Debate Is Fine. Even Ridicule Is Fine. Threats Are Unacceptable.

53 Comments

Doug Mataconis • Apr 27, 2012 @12:40 pm

That makes me angry.

Please don't make me angry.

I don't think we want to see Ken angry
Luke • Apr 27, 2012 @12:43 pm

Anybody else have the image of Bruce Banner saying "You wouldn't like me when I'm angry" when they finished reading this?
TJIC • Apr 27, 2012 @12:56 pm

> But that doesn't change the fact that people who make threats, and target the family members (especially children) of folks embroiled in controversy

Indeed.

Going after kids is always wrong. Even when the bad guys are, say, LITERAL Nazis, and not just Etsy con-artists claiming that mass produced crap is hand-made by them.
Caleb • Apr 27, 2012 @1:06 pm

Agreed. People who threaten and harass others over disagreements are scum. Especially when they target an attorney's wife and child because of his professional conduct. (Rule of thumb: If Crystal Cox would do it, don't.)

But I'm thinking practically. How do we identify the more egregious persons and shame them? Most of their actions are anonymous. I assume someone knows which websites the personal info was posted on. Do we name and shame them for allowing it? Or does that take transferred liability to far?

We need to mechanize and institutionalize a feedback process that constantly and consistently penalizes this behavior, or at least distances it from the rest of the community. The way to discourage bad behavior like harassment is swift, just, and reliable punishment.
busyba • Apr 27, 2012 @1:16 pm

The alleged actions, if they in fact took place, are inappropriate.

At the same time, it's impossible to feel any sympathy for the C&D spammer. Just because *his* threats are swaddled in the fig leafs of legal jargon, that doesn't make them any less harmful or frightening to the victim.

I find it difficult to blame the fire when an arsonist gets burned.
Peter H • Apr 27, 2012 @1:34 pm

(Rule of thumb: If Crystal Cox would do it, don't.)

I sure hope Crystal Cox breathes a mixture of thuggery and lies, as opposed to the mix of oxygen and nitrogen gasses to which I am so partial.
nlp • Apr 27, 2012 @1:40 pm

Integrity is something we rarely find. To be willing to fight for someone's freedom of expression, yet being just as determined to fight for the rights and safety of those on the opposite side, is not something everyone is able to do. Ken, you are a symbol of exactly what lawyers should be, and so very rarely are. Thank you.
perlhaqr • Apr 27, 2012 @2:14 pm

In addition to everything Ken said, threatening this assclown is completely unnecessary. Ken verbally bitchslapped him, and if he pushes things further, Ken will use the court system to batchslap (y'know, it's a typo, but upon reflection, I like it. It calls to mind some sort of automated slapping robot. Probably from ACME.) him again, and win a SLAPP judgement for his client to boot.

Hrm. Maybe that's the impetus. People see how much praise Ken gets for being suave, debonair, and erudite in his linguistic smackdown of the assclown-in-question, realise they are incapable of matching that level of verbal vituperation, and fall back to threats of violence, hoping to get some spillover laurels.
mojo • Apr 27, 2012 @2:28 pm

"It's very simple – there's pussies, dicks and assholes…"
inklets • Apr 27, 2012 @2:47 pm

Aye, two wrongs don't make a right. If these threats were posted on the net, the computer ISP should be visible or easy to track, yeah?
John David Galt • Apr 27, 2012 @3:29 pm

You've stated a great principle, and one that should apply to all controversies.

And posting (or protesting at) an opponent's home address, place of employment, or the like counts as a threat.
Maude LL • Apr 27, 2012 @3:34 pm

Threats are obviously always reprehensible. However, I think there are reasons to be skeptical of his claims. I am not saying that it is necessarily false, but this couple has been dishonest since the beginning of this issue with Etsy. I was quite surprised to find out this attorney was an actual real attorney (so often people with his, uh, writing style are fake lawyers). Again, nothing they may have done deserves any kind of threats. But it sounds like the allegations of a legal bully who has said many dubious claims that seem to have been refuted by other parties. I understand he wouldn't want to publish evidence of his claims, but hopefully he has screenshots for the police. That shouldn't be too hard to track down (particularly threats to a child, that's quite serious).
Speaking of which, children go to school at age 2 in California?
Anyway, regardless if he and his family have received threats (which I would condemn), he and his wife nevertheless need to answer to their very questionable behaviour.
dave • Apr 27, 2012 @4:03 pm

Ken Hulkhat SMASH!

Great work & stance, Ken. Thank you for all your efforts.

Keep up the great work and do us a favor by getting cloned when the tech becomes available!
SarahW • Apr 27, 2012 @4:06 pm

I've never seen stupid internet harassment called out better, and that is worthy…

But I confess I am skeptical too – and my suspicion is the "look what you did" is a tactic – as false as the Etsy storefront and is as well-grounded as the original attorney communication.

That's all he's got really – "Liable" and wild claims of new damages from his being resisted …I wouldn't have expected any other response.

I
SarahW • Apr 27, 2012 @4:13 pm

This is the sort of person that would think a link to his or his wife's facebook page with the kid's daycare page "favorited" was targeting his child. I don't know that this fellow has a facebook page I just think he has a tendency to exaggerate. If some Crytal Cox style lunatic thought it was a good idea that would…

Wait a minute. Maybe she just found another reputation to "clean"?
Dan Weber • Apr 27, 2012 @4:26 pm

> Anybody else have the image of Bruce Banner

My mental image is of a teenage house party, where everyone is having a good time, but some of the kids are taunting the house pet, and then suddenly Dad Comes Home and walks right in on said pet-taunting, and everyone gets really really quiet.

. . .
picklelady • Apr 27, 2012 @4:28 pm

Well put, Ken. There's one rule I do my best to live by– Don't be an asshole.
Ken • Apr 27, 2012 @4:28 pm

However, I think there are reasons to be skeptical of his claims.

Please note that I said that I was taking him at his word for purposes of this post.

The principle holds whether or not the claim is accurate. If the claim is not accurate, then nobody should be worried.
Miya • Apr 27, 2012 @4:30 pm

I have yet to see any website that is THAT against his wife. I'm not saying it didn't happen….but it's highly suspect after you look at what the two of them have had to say.

On another website, the wife in question says she wrote that document on her iPhone, while taking dictation.
Is he now saying HE wrote it?

If they fear for their lives or the safety of their child, shouldn't the police be involved….instead of poorly written legalesque threats?
b • Apr 27, 2012 @4:35 pm

It's a good idea to draw the line, whether or not it's been crossed.
SPQR • Apr 27, 2012 @4:53 pm

Everything you say is correct, Ken. But there are some hard limits to my sympathy for this man and that's because he began with some intentional intimidation, and I believe unethical intimidation, toward those who were as you point out exercising their constitutional right to comment upon a public controversy within their community on the internet.

I'm not claiming that that justifies anyone making any threats, any harrassment of him or his family.

But there are limits to my sympathy for those who don't enjoy the blowback of their own conduct.
bakerina • Apr 27, 2012 @7:59 pm

The internet is full of assholes. I strongly disagree with this attorney's argument, which seems to be — in part — that people who write vehemently about controversial issues on the internet are morally or legally responsible for what assholes do when they read it. That's not the law. But that doesn't change the fact that people who make threats, and target the family members (especially children) of folks embroiled in controversy, and engage in direct harassment of them (as opposed to writing about the situation and stating their views), are vile, and we should call them out.

I keep looking for a more elegant and graceful way to say "Ken, this is really great," but I'm afraid I can't find one. So…Ken, this is really great. Thank you.
Kate Marcus • Apr 27, 2012 @8:05 pm

An excellent article, and I agree and applaud its spirit.
But if I may…

I've followed discussions on dozens of websites regarding this case, and have never encountered anyone physically threatening or stalking this family. There is indeed some animosity towards and mockery of both Mariana and Howard (due to their own public statements), but most definitely none that I have witnessed towards their small child.
The only references I've seen regarding their child was Mariana’s own interview with Etsy, an email from their overseas manufacturer referring to the name of a Toddler Chair named after the child (which Mariana personally posted on her own blog [and which she has since deleted]), and another reference to a photo of Howard with his daughter which is available openly on the internet. May I mention that the latter was in direct response to Howard’s cease-and-desist letter? I never saw the photo; I only noted its existence as evidence to establish that Howard was Mariana’s husband and not her father (as was claimed by an unknown “troll” on a forum who obviously had a personal interest in the case). Also, no one following this story would have known the name of their child if Mariana herself had not posted the child’s name on her own blog and in her interview with Etsy, but this of course is no reason to target a child, if that is indeed the truth.

As you stated, if Howard's claims are unfounded, then no one should worry about the very real repercussions of such alleged threats. And I certainly hope that no one is crossing the line over this issue. If there is indeed evidence that their small child has been in any way stalked or targeted, I encourage the Schechters to pursue this lawfully, and I applaud your efforts to be on their side. Indeed, if Howard and Mariana have also been threatened, this is more than unfortunate; it is unconscionably wrong and horribly misdirected.

Unfortunately, the Schechters have become, inadvertently, the poster-couple for outraged Etsy sellers and their frustration with the site and its nebulous Terms of Use (TOU) regarding what is considered “handmade.” The level of anger and confusion is massive, and it’s only natural that Etsy-centric public forums would explode with outrage and, in some cases, mockery and “snark.”

The fact is that Ecologica Malibu’s furniture is handmade. But Mariana and her business partner/husband/importer Howard have never made it clear to Etsy, nor to anyone, that their products are handmade in Bali/Indonesia, and not by Mariana (and some supposed local help) personally.

This is the crux of the outrage for Etsy artisans who have knitted, painted, and whittled their fingers to the bone in their kitchens and garages for years, only to see an obvious “importer/reseller” garner the coveted “Etsy Featured Seller” position, when resellers are expressly forbidden in Etsy’s Terms of Use.

The furniture sold by Ecologicia Malibu is indeed handmade, as is evident by photographic and written/verbal evidence by Ecologica Malibu themselves – none of which, by the way, show Mariana or anyone in her studio (or city, or country) actually manufacturing the furniture. Not once has either Howard or Mariana admitted that this furniture is not handmade by themselves or by their employees in Malibu. Why? Because it’s forbidden by Etsy’s TOU.

In fact, their own wholesale source admits Mariana has no hand in actually making the furniture. At best, according to the evidence at hand, she has ordered some furniture on spec, but still has had no hand in the actual production. And Howard himself is the importer of record. On none of the other selling venues for this furniture, including Overstock, Amazon, Ecologica Malibu or Bali Ha’i Imports does this couple claim that this furniture is handmade by them or by those under their direct employ in their own shop in Malibu, California, USA. None of the other resellers/importers of this furniture (and there are many all over the world) claim that they personally hand-make this furniture in their own shops in their own countries.

Despite all this evidence, Etsy stands behind Ecologica Malibu.
Many “Etsians” would normally report such a business to Etsy and then, seeing that they were getting nowhere, would sigh and shrug and realize they had no power over Etsy allowing yet another reseller to undercut and outshine them. It seems they are used to that.

But this is a special case. Etsy has made a series of missteps that has culminated in Howard and Mariana Schechter becoming the pariahs of the Etsy community.

It is Etsy at fault here:
1). For featuring an importer/reseller on their home page
2). For (as is perceived) failing to properly vet said importer/reseller before featuring them
3). For (as is perceived) failing to properly investigate the evidence submitted by Etsy members that the featured seller is an importer/reseller
4). For, after the outrage expressed by the Etsy community, failing to take what would normally be considered the proper action under the terms of their current TOU (closing the shop and banning them from doing business on Etsy)
5). For, after the outrage expressed by the Etsy community, allowing Ecologica Malibu to rebrand themselves (with the aid of Etsy employees) on Etsy as a “collective” and provide a list of names who are ostensibly part of this “collective.” And further, for giving Ecologica Malibu a false sense of security that this edited version of their bona fides would appease the Etsy members
6). For, after several revisionist apologies and statements, allowing Ecologica Malibu to retain its “Featured Seller” status
7). For closing the shops, deleting the accounts, and banning sellers for much lesser infractions (having their mother sew grommets on a garment, for example), thereby affecting their livelihood and reputation, due to their unclear TOU
8). For banning the accounts and closing the shops of those members who vocalized their confusion about this issue in the Etsy forums
9). For repeatedly making statements and opening threads up for discussion of this issue, and then, after thousands of comments and questions, refusing to respond with clarity and assurance about the issue, and for then deleting and/or closing discussion threads they themselves had started
10). For not being clear, despite thousands of sincere inquiries made in the public Etsy forums, about their TOU, and regarding “what is handmade?” and “what is a collective?”
11). Etc. Ad nauseum.

Etsy is not communicating and publishing what should be a transparent, clear and easily understood TOU for their members, yet Etsy is arbitrarily punishing some while lauding and publicizing others. This, my friend, is why everyone is outraged with Howard and Mariana Schechter (their shenanigans since, aside).

The outrage is that Etsy, touting itself as a “place for all things handmade” has opened its doors to anyone who can send an email with a sketch to a manufacturer in a country with cheap labor, have someone else oversee sourcing and production, and then pass this off as “handmade” to Etsy buyers.

The Etsy members who crochet mittens twelve hours a day to fulfill orders, who hand-carve driftwood into fierce wolves and fanciful fairies, who grind their own organic pigments to paint a landscape… they are the reason that “Baligate” is exploding.

Etsy used to be a place where creativity and craftsmanship was applauded. It used to be a place separate from the commotion and commercialism of eBay and Overstock and Amazon. It used to be a place where sellers of true “handmade” items could shine, could earn a bit of money to feed their families and pay their mortgage, and could promote individual creativity as something to be applauded and nurtured. It used to be a place where an individual artisan could go from being homeless, sleeping in their car, to being able to afford their own home in which to raise their children and conduct a decent business. It used to be a place where buyers could be assured they were purchasing something made with personal attention, and where they were supporting a member of their community.

Etsy has made it clear, in actions but not in words: they are opening their doors to resellers and importers and factory-produced goods. If that’s the direction Etsy chooses to go in order to grow profits, they are, after all, a business. Etsy was a “handmade” marketplace that now finds themselves on the brink of major changes. If only Etsy could rebrand themselves as easily as they have rebranded their controversial featured seller?

Ecologica Malibu should not be blamed for a debacle caused by Etsy’s wishy-washy Terms of Use, and the clumsy way in which they handled the aftermath. Etsy, after all, allowed and embraced their business.

But it’s probably a good idea for Ecologica Malibu to consider more appropriate venues and leave Etsy behind.

And it might also be a good idea for Howard to forbid Mariana from typing a legal document on her iPhone.

Note: I’m not an Etsy seller. I’m not an Etsy buyer. I’m not associated with any of the parties involved. This is purely my opinion as an outsider.
Barbara • Apr 27, 2012 @8:22 pm

Seriously Ken, I can't imagine that this "lawyer" understood a word of your letter, nor are they subjects of "threats". It's apparent from his legal tactics that he's underhanded, sleazy and most likely an ambulance chaser.

As a victim of an online stalker, I know what true stalking is, and I don't believe a word he said to you. You are a kinder man than I to even entertain the idea he may be telling the truth.

That being said, people who DO threaten, stalk and harass people because of something they said on the internet are the scum of the earth. And police don't give a rat's ass about it. Trust me on this one.
trinlayk • Apr 27, 2012 @11:32 pm

been at a lot of the sites discussing this, and the VAST majority of any anger/frustration isn't at the seller in question, but rather at how poorly and arbitrarily Etsy enforces it's TOU.

One seller getting help from a parent or their child who may live in the same town but not under the same roof, might get their shop shut down with NO notice. (just the email saying "your account has been closed. have a nice day." and no appeal process to get their shop back…) Heck, we recently saw a very popular, very legit soap maker, shut down when she made a purchase, and the seller in that exchange thought the use of a PO box made it a likely scam, reported it as such and the shop (that had been featured in the past) was shut down within 5 hrs of the purchase being made. (and again no chance of appeal with Etsy declaring they'd done a complete investigation and decided that their action was appropriate…. and this after the closed shop had been trying to get a hold of a human at Etsy for several days) … Oh and the accuser is STILL bragging in the forums about getting the shop shut down… (discussing transactions is a violation of the TOU and would get most other users permanently muted on the forums…)

So why is a shop with two sisters sewing pants shut down as a 'factory" but this other shop is redefined as a collective and coached on how to make their listings look "ETSY legit"… 90% of the issue, and the response to the issue is about Etsy not following their OWN TOU, or doing so unfairly over a long period of time. the particular seller is a symptom and not so much the problem… and I've been seeing the anger/confusion/frustration all aimed at ETSY's admin and not the particular seller.
Fred Jones • Apr 28, 2012 @1:37 am

Usually when someone claims they are getting lots of death threats, it means one or two people were vaguely mean to him/her.
Matthew Cline • Apr 28, 2012 @3:43 am

He related to me that he is the husband of the young woman at the heart of the controversy, and the father to their two-year-old daughter.

Isn't this a really bad idea, in the "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" sense? You're hardly going to be objective if you're representing your spouse.
Star of the East • Apr 28, 2012 @3:52 am

As civilized people we have chosen to protest against this new trend (of mass producers and resellers) in silence: we are going to put our shops on vacation mode for 24 hours on May 10 (in your own time zone). If you want to have the old Etsy back, please join us.

Please sign up here, and together we can make it happen!
http://www.protesty.com/
mhm5 • Apr 28, 2012 @8:02 am

Having seen what Mrs. Schechter considers a death threat (the comment I saw was something like "I bet we could get a boatwood coffin for the death of integrity". On Pinterest, she claimed that someone was making a death threat against her because of that comment. That would likely be due to the language barrier.

But, no, threatening people with physical harm is never OK, even if they are lying, cheating jackasses. Doing it through email is even more retarded, because no matter how anonymous you think you are, you can be found.
AlphaCentauri • Apr 28, 2012 @8:06 am

It's possible that his wife IS intractably mentally ill, and he has to step in and take the heat for her misbehavior from time to time.
David C. Wells • Apr 28, 2012 @8:24 am

Bravo, good sir. I can see why they're so hot for you at Regretsy.
trinlayk • Apr 28, 2012 @8:29 am

Sometimes I really dislike the idea of Regretsy, but their sense of JUSTICE is right on target.

Yeah, made me a bit of a drooling fan girl myself for a bit, and I've hung out with you on Twitter for a long time now.
Esther Sanchez • Apr 28, 2012 @9:11 am

Ken, it is very polite of you that you take the guy at his word, but the threats he claims to have received are very hard to believe, specially from people that has lied so much.
Rachel • Apr 28, 2012 @9:21 am

If he's really been threatened, then of course that's unacceptable.

and @Maude LL – the kid, at 2, is probably in a daycare program at a school. I was in one of those at age 2 due to both my parents working.
bakerina • Apr 28, 2012 @10:38 am

I do think it's reasonable — hell, more than just reasonable — to consider that the other attorney is throwing up a smokescreen, especially since the "threats and comments were his chief concern in his discussion with [Ken]." Considering the force of Ken's letter, it's not exactly an improbable scenario. And I can vouch for trinlayk's assertion that the deepest anger within the Etsy sellers' community is not against the merchant in question (although there's certainly anger there), but against Etsy's inconsistent application of its ToU, as well as its willingness to close forum threads on a dime.

But again, none of that is an excuse for any actual threats or harassment.
Henryetta • Apr 28, 2012 @2:17 pm

These are very serious allegations.

The onus must be on this fellow to provide the proof.
Which I am sure that he must be keen to do, since he'll be worried about his wife & child.
It's likely that he has already passed this information on to the relevant bodies, as we all would in his shoes.
Yeah?

And then there still remain other questions requiring answers.
TheBargainBabe • Apr 28, 2012 @3:55 pm

I never saw threats. Granted I don't live on every corner of the interwebs. I saw a commenter post the fb link to mariana shister and a link to one of her videos. It was "thumbs downed" repeatedly and hidden. The video is one she had posted of her daughter…SHE had chosen to make it public, not us.

There haven't been any threats of physical harm and if there HAD been, they should have sent those people a C/D…not the other 42 (*42!??! Holy mother of pete) people who just dared to say that Howard and Mariana are lying sacks of horse poop. Cuz that's true.

What we have here is a wealthy couple SugarDaddy relationship (did she need a green card and him need a hot wife on his arm at Lawyer Ad Libs meetings) trying to make themselves even richer by exploiting the little guy (how many of you think "Juan" is paid anything livable?), lying, and attempting to squelch any little guy who pops up and says "hey you suck."

Or as you called it, thuggery!
Joe • Apr 29, 2012 @6:54 am

OK, everyone after much consternation and debate (mostly over whether to wear the navy polo shirt or the lime green one which makes me look a bit like Kermit the frog) I have decided to confess. Confess what you ask?

Well, first I have to go back to when Ken first posted about Cox and she went to the extent of tagging posts with the names of all the attorneys in his firm and threatening to report him to the bar association for daring to post about her on his “personal” blog. I don’t consider those actions to be either legitimate debate or ridicule. It crossed the line into being threatening – especially when it’s directed at one’s company and business partners in a deliberate attempt to interfere in someone’s legitimate business.

As a Popehat fan, I decided to try to shine a little more light on her outrageous behavior with a bit of ridicule, in what I now have to admit is a failed attempt to embarrass her into telling the truth. I created a YouTube video now infamously known as “Crazy Crystal Cox” under the moniker Captain Obvious.

Yes, I have just outed myself – though not in the traditional sense. I almost feel a little bit like Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man when he stands up at the end of the movie and admits “I am Iron Man” – except I’m not nearly that suave, smart, or good looking.

The Cox video clearly contains a disclaimer that I am not Ken or Marc nor do I know either of them personally (although I wish I did) and that I am not a lawyer. It also does not contain or condone any threats. Cox, however, has chosen to ignore these facts as she usually does when it comes to the truth. So I’m admitting I’m the author of that bit of silliness in hopes it will help minimize any of the blowback from the video due to Cox’s inability to grasp that I am actually capable of independent thought and that Ken and Marc are not pulling my strings (although they do make me laugh).

Hopefully Ken will forgive any issues it may have caused.

I can only hope Cox doesn’t turn her attention to little old insignificant me. But of course she would have to first discover the super sekrit identity of the person behind Captain Obvious. If she ever does, I hope Ken or Marc will kindly offer a bit of assistance as I’m not sure the shield I carry as Captain Obvious can withstand a determined Cox Googlebomb to my real life alter ego. Although, it usually stops my own team mates in the Justice League from beating the living daylights out of me – at least on most days.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Obvious has kindly decided to assist me with my clothing choice dilemma – ribbit.
TheBargainBabe • Apr 29, 2012 @2:58 pm

There haven't been any threats of physical harm and if there HAD been, they should have sent those people a C/D…not the other 42 (*42!??! Holy mother of pete) people who just dared to say that Howard and Mariana are lying sacks of horse poop. Cuz that's true.

What we have here is a wealthy couple SugarDaddy relationship (did she need a green card and him need a hot wife on his arm at Lawyer Ad Libs meetings) trying to make themselves even richer by exploiting the little guy (how many of you think "Juan" is paid anything livable?), lying, and attempting to squelch any little guy who pops up and says "hey you suck."

Or as you called it, thuggery!
Joe • Apr 29, 2012 @5:41 pm

Uh BargainBabe – you do realize in your post above dated Apr 29, 2012 @2:58 pm you just repeated essentially the exact same thing you posted on Apr 28, 2012 @3:55 pm. Trust me when I tell you the regulars who post here are not so dense they're unable to comprehend it the first time around.
TheBargainBabe • Apr 29, 2012 @5:55 pm

Sorry Joe, just didn't think the first one took. I will see if I can delete the repeat.
TheBargainBabe • Apr 29, 2012 @5:58 pm

Ok well I don't see a way to delete it on my end. So just ignore the repeat…kind of like you ignore Great Aunt Martha when she tells the same story three times at Thanksgiving. Ha!
Scott Jacobs • Apr 29, 2012 @6:31 pm

There's one rule I do my best to live by– Don't be an asshole.

Hell… That rule would ruin my whole shtick…
ModernMrsDanvers • Apr 29, 2012 @8:26 pm

I truly hope that no one is actually threatening them. Yes the Schecters are full of shite, but there is no reason to take it behind taunting. Especially the child.
ModernMrsDanvers • Apr 29, 2012 @8:26 pm

*beyond* taunting. Stupid phone.
Jess • Apr 29, 2012 @9:05 pm

@Scott Jacobs – well someone has to be a foil to Ken’s suave rapier wit.

@mhm5 – “Doing it through email is even more retarded, because no matter how anonymous you think you are, you can be found.”

I’d probably say not so much retarded as cowardly. But, don’t kid yourself there are ways to remain truly anonymous so you can’t be found.

So Joe (aka Captain Obvious) for example does not need to worry as long as he never sent Cox a direct email. Emails can be resolved to IP addresses and Cox tracks the IP addresses of whoever visits her site. As long as Joe didn’t use a work computer (in which case the IP address would resolve to a company named server) at best Cox will have no more than an IP address which typically in home based environments won’t resolve to a physical street address of the user but to the address of the internet/phone company CO – depending on your service. And, in that case, a subpoena would be required to obtain the actual person’s name and address.

On another note if I have someone’s IP address it’s pretty easy to hack their router and once I’m in the router it’s easy to get to the PCs and find who the person is. Biggest problem is that most people do not change the admin password on their router from the phone/internet company’s setting of “password”. Which is why I always recommend changing your admin password on your router.

If you wanted to disappear in a way that even a subpoena wouldn’t track back to a resolvable IP address and physical location there are ways to do that but you’d be looking at around $3,500 in cash another $300 annually in ongoing wirecard costs, being on your own with no tech support (no software registrations) and never accessing the internet from your home (public places only). Cost and pure inconvenience keeps most people from the truly anonymous route.

OK – sorry if I’ve “geeked” everyone out.
Michael Hawkins • Apr 29, 2012 @9:18 pm

When Christopher Maloney became a mini-public figure via PZ Myers, he claimed to have received threatening phone calls and emails. It was ridiculous that people would do that, even for the bull-by-the-horns crowd at Pharyngula. PZ told people to stop and I'm glad he did. There is no excuse for that sort of garbage.
sardonic_sob • Apr 30, 2012 @7:10 am

This man has been practicing law, with zero disciplinary actions, for FORTY YEARS. And yet, he can barely write a coherent sentence*. How is this possible? What clients, what cases, what areas of practice has he found to grow and thrive in for four decades which have encouraged this kind of thing? The mind, as they say, boggles.

(*While I am strongly tempted to also comment on his knowledge of the law, we can't all be polymaths, or polylaws, or whatever, and I have no idea if he normally practices in any related field. Though that does bring up the ethical obligation of not giving advice in a field with which an attorney is unfamiliar…)
busyba • Apr 30, 2012 @9:47 am

I'd rather receive a death threat from some nobody internet wannabe tough guy than a legal threat from a lawyer. Even shyster ambulance-chasing lawyers can cause you real problems, while the vast majority of douchebag internet stalker/harassers are just all talk.
Joe • Apr 30, 2012 @2:34 pm

@sardonic_sob Absolutely – written and verbal communication skills as well as the ability to persuade are arguably the most valuable skill in any profession but especially in the legal profession.

This guy isn’t the first and won’t be the last with less than stellar critical thinking and communication skills. Rakofsky (who by now everyone knows well) in December of 2011 worked ”really hard” on an Order to Show Cause in his defamation case against the Washington Post. It was deemed it to be “incomprehensible” and the court declined to sign it – link to document to dismiss here http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/NYPIAB/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Rakfosky-Order-1.3.12-OTSC.pdf
AlphaCentauri • Apr 30, 2012 @3:16 pm

The really sad thing is that when incompetent people manage to pass the bar, they are likely to spend their lives harassing innocent people with nuisance lawsuits, picking up the cases other lawyers declined to pursue. And I agree with busyba — lawsuits have been much more effective than physical threats at silencing the activities of antispam activists, for instance.
Piper • Apr 30, 2012 @9:25 pm

Ken – thanks for all your posts and your efforts to shine a light into the darker corners of free speech and teh interwebs. I hope the rest of the Anniversary went well.
Emily • May 2, 2012 @4:32 pm

Thank you for this. I'm on the side of artisans on the issue of Etsy resellers and the Ecologica Malibu case in particular, but the Schechters have rights to privacy and safety. (I'd argue that they also have the right to continue to pursue their business, just under more appropriate venues, i.e. Overstock rather than Etsy.) It is deeply disappointing to hear that some have been making threats against them, and involving their young daughter in this mess. I sincerely hope that those threats never materialize.

Thank you for being a voice of reason, Ken.