Nick Farr's 30c3 Jake Appelbaum story of abuse and harassment

Welcome to the snake pit.

No matter what all of you may think of the stand-up-ness of any of the folks involved, there are strong agendas in whomever is presenting a case here.

I, for one, am no longer involved in the Tor Project, but I am the founding executive director, and I haven't so much as spoken to Jake for years -- I believe I ran into him very briefly at a Tor hackathon about three years ago at the MIT Media Lab -- and haven't spoken him to any serious depth for a good nine years. So I don't have a serious horse in this race. I care about the project a good deal more but I've been retired, not on the board, and not particularly volunteering due to a stroke a while back.

But this kind of thing bites.

Sit down, STFU, and wait for the courts, if any, to settle it out. We went through this with Assange too. It divides people up.

There are a few things to say here.

The most radical thing you can do for a woman is to believe her. Fine. The most radical thing you can do for an activist, is to believe him or her. Applies to Jake and to Nick, amiright? But. To. Both. The best thing you can do for your community is to stop tearing it up at the roots with gossip, like archetypical old ladies. Which I feel qualified to say, as the local blue hair (ok buzz cut battle ship gray) retiree. Opsec says, every one of these reasonable sounding people is a liar with an agenda.

So, much as I would love to believe Jake, the women involved, Nick, and the tooth fairy, all of them are hackers at hacker cons, and you are all my peeps, and I love you. And there is no spoon, no truth, and no use to hacking this out in an internet forum as a form of vigilante justice.

My gray haired thought is this is all prurient, for a loooong time.

Please chill.

This is just the kind of thing that regardless of who is in...error...makes a community spin until it's sick and the good people fly away.

If we are wise we'll all work to de-escalate, not justify or discuss, until things can go through normalized channels.

I don't expect for an moment that will happen, but I feel compelled to make the appeal.

Shava Nerad founding exec dir, The Tor Project, retired 2007 but speaking entirely for myself

Q: WHY DID YOU MAKE THE SITE?

A: We made the site because we wanted other people to be aware of how Jake behaves. There has been a whisper network for years, but it doesn't reach everyone, and even if it could, open secrets do not protect people. We didn't want anyone to be victimized by Jake just because they hadn't been warned about him. Making a public site is the best way to make sure that everybody is aware of the stories about him.

Q: MAKING A SITE LIKE THIS SEEMS AWFUL. WHY DIDN'T YOU TRY OTHER WAYS TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS YOU WERE HAVING?

A: People have tried lots of things, including speaking directly with Jake and asking him to stop. People have talked about his behavior inside the infosec and internet freedom communities for years, and have tried many strategies for making it harder for him to victimize people. People have complained inside the Tor Project and been dismissed (until now, of course). Jake's behavior has been an open secret, in some circles, for years. He has still kept doing the same things.

Q: AFTER JAKE RESIGNED FROM THE TOR PROJECT, WHY DID YOU MAKE THIS SITE ANYWAY?

A: When sexual predators are kicked out of one community, they often move on to some other community where they do the same thing. Silence lets them do that. We didn't want him to be able to move to a different community and do the same thing to people there.

What measure of proof do you require?

I don't know anything about policework, but entering in a place illegally (I assume Jake or one of his friends doesn't have legal free reign in random German hotels) to intimidate someone into doing something is quite a thing. I could imagine the police caring enough to try to get fingerprints off of the piece of paper and perhaps come to the hotel room to check video footage and other fingerprints.

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but someone mentioned something that caught my eye as well, so I commented on it.

Up until now I hadn't doubted Jake's legitimacy. I also didn't agree with everything he said (having heard him speak and answer questions in multiple places, and briefly talking to him personally), but I figured it's just normal not to agree with everything someone says. Your article made me realize I should listen better and judge whether the good intentions are really there, and it made me much more hesitant when it comes to Jake and the Tor project in general (another comment linked an article with similar things about the Tor project as a whole). So thanks for sharing this.