NATS lawsuit: No shield law for message boards posters - GoFuckYourself.com

$5 submissions · 06-07-2011, 02:27 PM

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110607/...er_protections

Quote:

The court ruled Tuesday that New Jersey's shield law for journalists does not apply to such message boards.

The case involved a New Jersey-based software company named Too Much Media. It sued a Washington state blogger for defamation and wanted her to reveal sources she cited on message board posts.

Shellee Hale claimed customer information was compromised and that she should be protected from revealing her sources.

New Jersey's highest court says online message boards are little more than forums for discussion and don't fit the definition of news media as described by the law.

XPays · 06-07-2011, 02:47 PM

interesting find there Gene, thanks

input · 06-07-2011, 02:50 PM

this thing still going on? thought that tmm cluster fuckup had had it's lid long ago sealed. Are they *still* trying for her to reveal her sources after so long???

input · 06-07-2011, 02:55 PM

I think all the details are pretty much here on GFY - TMM were made aware of a leak of emails, they did nothing. Time passed. More client investigations happened which ended up involving the DC of the client. Proof by the client was made, TMM again contacted and they did nothing. DC went to GFY and spilled beans, TMM went nuts. Russian hackers found to blame (unofficially). Investigation by TMM was promised but never made public. Blogger went live with details from GFY and TMM went after her.

This was what, 4 years+ ago????

Damn, what a grudge.

All the above are cliff notes from *that* tmm gfy thread - I'm no blogger!

woj · 06-07-2011, 02:55 PM

damn, didn't that happen like 5 years ago?

Wizzo · 06-07-2011, 02:56 PM

But we all know when something is happening in the world, its always on GFY first!

JFK · 06-07-2011, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

damn, didn't that happen like 5 years ago?

the slow arm of the law

Kelli58 · 06-07-2011, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by input

This was what, 4 years+ ago????

Damn, what a grudge.

All the above are cliff notes from *that* tmm gfy thread - I'm no blogger!

4 years is nothing.

I know a guy who is going after Bill Fisher aka Cezar Capone who fucked him in 2007 as if he fucked him just yesterday. I say good for him!! I'm sure by now pursing that douche bag has cost him far more than he owes him but still, at least he is standing on principles!

To many people drop issues like this and then people just keep fucking up and repeating their same mistakes because they never had to answer for any of their past.

TubeKing · 06-07-2011, 03:21 PM

this was already posted on GFY today

SmokeyTheBear · 06-07-2011, 03:22 PM

i really dont get why nats bothered pushing this case and why they wont be honest with webmasters about what happened.

From what i recall,many of nats customers posted about being breached, most/all of them reporting the breach was through one of NATS employees "backdoor" password. The breaches involved the theft of nats softwares customers data. This was all common knowledge and posted about on gfy by users as well as nats itself. I don't believe there was any other info posted that was "secret" or "false".

So nats has made a big deal of finding out who posted info about who exposed the breach but we have heard nothing about what has been done to prosecute who was responsible or what has been done to protect and/or retrieve its customers stolen data.

alias · 06-07-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by input

I think all the details are pretty much here on GFY - TMM were made aware of a leak of emails, they did nothing. Time passed. More client investigations happened which ended up involving the DC of the client. Proof by the client was made, TMM again contacted and they did nothing. DC went to GFY and spilled beans, TMM went nuts. Russian hackers found to blame (unofficially). Investigation by TMM was promised but never made public. Blogger went live with details from GFY and TMM went after her.

This was what, 4 years+ ago????

Damn, what a grudge.

All the above are cliff notes from *that* tmm gfy thread - I'm no blogger!

Thanks for the cliffs notes.

ThumbLord · 06-07-2011, 03:56 PM

interesting find

Barry-xlovecam · 06-07-2011, 08:51 PM

This ruling has the EEF's or ACLU's name written all over it ? Journalists and 1st Amendment freedom of the press ...

Bama · 06-07-2011, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

This ruling has the EEF's or ACLU's name written all over it ? Journalists and 1st Amendment freedom of the press ...

Why would it? Just because I look out the window and see that it's raining and post that info on GFY doesn't make me a meteorologist or journalist.

Seth Manson · 06-07-2011, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

Lost on what NATs is trying to accomplish? So if she rolls on whomever fed her the information there is a statue of limitation. Meaning, if she made that shit up it's time to get paid. BUT if there was a true source other then knowing who - Nothing can be done legally?

Those are only statutes of limitations for filing a claim. After its filed, the courts do not kick the case out simply because the time period for filing the claim has expired.

96ukssob · 06-07-2011, 09:59 PM

i guess you better not base people on message boards unless you have proof

onwebcam · 06-07-2011, 10:00 PM

A silly lawsuit and a bad decision that opens the door to many more silly lawsuits from crybabies and other nefarious characters.

TCLGirls · 06-07-2011, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ

Lost on what NATs is trying to accomplish? So if she rolls on whomever fed her the information there is a statue of limitation. Meaning, if she made that shit up it's time to get paid. BUT if there was a true source other then knowing who - Nothing can be done legally?

The statute of limitations clock stops when the suit is filed.

Thus if the statute of limitations is 3 years, it doesn't matter if the case takes 10 years to resolve. As long as the case is filed within the statutory time limit, it's all good.

raymor · 06-08-2011, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

A silly lawsuit and a bad decision that opens the door to many more silly lawsuits from crybabies and other nefarious characters.

So in your opinion, I'm a journalist because I'm posting on GFY?
That's the decision of the court - that posting on GFY does not make you a journalist.

She claimed that her bad acts were protected because of a law that protects journalists.

SleazyDream · 06-08-2011, 11:49 PM

least they can find out who did it now..... or hopefully..........

$5 submissions · 06-08-2011, 11:50 PM

Guys... If I am not mistaken, the Statute of Limitations is TOLLED (ie., halted) when a claim is filed. That's why people file JOHN DOE claims. Although this is for civil claims, there are analogs in criminal cases See for example: http://stanfordlawyer.law.stanford.e...f-limitations/

onwebcam · 06-09-2011, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

So in your opinion, I'm a journalist because I'm posting on GFY?
That's the decision of the court - that posting on GFY does not make you a journalist.

She claimed that her bad acts were protected because of a law that protects journalists.

No in my opinion it's a silly lawsuit and because of the decision many more silly lawsuits will follow. This is the kind of case lawyers and the likes of ADL love because there are unlimited amounts of companies, organizations and people that might get their feelings hurt on message boards and they can point at this and say "Hey look at his "opinion.". And honestly that's all this is about.

I never heard of the NATS data loss until now. And quite honestly I personally see them pushing this case as more of a negative on the company than any data loss or whatever minute information this girl posted on a message board on some far corner this vast web we weave. Did I make my son quit using his PS3 because Sony got hacked? No. If they started targeting message board posters because they discussed the hack on a message board then I'd toss the fucker out the window.

The same goes for those who back the likes of RIAA and others. While I understand artists of all walks of life want their rights protected and to earn from their works these lawsuits never do anyone any good except for the lawyers and lawmakers. The lawyers get rich talking these companies into going after the little guy because there are so many. The lawmakers use the corporate influence and $$$ to push other agendas which usually end up taking away our rights collectively to produce more cash flow for the STATE which is also a corporation.

$5 submissions · 06-09-2011, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

No in my opinion it's a silly lawsuit and because of the decision many more silly lawsuits will follow. This is the kind of case lawyers and the likes of ADL love because there are unlimited amounts of companies, organizations and people that might get their feelings hurt on message boards and they can point at this and say "Hey look at his "opinion.". And honestly that's all this is about.

I never heard of the NATS data loss until now. And quite honestly I personally see them pushing this case as more of a negative on the company than any data loss or whatever minute information this girl posted on a message board on some far corner this vast web we weave. Did I make my son quit using his PS3 because Sony got hacked? No. If they started targeting message board posters because they discussed the hack on a message board then I'd toss the fucker out the window.

The same goes for those who back the likes of RIAA and others. While I understand artists of all walks of life want their rights protected and to earn from their works these lawsuits never do anyone any good except for the lawyers and lawmakers. The lawyers get rich talking these companies into going after the little guy because there are so many. The lawmakers use the corporate influence and $$$ to push other agendas which usually end up taking away our rights collectively to produce more cash flow for the STATE which is also a corporation.

Well, that's the law. Jurisdictional differences can be a bitch.

v4 media · 06-09-2011, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelli58

4 years is nothing.

I know a guy who is going after Bill Fisher aka Cezar Capone who fucked him in 2007

2011-2007 is 4 years. The same period of time than you said is nothing.

adultzone · 06-09-2011, 07:29 AM

what's going on here?

V_RocKs · 06-09-2011, 07:38 AM

I think their problem was that she shared details that possibly weren't public knowledge and thereby hinted that she actually was in contact with the hacker (s). They wanted to know the source of that knowledge, she claimed journalistic shield law applied.

SmokeyTheBear · 06-09-2011, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleazyDream

least they can find out who did it now..... or hopefully..........

don't know how they would do that.. the lawsuit wasn't about finding out who hacked them. The stolen data was obtained through a nats employees password because NATS built in a backdoor. The lawsuit is about her letting everyone else know nats was breached , had been informed of the breach ,but was continuing to basically let the data be stolen. as far as what was posted on gfy.

lazycash · 06-09-2011, 07:54 AM

Bring back Minusonebit to sort out this mess.

SmokeyTheBear · 06-09-2011, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

I think their problem was that she shared details that possibly weren't public knowledge and thereby hinted that she actually was in contact with the hacker (s). They wanted to know the source of that knowledge, she claimed journalistic shield law applied.

in my opinion they were just looking for someone to blame.

The whole mess was cause by a NATS fuckup anyways. They should never have coded in a backdoor so NATS employees could download its customers confidential and private data, then to top it off they used a NATS employees password to do it with. For icing on the cake , after being informed of the breach , they didn't do ANYTHING to protect its customers or even stop the data theft until AFTER it was made public on gfy and numerous nats users were reporting data theft.

Phoenix · 06-09-2011, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

in my opinion they were just looking for someone to blame.

The whole mess was cause by a NATS fuckup anyways. They should never have coded in a backdoor so NATS employees could download its customers confidential and private data, then to top it off they used a NATS employees password to do it with. For icing on the cake , after being informed of the breach , they didn't do ANYTHING to protect its customers or even stop the data theft until AFTER it was made public on gfy and numerous nats users were reporting data theft.

careful...never know

TMM_John · 06-09-2011, 08:00 AM

Smokey, you're coming awfully close to landing in the same boat as Shellee Hale. There was no "backdoor" coded into NATS as I've told you a number of times. We did and do take actions to protect our customers. Please do not continue spreading information that is not true.

As far as this lawsuit is concerned, I am not going to comment on ongoing litigation. I will say however that it is wonderful to see the courts sort out an issue correctly based upon the facts.

ruff · 06-09-2011, 08:00 AM

??????????????????? Keep moving, nothing to see here.

onwebcam · 06-09-2011, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Well, that's the law. Jurisdictional differences can be a bitch.

Actually, it would most likely be a statute. Which is different than a law despite popular belief. A jurisdictional difference would be the difference between the law in your jurisdiction and mine or a dispute over jurisdiction.

SmokeyTheBear · 06-09-2011, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMM_John

Smokey, you're coming awfully close to landing in the same boat as Shellee Hale.

how rude to threaten me ? if i am mistaken in my reposting of the facts , feel free to let us know the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMM_John

There was no "backdoor" coded into NATS as I've told you a number of times. We did and do take actions to protect our customers. Please do not continue spreading information that is not true.

i am just reposting what was already posted. Can you tell us what actions you took from the time you were told of the breaches and the time it was posted on gfy ?

People were still having their servers compromised well after it was reported to you , still using the nats password. Why didn't you close that hole as soon as you found out about it, and why didn't you inform nats users ?

I am not insinuating you coded in a backdoor to steal customer info, it was coded in to serve a completely legit purpose.. that purpose was misused obviously. not blaming you for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMM_John

As far as this lawsuit is concerned, I am not going to comment on ongoing litigation.

none of my questions have anything to do with ongoing litigation so you should feel free to answer them..

RyuLion · 06-09-2011, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JFK

the slow arm of the law

alias · 06-09-2011, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMM_John

Smokey, you're coming awfully close to landing in the same boat as Shellee Hale. There was no "backdoor" coded into NATS as I've told you a number of times. We did and do take actions to protect our customers. Please do not continue spreading information that is not true.

As far as this lawsuit is concerned, I am not going to comment on ongoing litigation. I will say however that it is wonderful to see the courts sort out an issue correctly based upon the facts.

Go fuck yourself.

V_RocKs · 06-09-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

in my opinion they were just looking for someone to blame.

The whole mess was cause by a NATS fuckup anyways. They should never have coded in a backdoor so NATS employees could download its customers confidential and private data, then to top it off they used a NATS employees password to do it with. For icing on the cake , after being informed of the breach , they didn't do ANYTHING to protect its customers or even stop the data theft until AFTER it was made public on gfy and numerous nats users were reporting data theft.

What you said: backdoor so NATS employees could download...

Fact: No backdoor. Just an admin account left there. Back then a lot of companies did that. TM3 did that. Large mainstream companies like Macy's had similar issues. Their focus was on building the best affiliate software. As TMM has grown they have also adopted better operations protocols that have come into fashion since then.

will76 · 06-09-2011, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

i really dont get why nats bothered pushing this case and why they wont be honest with webmasters about what happened.

From what i recall,many of nats customers posted about being breached, most/all of them reporting the breach was through one of NATS employees "backdoor" password. The breaches involved the theft of nats softwares customers data. This was all common knowledge and posted about on gfy by users as well as nats itself. I don't believe there was any other info posted that was "secret" or "false".

So nats has made a big deal of finding out who posted info about who exposed the breach but we have heard nothing about what has been done to prosecute who was responsible or what has been done to protect and/or retrieve its customers stolen data.

because john is a hot head.

SmokeyTheBear · 06-09-2011, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

Fact: No backdoor. Just an admin account left there.

i think the basic assumption when setting up a nats user admin is that you will be the only one who can login and obtain data from the server. A backdoor is a way past "normal" login procedures ( i.e. the account the nats program owner has created )

When you setup nats you provide login details for those whom you wish permission to access nats. Anyone else remotely accessing nats software using an account that was not created with these permission would be a backdoor as is commonly known.

Like i have said COUNTLESS times before to john about this issue. I love nats , am not bashing the software. Every software has bugs , this was a big one. My only opinon is it should have been a bit more transparent instead of all this shadows shit.. I do not feel in any way NATS did ANYTHING malicious in its intent period end of story.

I know no facts other than what was presented to gfy by nats program users and owners.

DeanCapture · 06-09-2011, 01:29 PM

This is what happens when you hurt somebodies feelings on the interwebz and they have money to piss off!

Lesson here: Only piss off poor people on the interwebz

$5 submissions · 06-09-2011, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Actually, it would most likely be a statute. Which is different than a law despite popular belief. A jurisdictional difference would be the difference between the law in your jurisdiction and mine or a dispute over jurisdiction.

Well, what I meant was conflict of laws not jurisdictional differences. You're right about that -- there is a distinction. You are right about pointing out that jurisdictional differences means disputes about which state court or which court (fed vs state) would have authority to hear a dispute. Conflict of laws means the difference between the local laws of where the defendant lives and where the plaintiff lives.

Now, regarding statutes and laws. They are the same thing in EFFECT. A statute is the product of legislatures--they pass a law and it gets enforced. A law can be rules created by an executive agency or a "judge made law" (US uses Case law system). Both statutes and laws have to be followed-same effect. See: http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu/guides/leg.phtml?faq=1

The ruling in the news item in my first post in this thread is a judicial interpretation of a statute, judge-made law. It is still the law and is enforceable.

Judges interpret the law. Legislatures write it. Executives (president, governors, etc) execute/implement it.

input · 06-09-2011, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

When you setup nats you provide login details for those whom you wish permission to access nats. Anyone else remotely accessing nats software using an account that was not created with these permission would be a backdoor as is commonly known.

I think you're wrong on this - there was no back door in the sense you mean it. On every single TMM install, the user info was downloaded once tmm_fred's account was authenticated, using regular nats scripts to extract user db info. Those scripts required authentication, which is why like clockwork, the tmm admin account logged in, then that script was then called millions of times.

Even on virgin installs, virgin as in they were not yet even live so why was the tmm admin account being used to login at regular intervals?

TMM John publicly stated their central db was hacked (by russians if I'm not mistaken) which kept all the admin login details and that was then being used by a script to login regularly to extract new user details. Emails to my knowledge.

Where things are grey is that TMM John stated an investigation was under way and the community (or clients I can't remember which) would be kept informed. Nothing was said further due to "ongoing investigation". An investigation either yielded no clues or the investigation story was a cover up. Either way, no-one heard anything official from TMM.

Which is where all the whispering came from... rogue employee (Fred?) or not? I don't know. Like I said, the DC and initial client had all the evidence from their own investigation, which was submitted to TMM months before this whole thing blew up publicly. The only reason the DC went public was because of TMM's procrastinating position.

input · 06-09-2011, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

i think the basic assumption when setting up a nats user admin is that you will be the only one who can login and obtain data from the server. A backdoor is a way past "normal" login procedures ( i.e. the account the nats program owner has created )

When you setup nats you provide login details for those whom you wish permission to access nats. Anyone else remotely accessing nats software using an account that was not created with these permission would be a backdoor as is commonly known.

OK I see what you're saying - however, the 'backdoor' account in that case could be any admin account and the end user was always free to change the pass or delete the account as/when he felt like it. The admin account even showed at the top of the whole user list (all admin accounts do, top rank are super users etc etc).

I wouldn't class that as a backdoor - simply an admin account. Nothing hidden.

Fornicating · 06-09-2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

how rude to threaten me ? if i am mistaken in my reposting of the facts , feel free to let us know the truth.

Thats why you have to use words like, implicated, accused, potential, perhaps, implied etc, so that you are not stating it as a truth, simply as an opinion or passing on information that others have stated but that you neither confirm or deny as to the truthfulness.

That way you may/or may not, avoid/or possibly not, getting what could be seen as a possible/implied threat of court action against you/or GFY for allowing/passing/re-iterating false/or possibly true events.

Fucks up the posts though!!

onwebcam · 06-09-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by $5 submissions

Well, what I meant was conflict of laws not jurisdictional differences. You're right about that -- there is a distinction. You are right about pointing out that jurisdictional differences means disputes about which state court or which court (fed vs state) would have authority to hear a dispute. Conflict of laws means the difference between the local laws of where the defendant lives and where the plaintiff lives.

Now, regarding statutes and laws. They are the same thing in EFFECT. A statute is the product of legislatures--they pass a law and it gets enforced. A law can be rules created by an executive agency or a "judge made law" (US uses Case law system). Both statutes and laws have to be followed-same effect. See: http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu/guides/leg.phtml?faq=1

The ruling in the news item in my first post in this thread is a judicial interpretation of a statute, judge-made law. It is still the law and is enforceable.

Judges interpret the law. Legislatures write it. Executives (president, governors, etc) execute/implement it.

"What's the difference between an act, a statute and a law?

There's no cut and dried answer, but a good way to think about it is this:"

http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu/guides/leg.phtml?faq=1

Those in the field of law of course want you to "think" that's the difference. But the reality is a statute is public policy enacted by and for a corporation. You can look at it in the same way as if you were employed by a company and that company has rules. In order to stay employed with that company you must follow those rules or be fired and/or reprimanded. It is corporate, law of the sea, brought onto the land and your body is the vessel. Created originally for ships doing commerce on the sea's. This is also how they are able to blur the lines between corporations and man allowing for such things as corporations and man having equal rights such as campaign donations. But it is also used so certain individuals can hide behind a corporation to steal and kill at will and no one is ever held responsible. Sure the corporation might get a small fine but those directing the stealing and killing continue on. Maybe just under another NAME. Whereas the man would meet very different consequences. Corporate laws = legal (statutes), law of the land pertaining to man = lawful (civil laws).

onwebcam · 06-09-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onwebcam

Corporate laws = legal (statutes), law of the land pertaining to man = lawful (civil laws).

law of the sea = Corporate laws/legal (statutes), law of the land pertaining to man = lawful (civil laws).

The Porn Nerd · 06-09-2011, 06:27 PM

Fiddy NATS lawsuits.
I like potatoes.

alias · 06-09-2011, 06:35 PM

Angry douchebags with lawyers.

GonZo · 06-09-2011, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanCapture

This is what happens when you hurt somebodies feelings on the interwebz and they have money to piss off!

Lesson here: Only piss off poor people on the interwebz

Your mistaken if you think Shellee Hale has no money. Thats all I got to say about that!

Thurbs · 06-09-2011, 06:59 PM

Meh. Everyones lists seem to get stolen. Where there is gold, the hackers will go.

06-07-2011, 02:47 PM	#2
XPays Team Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Inside the most accurately counting and reporting affiliate system in the world at XPays.com Posts: 13,002	interesting find there Gene, thanks __________________ InterNext Expo Domain Auction Live Now thru Feb 5 HuntingMoon GFY Domains Marketplace is LIVE XPays always pays! Top Site: * RealJasmine.com * + HotelHeiress® with The Paris Hilton Sex Video Insert the HotelHeiress® HD FEED into your members areas XPin.com Opening for Pin Partners Soonish Mainstream Offers For Emailers and DomainersNONADULT.COM Like Us!

06-07-2011, 02:55 PM	#5
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	damn, didn't that happen like 5 years ago? __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

06-07-2011, 02:56 PM	#6
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,224	But we all know when something is happening in the world, its always on GFY first! __________________ Looking for Opportunity!

06-07-2011, 03:22 PM	#10
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	i really dont get why nats bothered pushing this case and why they wont be honest with webmasters about what happened. From what i recall,many of nats customers posted about being breached, most/all of them reporting the breach was through one of NATS employees "backdoor" password. The breaches involved the theft of nats softwares customers data. This was all common knowledge and posted about on gfy by users as well as nats itself. I don't believe there was any other info posted that was "secret" or "false". So nats has made a big deal of finding out who posted info about who exposed the breach but we have heard nothing about what has been done to prosecute who was responsible or what has been done to protect and/or retrieve its customers stolen data. __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

06-07-2011, 03:56 PM	#12
ThumbLord Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Aruba Posts: 1,932	interesting find __________________ We Sell Domains \| ThumbLords \| ICQ 128106905 \| TubeLords \| Traffic Holder \| eRoken

06-07-2011, 02:50 PM	#3
input Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 41	this thing still going on? thought that tmm cluster fuckup had had it's lid long ago sealed. Are they still trying for her to reveal her sources after so long???

06-07-2011, 03:21 PM	#9
TubeKing Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 541	this was already posted on GFY today

06-07-2011, 08:51 PM	#13
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	This ruling has the EEF's or ACLU's name written all over it ? Journalists and 1st Amendment freedom of the press ...

06-07-2011, 09:59 PM	#16
96ukssob So Fucking Banananananas Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: If I was in your ass you'd know it Posts: 12,991	i guess you better not base people on message boards unless you have proof __________________ Email: Clicky on Me

06-07-2011, 10:00 PM	#17
onwebcam Fake Nick 1.0 Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Rent free, your head Posts: 27,678	A silly lawsuit and a bad decision that opens the door to many more silly lawsuits from crybabies and other nefarious characters. __________________ PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF..... ██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete. Last edited by onwebcam; 06-07-2011 at 10:01 PM..

06-08-2011, 11:49 PM	#20
SleazyDream I'm here for SPORT Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phone # (401) 285-0696 Posts: 41,470	least they can find out who did it now..... or hopefully.......... __________________ This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog! Now read without the word dog.

06-08-2011, 11:50 PM	#21
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	Guys... If I am not mistaken, the Statute of Limitations is TOLLED (ie., halted) when a claim is filed. That's why people file JOHN DOE claims. Although this is for civil claims, there are analogs in criminal cases See for example: http://stanfordlawyer.law.stanford.e...f-limitations/ __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

06-09-2011, 07:29 AM	#25
adultzone So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: May 2010 Location: Southeast Asia (Philippines) Posts: 1,499	what's going on here?

06-09-2011, 07:38 AM	#26
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,409	I think their problem was that she shared details that possibly weren't public knowledge and thereby hinted that she actually was in contact with the hacker (s). They wanted to know the source of that knowledge, she claimed journalistic shield law applied.

06-09-2011, 07:54 AM	#28
lazycash Troll Patrol Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Local Socal Posts: 15,214	Bring back Minusonebit to sort out this mess.

06-09-2011, 08:00 AM	#31
TMM_John Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 6,660	Smokey, you're coming awfully close to landing in the same boat as Shellee Hale. There was no "backdoor" coded into NATS as I've told you a number of times. We did and do take actions to protect our customers. Please do not continue spreading information that is not true. As far as this lawsuit is concerned, I am not going to comment on ongoing litigation. I will say however that it is wonderful to see the courts sort out an issue correctly based upon the facts. __________________ Skype: JohnA1078 Too Much Media - Makers of the Industry's Leading Payite Management Platform, NATS!

06-09-2011, 08:00 AM	#32
ruff I have a plan B Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Seattle - Miami - St Kitts Posts: 5,501	??????????????????? Keep moving, nothing to see here. __________________ CryptoFeeds

06-09-2011, 01:29 PM	#40
DeanCapture Haters & Trolls SUCK! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 9,275	This is what happens when you hurt somebodies feelings on the interwebz and they have money to piss off! Lesson here: Only piss off poor people on the interwebz __________________ Twitter: @DeanCapture Instagram: @TheDeanCapture DeanCapture "at" Gmail.com

06-09-2011, 06:27 PM	#47
The Porn Nerd Living The Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Inside a Monitor Posts: 19,611	Fiddy NATS lawsuits. I like potatoes. __________________ My Affiliate Programs: Porn Nerd Cash \| Porn Showcase \| Aggressive Gold Over 90 paysites to promote! Now on Teams: peabodymedia

06-09-2011, 06:35 PM	#48
alias aliasx Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 19,010	Angry douchebags with lawyers. __________________ https://porncorporation.com

06-09-2011, 06:59 PM	#50
Thurbs The Thrilla in Manila Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Thurbs' Lagoon, Christmas Island Posts: 4,785	Meh. Everyones lists seem to get stolen. Where there is gold, the hackers will go.