? Or Greenwald misdirected us and he actually made the posts? If that's the case - why bother admitting anything? He could have denied everything and the proof presented was screen captures - hardly damning evidence. By admitting that he knows about it, I tend to believe he's telling the truth. Remember when your husband/wife does something truly stupid, they are still your spouse. That's problem Glenn has - his spouse has done something stupid trying to defend him and he's in between a rock and a hard place. If you are married you can understand this problem.
Comments are Closed.