Microsofters' SLAPP Censorship - Part 7 Out of 200: Like With the Serial Strangler From Microsoft, Misuse of UK-GDPR to Try to Hide Embarrassing Facts
They do and say really bad things, then allege it's a "privacy violation" to mention those things
Confirmed: The Two Microsofters Who Filed Two Cases Against Me Were Collaborating | Microsoft's Serial Strangler and Matthew J. Garrett Join Forces in Trying to Gag Techrights (for Exposing Microsoft Corruption and Crimes Against Women)
A week ago we started this series and in the previous part we covered some necessary background. Today, reciting 2024 again, we show that the Microsoft/Windows shop that filed lawsuits (for an American man who had strangled women and was arrested for it in Texas, after the first American reached an impasse) has little or no grasp of technology. To help distract from de facto back/bug doors (controlled by Microsoft, the employer of the arrested man) it would allege the critic of those back/bug doors was the real problem (me as "First Defendant") and also lump in the critic's wife, deliberately using her wrong name ("Second Defendant"). From the informal response, mostly explaining what our sites are and who we are:
2. Clarification is imperative here. The First Defendant is the principal author and editor, not merely an “operator” (vague and legally-inaccurate term - technically a misnomer in the context of the professional domain). The “website” is actually not just a Web site – as in World Wide Web (HTML and HTTP/S) site. It also acts as a Gemini capsule (Gemini Protocol is a modern alternative to the Web, which started in June 2019), InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) node, IRC network, Git repository, to name some among other services (which are included but are not publicly reachable to all as they involve core people). The First Defendant operates many things other than a “website” (he looks after over a dozen Web sites, not only his own; he made his first Web site almost 30 years ago) and techrights.org (Techrights) is more than just a domain for the World Wide Web (“www” as referred to in the Claims). The First Defendant operates many things, but the Claimant focuses on one particular function – namely that of a Web site. The distinction is crucial and needs to be fully comprehended, for otherwise the common misconceptions can be leveraged on the basis of ignorance. While many in the legal profession understandably struggle with certain technical jargon, especially acronyms that belong to more pertinent areas, the Defendants are fluent in the matter and are eager to explain the underlying details in a fashion everyone can grasp. Techrights does in fact cover those matters on a routine basis, as does the sister site, Tux Machines. This is actually a key part of the sites (and Gemini capsules et cetera). Their purpose is to explain technology to the common person and advocate human rights through better understanding or underlying technology, which can be leveraged either for good or bad (or both). For instance, in 2012 the work led by the Claimant was presented in the context of antitrust law; it was easy to digest for people who otherwise find themselves lost in jargon and techno-lingo, thus losing interest and ignoring the imminent dangers (which materialised very soon afterwards). The First Defendant spent years working as a post-doctoral researcher, he even peer-reviewed academic papers at the most distinguished international journals, so he is capable of using more abstract and easily-accessible terms to explain otherwise-complicated issues, as he constantly does at the Web site (and Gemini capsule) called Techrights – prior to that he mostly did the same in his personal site, schestowitz.com. It is barely up for debate whether the contributions made by the First Defendant were positive; accolades from peers both online and offline can serve to affirm this. The First Defendant was at one point ranked #1 in the whole world for his freely-shared code contributions to MATLAB. He achieved this as a Ph.D. student in his early 20s (so in effect juggling several activities at the same time – a limiting factor). He was approached by the company, Mathworks, which sought to recruit him and urged him to publish a book, but he kindly declined because he already worked and studied at the same time, set aside activism work and pro bono coding. Incidentally, Google also approached the First Defendant at least 3 times in the past, trying to recruit him. That serves as recognition of the importance of his work, even if he instead chose to pursue salary-free activism/advocacy in his personal site, schestowitz.com, and later (in 2006 onwards) in Techrights, which is less personal (the former site can be seen as egocentric because of the domain name) and fosters a broader community of authors/researchers.
The Second Defendant is actually only a guest (rare) writer on the platform Techrights. There seems to be a misunderstanding in the Particulars of Claim. The Second Defendant mainly curates news in a very particular technical field at Tux Machines, so she is an editor in the sense that she assesses the quality of news articles and clusters/groups them to enable easier digestion of daily news, sorted by their respective theme/s and/or category/ies. The Second Defendant took over the site in 2013, even though the site had started in 2004 in the United States. It had been edited and run by another lady from 2004 until 2013. It is not a secret that women in the area of STEM, and CS (Computer Science) in particular, suffer (‘soft’) bullying and harassment by jealous men with insecurity complex, especially men who perceive those women to be doing better than themselves. The envy is derived from the false belief that women do not belong in the sciences and can be chased away from technical disciplines by belittling their technical capacity, analytical skills, accomplishments, and even their very potential (as if their brain is defective and somehow insufficient in capacity since the moment they are born). This phenomenon is widely recognised and thoroughly explained in entire books. There’s no lack of literature explaining why people like the Second Defendant attracts the wrath of men who believe they’re disenfranchised or discriminated against by the common scapegoat - ambitious and diligent women. If the soft bullying or micro-aggression lack an effect, the men tend to escalate the tactics to more severe forms of abuse, and herein the Second Defendant feels the case stands. To chase away women by hinting to them that life will get tough (for merely participating) is to further dilute an already-scarce pool of women in technology. The case posits an element of this too; it would be short-sighted to overlook that angle.
The Defendants are happily married and live in the United Kingdom, unlike the Claimant, who resides in the United States and was naturalised as an American citizen with the First Amendment, which both Defendants lack. This creates a disproportionate, unfair, asymmetric situation, wherein if Roy and Rianne Schestowitz sue the Claimant (herein) for defamation, the Claimant can escape to greener pastured, living in a cabin in a forest and asserting inalienable rights to free speech, not to mention anti-SLAPP provisions that exist in California law. As noted in (1), there is moreover the tendency by the defendant to frivolously send pre-action letters in the UK (and not act upon them) despite not living in the UK. He lives in California. He lives in the woods and constantly boasts about it. It is baffling and even worrying that such a person would be entertained, especially in light of some comments that he made in the past about his naturalisation status and belonging to states (he’s not a big fun of the UK, except perhaps when he can leverage that state to harass or silence critics who reside there).
Invocation of “UKGDPR” seems wholly inappropriate. Clearly what we deal with here is misuse of the "*GDPR" as all articles cite publicly accessible, freely accessible, open-source material, such as the plaintiff writing about himself (sometimes with expletives and violent language). The claims are also categorically denied, for what was published was supported by evidence accompanied with expression of honest, genuine opinions. The theme of opinion/s stated, as such, will be revisited later in the Defence. It’s important to distinguish what was argued as opinion, what was framed as an interpretation of evidence, and what was stated as pure, objective, inarguable fact. The Claimant often fails to distinguish these, either deliberately or sans reading comprehension skills. Examples will be provided where the claims very clearly misinterpret, mis-frame, or distort what was actually written. Given the amount of money that went into drafting these claims, it’s hard to believe that this was an accident or honest mistake. The ramifications are serious and far-reaching, for they may contribute to the idea that the claims themselves are libellous (in their own right), yet borrow the veneer of the Court to seem more honourable and wholly legitimate. That biases the readers’ expectations and leads to wholly false suppositions which ought to be averted. Legal documents ought not become smear campaigns; it is essential that verifiable facts are adhered to, unless otherwise stated.
The sites do not exercise geo-blocking and thus are universally accessible to all people who wish to access material, without tacit discrimination or any artificial, additional barriers. This is a deliberate policy because the sites fervently oppose technical paywalls or demand for an account (identifying oneself), for that leads to discrimination based on wealth and other factors outside the readers’ control. Some of these factors are outside the readers’ choice too, e.g. being born poor or living in a country that adopts a “splinternet” approach (extensive Web blocking). They do not target any particular demography and never did. Their collective existence exceeds 37 years (both ages combined) and their archives, which remain fully accessible, go back to 2004. As far as access (a form of liberty akin to the “right to know”) is concerned, both Defendants are opinionated in the sense that they do not believe 1) readers should be identified by name (or any other form of ID, e.g. E-mail address, postcode, social media account etc.) and 2) readers should never be obstructed or excluded from accessing any particular page. The Second Defendant, who is a dual citizen (British also), hails from the developing world. She recognises the importance of this and does not wish for privileged men to be able to silence the disenfranchised, either by legal – especially if frivolous - or technical means. Those who follow her site understand that the nature of the material covered very much parallels this belief. Free, libre (free as in freedom) software, including GNU/Linux, strive to achieve or at the very least to maintain equality in the digital realm (this trait of the software generally erodes over time because political power shifts upwards to a wealthy few who dictate what technology to adopt, using capital investments and self-serving instrumentalisation of infrastructure). The GNU General Public Licence, for instance, makes it imperative to freely share one’s work that builds upon others’. The concept of “copyleft” – as codified initially by the GNU General Public Licence in the mid 1980s - is a response to the practice of hoarding, mostly of knowledge or immaterial “assets”. In the domain of information technology, including information systems and public Web site, the analogous practice is typically referred to as “Open Access”. It is fair to assert this label applies, even if it is not fully embraced, for the connotation of the word “open” evades ethical aspects and innately moral considerations. The criticality of this matter shall become more apparent as the “audience” aspects are unfolded below. █