In Chatlogs, Celebrated Hacker and Activist Confesses Countless Sexual Assaults

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/19/16675704/morgan-marquis-boire-hacker-sexual-assault

by alphabettsy • 9 years ago

113 38 9 years ago

tomjen3• 9 years ago

Corndoge below has been downvoted so badly that I can no longer reply, but he does have a point: the proper place to solve this is through the courts, not through the press.

rhizome• 9 years ago

Do you know what the statute of limitations is for rape? Sexual assault?

Buldak• 9 years ago

the proper place to solve this is through the courts

Solve what? The question of whether he should be imprisoned or face other legal penalties, yes. But it's a mistake to conflate that with dealings with Marquis-Boire in general.

mynewtb• 9 years ago

That person being 'Marquis-Boire', a name I have never heard before.

kevinburke3• 9 years ago

Several comments in this thread seem to purport that we shouldn't say or assume anything about the truth of the matter until he is proven guilty in a court of law.

That's a really ridiculous standard, for a few reasons:

- The standard of proof in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a very high bar to meet. (FWIW, I think it meets it in this case). We made it that high because we would rather a guilty person walk free than put an innocent person in jail. The costs of you and I incorrectly choosing not to associate with someone are far lower. There are other standards for guilt in other cases, such as "more probable than not" in civil trials.

- A prosecutor may believe a crime has occurred but decline to bring a case for a number of reasons (limited budget, jurisdiction, statute of limitations, difficulty or unreliability of evidence, because they think they don't have a good chance to win)

- We make decisions all the time about who we'll partner with, who we hire, who we fire, based on standards far lower than this. In general it's not a crime to be an asshole but you'd never say I should wait until it's proven in court before deciding not to hire one.

There's more than enough evidence about this person specifically, and in most cases, for me/you to feel fine never associating with this person, or working with an organization he's involved with, ever again, even if a court of law never gets involved.

trisimix• 9 years ago

I would argue that, it's a high bar to meet to convict a guilty person. But the lowest possible bar to avoid convicting innocent people. At least in theory.

Scarblac• 9 years ago

That is reasonable for individuals. But it's on here, in Google, lots of other sites -- millions of people who had never heard of him now form an opinion of him based on this article (or just the comments, or the headline). It's probably career destroying.

That's in effect more like jail time than like some individuals shunning him.

kevinburke3• 9 years ago

I'm not sure that I follow. My point is that credible allegations of repeated rape and sexual assault should be career destroying even if they are not met with a guilty sentence in a court of law. I could not in good conscience let this person near my coworkers or colleagues for fear for their own physical safety. I don't need a court to send him to jail to make that assessment.

geofft5• 9 years ago

A career is not a right. The ability to access food, water, and shelter—life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—are rights. I hope he gets a job and a roof over his head. I don't hope he gets any more glowing profiles in the media.

There are plenty of careers I'm more worried about than his, starting with those of his victims, and probably continuing to those who could have been famous hackers were it not for the accidents of their birth.

anigbrowl2• 9 years ago

If you commit or admit to crimes in a non-privileged context (when talking to your therapist, doctor, lawyer, chaplain) then you have to deal with whatever consequences ensue. Nobody owes you discretion.

princekolt• 9 years ago

What about the careers of those abused by him? I'm sure the social shun and stigma of being a sexual abuse victim can be more career-destroying than that of being the perpetrator. Just look at POTUS.

y7• 9 years ago

One problem with this type of "trial by media" is that the bar for convicting someone is set quite arbitrarily, and is influenced more by rhetoric and media attention than hearing of all parties involved and carefully weighing evidence (not saying that necessarily applies to this particular story).

Also note that published stories like these are a vastly different ballgame than the usual person-to-person type of gossip that affects partnering and hiring choices.

kevinburke3• 9 years ago

A civil suit is another scenario where people are supposed to carefully weigh evidence under oath, yet no one says “I am withholding judgment until a preponderance of the evidence is in favor of guilt.”

falcolas• 9 years ago

So, if someone comes along, who has been seen entering a closed room alone with you, and claims to have been raped repeatedly by you - should we stop associating with you? If a previously consensual encounter is later claimed to be non-consensual, should we ensure that you never get a job again in the tech industry?

Perhaps "convicted in court" is a too high of bar to you, but given the fact that people do lie about being sexually assaulted, perhaps the bar of "being accused means you did it" is a bit too low.

Ultimately it's up to each individual to decide the proper position of their bar, and perhaps this guy did indeed do it (personally, I don't care)... but the current trend of taking the accusers word as an actionable truth is troubling.

runesoerensen• 9 years ago

perhaps this guy did indeed do it (personally, I don't care)

You might want to elaborate on this - it sounds like you don't care even if you think someone is a rapist, but I hope that's not your position? That's a really low bar.

erikpukinskis• 9 years ago

Acting on information is not the same as believing it. You can act on something while still maintaining the possibility the information is wrong. Even a 51% probability can be acted on to good effect sometimes.

Geekette• 9 years ago

"There's more than enough evidence about this person specifically, and in most cases, for me/you to feel fine never associating with this person, or working with an organization he's involved with, ever again, even if a court of law never gets involved".

Not least of all, written admission of crime by the accused himself, in addition to corroboration of several incidents of assault by the news outlet. How is the question of innocence is still being bandied when the accused has already admitted his guilt?!! Equally absurd are the futile attempts to foist standards of criminal courts on that of public opinion despite the significant differences between both systems that you noted.

swat5352• 9 years ago

People falsely assume that that standard is one of absolute scientific certainty. It is not. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt simply means that no reasonable person would come to any other conclusion than that of guilt.

To assume that guilt beyond any reasonable doubt as an absolute, scientific and completely infallible standard demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the legal system. The system may be flawed and cases may or may prosecuted for the reasons that were mentioned but many of those reasons like available resources have little if anything to do with the standard of proof that must be brought to trial.

Individuals can be prosecuted on very paltry evidence and even convicted if reasonable people find that evidence to be sufficient.

To believe that any lower standard of proof is needed to prosecute individuals is to pander to mob mentality that just because most people want to find someone guilty means we should find them guilty.

This burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is set in place precisely to avoid such legal lynching proceedings

Manishearth• 9 years ago

The gp never made this assumption, you're making it for them.

It's still not the same standard as the one society needs. The state wields a big hammer, and such it has relatively high standards. Us, individual society members, wield a tiny mallet, and as such we should feel more free to wield that than the state does. As the gp notes, we already do in many cases.

The courts should really be the last resort for this stuff; society should be dealing with it cleanly before it ever gets there.

jnordwick• 9 years ago

I am hoping more of those involved in technology come forward. I've heard horrible stories from others, and tech isn't immune to this national cleaning house that is long overdue.

#metoo isn't just for the entertainment industry.

stareatgoats3• 9 years ago

Innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) has been put to the test and found lacking in the current wave of revelations. The main reason for this seems to be that too many appeal institutions have been protecting perps, out of some notion that such abuse is not important enough (or something!). Complaints have not been taken sufficiently seriously to start serious investigations leading to serious consequences. This is the situation which actually legitimizes public shaming of the perps, and which will allow victims (women mostly) to get a fairer hearing moving forwards, and not continue to be told to keep quiet and endure, or worse. And so we can hopefully expect to return to upholding 'innocent until proven guilty' once these (seemingly new) moral standards have taken hold even in places of authority. Because that is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society.

geofft5• 9 years ago

It's also important to remember that innocent until proven guilty is a check on the otherwise unchecked, absolute, and final power of the state depriving a citizen of their fundamental rights by imprisoning them. If you are not a state, it may well still be a good ideal, but it's not nearly as binding on you—in much the same way that e.g. free speech is also a good ideal for individuals and companies but you are not obligated to avoid having opinions on the content of speech the way the state is.

anigbrowl2• 9 years ago

Obviously, but the idea that we can only have one standard or the other seems like a false dichotomy. Maybe we should be looking at how to take a more Bayesian approach to legal decision-making.

bsder• 9 years ago

Innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) has been put to the test and found lacking in the current wave of revelations.

This is all well and good until you are on the wrong side of that equation.

We nominally prioritize "protecting the innocent" over "punishing the guilty". There are VERY good reasons why we set things up this way.

You want the wheels of justice to grind accurately.

stareatgoats3• 9 years ago

Agreed. Not sure if you read my comment to the end, but that's more or less my position too. As well as the broad public. So when this still happens, there must be a reason for it. The theory of why is the essence of my comment above.

Idontknowmyuser4• 9 years ago

"In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights" I think when you start opposing human rights you cross into fascism territory.

stareatgoats3• 9 years ago

Agreed, it's an important principle. But, as with many (all?) important principles, there are situations, contexts and exceptions that will cause them to yield, if only temporarily. And in this specific case I think you might find that the circumstance far from fascist, if not the exact opposite. Please note we are not talking about relaxing any burden of proof in courts of law, this is about publishing accusations of possible criminal misconduct in media. It's my conviction that this is a morally defensible way, maybe the only way, to imprint on leaders in business and elsewhere that these issues are more important than they (obviously) used to think. But it can get out of hand, granted.

mlazos• 9 years ago

Something that gives me hope in the recent wave of sexual assault revelations is that I think we are getting closer to a point where victims are getting more comfortable reporting what has happened. As long as this trend continues this will allow opportunity for the justice system to actually work as intended because victims might feel comfortable enough to report what has happened before the statute of limitations has expired.

deftturtle• 9 years ago

Whatever became of Jacob Appelbaum? Plenty of people have accused him of sexual assault, but it's been months since I've heard anything.

In Chatlogs, Celebrated Hacker and Activist Confesses Countless Sexual Assaults

Related Stories