HOME * THE * Digital Forensics Biblio What's New This Month! Blogs and Wikis Topic-Specific Resources The Other 'Good Stuff' Digital Forensic Books Links to Links About This Site

IN THE BEGINNING... I have decided to use this space to document and share a recent experience with a Web Content Hijacker. The offending site is a web portal operated by Marquis Grove, which he calls the 'Security News Portal.' It can be reached through any of the following: http://www.infosyssec.net http://www.infosyssec.com or http://www.infosyssec.org As of January 29, 2006 From Copyright Infringement to Defamation: What's Next? In the lastest 'editorial' posted by Marquis Grove on his retaliatory webpage (concerning his rather unusual 'theories' of the copyright infringement of my website), he has sunk to a NEW LOW. Rather than continuing to push his 'unique' interpretation of my copyright law, and my infringement claims (and he is still incapable of grasping the meaning of a 'compilation' in terms of copyright law), he has resorted to the Internet equivalent of drawing pictures of the teacher on the chalkboard because he didn't like the lesson :) I do not think Mr. Grove has taken the time to consider what he has now opened himself to. While Copyright infringement carries a maximum statutory penalty, Internet defamation can be much more costly for the perpetrator. One victim of Internet defamation was awarded over 11 million dollars! As for the latest tyraid; if this was supposed to make me angry, upset, or if he is expecting me to sink to the same level with retaliatory name-calling, hurling of insults, and false accusations, I would have to say that it has had just the opposite effect. I (as well as my colleagues, friends, and students) have found the latest volley quite amusing. We now anxiously await what comes next! Mr. Grove is only showing himself for the person he really is; a frustrated and lonely (your Yahoo! profile has you as 'single an looking') old man who has nothing better to do but to continue in his attempts to 'victimize the victim.' There is one interesting 'addition' to his rantings that I would like to comment upon. He is actually accusing me of 'stealing' the pages from his site; those pages that I have collected and shared as indisputable evidence of his theft of my intellectual property. First: the pages to which he is referring [HERE, HERE and HERE] were obtained from Google, so if you have a beef, ask them to stop caching your website :) Second: is it possible to 'steal back' ones own work? More amazingly, he even tries to claim copyright protection of this same content that he stole from my website, at one point calling it "our compilation"! His entire argument has been based on his misguided notion that these types of compilations are not protected under copyright! Third: he refers to the 'much needed consolidation' of my content. It is MY compilation to consolidate (or not) as I see fit. My site has received recognition within the forensic community because I have chosen NOT to 'consolidate' it (there are already many other sites that choose to present it that way). I believe in giving credit to the authors, and in providing my readers additional information about the resource they are about to view. BTW, Mr. Grove; graphic images are also protected by copyright law. I would venture to guess that you did not get the permission of the owners of the pictures of Glenn Close, Freddie Krueger or the others that make up the 'classroom' montage before you posted them on your site. And, in keeping in line with your established 'modus operandi,' it does not appear that you have obtained permission or gave Cisco any attribution for using their copyrighted content on VPNs. I will continue to monitor (and document) the continued 'rants' posted on your site for entertainment and amusement :) January 8, 2007 - The duplicated content from my site has been removed; whether this was in response to the Cease and Desist Letter sent by my attorney, or, the DMCA complaint I had submitted to Google that did the trick, I do not know. It has since been replaced with cut-and-paste results from standard search engine queries; no screening of materials or selection criteria, just the same results that you or I could obtain using similar search engine techniques. Much of it is content that I would not include on my site: flyers, brochures, course syllabi, etc. And, Mr. Grove has created a page on one of his domains in which he tries to explain his rather unusual perceptions of the issues in this case. I would like to comment on Mr. Grove's assertions that I wish to copyright the individual hyperlinks; this is simply not the case. It is ludicrous to make such a claim. I would be a VERY busy individual if I chose to go after every site that has included a hyperlink to any of the materials that I have included on my site. It has always been my assertion that it is the compilation that I have pains-takingly compiled and maintained over the course of these 4 years that is protected under copyright law. This compilation of materials in the field of Computer Forensics is carefully selected by myself for inclusion on my website. It is material that I have chosen as being the most deserving of recognition. Anyone is free to create their own compilation of Computer Forensic resources; and I know of many that have. But Copyright Law forbids the 'duplication' of such compilations (and, the 2000+ lines of HTML source-code that I wrote to create the hyperlinks) without express knowledge and permission of the originating author. ********************************* He still asserts that the original listing on his site was created independently of mine. But, there are some things that he did not consider when making this assertion. I am human, and therefore make mistakes; in particular, mistakes in wording, titles, and spelling. So, when you copy the content of such and an 'imperfect' person, you also copy their mistakes. I have analyzed the content that originally appeared on his site (the first 3 versions, available below), found and documented MANY of the 'mistakes' I had made in my compilation replicated in his. There is no intent to liable or slander the individual, and I have not done so on this page. There are no inaccuracies, false or misleading statements. This is a complete and accurate representation of my findings in this matter, and the events that have transpired thus far. This documentation is, for me, a form a therapy, and will hopefully help me to find closure to what has been a very frustrating and distressing week. If this type of thing has happened to any of you, I sympathize! Experiences like this make the owners of informational web portals such as mine think twice about the time and effort that we put into a site in order to keep it up-to-date, timely and relevant. During December of 2006, as I was attempting to update several links on my site that had been identified as 'dead links,' searches on the titles of these works through Google came back with hits that I had not seen in previous searches. I decided to visit this 'apparently' new resource for information. Once the link had resolved, I was sickened by what I found. The owner of this site had 'ripped' all of the links from the pages of my Digtal Forensic Bibliography, and posted them to his site, in the same alphabetical order as they had appeared on my site, as well as all of the 'metadata' that I add at the end of the title (e.g. PDF or PP Presentation, month and year, and the occasional descriptor). The only differences were that they all appeared on a single page (as opposed to my site, where I have separated them alphabetically), and the author's name had been removed. Otherwise, it was my directory contents! So, as of Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2006 (the day the exchange of emails began), the page at the offenders site looked like THIS   (This is a locally archived version of Google's cached as it appeared on Dec. 6, 2006) Anyone that is familiar with the contents of my site will recognize it almost immediately as my compilation. The only changes made were the aggregation of the 26 pages of my 'Digital Forensic Bibliography' into one page, and the removal of the authors' names. In response to my requests for the removal of the content (the exchange is memorialized below), he took down the page on Wednesday, Dec. 6, 2006. But, on Thursday, Dec. 7, 2006, he replaced it with another page located HERE   (This is a locally archived version of the page as it appeared on Dec. 8, 2006) It does not take alot of analysis to see what was done; my compilation of titles and associated hyperlinks was re-ordered. The 'metadata' (type of document and date of publication) that I place at the end of each title was stripped. And, the titles/hyperlinks were now in order (alphabetically) by the hyperlink. Still my compilation, my work, just a flimsy attempt to try to cover the original duplication. On Dec. 12, 2006, and thrid version of the page appeared, and is archived HERE. Still the original compilation, but with some new leading entries, and a few more additions interspersed here and there in the listing. Well, it was PLAINLY obvious in the first version of the offending page that it was MY compilation. But, once the content was 'rearranged,' it takes a little more time to discern. So, I decided to try approaching it from an analytical and investigative perspective (after all, that's part of what I do). My approach was to copy the titles/hyperlinks from the entire 26 pages from my Bibliography into an Excel spreadsheet, and sort it alphabetically. It can be downloaded HERE I then copied the 'newly arranged' version of the offending page, and did the same. It can be downloaded HERE Now, do a side-by-side comparison. What are the chances!?! 2 compilations 'Supposedly' created independently Both compilations within 100 entries of each other And, sharing about 95% of the same content! Considering that Googling just the phrase "Computer Forensics" produces over 1 million hits, I'd have to say it's astronomical that 2 sites could be so close in content! (And, the 1 million+ hits using just the single phrase does not take into account the multitude of other 'hits' that I could have produced using alternate search terms to locate materials) What follows is the email exchange between myself and the 'owner' of the offending site. Worth the read, especially when he resorts to name calling (not bad, but uncalled for) and unkind characterizations. From   Christine Siedsma Date   Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:50:02 -0500 To   snpMarq@SecurityNewsPortal.com Subject   Your are in violation of COPYRIGHT!!! To Whom it May Concern, This is to advise you that you are using copyrighted and protected material on your website. Your illegal use of almost the entire contents of the page located at http://www.infosyssec.net/infosyssec/security/computerforensics.htm is content that is originally from my website: The Electronic Evidence Information Center at http://www.e-evidence.info This is original content that I have compiled and maintained over several years. I am the author and copyright holder of this web portal, and have never given permission for any of my materials to be duplicated. Use of copyright protected material without permission is illegal under copyright laws. Remove the plagiarized material IMMEDIATELY!! If not, I will not hesitate to take legal action! FYI, this is the SECOND time I have found you in violation!   ** Note the last line. Yes, I had found content from my site posted on his in the past. At that time, is was the content from just one page of my site; but that was much more blatant. The formatting was completely unchanged! Subject   Re: Your are in violation of COPYRIGHT!!! From   Marq at the SecurityNewsPortal  snpmarq@yahoo.com Date   Tuesday, December 5, 2006 2:06 pm Hello Christine I am having a problem finding the identical content on the web page you referenced at our web site and that which you claim originated on your own web site. Could you please be a little more specific as I only had time to do a cursory look over your web site. Marquis Grove [MY REPLY] You are kidding, right? It took you what must have been a substantial amount of time to edit my content! The entire page is an editted version of my alphabetically arranged Bibliography, starting at http://www.e-evidence.info/biblio.html Starting with the article entitled 'Evaluation of Intelligent Intrusion Detection Models' which is the first article under the letter 'A' in my bibliography http://www.e-evidence.info/a.html Your entire 'single' page is identical to my page's alphabetical ordering. The only thing you did was cut the author's names!! Otherwise, you left the rest of the entries intact, including the resource 'type' (e.g. [PDF] or [PP Presentation]) followed by the date!!! It is a blatant rip-off! So, I am ready to proceed with a DMCA violation if this is not remedied IMMEDIATELY!!! [MR. GROVE'S REPLY] No I am not kidding. I had a great difficulty trying to identify exactly what you were alleging. There is a substantive difference between the small link list of UNSORTED ARTICLE TITLES and their corresponding hyperlinks that appears on ONE page of the InfoSysSec web site and the substantive, alphabetized by author bibliography list that is spread over 26 individual web pages on www.e-evidence.info Thanks Mark [MY REPLY] That ONE PAGE of your site mirrors MY ENTIRE 26-page Bibliography. The articles on your site are not UNSORTED. They are arranged in alphabetical order by author, as they are on mine! All you did was remove the authors' names. To reiterate; for starters, take http://www.e-evidence.info/a.html You will see that starting with the article entitled: 'Evaluation of Intelligent Intrusion Detection Models' [PDF] Summer 2004 The ordering of the titles of the articles listed on your site are EXACTLY ordered AND FORMATTED (you did not even bother to change THAT) in the same way that they are on mine!!! If you continue to ignore the obvious, I will take this to the next level. My website is a widely recognized resource in the forensic legal community. I will share my findings with a much wider audience, and contact a lawyer. I take these actions to protect my work and my copyright! [MR. GROVE'S REPLY] Hello Christine Yes Christine, it is quite possible that I was indeed as ignorant of this problem as I have explained in my previous e-mail, Ignorant as in lacking the knowledge thereof, not ignorant as in the flinging of accusations against an innocent person. You have shown ignorance by assuming that I am the author of the work that you find so offensive. Suffice to say that today was the first time that I have ever visited your web site at http://www.e-evidence.info The works to which you refer were contributed in that format by a user of InfoSysSec who wished to contribute some pertinent links related to the field of computer forensics. Their intention was to help educate others who were seeking to learn about that field. I assume this is the same purpose for which you dedicate your time and efforts building your bibliographic link list. Now personally, I have no qualms about simply deleting the page, and in fact I probably will. However, I will not be rushed to this decision without first consulting with our own legal counsel. Because frankly I do not believe there is any violation pertaining to Copyrights, your work and the work that you have identified on InfoSysSec. However, I do believe that the 'deep linking' that occurs on your web page and the one on the InfoSysSec web site may in fact be violations under the copyright laws of your country and mine. Although we both may be afforded some legal protection as non-profit educational organizations and fair use, it nonetheless may leave us both open to legal action by those third parties to whom those hyperlinks 'deep link' to. Suffice to say I will seek legal counsel's opinion and if advised, the page will simply be deleted. Best wishes Marquis Grove   ** It is not the first time he had visited my site. He had 'stolen' content on his site over a year before. At that time, he agreed to remove the content. He claims ownership of the site, and innocence as to the origin of the materials. Yet, in later communication the 'innocence' evavorates, and he takes significant steps to change the appearnce (though not the substance) of my content. "Deep linking?" Not sure where that came from, or why he chooses to discuss it here. [MY REPLY] To respond to some of the points you bring up: Any site that knowingly posts content that is protected by copyright IS in violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It does not matter how it got there; once you are made aware of its presence, you are liable. >> The works to which you refer were contributed in that format by a user of InfoSysSec who wished to contribute some pertinent links related to the field of computer forensics. If someone wishes to post their own information, they have every right to do so. The fact that whomever chose to 'steal' my content w/o getting permission from the source is dispicable. I have worked long and hard to build and maintain the content on my site. Anyone may freely LINK to my site, but the compilation is mine! >> Their intention was to help educate others who were seeking to learn about that field. I assume this is the same purpose for which you dedicate your time and efforts building your bibliographic link list. That is EXACTLY why I have built my website. I am an educator in a criminal justice program. But, I am also well-versed in the laws related to the protection of intellectual property. No matter how 'altruistic' the motives of the contributor may have been, it is still theft! >> Because frankly I do not believe there is any violation pertaining to Copyrights, your work and the work that you Unbelievable! The contents of compilations, such as web portals, ARE protected! >> However, I do believe that the 'deep linking' that occurs on your web page and the one on the InfoSysSec web site may in fact be violations under the copyright laws of your country and mine. I have done so with full knowledge and/or permission of the authors! On the rare occasion where an author has objected, I have IMMEDIATELY removed the content. In fact, most authors make a habit of contacting me about new works, or when links go 'dead.' >> Suffice to say I will seek legal counsel's opinion and if advised, the page will simply be deleted. I truly hope your legal counsel gives you good advise, and that you take appropriate action SOON. I do not want this to get 'ugly.' I have to tell you, it sickens me to see a project to which I have devoted COUNTLESS hours to stolen and reused so readily w/o any thought or consideration to its origins. [MR GROVE'S REPLY] Subject:   Re: Your MAY be in violation of MY COPYRIGHT!!! Hello Christine As noted, I will be talking to the legal counsel about this. As an educator, well versed in Copyright laws, I am certain you can appreciate my concerns over the fact that : - Derivitive works are permitted under the various copyright Acts of Canada, United States and Great Britain (where your work is published and hosted). - Fair Use is permitted under the various copyright Acts - and only material that originated with the author can support a copyright. Items from the public domain ( such as a collection of hyperlinks ) which appear in a work, as well as work borrowed from others ( titles of documents being hyperlinked to ) cannot be the subject of an infringement claim. These are questions that can only be properly addressed by an impartial third party who is well versed in these matters. I will try to get back to you before Friday ;) Best wishes Marquis   ** Sometime between this email and the next, Mr. Grove blocked access to his website from my workplace.   ** And, I thought he could use a refresher course on copyright law! [MY REPLY] Subject:   Re: You ARE in violation of MY COPYRIGHT!!! Firstly, I DO NOT appreciate being addressed by my first name. In any future correspondence, you will address me as Ms. Siedsma or Professor Siedsma And, before you start throwing around legal terminology that you obviously know nothing about, you really need to educate yourself on the issues. Google would be a good place to start! >> Derivitive works are permitted under the various copyright Acts of Canada, United States and Great Britain (where your work is published and hosted) First, you spelled 'derivative' wrong. "Derivative work" must include what the copyright law calls "original work of authorship." There was NO originality in the material that was posted! And, derivative works must also provide attribution to the orignal author. Also, "Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work." I gave no such permission. [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html] This WAS NOT a derivative work. It was a wholesale hijacking of the content of 26 pages of my website! >> Fair Use is permitted under the various copyright Acts Again, the Fair Use Doctrine first and foremost requires attribution to the original source and author. Secondly, Fair Use DOES NOT permit UNLIMITED redistribution of a large portion of the copyrighted content! >> and only material that originated with the author can support a copyright. Items from the public domain ( such as a collection of hyperlinks ) which appear in a work, as well as work borrowed from others (titles of documents being hyperlinked to) cannot be the subject of an infringement claim. "Copyright Protection of Databases - Compilations Databases are essentially a form of compilation, and compilations HAVE LONG BEEN considered as being protected. A 'compilation' is defined in the § 101 definitions section as: [A] work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or (THIS IS THE PART THAT MOST PERTAINS TO MY WORK) arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." [http://www.unc.edu/courses/2006spring/law/357c/001/projects/dougf/node5.html] >> These are questions that can only be properly addressed by an impartial third party who is well versed in these matters. Just so happens that one of the Law Professors on this campus has expertise in Intellectual Property/Copyright Law. I spoke with him this morning. You DO NOT have a legal leg to stand on! I would also like to point out something else that you have 'overlooked.' I code (i.e. write) the HTML for my website. Not only did your mysterious 'contributor' steal my content, he/she also stole my source code! Let me point out that this is considered a criminal offense! My own comments: The fact that you have a copyright notice on your website implies that you have the expectation that no one will steal your work (or is it just there for looks, and you would do nothing to protect the infringement of your work?) So, why do you condone the theft of mine? It also implies that you are seeking copyright protection of the content of your website, which includes MY MATERIALS, and I will not allow someone else to claim that protection on something that is my intellectual property! [MR. GROVE'S REPLY] Subject:   Re: YOU MIGHT BE in violation of MY COPYRIGHT!!! Dear Christine Kindly piss off. You have simply proven that you are a self-absorbed snob who is not worthy of courtesy. To diss on a courteous and amiable salutation makes you appear somewhat petty. Second, why is it that you were unable to wait until Friday when I can respond with the guidance provided by my legal counsel. Lastly my web site is far more plundered by thieves of content than yours ever will be. I only force commercial for-profit sites to remove my content. I have never once hassled any legitimate non-profit research based web site. And I have absolutely never harassed any educational facility that made use of my content. My sites exist to help people in computer and network security. I have taken the liberty of sharing this correspondence and yours with your two CC chums, as you have either reverted to using BCC's or elected not to include them in this exchange.. Ciao for now Christine... Marquis Grove   ** I don't think he liked his 'educational session' :-)   ** And, I think I am seeing some of the true character behind some of that earlier smugness. [MY REPLY] Subject:   YOU KNOW you are in violation of MY COPYRIGHT If you see my attempts at protecting my work that I have developed and cultivated over the course of several years as being snobbish, so be it (though I know that is the last word that anyone that knows me would use to describe me). I choose to fiercely protect what is mine. I make no excuses for that. And, only friends (and those that do not steal from me) are permitted to address me by my first name. You do not fall into that category. >> Second, why is it that you were unable to wait until Friday when I can respond with the guidance provided by my legal counsel. Why should I wait for you!?! I sought my own counsel, and was advised that I was well within my rights to request you remove the content. I noticed that your own site has a pretty 'amusing' copyright notice. http://www.infosyssec.net/infosyssec/copywrite.html You don't practice what you preach? >> Lastly my web site is far more plundered by thieves of content than yours ever will be. I only force commercial for-profit sites to remove my content. I have never once hassled any legitimate non-profit research based web site. That is your choice to not protect your rights. I have chosen to protect mine. And, any 'legitimate' research site would know better! >> And I have absolutely never harassed any educational facility that made use of my content. My sites exist to help people in computer and network security. Making use of, and taking and presenting as your own, are 2 completely different concepts. If you want to share the information you found on my site, you link to my site like everyone else! Brings up an interesting point. As you do appear to be 'affiliated' with an educational institution, I have serious doubts that they would condone such blatant theft of intellectual property. I know we take plagiarism pretty seriously at my institution. >> I have taken the liberty of sharing this correspondence and yours with your two CC chums, as you have either reverted to using BCC's or elected not to include them in this exchange.. My 2 'chums' as you put it are my supervisor, and a friend of mine that is in law enforcement. I have also been sharing the correspondence with the Law Professor I mentioned in the earlier email. You should consider sharing this with the 'educational facility' with which you (claimed) are affiliated. They might be interested in your 'unique' take on intellectual property protections. I also find it amusing that you have chosen to block access to your site from my college. Now THAT is petty :-) [MR GROVE'S REPLY] Subject:   Face It: YOU KNOW you are a boorish snob Hi Christine... You just can't shut up can you ? Hahahhahha... Best wishes Marquis   ** What else is there to say? At this point, my supervisor stepped in (he had been CC'd on the exchange). What follows is an excerpt from his correspondence: "Professor Siedsma works [for] me. I also know her work. She works from a position of integrity. And you are treating her with great disrespect. This is not the way I remember you. Your responses are way off the chart. Her responses are somewhat "tit for tat" too. This sandbox routine needs to stop before it escalates into bad publicity and potential serious legal actions. She has built her www.e-evidence.info site up from scratch and does her own HTML coding. Like your site, it is well known and respected. I have watched her work on it prudently for four months. I seem to remember how hard you worked on your original site. I remember how hard I worked on mine (CS) Proper attribution needs to be made. It is the same set of rules that govern intellectual property at Algonquin College or for any company, such as your own. Simple respect. I am appealing to you to show some professionalism - that I seem to remember you had. Do not press this issue further. Give credit where credit is due - just as you would have us do for you (and as you did for me several years back.) Just the Golden rule in practice. An apology to Professor Siedsma would be in order too. Acid communications of this type directed at a female are not proper. You wouldn't do it with your employees, wife or family. You still have reasonable choices that can be made. You can recognize that this is a real PR and IP potential nightmare for your business (although it doesn't have to be) and act maturely and appropriately. Go back in your head (and time) and recognize that my advice to you is made in good faith and is reasonable."   ** Needless to say, I have yet to receive any type of apology, or attribution (not that it would suffice). The response to my supervisor. Rather than leave the comments until the end, I decided to do intext commentary. I am trying to see the humor in all of this. Keeps me from feeling so 'victimized.' [Anything starting with ** is my comment] [LEADING 'NICETIES' LEFT OUT] The tone of the communications with Christine did indeed go mutually and consistently downhill with each passing e-mail. Permit me to note that a request for proper attribution was never requested.   ** Since when does the author have to request attribution? But, I was not interested in attribution; I was asking per my federally-protected rights as the owner/author to have it removed! In fact it was threats of legal action and an immediate demand for deletion of the contested web page that formed Christine's first volley across my bow.   ** I would have to say that this is an appropriate response to this level of infringement. Proper attribution would have been offered, had I been able to immediately determine the resemblance of the link list that I was provided and the one that Christine claimed she had created. However on cursory inspection it should be noted that were significant differences between Christine's content and the link list that was used in the contested web page on InfoSysSec.   ** I would REALLY like him to point out these 'significant' differences. I know my own content when I see it. Further, Christine's later comments regarding the theft of her HTML source coding was totally without merit, as there was no similarity whatsoever with the source code on the contested page, except for the use of standard HTML code used to denote hyperlinks.   ** We'll cover that one later. As you may be aware, Christine's link page is structured as a bibliographic, alphabetized hyperlinked listing of publications by authors spread over approximately 25 web pages.   ** How many letters are there in the alphabet? I believe she has approximately 1000 hyperlinks leading to articles, tutorials etc. As such she has provided a fair bit of detail or meat relating to each entry, albeit sorted under the header of each respective author or originator.   ** Actually, it's over 2000. The contested link page at InfoSysSec consisted only of a bare skeleton of approximately 1500 bulleted hyperlinked titles, with the occasional reference to year of publication.   ** Look again! The 'original' page had more than the 'occasional' date (his dictionary must have a completely definition of the word than mine :-) And it is this 'additional' information that I append at the end of almost every entry in my Bibliography that made it SO blatant. I have since removed any superfluous content from that listing and restricted it solely to hyperlinks alone.   ** An admission of guilt! And modifying the content after you have been caught does not change my claim. I guess he still doesn't get it. This to me is an 'overt act' in furtherance of the copyright infringement, and an attempt to cover his tracks. As such, I trust you can see that even prior to consulting with legal counsel; I was endeavoring to placate Christine, even while the tone of her communications soured to the point where they were becoming laughable, ill-informed or simply insulting.   ** I was absent that day from my Anger Management class when they discussed 'How to talk nice to the hijacker.' And reshuffling my content DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE to 'placating' me. Nonetheless, in view of Christine's concerns, I had already set about to remedy the contested web page.   ** What 'remedy?' He calls that a remedy? Although it still may not satisfy Christine if she is truly on a quest to claim a monopoly as the only listing of hyperlinks that are specific and focused on the topic of computer forensics, network forensics and digital forensics.   ** I DO know of a few others :-) And I whole-heartedly appreciate and acknowledge their efforts. Here is my Links to Links page. As you may or may not be aware, I have no direct association with Algonquin College, other than that as alumni of their Information System Security program. Similarly I have no direct association with Carleton University, other than that of alumni of their BA and MA program. Although I enjoyed a full and successful career with the Federal Government of Canada prior to retirement, I subsequently came out of retirement and went on to serve as the Director of Global Information Security and Network Engineering for Lockheed Martin.   ** I won't say it :-) At the least, this brief synopsis of my life and times should speak to why the condescending tone in Christine's e-mails was laughable and gave me an impression that she was somewhat pompous.   ** Another first! How many of you (that know me) would have EVER thought of me as pompous :-) Her demand that I not refer to her by the name that she herself used in her e-mail and in her e-mail address gave me an impression that she was petty and left me seriously challenged to take anything else she had to say with any credibility.   ** I do not like strangers to call me by my first name. I do not see anything wrong with asking that they do not. I also mention those details about my employment and educational background to clarify any confusion about InfoSysSec.com or the purpose of any of my other security specific web sites. They were solely created to assist and help people who were studying or actively involved in the computer security field. They were never intended to be a profit center or an active business concept. Possibly my use of a 'drunken hamster' as our ad sales person may have given an incorrect impression about the nature of the web sites.   ** I'm confused; they are not intended as a profit center, yet talking about 'ad sales'? The operation, maintenance and upkeep of all my security specific web sites has in fact taken more money out of my own pocket to provide those services than it ever generated over the years. The thousands of hours of my personal time spent on those web sites also speaks volumes about the personal sacrifice given without any regard to the 'profit and loss' bottom-line. Unfortunately in these skeptical times most people have a hard time believing or accepting an altruistic motivation and immediately jump to the conclusion that money is the prime motivator and not the desire to self-sacrifice for the benefit of others.   ** Mmmm; What?!? Oh, I was listening to the violins :-) I do not know where the middle ground in this matter lays.   ** Again, there is no 'middle ground.' Content hijacking IS copyright infringment. On a lighter side for example, I can't imagine conceding to her demand to only be referred to her by her surname or title as demanded in several of her e-mails. ;)   ** Wasn't this already covered? And, while not a major issue, I was raised to address a new 'aquaintance' by their surname until told differently. On a more serious note, I do agree that had her content been simply cut and pasted into the contested page at InfoSysSec, her claims of Copyright would be undisputable and I would be if full agreement with her position. This is a middle ground we both agree on.   ** I don't get it; how could he miss it? Willful blindness? Yet her content and HTML should not be in dispute here, as the only thing in common between her multiple pages and the single page at InfoSysSec are the mutually used hyperlinks which point to third party sites where the real content resides.   ** And, who wrote the code for those hyperlinks?   ** Again, copyright protects directories, databases, and compilations. Guess we did not read those references I sent? And I believe it is completely against the very nature of the Internet or the 'reasonable man test' to grant her the sole right and monopoly to display "hyperlinks" that are specific to the topic of computer forensics, network forensics and other digital forensics. One must hold true to the simple statement of fact that any comprehensive listing of hyperlinks on a specific niche topic is bound to have non-infringing duplication. With my hyperlink list at approximately 1500 hyperlinks and her multiple pages tallying in at approximately 1000, would it mean that she is barred from ever using those 500 other hyperlinks because they already exist in the compilation found on InfoSysSec?   ** First, point me to a resource that disusses the 'reasonable man test' in the context of copyright; I could not find one. Second, ...oh, it's not even worth repeating again :) A highlighted link to Christine's web site would not be an unreasonable request and I would gladly oblige. I truly appreciate your confirmation that Christine is as dedicated to the perfecting and ongoing updating of her link list as I am to all of mine. And I respect that her bibliographic link list has far more content and a more organized structure. As such it would be a worthwhile place to direct InfoSysSec visitors to. I would even be willing to give Christine due credit for the comprehensiveness of her compilation...   ** A little late for that sentiment. Bottom line; he has 'hijacked' my content and posted it to his site in an attempt to bring in web traffic. Not only is this immoral, unethical and just plain wrong, according to federal law, it is ILLEGAL! The page on his website has been changed; the titles have been randomized/rearranged, and the matadata removed; the CONTENTS OF THE COMPILATION remains the same. I have proved that. So, there I am. I hope this was an interesting read. The site remains blocked from this school (no loss, but still amusing). I'm trying to find the humor in all of this. Probably be easier when I have justice. I will keep you updated. P.S. I would not wish this on anyone! Regards to my friends, Christine (for the rest of you, it's Mistress Siedsma :-) © 2007-2008 All rights reserved