Wow, just wow. Not only have they just invoked the Streisand effect, they threw some gasoline on it to boot. It’s all part of the Climate McCarthyism on display this week.
UPDATE: Ironically, Cook’s “97% consensus paper” was published one year ago today, under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.
Data in the SI was added 16 days after publication, but not all the data, not sure if they have any legal basis to withhold the rest and still keep CCL license – Anthony
Brandon Shollenberger writes:
My Hundredth Post Can’t Be Shown
Dear readers, I wanted to do something special for my hundredth post at this site. I picked out a great topic for discussion. I wrote a post with clever prose, jokes that’d make your stomach ache from laughter and even some insightful commentary. Unfortunately, I can’t post it because I’d get sued.
You see, I wanted to talk about the Cook et al data I recently came into possession of. I wanted to talk about the reaction by Cook et al to me having this data. I can’t though. The University of Queensland has threatened to sue me if I do.
I understand that may be difficult to believe. I’d like to provide you proof of what I say. I’m afraid I can’t do that either though. If I do, the University of Queensland will sue me. As they explained in their letter threatening me:
That’s right. The University of Queensland sent me a threatening letter which threatens me further if I show anyone that letter.
Confusing, no? It gets stranger. Along with its threats, the University of Queensland included demands. The first of these is:
This demand is interesting. According to it, I’m not just prevented from disclosing any of the “intellectual property” (IP) I’ve gained access to. I’m prevented from even doing anything which involves using the data. That means I can’t discuss the data. I can’t perform analyses on it. I can’t share anything about it with you.
But that’s not all I can’t do. The University of Queensland also demanded I cease and desist from:
This fascinates me. I corresponded with John Cook to try to get him to assert any claims of confidentiality he might have regarding the data I now possess. I sent him multiple e-mails telling him if he felt the data was confidential, he should request I not disclose it. I said if people’s privacy needed to be protected, he should say so.
He refused. Repeatedly.
Apparently I badgered Cook too much. I tried too hard to get him to do his duty and try to protect his subjects’ privacy. The University of Queensland needs me to stop. If I don’t, they’ll sue me.
So yeah, sorry guys. I wanted my hundredth post to be interesting, but I guess it won’t be. Anything interesting I might have to say will get me sued. And maybe not just sued. The University of Queensland apparently wants me arrested too:
I don’t know what sort of hack they had investigate the supposed hacking, but this is silly. There was no hacking involved. The material was gathered in a perfectly legal way. I could easily prove that.
Only, proving it would require using the data I’ll be sued for using…
My Hundredth Post Can’t Be Shown
Does that make the UoQ complicit in Cook’s fraud?
Maybe this calls for the Steyn Defense?!
See: Michael E Mann: Liar, Cheat, Falsifier and Fraud by Mark Steyn May 13, 2014
If you are going to be arrested and sued, just release it. LOL
I know, easy for me to say.
Publish the method used to obtain the data.
(Unless that’s also a forbidden act, of course.)
Is anyone here resident in QLD, or even better in Campbell Newman’s electorate? Send him a link to this post, with a request to act. The more QLDers doing it the better, copy to their local MP.
Brandon Schollenberger – If you contact Campbell Newman or Tony Abbott they may well listen. Perhaps better if you can get your political representative to do it.
The only way the letter can be claimed copyright, at least in US, is for the dissemination of the university’s logo. The logo can be the only thing copyrighted. Usually that is termed TradeMarked. You can display the letter but block out the logo.
Brandon
I agree with Eliza’s suggestion that you write the Australian Prime Minister, but suggest you focus on the specific issue of you, a US citizen, being threatened with legal action by a state-funded Australian entity. Explain how you got the data & make clear you did not steal it. Say you lack the resources to fight a law suit, and ask his help in protecting your free speech rights on this vital topic. Tony Abbott is a good man: he’ll at minimum shake a few trees to clarify your legal exposure and with luck may make this problem go away.
Ken G, I can confirm it’s from a representative of the University of Queensland who would be authorized to handle a situation like this. That’s the best I can do.
Magoo, when Dozier used a similar tactic in the past to prevent people from publishing complaint letters, many people suggested it was unethical. I don’t think it rises to legal blackmail though.
papertiger, if I send it to you and you publish it, I’m as liable if I publish it directly. As for growing a set, my actions aren’t determined by fear. I just think if they want to make fools out of themselves, I shouldn’t stop them.
Chuck L, whether or not bloggers qualify as journalists is something of a hot topic. Courts have consistently ruled that bloggers can qualify as journalists, but I’m not sure where the lines get drawn. It’s something I want to look into a bit more.
Hum, they do own the copyright to this letter. I own the copyright on my response to them. The law just allows people to distribute copyrighted material under certain circumstances.
hunter, these things can take time. I’ve given the University of Queensland a little time to provide documentation for a number of their claims prior to examining the legal arguments they made (including documentation showing they even have standing to be involved). If they don’t provide that documentation, I need not bother even addressing their arguments. In that case, I’ll publish the letter as soon as the time period is up.
On the other hand, if they maintain an open dialogue with me, I’m not going to sabotage it to publish a letter when doing so wouldn’t contribute anything. I’d raise the issue of this baseless threat during the resolution process. Perhaps we’d resolve it amicably. I see no value in passing up the chance to have them admit they were wrong just to publish the letter a little earlier.
On the issue of a legal fund, I might start one if there’s any indication I’ll get sued. Until then, I’d just be taking people’s money for nothing. I wouldn’t mind the free money, but… 😛
Brandon, what Congressional district do you live in?
THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA AND I AM APPALLED THAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING SUCH A POORLY THOUGHT OUT THING!
These guys are threatening to file a criminal complaint. The Australian Prime Minister has 0 incentive to stand in the way of it. The University has everything to gain in trying to ask for a criminal complaint against Brandon.
What Brandon needs to do is to
a) Shut up!
b) Get legal counsel (I recommend asking Ken at Popehat who has a stable of lawyers willing to take on case pro-bono)
c) Shut up!
d) Not give anyone any more ammunition to file hacking charges against him
e) Shut up!
There seems to be some naive belief that the entities out there have some degree of integrity and a moral compass.
Government officials aren’t machines. They are human beings that react to incentives. And the incentives involved generally reward hurting little people and punish helping them when they confront big politically connected institutions. Police forces are incented to generate prosecutions. Prosecutors are incented to convict people.
At this point Brandon should be talking to an expert, not taking advice from strangers on the Internet who are oblivious to the dangers of the various legal systems and thus promote reckless courses of action.
@Tarran – no, the worst thing he can do is shut up. Then he is quietly “disappeared”. As he has the right of free speech, and as he has not uttered any falsehoods, his best defense is the one he is taking. Mockery and derision.
I would not take an Internet threat seriously and that is all this is – a threat. A bad one at that. I doubt the barrister who wrote the letter has won many court cases.
My old Uni. Sent a link to my Alumni, explaining why I do not provide funds to the Alumni organisation, and why I discouraged my three children from attending UQ. Told them that I am disgusted with the ethics, have been for some time.
Typical lawyerese bluff tactic. Claiming to do things that they cannot, in the hopes that you get scared and go away.
Call their bluff.
Start by publishing their “we own the copyright to this threat” bullshit letter.
Put it on your own website, in the context of an “open letter” to Cook. Claim “fair use” of their bullshit threat AND your own copyright of every jot and tittle of your full response, including their bullshit threat and John Cook’s name. Threaten to sue them for copyright infringement if they attempt to use any part of your response, including their letter to you, for anything, including legal proceedings. And as suggested above, definitely cite Arkell v. Pressdram as precendent.
Of course, if you turn their tactics against them, they’ll probably threaten to sue you for infringement of their soon to be filed method patent on bullshit legal bluffing tactics.
Soldier on, Shoylentgreenburger. Do not let them bully you.
Publish the letter, publish the data, dare them to sue.
Call their bluff.
Brandon Shollenberger says:
May 15, 2014 at 12:08 pm
“bevothehike, I’m not sure I want to “up the ante by threatening them with international blackmail.” I try to avoid committing crimes :P”
I meant accusing them of blackmail:-) It sounds like you’re resigned to acquiescing to their bullying. At the very least I would contact the president of the University to verify if what happened to you was sanctioned. Copy all the national and local newspapers as well.
Here is the email address to make a donation to UQ. I’m going to donate a piece of my mind.
donations@uq.edu.au
matayaya, I followed that series of posts as it was published. I wrote responses, pointing out many mistakes in them. It was only after something like six thousand words they began providing evidence for their claims, and that was two years after the fact. People’s skepticism was always justified. Had the Skeptical Science team wanted to be believed, they should have been open about things sooner. They also shouldn’t have written posts explaining the issue that made it clear they didn’t know what they were talking about.
In any event, when they finally provided (potentially) verifiable evidence they had been hacked, I accepted it. That has nothing to do with this topic though. That hack happened something like two years ago, before data I have now even existed. It was done by an entirely different person, targeted an entirely different set of resources, and obtained no material I obtained.
In the future, I’d advise you make sure you have some idea what you’re talking about before accusing other people of not knowing what they’re talking about. Failing that, at least try not to accuse people of lying based upon a complete lack or misunderstanding of knowledge on your part.
US Law vs International Law
Brandon, thank you for this very interesting post!
Some of the previous posts sound to me like the posters are mixing US law with international law, e.g. ‘with what amounts to a blackmail letter itself a federal offence’ or ‘Refer them to Arkell v. Pressdram’
Anyway, I would not recommend studying at UoQ. Sorry UoQ guys, so sue me.
I have seen this question addressed elswhere. The author retains not only the copyright interest in a letter, but also a property interest. If “A” writes love letters to “B”, “B” does not have the right to publish or sell those letters.
Interesting item I found related to this – free legal advice (for US Citizens)
“Sixteen Things Writers Should Know About Quoting From Letters”
http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/02/sixteen-things-writers-should-know.html
@Mike Tremblay – Thanks for the link. I defer to the expertise in that.
If this letter was sent through the US Mail service, I believe they have very stringent rules about what can and cannot be carried. Without the text, it is impossible to say whether this is an infringement of those rules, which carry thye force of law.
Folks: Just think a minute. Try to defend a lawsuit in Australia…how? Lawyers in the US charge for their work and foreign lawyers are no different. So why open oneself to this needless expense…particularly when the institution is besmirching its reputation day by day by day …
Brandon, A few points you should consider.
From the comments above, I take it you are a citizen of the USA.
A legal threat is a long, long way from actually appearing in court.
The court appearance would have to be here in Queensland.
Any appearance would be held in a “civil court” not criminal.
The law enforcement authorities in Queensland would not be involved.
UQ would have to show good cause to the US law enforcement authorities why you should arrested and forcibly extradited to Australia.
UQ would have to meet all costs in getting you to, and accommodating you in Queensland.
Costs may not be recoverable under Queensland Law.
UQ would have to consider the risks in not being successful with its litigation, thus bearing costs.
We have laws in Queensland against frivolous and vexatious legal actions.
You will be a very old man by the time you get to Australia.
Publish the stuff and keep Australia out of your travel plans.
Harry Buttle, that clip is what made me start watching Red Eye. It’s my favorite show on any cable news channel. In fact, it’s the only show I watch on any cable news channel. Andy Levy rules!
John Whitman, I sent them a sample of a data file which proved I had previously undisclosed material. I assume the University of Queensland looked at how I got it (it claims to have done a forensic investigation) and examined what material I could have obtained.
AndyL, I am. It’s well-established. It usually comes up in plagiarism cases where somebody copied a letter to use as a template. That doesn’t mean the letters have to be kept confidential. It just means there are limits on how you can use them.
Gonzo, I have a Paypal account. You can put money in it if you’d like. I won’t complain. I just can’t foresee actually needing money for any legal reasons so I don’t know why you’d be doing it.
Steve C, I believe giving details about it could possibly lead to the disclosure of some of the material. More importantly, I’m content to let people make false allegations and demand they provide proof. I believe in letting people make fools of themselves.
Mike Jonas, Jeremy Thomas, jeanparisot, there are a lot of people it’s been suggested I contact. I need to take some time and think about it. As for my Congressional district, I’d have to look that up. I don’t know which one covers southern Illinois (or if multiple ones do).
bevothehike, sure you were 😛 For what it’s worth, you need not fear me cowing to pressure. I expect I’ll be publishing the letter in its entirety in about half a day. I’m just allowing a short window for the University of Queensland to justify some of the things they said before doing so.
Hey now everyone let’s be a little more charitable here. Let’s consider for a moment the possibility that UQ and JC know for a fact that their data is so solid as to offer no useful information beyond what they have already reported. Maybe they are just trying to save you from wasting your time on it when they know you could be doing useful research elsewhere.
In fact, anywhere else.
Im sure Drudge would be interested in the blackmail threat
Be careful, The next step would be to have your racehorses head dumped on your bed as in Godfather 1.