www.e-evidence.info - owned and operated by Christine Siedsma
claims ownership of all hyperlinks related to the topic of Forensics
Christine also claims that NO ONE else on the Internet can put
together a listing of hyperlinks related to computer forensics
without infringing on her compilation copyright.
After waiting almost three years for Christine Siedsma to do 'the right thing' - we are now taking this opportunity to share with everyone interested in computer forensics the type of copyright violating ass clowns that we have encountered. If you think this is harsh... well she has called us a thief on her web site during that three year period. It is time that she is exposed.
It is now the year 2012 and Christine Siedsma, the thief, has persisted and kept the content she stole from our web site on her domain. The sad truth is that she wants and needs our content on her web site in order to try to gain content rankings for her web site on Google. Tsk tsk Christine. You surely must have figured out by now that your continued theft of our content was going to continue to be exposed for the world to see.
I am truly sad for you as there seems to be a psychological problem that prohibits you from doing the right thing... and after six years the proof of our statements seems to be reinforced by your actions ( and inactions ). Then again, it is possible that you enjoy being exposed to ridicule... ;)
|Todays lesson in Computer Forensics is how to deal with a copyright violator - in particular - Ms Christine Siedsma of e-Evidence . info
Back in December 2006 Ms Christine Siedsma started making wild-eyed claims that she was the only person on the Internet to have the right to catalog a listing of all 'hyperlinks' related to computer forensics. Funny huh ? Weird eh ? Look out Google, MSN, Yahoo, Bing, etc...
Well... it is not so odd... she is simply using our content by using her 'hyperlink' battle as her justification to commit a copyright violation. She even uses a buffered copy of a Google cache in an attempt to show that she didn't STEAL our content directly from our web site. And for 2 1/2 years she has libelously referred to us as thieves. Hmm... pot calling the kettle black eh ?
We have ignored her childish and unprofessional theft of our work over the last two and one half years and remained silent, in the hope that some semblance of professionalism or sanity would shine through and she would remove her theft of our work off her web site. Sadly... she has lived up to everything that we thought of her.
And so as a gift to Christine Siedsma, as of June 22nd 2009 we posted up this little article to share with the world the true story of Christine Siedsma's claims to owners of all hyperlinks related to computer forensics. I think our silence and patience waiting for Ms Siedsma to grow up has showed who held the high ground and acted professionally... and who did not.
If you wish to read this totally ludicrouss exchange of e-mails between Ms Siedsra and ourself, proceed here read on and welcome to the Twilight Zone of Ms Christine Siedsma.
Possibly you arrived at this web page after visiting the web site of Ms Christine Siedsma. I am pleased to welcome you.
And permit me to suggest that you read the complete text of the e-mails that were exchanged between ourselves and Ms Siedsma. Initially, she chose to not post the content of those e-mails. Later, she posted only edited or favorable portions of her e-mails. Once we posted the entire contents of the exhanges she again had to revise what she was posting on her web site. Nonetheless, from the start we posted the e-mail exchanges in their entirety so that our readers would be fully informed and best able to form their own opinion.
In the end, we hope you come to the conclusion that for the last two and one half year period, Ms Siedsma is the only person engaging in copyright violations, with her postings of our content on her site. Similarly, you will come to acknowledge that the only thief involved in these discussions is the one who has deliberately chosen to steal our content for the last two and one half years.
In life, there are some people who like to dress up in a giant yellow chicken costume and parade about in public yelling " Look at me... look at me".
In June 2009 we decided to revise this page ONLY because the Ms Siedsma had still not done the right thing and had not simply removed OUR content off her web site and removed her libelous name calling after two and one half years. The trouble when dealing with someone who is obsessive or suffers from tunnel vision, or is blinded by that big yellow chicken suit they are wearing, is that they become blind to the obvious fact of their own shortcomings and hypocrisy. We trust that her flag of righteous indignation falls short when casually examined by people of a
reasonable and sound mind.
You're travelling through another dimension. A dimension, not only of sight and sound, but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. Next stop, the Christine Siedsma Twilight Zone..
The following 'dispute' involves a rather simple concept involving hyperlinks and Copyright :
To begin let us clearly understand what we are talking about here by looking at the definition of a 'hyperlink" as provided by the folks over at :
The dispute is : " Can only one web site on the Internet display a hyperlink and demand all other web sites to remove any use of those "hyperlinks" because it is infringing a Copyright ? "
|www.e-evidence.info - owned and operated by Christine Siedsma, Program Director, Computer Forensic Research & Development Center at Utica College, firstname.lastname@example.org or later she changed it to email@example.com
About one year ago I was provided with a listing of hyperlinks that were specific to the topic of computer forensics. The intention of the submitter was to bolster the comprehensiveness of the pre-existing content on that topic.
Approximately one year later, On December 5 2006 I received the following e-mail from a Christine Siedsma :
I immediately looked into Christine's allegation and responded :
I believe most readers will agree that my reply was both prompt, professional and courteous. This is worth noting as the tone of Christine's
| Christine responded immediately back with the following :
| Christine immediately wrote back and provided further clarification of why she thought her content had been stolen.
Ahhhhhh... finally I understood the gist of what Christine was saying. She was stating that it was not a simple 'cut and paste' theft of her web pages, but instead she was laying claim to the ownership of any and all hyperlinks that had been used. The 'content' ( all the superfluous text she had surrounded the hyperlinks with ) had not been stolen... but instead it was the duplication of just the hyperlinks used on her site.
I trust and hope that most readers of this tale will agree that again I remained professional and courteous to what was beginning to sound like a ludicrous and laughable demand. As noted in my reply, I saw more of a legal landmine in the fact that both of us were using 'deep linking' to direct our visitors to the hyperlinked content.
I was concerned by her claim that the physical order of the hyperlinks was similar in some instances to the alphabetized bibliographic order by author, used on Christine's web site
As it was an insignificant issue compared to the hyperlinks I sorted the display of the hyperlinks to reflect WHERE the documents and tutorials were located and stored. I felt this was a reasonable gesture to show our good intent and respect the arrangement by which Christine had chosen to display the authors works in her bibliographic listing.
Notwithstanding this good faith measure I also chose to create an entirely new hyperlink listing. The result of that effort is that our present comprehensive compilation of "hyperlinks" is not a derivative work of Christine. It was created by a controlled search using specific search parameters on Google, Cite Seer, Copernic and other such similar search based resources..
The combined results of that effort was consolidated and condensed down to just the hyperlinks of the retrieved
Nonetheless the key point to note is that our creation of this completely new hyperlink list was an original work, created from scratch and solely using only our research using search engiines to locate the desired hyperlinks that were relevant to the topic of computer, network and digital forensics.
But to assure myself that no one person can lay legal claim to being the only person to display a given hyperlink, I simply assured Christine that I would 'seek legal counsel's opinion and if advised the page will simply be deleted'.
|At this point Christine chooses to not respect nor give me the courtesy of time to consult with legal counsel. Instead she elects to give me a lecture on copyrights and issue responses to anything in my previous communication that she was not in agreement with in some warped attempt at intimidation through badgering and nagging. So Christine writes :
In short... a hyperlink on its own is not a copyrightable item. But possibly a collection or compilation of hyperlinks in a specifc order of display may be considered as a ' material that originated with the author " in that a webmaster had placed a bunch of links in a specific order in their web page. The problem with that is that any list that is sorted alphabetically is going to duplicate in some instances other list that are sorted alphabetically, as there is a natural order to alphabetizing. Similarly, a listing of hyperlinks that is sorted by author falls into that same catch-all, in that duplications of order are certain to appear if more than one webmaster chooses to sort their content by the authors names.
Nonetheless, the whole point was moot. My list of hyperlinks was new, created from scratch and without any use of Christine's list. Further, our hyperlink list had been sorted and ordered strictly by the third party sites where the documents or tutorials were stored and hence our hyperlink list bore no resemblance to a listing sorted by author names.
At this point Christine loses it. She has snapped and starts to dictate that I can no longer refer to her by her first name, Christine, in my salutations. Yes, I too thought that was odd...
Christine also uses her next E-mail to assert her contention that her HTML coding is Copyrighted... Yes, I too thought that was wingy in that my hyperlink list only contained <a href= and </a>.
Christine writes :
I should mention that up until now Christine had been silently CC'ing her e-mails off to people in an attempt to gain some moral support and to position herself as a damsel in distress to gain sympathy.
I felt it was worthwhile to start including them in my future responses. Sadly Christine had been rather selective in which e-mails she would send to those third parties and often excluded my courteous and professional replies from her CC's so as to not give the 'complete picture' to those persons receiving her edited or selectively trimmed missives. I felt those third parties deserved full disclosure of everything that was being communicated.
Tee hee.... well I should have known that by replying to her previous rant was like drinking a beer in front of a thirsty drunk or waving a red cape in front of a raging mad bull. The result was predictable... Christine didn't take the message at face value and heed it. Instead she chose to write again..
At this point I am almost completely convinced that Christine may indeed be the fabled " Nutty Professor". The evidence has been accumulating and becoming more evident with each continuation of her delusional rantings.
Her attempt to intimidate me by stating " You should consider sharing this with the 'educational facility' with which you are affiliated. They might be interested in your 'unique' take on intellectual property protections." made me chuckle... as I have no affiliation with any of the educational facilities to which I am an alumnus. Do you think she was hinting that she might be the one who would inform my '...educational facility about my unique take on intellectual property protection"
| This seemed at first to silence Christine... but she instead decided to go for another route of attack... She started sending out poison pen e-mails ( spamming IP professionals and security vendors with the following :
Hmmmm.... she certainly does spell things out here to the innocent recipients on her spam poison pen campaign. Attack me personally with my advertisers, throttle me at Google, hurt me in the pocketbook... cast dispersions against my personal character all the while leaving herself open to legal action for whatever damages her malicious and vexatious spam campaign may cause ?
It was rather fortunate that she has made it so easy for a lawyer to show what her intent was when she is sued for damages. Maybe someone who is so quick to threaten legal action should consult with their own lawyer before doing such an ill advised thing.
And what an odd behaviour it seemed for someone who is a teacher of students and should certannly have known better.
Chrsitine sadly cannot accept at that for the purposes of this dispute, she is simply a WEBMASTER of e-Evidence.info. Instead she tries to assert some sense of 'false authority' into her E-mails by using her Utica.edu e-mail address and the signature block with
Are people being deliberately mislead into thinking that www.e-evidence.info is affiliated or a product of Utica College ?
Are people being deliberately mislead into thinking that it is Utica College's intellectual property that has been absconded ?
Or is it simply Christine trying to assert an air of 'false authority syndrome' in order have her allegations taken more seriously than if she was simply writing as Christine Siedsma, WEBMASTER of www.e-evidence.info.
After all, this dispute does not involve Utica.edu whatsoever.
Further, you will note that she has created a poison pen web page on her web site that she circulates to all, including people who may happen on her web site while looking for information about computer forensics.
Initially she used that web page to call me a 'thief' and cast other libelous statements about my character and reputation.
Suffice to say that she had left herself again legally vulnerable for what she has published about me on her web site. Tsk tsk tsk... Tort Law 101 my dear Professor...
So I take the liberty to make Christine aware that I know of the poison SPAM that she has been sending out :
At this point I will hope everyone has been able to draw their own conclusions about which party has tried to address this matter in a calm, courteous, professional and reasonable manner and which party appears to be not firing mentally or emotionally on all eight cylinders.
After warning her about this she deleted that poison pen web page and created a new web page where she now just referred to me as a 'web page hijacker'. I didn't have the heart to explain or educate her to the fact that the term 'web page hijacker' already had a common usage meaning that was totally different than what she was trying to allude to.
Well we all could have guessed that Christine would have to reply. Even my blind dog and drunken hamster could have predicted that. And naturally she returns with her usual air of professionalism and courtesy. Naturally she was to have something to say about each point raised in my last e-mail.
Sadly Christine has forgotten my name after all these exchanges of e-mails and now refers to me with the impersonal
" To whom it may concern ". Possibly this is some reverse psychological retaliation for my continued use of her name in my salutations. Christine wrote :
|Ok... so at this point you are probably wondering about who is Randall and how did he get somehow involved in this dispute. Suffice to say that Randall is
a ) Christine's colleague at Utica.edu
b ) a person to whom Christine had been forwarding only those CC's and/or BCC's of her e-mails that made her look like a damsel in distress or snippets of my e-mail where I could be cast as some kind of nasty link stealing ogre.
c ) a past acquaintance and former contributor of a hyperlink compilation to InfoSysSec.com
d ) a learned and globally respected member of the computer security community
PLEASE NOTE : Unlike all previous communications displayed above, I will be removing any personal and non-relevant content from the exchanges between myself and Randall to protect his privacy and mine. This is yet another difference between Christine and myself. She chose to post the non-relevant personal information and past snide comments about that information.
The first communication I received from Randall caught me by surprise. I had not chatted with Randall in quite some while and his comments immediately convinced me that he had not been provided with a full disclosure of the early exchanges of e-mail where I had consistently been professional and courteous with Christine. It iappeared that Christine was only providing Randall selected snippets of my past e-mails that were not being presented in the full context of what had been said in the original e-mail
I naturally replied to Randall and attempted to give him the 'full disclosure' on what had been transpiring between Christine and myself so that he could properly gain a perspective on this matter with all details and not just the partial details with which he had been apparently supplied by Christine.
|Unfortunately I suffered some downtime on Friday where the Internet cable to my home was being replaced. When I did finally get back online I learned of the 'poison pen' e-mail that Christine had been sending out to advertisers on my web site. I took the opportunity to advise Randall so that he was fully informed about what was happening. I wrote :
Randall responded in the fair and reasonable manner that one would expect from a professional with his vast experience.
I responded in the usual courteous and professional manner and also raised the problem of Christine abusing her position at Utica.edu to create an air of "false authority' in her e-mails :
|It was at this time that Christine once again fired up her computer to let me know that she still existed and was still ready to kick my ass around the block ;) This is her 'give me your lawyers address' and " Randall has no authority over me in this matter." e-mail that was exhibited earlier in this page.
|The Christmas break proceeded with silence from Christine. It looked like the proposed ceasefire had in fact taken place and that calmer heads had prevailed. Unfortunately on December 28th I learned that Christine was still at it in the background and had now resorted to employing lawyers in her attempt to force the removal of my comprehensive listing of hyperlinks.
Further, her lawyers were requesting that I provide a hyperlink to Christine's web site.