An issue has come up on whether the material linked to Judge Koz was public or private.
Could the material have been drawn up via a googles search ?
Was it obtained via any hacking methods–that the average I-net surfing could not employ… ?
I read the above by Prof L, and he went into some arcane things about robot files, etc
I don’t believe that cleared up the question. Maybe in arcane cyber nerd world it did, but to the broader world it is unclear.
Much of the WWW origional materail on Judge Koz is not now avaiable via web sites, yet post BLOW UP on the NET, there are not secondary WWW sites, where the web sponsor invites people to post views, and many were via a googles search as a portal process.
I would appeciate if any could discuss the issue on access some more, i respectfully submit it is unclear, still.
Ms(wife) of judge Koz essentially alleges that lawyer Sanai broke into the Koz Famly personal computer.
Some find that allegation absurd, Others raise issues on.
So, I could comment on how others have chacterized the Koz Site, but i don’t have access to comment on the donkey chashing some guy to fornicate him…. is that something symbolic about some plaintiff who appeared before the 9th Circuit ? judge tanuting people who appear before 9th Circuit…? Seems like nobody has reposted the full Koz site.
No, I am not asking that, ( access to the origional KOZ site) i am seeking to understand some dynamics of WWW world…
Surely, the 3rd Circuit is most anxious to thorougly review the full Koz site(ALL FILES in vivid COLOR), on the links/ interface between WWW/ Cyber world and the Chambers of an Appeal Court.( questions on)
Thank you in advance if any respond to the questions I rasied.
Someone posted that Koz had on his site; a child engaging in oral sex acts on someone who appeared to be a Priest–one he(OTHERS) branded as a Catholic Priest. So, how does what was on a SITe relate to questions on the judical temperament of judge Koz.. —the whole picture.. ?
Has Professor L looked at the site examined every file…in DETAIL ?
Or ,does he just brush all aside ; as it is personal, any who comment are voy-ERS who committed a crime breaking into material that was a window into the HOUSE OF KOZ.
Oh, now is that the shoe on the other foot—- the criminals are any who question UCLA grad judges, Standford Professors, breaking and entry…
I got to this site via Google, and I have not seen one file on the Koz site, and I am not a criminal, or have I ever been a member of the Stanford Club, etc . I am in no position to judge Judge Koz, i do not have the facts (underscore all the facts) to do so, but my questions relate to the dynamcis of the internet, people, professionals, etc. I do not believe Professor L has all the facts—-he is not a Judge who has access to a process to obtain all the facts, etc.

To be shunned by the members of your society was at that time, a punishment that most respected. There was a need for law & punishment(public flogging in the square stockade) to effectively deal with those who lacked morals, and respect of others properties.

In this day and age of Freeriding, society loses.

First I am not deluded in belief that morals equals manners or the vise versa. Nor do I believe that ones own morals should be the rule of others. My family http://studio413.blogspot.com were staunch abolitionist at the dawn of this great country. They had different ideas about many issues confronting society then, yet they only sought to empress their ideas around freedoms due all of man, certainly not implicating that all should live as they did, in all ways.

That being said , I believe as they did. Yet as Mr. Jefferson recognized you can’t legislate your own morals, and that morals are not in fact just ones own, but are those that the benefit the greater society.

But I feel that there is a growing disrespect for people and their properties, and the idealism that if you don’t (opt-out of public domain) lock it away, that society at large is welcome to take as they please.

I believe in the Public Domain, and in fair use….I don’t believe in stretching those in ways that congress never intended, in either direction.

For those whom advocate a free everything on the net…this may just be the issue that brings Judicial Notice, to why it’s wrong for society.

I am just sorry that the Honorable Judge Kozinski, especially his wife, and family have to become victims, of something so patently wrong with society. Hope that one day you never find yourself in front of the Public, having to attend to such.

Morals http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/06/gender-and-copyright.html

With at least one example of a Federal Judge (notwithstanding he is one everyone likes), botching up the security on his own personal server, God knows what sensitive information might be at risk in our Federal Courts system. Share a few P2P files with a law clerk, and woopsie … the entire contents of the FISC Chief Judge’s hard drive might end up …

WHO KNOWS WHERE !!!

Didn’t the People’s Republic of China just get caught hacking into some Congressional computers a couple weeks ago?

WHY AREN’T WE TALKING ABOUT FORMER AOC DIRECTOR MECHAM’S LETTER WARNING US ABOUT THE LACK OF ADEQUATE COMPUTER SECURITY FIREWALLS IN OUR FEDERAL COURTS ALLOWING HACKERS ACCESS TO HACK INTO ANY FEDERAL COURT RECORD IN THE UNITED STATES WITH OPPORTUNITY TO OBSTRUCT PENDING CASES?

There is at least one case involving an 11th Circuit Court of Appeal law clerk, “AnnTM,” who admitted in blog posts that she used the Federal Court computers while working for her employer Federal Circuit Judge, to share files with numerous other outsiders, lawyers in several states, and receive extrinsic ex parte information not in the case record via e-mails and a blog open to the public via googlebot about an Americans With Disabilities Act plaintiff with autism — even admitted to obtaining confidential information about this autistic ADA litigant from the NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS to use as extrinsic evidence in the case in the 11th Circuit. The Sixth Circuit was also involved according to the blog postings. Thus, there is at least one instance of a multiple-Circuit issue involving breach of the Federal Courts Computer Security System that by the blog postings ADMIT to obstructing an ADA civil rights case.

AFTER a dismissal of the appeal by three 11th Circuit Judges w/o disqualifying the ten (10) Circuit Judges whose impartiality was compromised by the law clerk through shared panel deliberations on several appeals, by the improper extrinsic ex parte information gathered by the law clerk ALA exploiting the apparent Kozinski WebSENSE breach, the 11th Circuit suddenly felt the need to sua sponte vacate and reenter the dismissal — to change ONLY the names of the Judges signing the dismissal Order to the three remaining Circuit Judges who did not share panel deliberations with the Judge employing the law clerk.

Clearly, however, if any ONE of the Circuit Judges was required to disqualify due to lack of Federal Court computer security that allowed an 11th Circuit law clerk to run amok gathering through P2P file sharing and the sorts of Internet usage WebSENSE would have prevented the law clerk from gathering outside of the Court record (by exploting the Kozinski-Federal Courts Computer System Firewall breach to funnel extrinsic ex parte information into a case), given that ALL Circuit Judges in the Court of Appeals use the same flawed insecure computer system, ALL would have been inescapably placed into the appearance of impropriety obligation to disqualify. This case about the MUCH BIGGER story of the CONSEQUENCES of the Kozinski disablment breach of the WebSENSE Federal Courts computer security installed by former AOC director Mecham, has not yet sought potential Supreme Court review.

The REAL question is HOW MANY CASES HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED by the Kozinski Federal Courts’ WebSENSE security breach? The integrity of the Nation’s entire Federal Judiciary hangs in the balance.

Again, we all know Judge Kozinski did not have the computer knowhow to breach an entire Nation’s Federal Judiciary Court System’s computer firewall; such could only have been done by a highly sophisticated computer programmer extraordinaire motivated by a financial interest in opening up the Federal Courts Systems’ computers to lucrative outside security risks.

This is bigger than Watergate …

this entire Federal Courts Computer System security break-in is flushed out.

To be shunned by the members of your society was at that time. a punishment that most respected. There was a need for law & punishment(public flogging in the square stockade) to effectively deal with those who lacked morals, and respect of others properties.

In this day and age of Freeriding, society loses.

First I am not deluded in belief that morals equals manners or the vise versa. Nor do I believe that ones own morals should be the rule of others. My family http://studio413.blogspot.com were staunch abolitionist at the dawn of this great country. They had different ideas about many issues confronting society then, yet they only sought to empress their ideas around freedoms due all of man, certainly not implicating that all should live as they did, in all ways.

That being said , I believe as they did. Yet as Mr. Jefferson recognized you can’t legislate your own morals, and that morals are not in fact just ones own, but are those that the benefit the greater society.

But I feel that there is a growing disrespect for people and their properties, and the idealism that if you don’t (opt-out of public domain) lock it away, that society at large is welcome to take as they please.

I believe in the Public Domain, and in fair use….I don’t believe in stretching those in ways that congress never intended, in either direction.

For those whom advocate a free everything on the net…this may just be the issue that brings Judicial Notice, to why it’s wrong for society.

I am just sorry that the Honorable Judge Kozinski, especially his wife, and family have to become victims, of something so patently wrong with society. Hope that one day you never find yourself in front of the Public, having to attend to such.

Morals http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/06/gender-and-copyright.html

I have not seen any claim that the LA Times made debunked here. Note that they did not speak of bestiality or obscenity in conjunction with Kozinski’s web directory (even though they didn’t do much to keep the reader from getting that impression, they certainly would have called a picture showing bestiality “bestiality” and not “cavorting with an aroused animal”). Lessig’s technical and legal claims on the other hand have been debunked here many times by many posters. If someone starts out a post with “What I mean by “the Kozinski mess” is the total inability of the media — including we, the media, bloggers — to get the basic facts right, and keep the reality in perspective” and then continues to do exactly the same thing — distort the evidence to further a partisan agenda — he’s just damaging his own reputation.

Instead of describing what the LA Times thinks (obscenity, bestiality, etc) or what Professor Lessig thinks (not bestiality, harmless jokes, etc) why don’t they marshall evidence to support their claims? To be honest, I don’t really care what the LA Times or Professor Lessig “think” about this issue — I care what they can convincingly support.

Specifically: what’s the content at issue? What is/was the content and web address of this robots.txt?

The absence of supporting evidence suggests that the LA Times and Lessig would not benefit from its inclusion.

Your front yard is a private space, with exceptions. The www is a public space, with exceptions (see dvan’s post above). This does not mean you cannot create private spaces in the www, but the intent to create them is insufficient. You also have to communicate your intent, e.g. by encryption or a password. In this case every communication of intent points toward public access: no password, no encryption, no protective index.htm file, no restricted permissions, robots.txt set to allow websearch, posting of http links on public websites, etc. Hence if the judge intended to keep the files private, he not only failed to communicate this intent but in fact communicated the opposite, see USLaw.com’s discussion.