e-evidence.info owned and operated by Christine Siedsma computer forensics Forensic Education eevidenceinfo@yahoo.com

 

 

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.

Ms Christine Siedsma of e-evidence is a copyright violator and a hypocrite

The dear Professor wonders why some people might think she is an ass clown

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...

In support of her high ground position in a ludicrous argument, she went and posted complete copies of our web pages on her web site.  Oddly enough, as of June 2009 she is still posting our entire web pages on her web site - two and one half year later... and saying we are thieves... we stole her 'hyperlinks'

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.

At the least you will agree that we showed great patience waiting for Ms Siedsma to grow up.  How many years would you allow someone to steal your work and keep calling you a thief ?


 
Dear Visitor

Possibly you arrived at this web page after visiting the web site of Ms Christine Siedsma.   I am pleased to welcome you.

As noted above, Ms Siedsma's campaign of stealing our copyrighted material and making of libelous postings have provided us with some level of amusement.   We invite you to enjoy the postings and form your own opinion of why Ms Siedsma has carried on in a somewhat irrational manner all these years.  I think you will come to the same conclusions about Ms Siedsma that we arrived at after reading her first two e-mails to us.

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". 

And so it is that we have sat quietly snickering as Ms Siedsma brought ridicule on to herself by not only what she says in her very own words, but as well her  actions.   After all, who are we to try to convince her that she is that person running around in a yellow chicken suit...

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.

And don't forget.  Ms Siedsma WANTED you to read this :  that is why she posted a link on her web page to help you arrive here.  And maybe that should be the biggest hint to you about this whole affair.  She truly can not comprehend that she is a copyright violator and libelous person....

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 :
Webopedia - http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/hyperlink.html
 

HYPERLINK :  An element in an electronic document that links to another place in the same document or to an entirely different document at another web site. Typically, you click on the hyperlink to follow the link. Hyperlinks are the most essential ingredient of all hypertext systems, including the World Wide Web.

If a document is sitting at www.somesite.com/document.pdf the resulting HTML code to click on the hyperlink to follow the link would look like this :

<a href="http://www.somesite.com/document.pdf">Some description about the file</a>

The key HTML code used to create a hyperlink are :  <a href= and </a>

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 ? "

 

Or more simply put :

  • Party A has 25 web pages consisting of an alphabetized bibliogragphy, sorted by authors, with hyperlinks leading directly to publications at third party educational and private web sites, comments and info about the link..
  • Party B has 1 web page that has ONLY hyperlinks leading directly to publications at other web sites.
  • Party A claims that they have a Copyright on all "hyperlinks" used in Party A's web page.
  • Party A also claims that they have a Copyright on the use of <a href=", ">.  </a> and <li> HTML code
  • Party A claims that no one else can use "hyperlinks" that point to those other third party web site documents and tutorials.
  • Party A demands that Party B remove all "hyperlinks" that may be the same as those found in Party A's web pages  
  • Yes you are allowed to begin laughing at this point
  • Party B can't seem to enlighten Party A to how ridiculous the demand is.
  • Party A writes to a number of individuals and companies and states that Party B a thief in written communications to advertisers with the intent to cause financial harm to Party B
  • Party A FAX's a letter to Google that Party B is a thief and that Google must remove Party B from the Google index with the intent to cause harm to Party B.
  • Party A post a web page on Party A's web site stating that Party B is a thief and selectively displays only parts of those communications to mislead people about the nature of the dispute.

Party B get's tired of this nonsense after numerous attempts to show reason and common sense with Party A have failed...  Party B decides that a full disclosure of the complete exchange of communications between the two parties, unedited and in their entirety will help people make a more fully informed opinion about this matter.and draw their own conclusions.

 


Christine whines to whoever will listen to her.... with alligator tears thrown in for good measure..

And sadly this Christine baby cries to anyone who will listen to her or give her a moment's notice, which fortunately isn't too many people.

She whines that InfoSysSec copied her hyperlinks and jumbled them around... but they were still her hyperlinks and that her copyright had been violated.  

Yet on her own web site she exhibits two complete THEFTS of web pages taken from the InfoSysSec web site.  Not extracts... not snippets...  the whole thing.  

Now.. Christine... don't you think it is pretty lame of you to think you have some claim to copyrights when you blatantly STEAL and post other people's works on your web site without our permission ?

No... sadly you are an ass clown.

Here is a hankie to go blow your nose and mop your tears.  I trust anyone who visits your web site will see the complete hypocrisy of the pot calling the kettle black.  

The other difference between us is that I really could give a rats ass about your blatant borrowiing in its entirety of our web page.  It certainly added some much needed consolidation of forensic content to your site.  And I suspect that is probably the real reason you place two COMPLETE examples of our content on your site. 

But maybe next time you should ask before you help yourself to TAKING someone elses copyrighted material.. ;)   Borrowing two entire pages of our content and posting them on your web site does not fall within the defense of 'fair use'... but I presume dear Professor that you already knew that...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

At one point Christine raises a claim of her "compilation" of hyperlinks being copyright protected.

And yes... she is right.   Compilations are protected EXCEPT for public domain materials used in the compilation.

As taken from the folks at Stanford
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter8/8-b.html#5
 

Often an author creates a work by selecting various public domain components and grouping them together. If the selection, coordination and arrangement of the material is unique it will be protected as a copyrightable compilation.

EXAMPLE: The owners of the book Bartlett's Familiar Quotations selected and arranged famous quotes. Anyone may copy a few quotes from Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, but no one may copy the arrangement and selection of all the quotes.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview

According to that example, Christine compiled a collection of public domain hyperlinks into a unique work just as  Batlett's Familiar Quotations selected and arranged famous quotes.  Both are protected as copyrighted works.

But do other books not exist that contain familiar quotes ?  Or is Bartlett's the only book that exist that contains selections of Quotes ?

A look at Amazon.com Books shows that at this moment there are 209,356 books listed that contain compilations of quotes.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-8745167-2765429?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=quotes

Hmmm... with 209,356 other books out there, it would appear that Bartlett's would need a staff of thousands of copyright lawyers to protect their unique work or else all those 'other' books must be using quotes that Bartlett's didn't use in their comprehensive listing.

So how is it that all these 'other' compilations exist and have not been pounded out of existence by a copyright chill ?   Is it possible that there is no duplication of quotes between the 209,356 books ?

The answer is simple :   The quotes were still of the 'Public Domain"  It was the arrangement and selection that was protected by Copyright.

As noted in the Stanford example above " Anyone may copy a few quotes from Bartlett's, but no one may copy the arrangement and selection of all the quotes."  Or in a reverse light, as long as the arrangement and selection of all the quotes have not been copied than a copyright infringement has not taken place.

This is in keeping with the intent of Congress to not stifle Transformative Works

 The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use

In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim into another work.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview

Further to the "Transformative Factor...
 

In copyright law, the fair use doctrine, the first sale doctrine, important exclusions from copyright control, and the eventual entry of copyrighted works into the public domain all ensure that people have the right to criticize, build upon, and in some circumstances share copyrighted works. These doctrines ensure greater dissemination of information, the ultimate goal of both the Copyright Act and the First Amendment.

http://fairusenetwork.org/reference/freeexpip.php

And so we now return back to a dispute about a collection of hyperlinks on a specific and very narrow topic range we can see that : 

a ) Hyperlinks are public domain.  No one holds copyright to a hyperlink.

b ) The arrangement of the hyperlinks is significantly different between the two sites :

  • Christine's hyperlink collection is mixed with other supporting content and is sorted in an alphabetic bibliographic manner by the author's name and spread over 25 web pages.
  • the InfoSysSec hyperlink collection contains ONLY hyperlinks and is sorted by the sites where the documents or tutorials are stored and appears on one single web page.

c ) The purpose of the two list are significantly different although they are both on the same topic.

  • Christine's list is primarily bibliographic in that it is sorted and arrange by author name.  Primary interest is the author and the secondary focus is the hyperlink that leads to that author's works.
  • the InfoSysSec list is solely focused on the topic of the hyperlink leads to with no regard to the author.

d ) Both web sites have created their content using different and independent means. There was no transformative action or usage of Christine's "content".  The attempt by Christine and InfoSysSec to both provide a comprehensive list on a very narrow, limited and focused topic ensures that there will be duplication of hyperlinks within each list.  That is simply an unavoidable situation.

  • Christine's 25 web pages consist of approximately 1000 hyperlinks
  • InfoSysSec's one web page consist of approximately 1500 hyperlinks

But possibly the single most important and relevant passage related to the topic of copyright and compilations rest in the Copyright law of the United States :

103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works

(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103

S 103 a ) Covers copyrighted material used in a compilation where that material has been used unlawfully.  It does not seem to directly address situations where non-copyrighted material ( like hyperlinks which are in the public domain ) have been used lawfully.  The assumption being that it goes without saying that you cannot place a copyright on the public domain pre-existing material ( ie the hyperlinks ).

S 103 b ) Confirms this point by declaring that a copyright in a compilation only covers the material contributed by the author and does not give the author any exclusive right in the preexisting material
 ( ie hyperlinks being of the public domain ).  So the author could claim copyright based on the arrangement or manner by which the hyperlinks are presented, plus it may include any superfluous supporting material that is placed with the hyperlink and which is original to the author but not covering such superfluous supporting material that may also have come from the public domain

So hopefully you will come to the same reasonable conclusion based on the facts, common sense and the law that :

a ) there is no law that gives Christine a copyright on hyperlinks.  Hyperlinks are of the public domain and no one can claim exclusive ownership of specific hyperlinks.

b ) there is no law that gives Christine a copyright on HTML code used to create a hyperlink.  Everyone in the world is entitled to use the HTML code of <a href= and </a> to generate hyperlinks on a web page.

c ) there is no law that gives Christine a copyright on "hyperlinks" used in a compilation.  It is only the organization and layout of those hyperlinks that may enjoy some level of protection.

Just remember as you read the following E-mail exchanges that InfoSysSec did not start this ;)
 



 

 

www.e-evidence.info - owned and operated by Christine Siedsma,  Program Director, Computer Forensic Research & Development Center at Utica College, csiedsm@utica.edu    or    later she changed it to   eevidenceinfo@yahoo.com

Synopsis : 

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.

This submission was compared against similar content on the web by doing a search through a number of search engines.  Nothing similar was found.

This submitted listing of hyperlinks was incorporated into a web page of similar computer forensic links found at :
 http://www.infosyssec.net/infosyssec/security/computerforensics.htm

Approximately one year later, On December 5 2006 I received the following e-mail from a Christine Siedsma :
 

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 compiles 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!
 
I noticed that you have a copyright notice posted on your site, so I find it unfathomable that you would so blatantly steal the work of another webmaster.
 
I expect a response within 5 days to this issue. Thank you for your immediate action on this matter.


Christine Siedsma
www.e-evidence.info
Program Director
Computer Forensic Research & Development Center at Utica College

 

 

I immediately looked into Christine's allegation and responded :

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

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
 e-mails will be turning less professional as this tale unfolds.  The problem was that on visiting Christine's web site I simply was not able to find anything that looked even vaguely similar to the hyperlink listing on the InfoSysSec web page and what Christine was claiming.  

 

 

 Christine responded immediately back with the following :
 
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
 
Starting with the article entitled 'Evaluation of Intelligent Intrusion Detection Models' which is the first article under the letter 'A' in my bibliography
 
Your entire 'single' page is identical to my pages alphabetically ordered pages.
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! And, I have had several of my Law Enforcement contacts view, and verify, the violation. So, I am ready to proceed with a DMCA violation if this is not remedied IMMEDIATELY!!!

 


Choosing to ignore the venom and accusations made against my personal integrity I re-visited Christine's web page to better understand what she was alleging about the content.  After a careful inspection of her entire web site I responded with the following.
 

Dear Christine :

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
 


 

 

 Christine immediately wrote back and provided further clarification of why she thought her content had been stolen.
 
Now I know you are not that ignorant.
 
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!

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. 

Christine admits that "
That ONE PAGE of your site mirrors MY ENTIRE 26-page Bibliography "  That is the first acknowledgement of a difference regarding the disputed content.

By Christine's own admission she also noted that  "
All you did was remove the authors' names!! ".  That is the second acknowledgement that the web pages were different.

It became clear to me that the reason I had not noticed a similarity between my list which contained only hyperlinks and Christine's is that I only had hyperlinks, where as she had surrounded those hyperlinks with assorted supporting content ( text etc ) for 26 pages.  

So it was boiling down to Christine complaining that the hyperlinks were displayed in the similar order by which she had interspersed hyperlinks throughout her 26 web page.

My first thought was that no one has a sole explusive copyright to a hyperlink.   Otherwise there would only exist one instance of any given hyperlink on the Internet.  Remaining professional and courteous I again responded :

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.

 

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

I took the disputed web page down while and removed public access to the page while I investigated the similarity of the physical order by which the hyperlinks were listed.   There were links in both list which were duplicates.  But our list of hyperlinks contained more entries that were NOT found in Christine's entire 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
search results. As such anyone using the same search parameters could also duplicate the same gathering and condensing of all the "hyperlink" results that we have presently included in our current hyperlink compilation..

This effort was done to ensure that no one could challenge the pedigree of where the 'hyperlinks' had originated from.  The end result was that our hyperlink list had grown even more comprehensive and larger.   Yes, there will still some duplicates of hyperlinks that were found in Christine's web page, but the number of non-duplicates had more than doubled. 

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'.  

Could I have not been more reasonable, courteous and professional  ?

 

 

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 :
 
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 have identified on InfoSysSec.  
 
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 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

 


At this point I am not interested in receiving any legal advice or legal interpretations from someone who is not in the legal profession.  And least of all I don't think any reasonable or intelligent person would place any value on such legal guidance coming from a person who is simultaneously threatening legal action against you.   It is like a burglar attempting to give you a lecture on hand gun safely while putting that same gun at your head.

Christine does acknowledge at this point that the original submitter of the hyperlinks may have been at fault by  noting  "
The fact that whomever chose to 'steal' my content w/o getting permission from the source is dispicable ".  

At first glance I too would agree with that statement, but unfortunately I am not a mind reader of the orginal submitter, and nor do I know how or where that donated hyperlink list was culled from.  I had already taken steps to address any question or challenges about the pedigree of the hyperlinks by deleting them and creating a new hyperlink list.

The argument now boiled down to a question of 'hyperlink" ownership.   A quick review of the pertinent and applicable Copyright law confirms that :

...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.

 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. 

Again I reply to Christine in a professional, reasonable, courteous and respectful manner...
 

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

 


 

 

 

 

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...

She expands on her previous law lectures.  She highlights that all legal advice should be sought and found on Google ( a ludicrous assertion for a Professor to believe that everything published and searchable via Google is gospel or even correct and complete ). 

She seems determined to still not allow me time to obtain qualified legal guidance as if she is worried that I may learn that her claims about here copyright of hyperlinkes from the public domain was as baseless as I had begun to suspect that they may be... 

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 :

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!
 
1

 


Ok.. me bad.    In cases where you are dealing with people that obviously have no courtesy or professionalism, at some point you have to drop the gloves and hopefully penetrate the mist that fogs their brain of common sense...  and so I wrote back :
 

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...

 

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.
 

4 5

 

 
 

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..

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.
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 presneting 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 'buddies' as you put it are my immediate supervisor, and a firend of mine that is in law enforcement. I have also been sharing the correspondence with the Law Professor I mentioned in the email. 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.
 
I also find it amusing  that you have chosen to block access to your site from my college. Now THAT is petty :-)

 

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.  

The number of 'factual mistakes' made by Christine in her above E-mail warned me that she was not as fully informed about things as she tried to appear.  

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" ?

There is no point arguing with drunks or irrational people, and so based on Christine's above E-mail I decided to make a tactical retreat and minimize my response to her in order to deprive her of any other line items to address or write back to me about .

Hi Christine...
 
You just can't shut up can you ?  Hahahhahha...
 
Best wishes

 

 

 

 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 :
 
-----Original Message-----


From: Christine Siedsma [mailto:csiedsm@utica.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 6:02 PM
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXx@XXXXXXXXXXXXx.com
Subject: DMCA Violation of a referral site

 

Good Evening,
 
I am sending this as professional courtesy.
 
A site that advertises your organization is the source of a serious copyright violation, pertaining to the hijacking of a significant portion of my website's content.
 
The site is www.infosyssec.net
 
I am in the process of sending a 'Cease and Desist' order to the offender, though from recent communications with this indivudual,  I do not anticipate his compliance.
 
I have been advised that the best way to 'go after' the offender is to notify his ISP of a DMCA violation (I have contacted them, and am waiting to hear a response), to contact the major search engines in order to have them removed from their service (I have faxed Google the paperwork today) and to contact his advertisers ('hurt him in the pocketbook').
 
The substance of the pending action, and the 'exchange' of emails can be found at
http://www.e-evidence.info/thief.html
 
I cannot imagine that your organization would be interested in advertising on a site that so blatantly disregards the legal rights of another, and yet claims to be an 'Information Security Professional.'
 
Best Regards,



Christine Siedsma
www.e-evidence.info
Program Director
Computer Forensic Research & Development Center at Utica

 

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

 Christine Siedsma [mailto:csiedsm@utica.edu]

Christine Siedsma
www.e-evidence.info
Program Director
Computer Forensic Research & Development Center at Utica

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 she is speaking with the authority and support 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 :

Hi Christine
 
It appears that you have chosen to act illegally, on a number of fronts..  
 
How interesting and irrational of you.
 
I am in possession of the 'poison spam' that you have been sending out.
 
I have taken the liberty to write to XXXXXX, and hopefully he can help you to understand that your actions are both damaging to yourself and your employer.
 
Best wishes

 

 

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 :



 
To whom it may concern,
 
In response to your most recent message, this is not a 'pissing war' as you so eloquently put it. Copyright Infringment IS a serious offense, and I have every intention of protecting the ownership and control of my work.

>   It appears that you have chosen to act illegally, on a number of fronts..  
 
Name one law that I have broken. At least I have been able to articulate the federal law that you have violated.
 
>   I am in possession of the 'poison spam' that you have been sending out.
 
There is nothing poison or spam about it. It is a statement of fact.

>   I have taken the liberty to write to Randall, and hopefully he can help you to understand that your actions are both damaging to yourself and your employer.
 
Prof Nichols has no authority over me in this matter. I was including him in the previous correspondence as a professional courtesy.
 
It is my copyright, and I intend to protect it to the fullest.
 
At this juncture, I have decided to terminate all direct contact with you, as you have failed to honor requests to remove all infringing content from your site.
 
But, I do need to know the contact information for your legal counsel (or an address where the papers can be sent - Registered mail), as further action in this matter will now be handled by mine.

 

Christine Siedsma
www.e-evidence.info
Program Director
Computer Forensic Research & Development Center at Utica College

 


Hey.  I am a glutton for punishment and I respond to Christine in my usual prompt and courteous manner ;)

Hello Christine
 
It is with respect for Randall that I have honored his request to not respond to your tortiious activities in a public venue or legally.
 
An exchange of legal information will be sought and provided pending the results of his consultation with you.
 
Best wishes
 
Marquis Grove


I was tempted to give Christine a "Christmas Greeting" but I refrained and went with the more common " Best Wishes "

 

 

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

Randall wrote

Marq
 
I have been receiving your rather acid communications with one of my employees.
 
It needs to stop. You need to take a professional look at what public relations you are presenting for your business.
 
I remember you in a much better light than you are showing now.
 
Yes, know you. We have talked on the phone - several times. I helped you back in 1999 -2001 with your INFOSYSSEC site, when I was President of COMSEC Solutions. Three pages of Crypto, if I recall, books, URLS, references  and such.  I think you have a signed copy of one of my earlier books "Defending Your Digital Assets Against Hackers, Crackers, Spies and Thieves, McGraw Hill." (1999) 
 
At that time, you had a professional tone and a professional outlook on security. You were in the process of growing your site and business in several directions. Based out of Algonquin College, Ontario, if I recall. You had a yahoo email back-up address. Many of my colleagues supported that growth.
 
Well, in those 7 years,  I have stepped down as Chief Operating Officer of IT and sold my previous firm, Comsec Solutions to a public company. In August 2006, I accepted the position of Director of the Computer Forensics Research & Development at Utica College.
 
Professor Siedsma works 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. 
 
Find some middle ground. Show me the entrepreneur that build his company and INFOSYSSEC website up from the ground. You didn't do it by getting into sandbox fights over simple attribution of intellectual property.
 
Please get back to me after you have thought about this letter.
 
Sincerely
 
Randall
 

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.

 

Hello Randall
 
It is a pleasure to hear from you, albeit these circumstances are not the most ideal for this reacquaintance. 
 
I was aware of your successful sale of Comsec Solutions and I am pleased to now learn that you have joined the academic world at Utica College . 
 
I am also pleased to assure you that I have not turned into a curmudgeon.  Regrettably, this impression may have surfaced if you were not privy to the complete and chronological exchange of communications between me and Christine.
 
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.  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.
 
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.  
 
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.
 
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.  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.
 
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.  I have since removed any superfluous content from that listing and restricted it solely to hyperlinks alone.  
 
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.
 
Nonetheless, in view of Christine's concerns, I had already set about to remedy the contested web page.   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.
 
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.
 
PARAGRAPH REMOVED
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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. 
 
I do not know where the middle ground in this matter lays.
 
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. ;)
 
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 in full agreement with her position.  This is a middle ground we both agree on.
 
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 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 ?
 
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 in the same manner that I gave full kudos to your firm and its contributions to the comprehensiveness of our crypto links.
 
I sincerely regret that my reply has been so lengthy and that you have been drawn into this matter.  However, I felt that your e-mail deserved a full and complete response.
 
Best wishes as always
 
Marquis Grove

 




 

 

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 :

 

Hi Randall
 
Unfortunately I did not hear back from you and we were encountering problems with our Internet connectivity on Friday.
 
I have now found in my e-mail a number of CC's from 'friends' of InfoSysSec who have been spammed by Christine with her 'poison' mail.
 
You thought that this should not boil down to a tit-for-tat exchange.  Christine has raised the bar by sending poison e-mails to anyone whose e-mail address she could find on my web site.
 
Regretably Christine has chosen to start a skunk pissing war and is also quite likely stepping over the legal line.
 
I will naturally have to respond publicly, since Christine has brought this matter in a questionable manner into the public forum.   I will delay my 'response' and provide you with sufficient time to consult with Christine about this matter.
 
At this moment she is legally vulnerable as there is no copyright violation of her content.
 
Best wishes
 
Marquis
 
Here is the 'e-mail content' that Christine is sending / spamming out...
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Christine Siedsma [mailto:csiedsm@utica.edu]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 6:02 PM
To: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.com  <-  e-mail address edited to protect that party's privacy.
Subject: DMCA Violation of a referral site

 
Good Evening,
 
I am sending this as professional courtesy.
 
A site that advertises your organization is the source of a serious copyright violation, pertaining to the hijacking of a significant portion of my website's content.
 
The site is www.infosyssec.net
 
I am in the process of sending a 'Cease and Desist' order to the offender, though from recent communications with this indivudual,  I do not anticipate his compliance.
 
I have been advised that the best way to 'go after' the offender is to notify his ISP of a DMCA violation (I have contacted them, and am waiting to hear a response), to contact the major search engines in order to have them removed from their service (I have faxed Google the paperwork today) and to contact his advertisers ('hurt him in the pocketbook').
 
The substance of the pending action, and the 'exchange' of emails can be found at
http://www.e-evidence.info/thief.html
 
I cannot imagine that your organization would be interested in advertising on a site that so blatantly disregards the legal rights of another, and yet claims to be an 'Information Security Professional.'
 
Best Regards,



Christine Siedsma
www.e-evidence.info
Program Director
Computer Forensic Research & Development Center at Utica College

 

Randall responded in the fair and reasonable manner that one would expect from a professional with his vast experience.

Marq
 
Friday, I was at Case Institute, making social contacts,   REMAINDER OF SENTENCE REMOVED TO PROTECT PRIVACY
 
Back to the problem at hand, I thought your communication to me made significant concessions and showed promise. I presented it in a favorable light to Christine and thought she accepted it, although bruised. I frankly was unaware that the ground troops were still moving. Nor did I see her letter to the world, in advance. I will do something about that. It is end of term and we are in the thick of it - students, meetings, etc. Everybody I talk to is swamped.
 
PARAGRAPH REMOVED DUE TO PERSONAL NATURE AND TO PROTECT PRIVACY
 
Let me see what I can do before I leave. Please copy me on your emails and I will do the same for you. I wish I had a better answer, as this "contest" is escalating beyond where it should be and is not helping anybody. Try to take a deep breath and I will ask Christine to do the same thing and to also table further emails until we can address the issues properly. I am asking for a Christmas Ceasefire.
 
We (all) need some distance and time to reflect, come back to the table and to find a solution that does no more damage to anyone's interests. I am not a lawyer so I can't address the legal issues. However, my background is a senior executive and I understand that these engagements do more harm than good, cost money and worse, affect the real currency of professional relationships - creditability & respect. Escalations into legal arena produce few happy people, generally not the principals.
 
One item for you to consider and a possible table cloth? Sometimes wounds need to be debrided before they heal. Would you consider removing all the links on your website gained from www.e-evidence.com? It is not a perfect answer, but it takes the firewood away from the fire. It ignores the legal issues and blunts the public ones.
 
I may have to take this to my boss. He is a very professional, wise and reasonable person. He also has so much on his plate, that I hate to bring another boil in front of him. I will also contact Christine and direct her to stop the campaign. I also will direct her to send me a copy of the entire file. I am sure that she is keeping records (as also you are)
 
We need to take a time-out to get a better perspective. Do you agree?
 
Best
 
Randy

 

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 :
 

Hi Randall
 
OPENING PARAGRAPH REMOVED TO PROTECT PRIVACY
 
With regards to the extraction of any hyperlinks that duplicate those found on Christine's web site, I don't really know if that is a reasonable way to conclude this, because of the chill effect it would have on all other web sites where there is a duplication of hyperlinks.  I don't think any reasonable man/woman would believe that the Internet should consist of only single occurences of hyperlinks.   The whole Internet's existence and functionality is based on people sharing hyperlinks and at this point this is where the problem with Christine rest.
 
If we are to follow her train of logic, only she should have the exclusive and monopolistic right to display hyperlinks related to the topic of computer forensics.  
 
But looking at this in a reverse light... would it not seem likely that Christine's link farm is also in violation of Copyright, in that surely she did not create those hyperlinks used on her web site and that she most likely became aware of them by viewing other sites with such links..   Are those hyperlinks not also 'absconded' when she sees them elsewhere and incorporates them into her own bibliographic hyperlink list.
 
I believe without doubt that Christine does indeed have a copyright on the content that she has produced and placed on her web site.   She has a unique assembly, sorted by authors and annotated with dates of publication, media type and  other personal notes with each of the entries.
 
My link list is exactly that. ...  just hyperlinks.   They are not sorted by an alphabetical listing of authors like Christine has - but instead they are sorted by the institutions or web sites / servers where they are available for downloading by the public.
 
It is similar to the point I tried to make about Christine's assertions about her HTML coding, in that her pages make extensive use of Tables, indents, color and font codes etc.   A review of my link list only uses the bullet HTML command and only the HTML used to display a hyperlink.  
 
Maybe the simplest way to explain this whole matter to Christine is this.   Imagine that she is Coca Cola.  With her Coca Cola recipe she has a unique and protected product ( just like her web site ).    If someone was to take her product ( the Coke drink ) and distill it down and bottle JUST the evaporated water, she would not have a claim of product infringement against that water distiller.    She may not like the fact that they are using the water that was contained in her product but that is something for which she has no enforceable rights to deny the water distiller from doing.   In fact the similarity to this whole matter with this example is that water is a common component to many liquid drinks, just as hyperlinks are a common component of all web sites.   Any attempt by Coke ( Christine ) to sue Pepsi because they use water in their product would be laughed out of court as litigious, vexatious and a waste of the court's time.
 
I hope by elaborating on this point about hyperlinks you can understand why I don't imagine it as a reasonable solution to this matter.   Would it not give Christine the false motivation to go around threatening other computer forensic sites to rid their sites of any hyperlinks that duplicated those used on her site ?
 
As noted in my previous e-mail to you, I was in the midst of expanding and further clarifying the web page that was in contention.  Although it resulted in an increase of 500 hyperlinks more than found on Christine's web site, it did dramatically alter the presentation of the hyperlinks and eliminated any possible contention of the resemblance of hyperlinks between InfoSysSec and e-Evidence being even remotely similar.   Oddly enough Christine, on her page of scorn at e-Evidence took that concilliatory action as being some sort of proof of her contentions and assertions.   It is from the vantage point of this new and revised web page that I presently sit while Christine rants on.
 
Another point that should be conveyed to Christine is her use of Utica.edu as some form of validation for her demands and poison pen spamming of this matter ( and her take on this matter ).    If she has a fight with InfoSysSec.com and myself, then it is with Christine and e-Evidience.info and she should not be mailing her poison pens spams from her Utica.edu e-mail account, nor should she be using a signature block that clearly denotes her employment with Utica.edu.
 
I recall when I worked for the Department of Justice in Canada we had an employee in the mail room who was in financial difficulties and was being harassed by a collection agency.   The employee, using Dept of Justice letterheads and envelopes, corresponded with that collection agency in a manner of intimidation.   The employee was fired for misuse of Dept of Justice letterheads for a non-work related purposes.   The Department of Justice was left with no alternative because that employees' actions were injurious to the name of his employer.
 
I do not think that Christine should be fired over such a similar gaff, but she should be cautioned that if she wishes to carry out any furtherance of her poison pen campaign, or even written communications that are not directly related to her work with Utica.edu than she should refrain from using the utica.edu mail address and the signature block that she has been making use of.
 
Or more succinctly put... she is a Professor for the purposes of her work at Utica.edu, but for her personal matters involving her web site she needs to confine her self-identification to being simply a webmaster of that web site.
 
Christine is entitled to her free speech.   But the poison pen "web page" that she has placed on e-Evidence.info, where I am referred to as a 'thief' among other things should be immediately taken down.   I am a big boy and I personally don't give a rats ass what she may personally think about me.   However, once she proceeds to publish incomplete extracts of our communications and attempts to injure my reputation will require me to respond in a similar manner at some point to ensure that the full story is available for people to come to their own conclusions.
 
Although I am in the midst of creating this 'response' web page, I will hold off publishing it to my sites until I ascertain whether Christine wishes to keep her poison pen 'web page' online.    I guess you could consider that a Christmas ceasefire and yet another sign of my reasonableness and attempts to maintain some level of professionalism during the course of this most unusual and unwarranted attack.
 
 
Again Randall, in the big scheme of things, this whole affair is such a tiny pimple of concern compared to all the other major life moving events that are happening around us globally. 
 
And so I will return to that real world of significant concerns to close by again wishing to you and your family my most deepest and most sincere heartfelf wishes for the safe return of your son..
 
Marquis Grove 

 


Randall was prompt in his reply to me :

Marq
 
I have sent a letter to my boss with my recommendations. I took your letter to heart and in good faith.
 
Let me get his response and then we can move forward.
 
Appreciate your explanations and issues raised.
 
best
 
Randy

 

 

 

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.  
 
Hi Randall
 
As requested I am providing you with the latest missive from Christine and my response back to her.
 
She is continuing to use the Utica.edu signature block, so I assume that no consultation has yet taken place.
 
Oddly enough in Christine's e-mail she states " Prof Nichols has no authority over me in this matter. I was including him in the previous correspondence as a professional courtesy."  
 
Yet she makes use of her position at Utica.edu in the signature block and e-mail address to give some form of 'false authority' derived from that position at Utica.edu and gives the false impression that she is speaking on behalf of Utica.edu or that this matter involves Utica.edu in some way.
 
As noted in my reply to Christine, I shall to continue to honor your request for a ceasefire.
 
Marquis Grove

 

 
---------- MY REPLY TO CHRISTINE'S LATEST E-MAIL ---------
 
 

Hello Christine

 
It is with respect for Randall that I have honored his request to not respond to your tortiious activities in a public venue or legally.
 
An exchange of legal information will be sought and provided pending the results of his consultation with you.
 
Best wishes
 
Marquis Grove

 

 
---------- CHRISTINE'S LATEST E-MAIL TO ME ---------

Christine Siedsma <csiedsm@utica.edu> wrote:
To whom it may concern,
 
In response to your most recent message, this is not a 'pissing war' as you so eloquently put it. Copyright Infringment IS a serious offense, and I have every intention of protecting the ownership and control of my work.

>   It appears that you have chosen to act illegally, on a number of fronts..  
 
Name one law that I have broken. At least I have been able to articulate the federal law that you have violated.
 
>   I am in possession of the 'poison spam' that you have been sending out.
 
There is nothing poison or spam about it. It is a statement of fact.

>   I have taken the liberty to write to Randall, and hopefully he can help you to understand that your actions are both damaging to yourself and your employer.
 
Prof Nichols has no authority over me in this matter. I was including him in the previous correspondence as a professional courtesy.
 
It is my copyright, and I intend to protect it to the fullest.
 
At this juncture, I have decided to terminate all direct contact with you, as you have failed to honor requests to remove all infringing content from your site.
 
But, I do need to know the contact information for your legal counsel (or an address where the papers can be sent - Registered mail), as further action in this matter will now be handled by mine.

 



Christine Siedsma
www.e-evidence.info
Program Director
Computer Forensic Research & Development Center at Utica College

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 


 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kasim Razvi" <kasim@hagelaw.com>
To: <infosyssec@ixxx.net>        <edited so that spammers dont' get into this... ;)
Cc: "Christine Siedsma" <csiedsm@utica.edu>; "J.K. Hage III"
<JK@hagelaw.com>; "Hage, Heather (TTO/Consultant)"
<Heather.Hage@rfsuny.org>; "Amy Cirtwell" <AMY@hagelaw.com

Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 4:02 PM
Subject: Computer Forensics Copyright Matter


Dear Mr. Grove: Our records indicate that you received and signed for
the letter below at your Rockland, Ontario Canada address on December
22, 2006. We are also aware that you have yet to remove Ms. Siedsma's
copyrighted materials from your website at


http://www.infosyssec.net/infosyssec/security/computerforensics.htm

or to replace it with a link to Ms. Siedsma's website as we requested.
 

Please reply to this email with the identity of your legal counsel and a
statement of your intentions regarding the removal of Ms. Siedsma's
copyrighted material from your website. Thank you.

--------     They attached a copy of the letter they had attempted to mail ---

December 20, 2006

Marquis Grove
192 S. Benjamin Dr.
West Chester, PA 19382

Re: Infringement of "The Electronic Evidence Information Center(c)"

Dear Mr. Grove:

Our firm represents Christine Siedsma, author and copyright owner of The
Electronic Evidence Information Center(c). We understand that you are
the owner of the domain http://www.infosyssec.net and that you have
misappropriated and made available, at
http://www.infosyssec.net/infosyssec/security/computerforensics.htm, a
large database of computer forensic-related articles, tutorials, etc.
which does not belong to you. This content is virtually identical to
that of Ms. Siedsma's Electronic Evidence Information Center(c)
available at http://www.e-evidence.info/biblio.html. United States
copyright law explicitly prohibits unauthorized derivative uses and
public displays of copyrighted material, and Ms. Siedsma has not granted
permission for you to use her copyrighted material. Notwithstanding
certain modifications of content recently made to your website, your use
of this copyrighted material is an infringement of Ms. Siedsma's
intellectual property rights in The Electronic Evidence Information
Center(c).

As you know, the creation and maintenance of informational web portals
is a highly demanding process, and Ms. Siedsma has made pain-staking
efforts to create The Electronic Evidence Information Center(c) and to
keep it up-to-date, timely, well-organized, and relevant. This
copyrighted database has led to considerable recognition of Ms. Siedsma
as a prominent authority in the computer forensics field, and your
infringement has caused her substantial harm and compromises the
recognition she has worked so hard to attain.
Based upon the foregoing, we hereby demand, while continuing to reserve
all of our client's rights and remedies, that you confirm to us in
writing within five days of receipt of this letter that: (i) you have
removed all infringing materials, including the database, from your
website; or (ii) you have removed all infringing materials, including
the database, from your website and replaced it with a hyperlink to Ms.
Siedsma's Electronic Evidence Information Center(c). If you are
represented by counsel, please provide us with the identity of that
counsel.
We hope that you cooperate so that further action will be unnecessary.

Very truly yours,
HAGEANDHAGE LLC



J.K. Hage III

Kasim S. Razvi



Hage & Hage LLC
610 Charlotte Street
Utica, New York 13501-2909
Tel: (315) 797-9850
Fax: (315) 797-1721
www.hagelaw.com


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN AND/OR ATTACHED TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE MAY
BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL OR EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. IF YOU
THINK THAT YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE
SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY REPLYING TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE. PLEASE DO NOT
DISCLOSURE THE CONTENTS TO ANYONE. THANK YOU.
 


Well... it looked like I would now have to have our legal counsel deal directly with this law firm.  So I wrote back to them and provided the following :


 

Dear Kasim

Permit me to begin by noting that your mailing records are in error. No
letter was received or signed for by me. Please check your records again and
make the appropriate notation to your file..

This e-mail to which I am replying is the first indication that Christine
was still not happy and that she is now attempting to use legal avenues to
enforce her frivolous claim of copyright ownership over public domain
hyperlinks.

As you are already aware and have noted in your attached e-mail below, on
first notification of a potential copyright conflict from Christine, changes
were indeed effected immediately to the InfoSysSec web page. We were able to
see sufficient similarities between the page donated to our web site by a
user and Christines ONLY AFTER we sought and received clarification from
Christine about what exactly it was that she was trying to identify as
having allegedly been stolen.

We immediately removed public access to that web page while we were
investigating..

Our good faith action is confirmed by the fact that your client had to
resort to obtaining a 'cached' copy of the disputed web page from Google (
by her own admission as posted on her web site ) because it was no longer
available when she returned to visit our site to grab a copy of the alleged
infringing web page..

To best remedy this matter, a new hyperlink page on the topic of computer,
network and digital forensics was created FROM SCRATCH by me.

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
search results. As such anyone using the same search parameters could also
duplicate the same gathering and condensing of all the "hyperlink" results
that we have presently included in our current hyperlink compilation..

If we are a derivative work... than it is a derivative of and aggregation of
a large number of search engines. It had nothing whatsoever to do with
Christine's effort.and my clear intent on building that web page of
hyperlinks was to avoid any possible future assertions by Christine..

For the benefit of the third parties that you have CC'd into this matter and
who may be somewhat confused by your client's assertions I will spell out
the differences between your client's web site and our single web page just
so that they too can better appreciate how frivolous your client's claim at
present is :

- Christine has a bibliographic index, spread over approximately twenty-six
web pages, listed alphabetically by author name, with titles of publication
by those authors, hyperlinks to their publication and additional factual
supporting material or content about each of the publications on the topic
of computer, network and digital forensics.

- Our web page is found on just one web page and consist SOLELY of
"hyperlinks" that lead to publications on the topic of computer, network and
digital forensics. Our hyperlink list is sorted solely by the web sites or
the web servers from where these publication are stored.

Our present "hyperlink" list is more comprehensive and contains up to 500
more 'hyperlinks' than that found on Christine's entire web site. Yes, both
of our comprehensive efforts reflect many duplicate "hyperlinks". That is
the only thing that they have in common. That does not constitute a
derivative work of Christine's efforts; it simply reflects the simple fact
that two comprehensive list, both generated by different means, are both
drawing upon and using many of the same "hyperlinks" found in a limited,
focused and very narrow niche or topic range

To further clarify the difference between Christine's web site and our one
web page, I should note that on your client's web site, she publicly
displayed the great lengths and efforts that she had to go through in order
to try and 'demonstrate' a similarity of the "hyperlinks" between her entire
web site and my one web page..

As per Christine's own admission and as posted publicly on her web, she had
to remove 90% of the content from her web pages, extracting just her
"hyperlinks", load them into a spreadsheet and sort her remaining hyperlinks
by the alphabetical order of the servers. In short she had to significantly
edit and manipulate her copyrighted content down to just 'hyperlinks" and
re-format them to a structure similar to mine.. She next copied our
hyperlink list in its native format ( copyright violation or fair use ) into
her spreadsheet in order to attempt or force her side by side comparison.
Oddly, she remained silent over the fact that our "hyperlink" list contained
such a great number more of hyperlinks that were not duplicates of her
self-confessed manipulated hyperlink list.

Yes, both of our comprehensive efforts reflect many duplicate "hyperlinks".
That does not constitute or imply a derivative work of Christine's efforts;
it simply reflects the simple fact that two comprehensive list, both
generated by different and independent means, are both drawing upon and
using many of the same publicly available hyperlinks found in a limited,
focused and very narrow niche or topic range.

I regret that Christine is unable to accept the fact that we are not
infringing her copyright. I also regret that Christine has taken to libeling
me by publishing slanderous statements regarding my personal character on
her web site and in a number of e-mail postings that she sent to a number of
third parties where she openly boasted her intent to do me financial harm
with my advertisers and affiliates, while at the same time slandering my
name and reputation. I will not bother elaborating on your client's attempts
to further harm my web sites and 'inflict financial damage' by sending
communications to Google, in an attempt to have me removed from their index.

As such you can be assured that your next contact over this matter will be
from our legal counsel.

Best regards

Marquis C Grove

 


 

The story has temporarily ended with my lawyer replying to Christines lawyer.

 My lawyer simply said, " I am the lawyer of record... send any future stuff to me "

That's it.  That's all.  No apology... no compromises... no surrender...

Damn...  Chrisitine's lawyer didn't respond.   Silence.   And the next thing we know she has posted some more delusional writings on her web site claiming victory... and that it was all over. ?

Huh ? 

Further Christine failed to give full disclosure...  She failed to notify her 'readers' that once again she had edited her web site to remove the slanderous postings that she had made about myself. 

And interestingly... Christine has dropped using her e-mail address at utica.edu and is now reduced to using the more webmistressive  eevidenceinfo@yahoo.com.   I guess I was right about that too ;) 

As of late January 2007 Christine is now proclaiming that she never tried to assert a claim to the ownership of all hyperlinks related to forensics.  But a closer examination of her 'new position' or 'clarification' on this topic confirms that she is still holding on to some of her old ways :

On her web site in January 2007 she now states....

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 without express knowledge and permission of the originating author

 - Christine Siedsma, January 2007

Sadly one could still interpret Christine's new position as being the very same as her old position.  If YOUR  compilation has duplicates of the same hyperlinks that are used in HER compilation, than you are a thief and you need HER permission to use those duplicating hyperlinks in YOUR compilation.  She put used the hyperlinks first and so therefor YOU must have taken them from her.    Tsk.... tsk... tsk...

Oh well... the next time you visit Christine's web site and view the InfoSysSec content that she has blatantly HELPED HERSELF TO and posted on her web site without our permission...   well... just smile... and compliment her on how black her pot is...   How odd that she has no qualms about taking copyrighted material from InfoSysSec and placing it in its entirety on her web site...

Christine is right about one thing.  This whole affair has been a nightmare.  It is like waking up the next morning after getting drunk and finding the most hideous creature in your bed and you just can't get rid of her... shades of the constantly resurrecting Freddy Krueger or the psychotic damsel in Fatal Attraction...

 

Hacking and Hackers - Computer Security Programs Downloading Search Engines Portal News

  Egads..... I had better go and check on my pet bunny... 

( for the Urban Dictionary definition of an "ass clown"...I think you will find Christine Siedsma's picture next to it ..please click here...

Somehow I don't think Ms Siedsma will change her ways.  She appears to like courting the appearance of a damsel in distress being ruthlessly pillaged by others while she continues her ongoing theft of other people's works and content without apology..

We waited for 2 1/2 years of this ongoing Siedsma silly story before updating what a hypocrite and copyright violator she is.  You will note that at this time, 2 1/2 years later, she is still displaying OUR content - in its entirety - on her web site, while hypocritically posting that we are 'thieves'.   I guess it takes one to know one.

It is now six years since Christine Siedsma stole content from our web site and kept it posted on her web site.  At this point we no longer think she is simply a thief, but that she shows all the traits of someone suffering from some form of psychiatric or psychological problem(s)

In other news, it would appear that the thief Siedsma left her employment at the University and took up a job with the FBI working behind a desk and wielding her great skills against evil criminals around the world. As of 2012 we do not know whether she is still employed with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Possibly FBI psychological testing has removed her from that position... or maybe the FBI wasn't aware that one of their employees actually engages in copyright violations and intellectual property theft. Frankly I can't believe the FBI would have an employee who is brazingly breaking the laws or for whom the psychological evidence appears to cast shadows. Then again, maybe the FBI caught on to her and she has had to seek employment elsewhere... ;)