Slashdot Log In
Death Threats In the Blogosphere
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:28 PM
from the way-over-the-line dept.
from the way-over-the-line dept.
Several readers have written in about the death threats and threats of sexual harm that have been directed at tech blogger Kathy Sierra. She is the author of a number of books about Java and a popular speaker at conferences. She has now stopped blogging and cancelled her appearance at eTech. She names the names of four prominent bloggers who are backers of two sites on which the threats were posted. Others in the blogosphere like Robert Scoble and Tim Bray have posted publicly in support of Sierra. Scoble in particular emphasizes the streak of misogyny that is still all too evident in the tech world. The Washington Post is also grappling with the issue of vile comment posts that flirt with illegality. One commenter on Bray's post summed it up: "The Internet used to be a university. Then it became a shopping mall. But now, it's a war zone."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
simply unacceptable (Score:5, Informative)
Head First Java and Head First EJB are two of the first HF books I'd read. Kathy Sierra is one of the co-authors of these, books in what I consider an amazing series both in its approach and its enlightenment of what can be tediously dry material. Anyone who contributes to the technical community with that credibility is a superstar. Unfortunately superstars end up in the less sane miscreants' crosshairs.
The blogs and comments posted threatening Kathy are unacceptable, and look to be very illegal. It's a pity there are those who are disturbed enough to post such garbage. Normally I shrug off the garbage I see, but I think Kathy is making rational choices, albeit drastic ones.
I hate that by Kathy's own words, she isn't the same person, she'll never be the same person. It's a crime this happens to the good guys.
For those in the slashdot community with any knowledge of who might be making these posts, it is incumbent upon you to bring forward that information. For those in the slashdot community with some sniffing/hacking skills (mine are rusty), have at it deducing who the asswipes are, find them, and report them.
I hope Kathy sees and realizes enough support from the community and can regain some semblance of self.
(Aside: I don't think the internet has become the war zone the article describes. I do think the internet has made it much easier and maybe too easy for the disturbed to wreak personal havoc on the unfortunate targets. There may be a case to be made here against anonymous non-traceable postings, but for the most part the internet community seems (so far) to be self-policing. Hopefully that holds true for Kathy, and they find the posters, and prosecute.)
Re:simply unacceptable (Score:5, Interesting)
I read the posts suggesting ill of her, and find them disturbing, but childish and prankish.
I feel really bad that she is "afraid to leave her yard", but that really only feeds into it. We all have the capacity for malicious action, but nearly none of us ever act on it. This seems like a 'who can be more extreme' pissing contest that went way too far.
Unfortunately, this will probably only fan the flames for IDing each and everyone connected to the internet.
I really do feel bad for her. I just don't think any of it was intended to become true, nor will any of it become true. Bullying exists across all demographics. It's just that once you grow up, you're not so afraid of losing your lunch money, so the threats become greater.
Re:simply unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
All it takes is one person. And with the person who created such sickening stuff being (semi-)anonymous, she doesn't know who to watch out for.
I think she is giving the trollers what they want -- they don't like what she writes (or whatever), so they want to make her stop or go away -- but I understand her reasons for doing so.
Re:simply unacceptable (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:simply unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
Less so on the internet.
Yeah, I stopped displaying my email address here after a certain quantity of threats from morons; on sites where I still provide it the morons continue to threaten. That's just how the Internet is. I'm a lot more concerned about being hit by a car than I am that some over-invested loser means his threats seriously.
Which isn't to say that I blame Kathy Sierra for being freaked out, but Scoble's comment that "We're putting ourselves out there in ways very few people do. We should be safe from death threats and other sexual attacks and stuff, especially from other bloggers." seems like classic blogonarcissism. That's just how the Internet is, even for low-low-level blogocelebrati.
Re:simply unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Sorry to say, but once you are live on the Internet, you cease being a private figure. If you're smart, you protect yourself and don't give out all your personal info (ala MySpace) to make it easier for the nut-jobs to find you. If you're looking for perfect safety, get rid of your high-speed access, frag your hard drive, and dump your computer in the crusher, followed by a trip to the witness protection program.
I'm sure there are people out there who dislike me or are unstable enough to believe I'm some threat to the universe. If I gave a squat about them, I'd be validating their world view; best to ignore them, until such a time as one gets too close for comfort -- then you sic the dogs on them.
mod up parent -dont feed the trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
By trolling standards, this is a complete and utter success. Trolls only want attention people, and shes played right into its hand.
Re:mod up parent -dont feed the trolls (Score:4, Interesting)
Rather than be all about the glory of me every time someone has threatened me through my site or elsewhere and then posting it, commenting on it, asking for others in the community to defend me and stand up for me, I've kept my mouth shut, forwarded the offending emails or posts to the person's ISP with a letter of explanation, blocked the account and moved on with my life.
I don't bother responding to the person. I don't post about it on the internet. I don't aim for Scoble or Slashdot to post about it. I don't look for the police to send a squad car over and post a man at my front door. And I've had far worse "threatened" than I am seeing in this story.
Often - especially for repeat offenders - ISPs will be very helpful. Especially if you have documented as much as you can about an individual. Show the server logs with timestamps and IPs. Provide email addresses, message headers, post contents and any other information you happen to have (in my case, sometimes account information that they registered with that may or may not be accurate).
But posting on the internet about it accomplishes nothing. If anything, it opens you up to more nut cases who know that you're a good target, because you'll freak out about it and give them the reaction they so desperately want.
I know there are real criminals who really stalk people over the internet and then in person and commit real rape or murder. That's horrific and when it appears to be of that nature, by all means press forward and spare nothing in the effort. But to make this much out of some lame blog troll who says they wish harm to come to you followed by some gross sexual comment and then throws out a couple of lame photoshops (I believe I saw one with panties over a head - it's not like these were photoshops of a slit throat or anything if I'm correct?) kind of diminishes people who are legitimately being threatened over the net and have completely rational fears for their safety because of realistic threats by someone.
Re:mod up parent -dont feed the trolls (Score:4, Insightful)
Whenever did death threats become "trolling", you idiot!
The stupid morons so clearly crossed the line and should be held criminally responsible for the fullest extend of the law.
Re:simply unacceptable (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone who begins their post with "I know I'll get modded down for this" or somesuch is guaranteed to get at least +3 added to their post because the moderators are predictable morons. Saying that you acknowledge how inflammatory and moronic your post is doesn't make it any less inflammatory or moronic.
Clear mysognism (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't think these comments and many of the others are misogynistic, you need to examine your own attitudes.
And you're not a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever walk to your car in a dark parking lot? When you do, do you give thought to being attacked? I don't, but almost every woman I've asked says she does. I recently heard that 10% of high school senior girls report having been raped. These are girls under 18.
I have an acquaintance who was in her work parking lot and rolled down her window to chat with a coworker who smiled pleasantly as he reached in the window to fondle her breast. This was most certainly unwelcome and abusive! Has that ever happened to you? Do you think she will *ever* consider rolling down her car window on a warm day without thinking of that event? Do you ever think "Will my coworker sexually harass me?" I doubt it.
You mock the blogger's fear as overreaction. Try thinking like a more vulnerable person, and then perhaps you'll respond more charitably.
Re:And you're not a woman (Score:5, Interesting)
Well you should. Rates of male victimization for all crimes other than rape are considerably higher than female victimization. [usdoj.gov] The rate of rape in males is very hard to estimate, but is reported at about 1/4 of the rate in females. [cdc.gov] Given that males are much less likely than females to report themselves as victims of rape, it is quite possible that the rate of rape in males is comparable to that in females. It is certainly the case that rates of violent assault and murder are about four times higher in males than females.
This is because we as a society do not care two figs about violence against males. We do not value our young males, and we do not teach them to take care of themselves. Quite the opposite: we teach them to be careless of their own safety, and we teach them they are cowards or worse if they take reasonable precautions like giving a thought to being attacked when walking to their car in a dark parking lot.
This is not to say that violence against females is acceptable. It is obviously not. But any time I hear anyone decrying "violence against women" as being particularly bad I have to wonder if they think violence against men is OK? Or at least not so particularly bad? And if they do think that, I really have to wonder why. If they are even remotely decent and humane it certainly cannot be the fact that most violence is committed by men, because it is also the case that, for example, in the United States most violence is committed by black people, and there is a word for people who think that that fact makes violence against black people OK.
Re:And you're not a woman (Score:5, Insightful)
Another reason why we hear (and thus think) about violence against women more is because women -- or, the emancipation movement -- needed to do a *lot* of talking for the injustices carried out against them even to be acknowledged. Completely ignoring whether it is that fact or not, there's something in your statement that I have to disagree with. There is no inherent difference between black and white other than a superficial one (skin colour) and in some cases also an artificial one (culture). But there is a fundamental and important difference between men and women: Men impregnate, women get pregnant. Since reproduction is one of the most basic instincts a human being has, this does have an effect on thought and behaviour.
Hormonal differences also need to be considered. Men have more testosterone and are thus generally more prone to aggressive behaviour. And men are generally raised to be more aggressive than women (although less so then they used to be).
It could also be said that since men are generally stronger and larger than women, they have more opportunity to be aggressively dominant over the other gender. And finally, it's also a primarily male instinct to impregnate as many women as possible, in order to ensure diverse genes in offspring. Females also have this instinct, but it's less distinct with them, and manifests itself in a different way.
Racism is idiotic because it's not based on fact, whereas there are real reasons to perceive the actions of men and women differently. I don't think you can compare the two.
I very strongly believe that men and women should be equal in rights, respect, opportunities, payment and social status. I don't think that one gender is somehow worth more than the other. But anyone who suggests that men and women are generally equal is, in my eyes, overlooking some important facts.
Re:And you're not a woman (Score:4, Funny)
How do you know? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have heard plenty of women, including victims taking strength back, say similar to the above post.
It should also be noted that males are the victims of violence too, by both males and females (though police still tend to laugh in the face of female->male abuse victims so they are kinda underreported). Rates of males being victims are still higher the female so in some ways males are more at risk (granted when it comes to sexual assaults, female rates are MUCH higher, same with harassment rates, though I have known males who were sexually harassed in the workplace).
And while the previous poster was probably a bit more mocking then could be called for, I am seeing a disturbing amount of 'if you are not riding to this women's defense like a good white knight they you are insensitive!' group think. Which in some ways does more damage to the treatment of women in tech then the harassment. Just another way of looking down on them, treating them as 'lessers' that need protection and sympathy because the poor dears can not take care of themselves and need nice big strong men to protect them from the evil nasty other men.....
Did the blogger overreact? Hard to say. She felt threatened enough that she does not feel safe outside her home. However, if these types of comments are really that common within this community (I have never heard of any of these sites so I can't comment there) and most who receive such slander do not react that way, then it would, by community standards, be an overreaction. It isn't a case of 'thicker skin' but of weighing the realities of risk.
And finally, the statistics bit is a bit of a slippery slope. Ok, women are, statistically, smaller then males. But the same thing could be said of, say, black males to white males. So does that male white males easily victimized and they should feel constantly threatened and vigilant?
As for your acquaintance... each person must cope their own way with trauma, but that really does not sound like a healthy reaction. If she is thinking about that event every time she rolls down her window that is obsessing on a mental injury and is a class of coping that usually does some long term harm. While understandable, dwelling on an assault is NOT a solution...
*awaits the -1 flaimbait*
Re:And you're not a woman (Score:4, Interesting)
"I don't dial 911, I dial 1911." [wikipedia.org]
Re:And you're not a woman (Score:4, Insightful)
Chicago History [chicagohistory.org] has a few lessons about another equalizer: dynamite.
I find it interesting that these days tough guys dial 1911. If you are going to be violent, why half-step about it? Further, you should realize that no matter where you draw the line, someone else is going to draw it a little further than you would like. If you take this approach, where do you stop - and will you still stop there when someone else doesn't? Pistols, dynamite, nuclear weapons - none of these brings peace. None of it makes you safe.
If You Get/Stay Married, Your Tone Will Change (Score:5, Insightful)
So, while I cringe at Ms. Sierra's language of defeat and withdrawal, I have come to understand that for a good many (wo)men, flight overcomes fight when reacting to threats. You can objectify the odds, but it doesn't always overcome the subjective fear.
Re:And you're not a woman (Score:4, Insightful)
Enough of them.
And what would you do, exactly, over vague threats by unknown people? I never said I wouldn't take action, I said I would explain it to her that way to prevent her from seizing up with fear.
About as brave as I'd feel when I have been victimized, I suppose. Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe you thought I've never been in that sort of situation?
Please don't do me any favours by reading between the lines here. What I said is plain enough: There is no need to interrupt your life and huddle in a room because some social misfit posted some unsavory comments about you on teh interwebs. That's exactly what they want.
Re:simply unacceptable (Score:4, Interesting)
(Incidentally I have been raped [and am a man], and whilst it was a pretty unpleasant experience in itself, it's the long-lasting psychological effects that have the potential to really fuck up your life. I'm doing pretty well now, 13 years later, thanks for asking :)
(And no, it wasn't in prison!)
Well golly gosh darn, now I have to post anonymously.
Re:simply unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been on the internet for 13 years now. I started out on Usenet--where threats, personal insults, etc. were the rule of thumb. Anyone who has been on the internet (the REAL internet, not the filtered, moderated, homogenized world of web bulletin boards) of any length of time learns to take things like "I'm gonna rip your head off and shit down your neck" with a grain of salt.
It's telling that this woman refers to the "Blogosphere" as if it's some singular entity, or takes such ridiculous threats with enough seriousness to go to a psychiatrist and start taking anti-depressants (does she REALLY think some lame-ass flame artist living in his parents' basement in another part of the country has the courage to even TALK to her, much less assault her?)
She strikes me as someone who desperately wants attention. But attention has its downsides too. Anyone not mature enough to realize that probably would be better off remaining anonymous on the internet.
Yes, it sucks that notable people, especially women, have to deal with flame artists and nutballs. But to be shocked about that as if it's something new suggests she hasn't been paying attention. Ask any Hollywood celebrity if stalkers and nutballs are something new. Ask any major political figure. Notoriety has its downside. When you put yourself out there, you can't have everyone's love and no one's contempt.
The Cost of One Asshole (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, my ex made it IMPOSSIBLE for me to post on Livejournal for about a year after we'd split, because every time I posted there (no matter how short or what), he claimed it was "free time" I spent online avoiding him, as though now that I no longer spoke to him I somehow had a responsibility to be elbow-deep in work 24/7, and so every time I made even a *TINY* post, for the the next three weeks I'd be receiving emails and anyone who had the misfortune to know me online would receive pornographic spam from his account impersonating me.
To make matters worse, he somehow managed to know exactly when I logged onto certain forums, impersonated friends (to know when I'd made FO posts), and eventually I was stuck playing children's websites just to avoid one single asshole, albeit a persistent one. Technically I still pretty much am, except now I'm actually - guess what? - too busy to put up with him, because I eventually got off most of the internet just to be sane again and got into other things.
Unless you want to call me and every other person who's used the privacy filters on sites like this Drama Whores, you need to get your head out of the sand.
Blogosphere = ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
The blogosphere has turned into spam, flamewars, threats, and general kookery. Welcome to the new Usenet.
This sort of crap sickens me (Score:5, Insightful)
So where, as far as the law is concerned, is "too much"? If it is one person's opinion that another person should be shot and raped, does that person have the right to express that opinion?
My personal opinion is that death threats and rape threats are far beyond the free speech line, simply because they infringe and threaten another person's right to life. Which, in my opinion, is a rather important right. I support her fully, and personally think that the posters of said comments need to have charges brought against them.
But to what degree do the law books say too much is too much? Where is the line as far as the books are concerned?
Just honest curiosity.
Re:This sort of crap sickens me (Score:5, Funny)
While I'm not a lawyer, I have studied media and mass communication law. One of the things we had drilled into us from day one was the full text and meaning of the First Amendment. What we started getting drilled into us from day two, was that your rights under the First Amendment end where someone else's rights begin. That is to say, freedom of speech gives you a wide berth to say what you want, but as soon as you cross the line into threatening someone or directly impacting their safety or well being, you are no longer protected.
I haven't read the comments, but it sounds like they may be walking a very fine line. Saying things like "you should die" or "you should be beaten with a riot baton" are, while vile and nasty things to say, protected speech. However, if they were to say "I am going to kill you", or "I am going to fuck you until you see things my way", then that is NOT protected speech. Bottom line is that threats carry with them the reasonable expectation that they will be carried out, even if they are made anonymously via the internet.
If the comments were made to walk the fine line between protected and unprotected speech, yet with the intent to cause emotional or psychological distress, then the law would most likely point to the comments being unprotected, as they are harrassing in nature. If Ms. Sierra has reason to believe that those comments could lead to actual physical harm, then she is taking a (sadly) prudent and necessary course of action.
While I have not read any of her work, and have formed no opinion of her, there is no excuse for the comments that have been aimed her way. While I don't believe the internet is a war zone, I do believe that anonymity tends to override people's better judgement, and can result in cases like this. For a summation of this last paragraph, I ask you to refer to John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. [penny-arcade.com]
Close (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Close (Score:4, Insightful)
"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers." - Socrates
Life's Tough All Around (Score:5, Insightful)
But what can you do? Are you going to lock yourself in a bunker the rest of your life to keep yourself safe from mentally imbalanced teenagers and idiot, vindictive, insane adults?
I've had people flat out threaten to hunt me down and cut my head off if I didn't restore their banned accounts and I've had one post things across the web that are among the most vile and disgusting and insulting things you can claim about a person. But I'm not out there asking everyone to stick up for me or... well.. even wasting two seconds on it. People are dicks. Life is hard. A lot of people say a lot of shit and don't follow through. Either grow a spine or go away. There's no sense being a big baby about it because someone hates you. And if someone really has you fearing for your life, then do something about it besides blogging about it and trying to manipulate other people into sticking up for you.
Yea... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yea... (Score:5, Funny)
The Pain of Celebrity (Score:5, Interesting)
Odds are very poor that many of them are serious, and in the case of the incredibly slim few that are, most of them are so functionally disturbed that they wouldn't be able to make a trip to a convention anyhow. They're too worried about the peanut butter covering their sidewalk or the time cubes floating in front of the bus station.
Part of being a celebrity on any level for any topic means accepting that you gain both fame and infamy in parts. Refusing to continue doing good because of the threat of others doing evil against you is (while perhaps the most understandable kind) simply cowardice.
I'm a schoolteacher. I *KNOW* because I'm a teacher who connects with kids, and has a knack for reaching troubled kids that my odds of being the target of an angry, weapon-holding students are *GOOD*... someday, I'm going to stare at that terrifying situation. I still teach - I know that I do good things, and I will not live in fear of evil ones.
Kathy should recognize that her acts do far more good than the risk of harm merits and go on. Courage of the unknown is a tough thing, but an important thing - it is what makes (most) of the greatest humans great.
Re:The Pain of Celebrity (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, I think you're encountering another aspect of our new-ish non-local culture.
Consider: Kathy's problem is one of communication. Those sickos who have developed an interest in her due to her degree of public figure status would be out there regardless (stalkers being nothing new), but the internet allows her to see them which, quite naturally, terrifies her.
You, likewise, are being made fearful by our non-local culture. You see a couple of school shootings a year spread out nationally, but since each gets attention and, as an attention-getting item, is reported nationally in the same way that you might expect a local incident to be covered. As such, you've come to the expectation that school shootings are in fact commonplace enough that you're expressing the absolute certainty that you will, someday, "stare at that terrifying situation".
Both of your fears seem to have the common root, and it's something I find interesting. I wonder if that's a problem that has a solution -- after all, reasonable people look for things that threaten them, and mass communication's only going to get easier... Maybe eventually we'll all life either in fear or blissful intentional ignorance.
Right, this is a total change (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to say this sort of thing is all right, of course, but while this is almost certainly a sad byproduct of the culture of the internet, there's nothing in the post she pointed to that I find disturbing or even all that unusual. As she noted, you get everybody online and give them anonymity, this sort of thing happens.
This doesn't mean, however, that it's happening *more* than it would have back before the internet, just that now it tends to be visible. Public figures, even minor ones, have always run the risk of attracting sickos, especially when they're decent looking women. Going so far as to suggest this is something new that's being caused by the internet just seems ridiculous, and trying to paint it as a byproduct of the culture of men in software development is even moreso.
I know it must be disturbing to realize you're the focus of this kind of thing, but let's try not to make more of it than it is.
Re:Right, this is a total change (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, but you are not her. Different people have different comfort levels with threats of bodily harm. I am not sure that your post reflects an appropriate standard for all victims, and I suspect that you would change your tune fairly rapidly if you, yourself, (or, worse, someone you loved) were the target.
Going so far as to suggest this is something new that's being caused by the internet just seems ridiculous
I don't think anyone familiar with Usenet thinks this is anything new, but it must be acknowledged that the Internet has greatly facilitated this sort of anonymous abuse. What's different from Usenet in this situation is that it is entirely within the ability of individual bloggers to stop this sort of abuse by their participants.
trying to paint it as a byproduct of the culture of men in software development is even moreso.
I wish I could say that I agree with you, but I work in information security and have responded to a number of internal online sexual abuse cases over the years. Your assertion does not completely correlate with my personal experiences with software developers. As with any male-dominated culture, there's a certain percentage of men who think that behaving rudely, crudely, and threateningly towards women is just fine. This is true in any culture; what's important is the group's tolerance for repellent, abusive behavior towards a female minority, and a principal sign of a lack of cultural maturity in this regard is for those not directly involved to sit back, as you just did, and say, "oh come on, it's not so bad, she just needs to get a grip", which is really just a backhanded way of condoning such behavior.
I'm Worried about "Mob Justice" (Score:5, Interesting)
But right now, I'm worried about mob "justice."
I've seen that, several times, "Joey" has said, "This is a big misunderstanding," and "please, let's talk about this."
The response? "We've seen all the evidence we need-- shut up, you're in big trouble."
Have they seen all the evidence they "need?" Need, for what purpose? I agree that they've seen disturbing, gruesome pictures. But is it all connected up right? I'm not so sure-- did e-mailed death threats really come from Joey & Co.?
But there is something that I'm sure of: Due process is not happening here. We're witnessing a dog pile. I'm sure that a great many of these people are hearing Kathy's story, seeing the pictures, and then calling "Get a rope."
I read the story. It's disgusting. I know how the wanna-be vigilantes feel. But this is no way to do things, and I find the popular response disgusting, as well.
If some of the people responsible are willing and ready to talk, and have a side of the story, it's everybody's duty to give it a fair hearing. We should be encouraging conversation right now, not discouraging it. I'm sure Kathy & Joey & all can have a conversation, and work this out, and make a follow-up announcement.
WTF? The internet has *always* been a war zone (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people just have no idea...
Thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Don Parks [docuverse.com] summed up how I feel about this best. With reality TV the tolerance of bullying has unfortunately been increased. If something good can be said to come of this, it is that a few online bullies are getting their well deserved come-uppance. I think it was Chad Fowler who wrote [pragmaticprogrammer.com] that the net never forgets, and building a reputation becomes ever more important. The stuff you write may come back to haunt you for a long time, and never forget that there are real people with feelings on the other side. Even if you disagree with them they deserve to be treated as human beings.
True (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Internet used to be a university. Then it became a shopping mall. But now, it's a war zone."
That's the truth and one of the first casualties of that war was Civility. Free speech ends at the door of death threats and threats of physical violence. That is not unique to the internet and perhaps a new and open media requires a new type of law enforcement. It doesn't have to be invasive or Constitutionally questionable. A few of the worst offenders making headlines going to trial, and a couple of the worst overseas offenders extradited here for trial, would likely be all it would take to end most of the silliness. There will always be those few, desperately in need of therapy, who push the bounds. But we do have to respond. Just like real serial killers usually start out torturing animals, real acts of violence start by giving voice to the desire.
Funny, but I see more of what I could classify as hate speech on right wing web sites. Death threats, suggestions for snipers to take out some imagined offender and many along the lines of, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" And this from people counting themselves among the religious right. Shame. Tactless comment coupled with faithless religion.
Besides, why would anyone want to threaten a JAVA programmer? .NET or C++, that's understandable. But JAVA? The humanity!
This is new? (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, the cure for such threats was rather easy: Post the thing verbatim, along with every ounce of information you could dig up on the person. Odds were good that a sharp admin could figure out who sent it, email the ISP (back when they actually paid attention to the inbox of abuse@...), and humiliate the punk online.
Of course, back then, there were lots of advantages: it was easier to track people back then, and I'm a guy with a passion for hunting and target-shooting. I also lived in a state that had some very loose laws considering the disposition of trespassers and those who would threaten bodily harm to persons or property (Arkansas). A few simple public postings in the source's favorite newsgroups w/ all evidence, a letter to his/her ISP w/ all the evidence, and the threat-maker was gone. I had never seen anyone dumb enough to actually try for it, in spite of my (admittedly reckless habit of) publicly calling them out. Most simply went away and stayed gone. But it was a whole other Internet back then.
I suspect that OTOH a woman, who doesn't really make a hobby of pissing people off like I had, and catching crap in an Internet that has now become swamped with a cornucopia of anonymizing tools and techniques? Prolly not so easy for her to simply post and humiliate.
Props to her for posting them verbatim, though... and it's a very good start to name and shame the sources that can be found. Let the bloggers who host such stuff publicly deal with the fallout.
Though this will sound trite, I'd take such postings with a block of salt... the vast, vast majority of idiots who post such garbage don't have the nerve, transportation, or means to pull off anything that they threaten. I daresay that they're little boys who managed to squeeze off something that makes them feel big n' bad when mommy wasn't looking at their monitor.
Cut the hype.. (Score:4, Insightful)