A Statement Regarding Commenters At The Faculty Lounge

At no time have we, the permanent bloggers at the Faculty Lounge, disclosed any kind of identifying information about any Faculty Lounge commenter to any third party.  While guest bloggers have administrative access, we have no basis to believe that any guest blogger has disclosed any of this information either.   In addition, notwithstanding allegations by commenters, Brian Leiter does not have, and has never had,  administrative access to the Faculty Lounge.  

We are discussing a formal privacy policy for the Lounge and will post one once we have finalized it.

Laura Appleman
Alfred Brophy
Bridget Crawford
Daniel Filler
Kimberly Krawiec
Jacqueline Lipton
Kevin Maillard
Calvin Massey
Eric Muller
Timothy Zinnecker 

Updated to clarify by including both present and past tense in the third sentence.

Comments

[Ganger]

So you are saying Campos is wrong?

[Darren Sharp (3L)]

I appreciate this posting. Tens of thousands of people are beginning law school, attending lawschool, and attempting to enter the legal market every year. Many young attorneys have over a hundred thousand dollars in debt and a monthly payment of over $1,500.00. IBR is not the answer, as interest compounds at over 7%. One must either pay off the debt or live thirty years of life with a massive and growing debt burden.

The legal field has seen a severe structural change. Some stakeholders in the law school business and law school preparation business refuse to concede this point and aggressively criticize anybody who disagrees with them, even while Northwestern University Law School is cutting its class of 2013 by 10%.

I personally have been unable to muster the courage to communicate my thoughts on the issue because of the aggressive cyber-bullying and vindictiveness of some of the stakeholders in the law school business. Communicating anything that harms the economic interest of those in the law school business would jeopardize my chances of securing employment and beginning a career, and would thus imperil my ability to begin a family and plan for retirement.

Some people are willing to engage in scorch earthed tactics as we have seen with a recent posting on JDU outing a poster who had strong, yet reasonable criticisms of the law school business and the future of the legal field.

[concerned_citizen (or whatsoever name I want to type in here...)]

Yes, but what about the allegations by Professor Chad Marzen (FSU Business) that popular culture of the time, in responding to the Kansas-Nebraska Act legislation, contributed to an increased polarization between North and South ahead of the start of the Civil War?

[Darren Sharp (3L)]

Ganger,

Dan Filler indicated that he and his partners did not disclose the IP information to Professor Campos. In addition, he stated that he had no basis to believe that a guest blogger had disclosed the information to Campos.

Since Mr. Filler is not omnisicent and does not have perfect knowlege, it is not safe to assume that Mr. Campos is incorrect.

[Darren Sharp (3L)]

Edit: Dan Filler indicated that he and his partners did not disclose the IP information to Professor Leiter***.

[ninja bob]

Thanks! I read it to say that while Leiter may have gotten IP addresses it would have been through a guest blogger who still had access, which while unfortunate would not be TFL's fault in my opinion (though it would be nice if guest bloggers lost access to ip addresses and emails).

If I could suggest one edit, however, the use of the present tense is a little jarring, and a cynic could argue that the statement would still be true if Dan Filler gave Leiter access to his own email account but then changed the password (no, I don't think this happen, I think a guest blogger probably did provide the info to him). Stronger language applying to past access as well as present access would probably let TFL avoid more criticism.

[GiveUntoMeStuff]

Ok, time to 'fess up.

It was Col. Mustard
In the Library
With the Lead Pipe

[Anon]

I'm willing to accept this statement, and I apologize if I personally cast aspersions on any particular administrator (if I did).

However, I do think removing access to IP and e-mail addresses from guest bloggers would be appropriate--the website has at least 53 guest bloggers (according to the list on the side), any of whom could apparently have access to that information.

[anon]

I still think my earlier post is relevant and, indeed, important for resolving this issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-WdohdaHw

This clip is worth going through from start to finish; who knows, it might be the deciding word on this debate about Campos and Leiter.

[Anon]

Is there any person who had access to the information that isn't on this list?

[Anon]

Which list? The one in the statement is just the 10 permanent bloggers. However, another 53 guest bloggers (according to the list on the right) also have administrative access, any of whom would apparently have access to the information. So, assuming the accuracy of the above statement, it still only covers 10 of at least 63 possible leaks.

[b]

Leiter has thanked at least one guest blogger in an authors note...unleash the hounds!

[Anon]

Are you now seriously demanding that the admins -- who made the above statement as you demanded to shut you lot up -- now also change the way they run *their* site so *you* can continue to trash people online with no fear of consequences?
How about just going away?

[Ganger]

Darren -- Prof. Campos very specifically accused Prof. Filler of providing the information. See, for example, his 3/8 post on Lawyers, Guna and Money. It appears that reckless allegation is incorrect.

Ready, shoot, aim.

[Anon]

Ok, so with 50 names not accounted for, this statement is next to worthless. Sort of like average salary of 90k based on 20% responding.

And you do have reason to believe it, the allegations made against you based on 3 different people receiving stalker emails from Peter Aduren immediately after posting remarks to this blog. That's reason to inquire further.

It doesn't matter. The story is out there to be read here and elsewhere. People will make up their owns minds about what is likely to have happened.

[Anon]

Filler could also be lying. There is no way to prove that he did this, so lying is the obvious move. He's be a fool to admit to it.

[Paul Horwitz]

The statement is not worthless, of course, for at least one reason that's been offered: numerous people on this blog and elsewhere specifically and repeatedly accused Dan of releasing information. You may not have been one of them and you may not be satisfied now. Others may now choose to disbelieve the statement, or to retract their earlier accusations--or, I suppose, to say nothing and call their own basic decency, integrity, and reliability into question. And by "others" I mean those who actually use their names when accusing others; those who didn't and don't speak volumes about their lack of character, but should otherwise be disregarded (or, I suppose, sued).

[Anon]

Hear that wind blowing? It is the sound of the goal posts moving.

Can we discuss Kansas-Nebraska now?

[ninja bob]

@Paul Horwitz: I don't think Dan was lying, and I freely admit that based on the evidence presented, including Dan's behavior in response and his strange non-denial on AbovetheLaw, that I believed wrongly that he was the guilty party. I also appreciate how the denial here was edited to remove any temporal loopholes. I was wrong about Dan.

But let's be honest here; there has been no other credible explanation of what happened other than someone with administrative access to TFL provided Leiter with the information. The fact that neither Dan nor the other permanent bloggers are responsible is reassuring, and a privacy policy that sets out exactly who has access to IP addresses and emails would help reassure us that our information is safe. The revelation that guest bloggers get administrative access is a little unsettling, honestly.

But this whole issue has not occurred in a vacuum. I don't think anyone has anything against TFL in general, it's just a lot of people are just done with Brian Leiter, his nastiness, his hypocrisy (over, hilariously enough, anonymous posting which he has no problem doing himself), and his enablers.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I'm not comfortable speculating about whether anyone on TFL might be lying or not. I think it will likely be impossible to determine precisely what happened, unless someone comes forward, and under the circumstances proof will probably be lacking with respect to any individual person. So, I think it's best to simply accept the statement at face value, and move on.

With regard to future practices, however, leaving access to the information open to (apparently) at least 63 people seems like a bit of a security flaw, so that might be worth patching up.