Researching this topic I came across an article by Ryan Dube, makeuseof.com, January 16, 2009.
Whereas I do agree with many of the points and techniques suggested by Ryan in his article, as someone who has been accused of posting material that could be seen as similar to that which is discussed here, I do have a few comments of my own.
Ryan discusses a situation where libelous content is posted without backup documentation. He goes on to explain that in cases where the intent is to defame the reputation of another. In my case I was just expressing an opinion about a service. Well, that is how it started out.
Ryan observes:
"Unfortunately, the odds are pretty good that you may be dealing with an unstable or unreasonable individual. They may get obnoxious and rude in response to you, and refuse to cooperate".
This is one of the reasons that I took my site off-line. It NOT the only reason.
It is clear to me that the complainant is neither stable or reasonable. He is definitely rude and obnoxious and he has resorted to what I term "Bully tactics".
In any case, I contend that my website did not contain any material that could not be verified and the information was not private. If there was anything that was "private" it was posted as it was a quote from someone else - and stated clearly on my site that this was the case.
Also not only the "offending" information as been removed, but the whole website has been removed from the Internet.
If this was the intent of the complainant then he has been successful, however this does not mean that the activities of this individual will not be described somewhere else on the Internet.
Ryan further reports in a situation that he found himself involved:
"I was able to trace down the sender’s ISP, and after submitting an official report for both spam and distribution of private information – the spammer’s ISP issued him a warning and removed his Internet access for a full week. It was very sweet retribution."
This is not going to work!
All the "spammer" is likely to do is get pissed-off and go down to the local library, create another identity and re-post the offending material.
The problem with this he/she is likely to re-post the information in an even more anonymous manner which will leave you, the complainant, "up the creek without the proverbial paddle".
As described by Ryan the content that is in the Search Engines cache can be problematic in that it can mean that the information doesn't go away just because the original poster has taken it down. To do this you NEED the cooperation of the original poster.
In my case it was further complicated in that I was given information by a 3rd party that appeared to have a dispute with the same individual. The information so posted has been removed from Google cache. The statement of opinion on his business practices has not.
It is my suspicion, due to the nature of the communications up to this point, that I am not the only one that the individual in question has tried to intimidate in this way.
Whereas I do agree with many of the points and techniques suggested by Ryan in his article, as someone who has been accused of posting material that could be seen as similar to that which is discussed here, I do have a few comments of my own.
Ryan discusses a situation where libelous content is posted without backup documentation. He goes on to explain that in cases where the intent is to defame the reputation of another. In my case I was just expressing an opinion about a service. Well, that is how it started out.
Ryan observes:
"Unfortunately, the odds are pretty good that you may be dealing with an unstable or unreasonable individual. They may get obnoxious and rude in response to you, and refuse to cooperate".
This is one of the reasons that I took my site off-line. It NOT the only reason.
It is clear to me that the complainant is neither stable or reasonable. He is definitely rude and obnoxious and he has resorted to what I term "Bully tactics".
In any case, I contend that my website did not contain any material that could not be verified and the information was not private. If there was anything that was "private" it was posted as it was a quote from someone else - and stated clearly on my site that this was the case.
Also not only the "offending" information as been removed, but the whole website has been removed from the Internet.
If this was the intent of the complainant then he has been successful, however this does not mean that the activities of this individual will not be described somewhere else on the Internet.
Ryan further reports in a situation that he found himself involved:
"I was able to trace down the sender’s ISP, and after submitting an official report for both spam and distribution of private information – the spammer’s ISP issued him a warning and removed his Internet access for a full week. It was very sweet retribution."
This is not going to work!
All the "spammer" is likely to do is get pissed-off and go down to the local library, create another identity and re-post the offending material.
The problem with this he/she is likely to re-post the information in an even more anonymous manner which will leave you, the complainant, "up the creek without the proverbial paddle".
-------------------------------
As described by Ryan the content that is in the Search Engines cache can be problematic in that it can mean that the information doesn't go away just because the original poster has taken it down. To do this you NEED the cooperation of the original poster.
In my case it was further complicated in that I was given information by a 3rd party that appeared to have a dispute with the same individual. The information so posted has been removed from Google cache. The statement of opinion on his business practices has not.
It is my suspicion, due to the nature of the communications up to this point, that I am not the only one that the individual in question has tried to intimidate in this way.
No comments:
Post a Comment