Tracking Declan's Hoax of the RIAA "Hoax"

12 October 2001

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:23:03 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
To: Elyn
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Register: RIAA secret meeting a hoax.

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 04:12:13PM -0400, Elyn forwarded:

> looks like the RIAA thing was a hoax ...
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/22138.html
>
> The trouble with the Internet is that it's just too darn fast. Publish a
> story and it's all around the world before you've caught your breath. Or

The trouble has nothing to do with the Internet. It has everything to do with shoddy journalism.

I like the way the "retraction" still argued, pitifully and implausibly, that the alleged secret meeting "may" still have happened.

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:29:23 -0400
To: Elyn
From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Register: RIAA secret meeting a hoax.
Cc: <[email protected]>

Well, no. If folks no longer worked at their respective firms, and if they were seen in public thousands of miles away the same day, I think it seems pretty clear that the Register's "secret meeting" report is hokum.

Don't need no conspiracy theory to explain this kind of shoddy reporting.

-Declan

At 06:24 PM 10/10/01 -0400, Elyn Wollensky wrote:

>... but only those in the super-secret inner sanctum know for sure
>(& it reads like an abridged techo version of Leyner's "Young Bergdorf
>Goodman Brown")
>;~)
>elyn

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:09:40 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RIAA Secret Meeting

In the unlikely case anyone here was credulous enough to fall for it, it's worth noting that this "meeting" was a complete hoax, fabrication, spoof, and fantasy.

"Anonymous" sent John a purported copy of the below, and he posted it on Cryptome without, as usual, vouching much for its validity one way or another. But the Register, to its shame, ran a breathless article insisting the meeting actually took place

(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/22087.html).

I don't typically criticize fellow journalists -- we all make mistakes, and I'm not a media critic -- but this article is beyond the pale. Instead of checking to see whether the alleged participants were still employed by their respective companies, or spending two minutes on the phone asking RIAA for comment, the Register reported fiction as fact.

In a grudging retraction Wednesday, the paper compounded its problems, saying: "The trouble with the Internet is that it's just too darn fast." (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/22138.html)

Caveat lector.

-Declan

On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 11:24:40PM -0700, John Young wrote:

[Snip excerpt of RIAA secret meeting file on Cryptome.]

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:35:58 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: FC: The Register reluctantly admits RIAA "secret meeting" was hoax

It was the perfect, evil-music-industry story: A clandestine meeting where chieftans from AOL Time Warner, RIAA, SDMI, Disney, Intel, and even U.S. senators sat down to decide how to stop piracy, embrace copy-protection technology, and generally screw over American consumers.

The Register got the tip from an anonymous source, and immediately turned it into an article. It said: "The RIAA hosted a secret meeting in Washington DC with the heads of major record labels and technology companies, plus leaders of other trade bodies and even members of the US senate." (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/22087.html).

It would have been a tremendous scoop for the website -- and would have been vital information that the public deserved to know.

The only problem: It was a hoax. The purported "meeting" was a fabrication, spoof, and fantasy. It never took place.

I don't typically criticize fellow journalists -- we all make mistakes, we never have as much information as we'd like, and deadlines are always too early -- but this article is beyond the pale. Instead of checking to see whether the alleged participants were still employed by their respective companies (some weren't), spending two minutes on the phone asking RIAA whether it happened, or using the barest glimmerings of journalistic sense, the Register credulously reported fiction as fact.

In a grudging retraction on Wednesday, the paper compounded its problems by beginning its article with this line: "The trouble with the Internet is that it's just too darn fast." (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/22138.html)

No, the trouble has nothing to do with the Internet. It has everything to do with shoddy journalism. Worse yet, the halfhearted retraction still argued, pitifully and implausibly, that the quotes supplied by Anonymous "may" still be accurate. An update to the original article, instead of saying forthrightly we-were-hoaxed, instead allowed only that "our source may not be all he or she claimed to be." Right.

Caveat lector.

-Declan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:08:26 -0700
To: [email protected]
From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: Tracking the RIAA Source

[Snip source tracing of the RIAA secret meeting allegations: http://cryptome.org/riaa-safeweb.htm ]

Let me emphasize that I do not yet believe the source was perpetrating a hoax, or if so whether the hoax was run to benefit RIAA which is the current outcome. My intention is not to out the source if the leak is legitimate, but I damn well want to broadcast it if RIAA, its friends or a TLA cooked up the ruse.

Declan has jumped the gun on assigning blame here, apparently doing little more checking than Tony Smith. But hell that's snotty Net competition at its best: fire, aim, oh, the safety was off.

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:54:38 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
To: John Young <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tracking the RIAA Source

On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 11:08:26AM -0700, John Young wrote:

> Declan has jumped the gun on assigning blame here, apparently
> doing little more checking than Tony Smith. But hell that

Naturally this is incorrect. I had all day yesterday to check with folks who were supposedly there, and I've satisfied myself that the "meeting" was a fiction.

Face it, John: You and Cryptome got suckered. Now everyone knows all they have to do to post some document on your site is to come up with a reasonably plausible forgery sent from a hotmail.com address or the equivalent. Maybe some Feds will send you "leaked cypherpunk grand jury investigation" documents that the fine friendly folks in Seattle wrote over drinks and giggles last evening.

Now, I'm not really faulting you, since you never claimed that the document was real, as the Register did. In fact, Cryptome's policy, as I understand it, has not been to vouch for the authenticity of information. Post what you get, we love it, it's a wonderful experience in online bottom feeding, a tour of the muck and mud, and an unprecedented lure for Feds, journalists, and cypherpunks alike.

But, my friend, if what you post turns out to be a malicious forgery, don't get huffy about it.

-Declan

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:29:08 -0700
To: [email protected]
From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Tracking the RIAA Source

But Declan, are you saying your word about checking is to be believed? I didn't see your proof. How is your position not a hoax? Names and dates and documents to back them or you're a fucking lying hoaxer.

Did you ask to see any of the RIAA messages, and if so, did you see them. You didn't ask me what might be in the ones I got, if there were others (there are), if this is a campaign run by RIAA to create sympathy, or some other vile deed much worse than a trivial hoax which seems to beguile overmuch.

Why the rush to judgment to believe "people who allegedly were there?" Where's your healthy skeptcism of these people. None of the persons listed in the message are trustworthy if you're not in their loop. Are you in their loop, then you got a problem vouching for what they told you. You slimey suckup, you boy with cute eyes. you, you, Brad Pitt.

Were you so blinded by the desire to whack your competition that you failed to see a genuine story -- which has yet to researched and reported? Why the eagerness to wash your hands, as with Tony Smith, to not follow the lead handed to you. Why not do an truly original interesting story, you, you recycler.

Let me give you some pointers on why getting sucker punched works to get unintended information, compared to getting fat-headed on inside dope. You need more punchdrunkenness to offset your condescending pretentiousness. Grow half a beard. Chop a finger. And stop grinning so much.

Take the sucker punches for they give you a look at the enemy not available by a frank and earnest confab. Truth comes out by hammer blows not by popping zits.

You have performed worse than The Register on this, I opine from this pinnacle of Absolom. And you are now using delphic putdowns to beg the important issue -- which is why do reporters run from really brusing challenges yet brag about the creampufferies of, what else, free speech (spit). A hoax is not worth the time it takes to debunk it, they are every where.

More interesting is what's behind the RIAA orchestrated deception kind. If guys like you, offal meisters, did a good job there would be no need for us purehearted bottom-feeders where the repugant action takes place and where you never know for sure who's out to plant false info -- you've done that with me more than once. You, you American.

This is the word of Jehovah Allah, so watch your fucking obscenity.

Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:34:33 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
To: John Young <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tracking the RIAA Source

John, we all adore you, but you gotta decide whether you're going to stand behind what you post or not. Either way -- you say it's legit or you disclaim all knowledge of its validity -- is fine with me, and, I suspect, the bulk of your readers.

But right now you seem to want to have it both ways. You want to be able to claim credit for when what you post is legit, and you want to be able to slink away from what you post that's a fucking lying hoax, to use your words.

Otherwise you'll just be used by fucking lying hoaxers, and worse.

Let me put this another way. Based on my conversations yesterday, I have every reason to believe that the hoax was, well, a hoax. If you have a shred of evidence to the contrary that your hoax-report was in fact true, please do post it.

No? You don't? I see.

Your fan,

Declan

Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 07:18:13 -0700
To: [email protected]
From: John Young <[email protected]>
Subject: RIAA Safeweb Ping

[Snip Safeweb ping information: http://cryptome.org/riaa-sfeweb.htm ]

Now, onto news of the RIAA leaker (not yet a proven hoaxer despite Declan, RIAA and friends hoaxing that).

We received a third message yesterday from the alleged source of the RIAA allegations who was pissed at our attempts to trace the source. Use of Safeweb was admitted. Angry words were hurled at us. Allegations were made that parties have been punished for the leak though not the leaker who fears that information about the traces could be used for that. Here's our response:

-----

October 11, 2001
I very much appreciate your concern. I have stated publicly that I do not yet believe there has been a hoax and that the source of the messages will not be disclosed if the messages can be shown to be legitimate. Not that I have any hard information on who you are. And don't need to know who you are so long as your information is reliable. Hell, it doesn't have to be reliable just provocative and unsettling.
Right now there is a push on by a host of people to promote that the messages are a hoax, and if they prevail RIAA will be the main beneficiary. And a great story becomes a bore.
It is to head off that win by RIAA, to avoid giving them improved protection against future abuses as a result of the alleged hoax, that I wish to get from you information that will demonstrate there was no hoax. Again without putting you in jeopardy.
In a tough fight like this RIAA and its supporters will do whatever they can to smear and deny your revelations. That's the way it is, so fighting back is the only answer to prevent an RIAA win by default as result of your valiant effort.
Listen, this very thing happens every time we put up a controversial document, and your protection is paramount, but opponents of publication will fight like hell to deny the truth. But you surely know that. Now is when the going gets tough. You need to decide how to avoid losing this battle, losing your reputation and the whole shebang.
I say come forth with proof of the meeting and comments made, provide it through a secure channel to protect your identity. But don't let this story die a useless death.
Tony Smith ducked and ran. Not here, the story stays on Cryptome, along with the story of what happened after your account was published. Disinformation is as good as information, maybe better.
But if you want to abandon what you started, I'll understand and wait for the next opportunity to buck the fuckers.