Tag Archives: Genealogy

A Happy Ending To The Saga Of Katie.com?

The whole Katie.com imbroglio seems to have ended happily, or at least, is close to doing so.

Katie Jones, the British owner of the website katie.com since 1996, has had a miserable four years since the publication of a book of the same name, about the true ordeal of a teenager sexually molested by a man she met in an Internet chatroom. After receiving hundreds of emails from people believing they are writing to the author of the book, Jones says recently she has come under pressure to donate the domain to a website being set up to help victims of similar abuse. Jones has declined, despite what she says was an “unpleasant phone call” from a lawyer, Parry Aftab, acting on behalf of the author, Katie Tarbox.

After several news reports and a steady campaign by Jones to publicise Aftab’s alleged efforts to obtain the name, the books publishers are backing off, saying they were never part of the move. A press release (PDF only) issued yesterday by Plume, an imprint of PenguinPuttnam,  says: “In an effort to avoid an association between the book originally titled Katie.com and the website Katie.com, Plume and the author decide to make this title change.”

The release also says: “In addition, it was erroneously reported recently that Plume had asked its attorney to attempt to buy the web site Katie.com from domain owner Katie Jones. This is absolutely not true.” Plume makes clear it’s not part of that attempt: “We are not working in association with author Katie Tarbox or any other individual in an attempt to assume ownership of the domain name address www.katie.com.”

This is a belated but welcome move by the publishers, who must have calculated the negative publicity was outweighing the good. After all, what’s the point of publishing a book about online abuse if you just engage in another form of it against someone whose only mistake was to register a darn good domain name years ago?

There is a loose end yet to be tied, of course. The lawyer and author will also have to back off , abandoning any plans for a website ”where children who have been victimized by Internet sexual predators can go for help and support” around the name katie.com. Aftab, a prominent cybercime and Internet privacy lawyer, may also have some damage control to do. She has declined to comment on previous developments in the case, accusing Jones of having “an agenda”, but as things stand the public perception is that it has been the other way around.

What Katie.com Did Next

Can someone be turfed off their domain by someone bigger?

The experience of Katie Jones, recent mother and owner of an online chat site in the UK, has been well documented elsewhere. (Katie.com is the name of a book about the ordeal of a teenager sexually molested by a man she met in an Internet chatroom. Katie Jones is nothing to do with the book, but has been the owner of the address katie.com since 1996.) Jones’ latest report on her website suggests that she is being unfairly pressured by the publishers of the book that carries her website’s name to donate the website to them. (It is not entirely clear in the posting as to whether the lawyer who contacted her was working on behalf of the author or the publisher, or both.) Anyway, if true, this does seem to take things too far.

I’m no lawyer, but one can’t help wondered how things would look were the roles reversed. If a big player owned the website address, would there not be large amounts of money changing hands by now? Or at least, would not the publishers have changed the name of the book, and not been trying to browbeat her into handing over the domain name?

For Jones herself, I can well imagine the discomfort caused by receiving hundreds of emails, either from individuals detailing their traumas in the mistaken belief they are talking to a fellow victim, or from folks abusing her. It’s nothing compared to what the Katie of the book endured, but that is not the point. It’s easy enough to say, ‘why don’t you just change your email address and drop the domain name?’ but why should she? Why should an individual be hounded from her sentimental slice of online real estate if she doesn’t want to?

I sought a comment from the lawyer linked to in Ms Jones’ latest posting, Parry Aftab, who is described in her online bio as ‘is one of the leading experts, worldwide, on cybercrime, Internet privacy and cyber-abuse issues’ as well as ‘being called “The Angel of the Internet” for her extensive work in Internet safety and cybercrime and abuse prevention around the world’.

Aftab had posted a message to her blog on Thursday saying she was working with Katie Tarbox, the author of the original book, and an organisation called WiredSafety to “help create a place where children who have been victimized by Internet sexual predators can go for help and support”. The program will be called Katie’s Place. A logo of the new, as yet unlaunched site, is prominently displayed at the top of the WiredSafety homepage. Aftab is executive director of WiredSafety, ‘the world’s largest Internet safety, help & education organization’.

Aftab declined to respond in detail to Jones’ account of the telephone conversation or the case, writing: “Katie Jones’ statements are either false or misleading. She obviously has an agenda. And I frankly don’t have the time or energy to be part of it.”

The Digital Fallout Of Journalistic Plagiarism and Fakery

How do you correct the Internet?

All these reports of plagiarism and fakery in U.S. journalism — at least 10, according to the New York Times — raise a question I haven’t seen addressed elsewhere. What should newspapers and other publications which have carried the reports do about setting the record straight?

A USA Today report says of disgraced reporter Jack Kelley that it has “found strong evidence that Kelley fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories, lifted nearly two dozen quotes or other material from competing publications, lied in speeches he gave for the newspaper and conspired to mislead those investigating his work.”

Here’s a taster: ”An extensive examination of about 100 of the 720 stories uncovered evidence that found Kelley’s journalistic sins were sweeping and substantial. The evidence strongly contradicted Kelley’s published accounts that he spent a night with Egyptian terrorists in 1997; met a vigilante Jewish settler named Avi Shapiro in 2001; watched a Pakistani student unfold a picture of the Sears Tower and say, “This one is mine,” in 2001; visited a suspected terrorist crossing point on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in 2002; interviewed the daughter of an Iraqi general in 2003; or went on a high-speed hunt for Osama bin Laden in 2003.”

That’s quite a lot of correcting to do. USA Today says it will withdraw all prize entries it made on Kelley’s behalf (including five Pulitzer nominations) and “will flag stories of concern in its online archive”.

But is that enough? Correcting the “online archive” would have to include all secondary databases such as Factiva (part-owned by Dow Jones, publisher of the Far Eastern Economic Review, The Wall Street Journal, and my employer; There are 1,495 USA Today stories with Jack Kelley’s name either on them or in them prior to this year). Strictly speaking, it should also include all Internet copies of those stories on the Internet (a Google search of [“Jack Kelly” and “USA Today”] threw up 3,470 matches; while many of those are accounts of the plagiarism charge, many precede that). And what about blog references to Kelley’s stories?

I’ll take an example. In 2001 Jack Kelley wrote about a vigilante Jewish settler named Avi Shapiro in 2001. According to USA Today, this was one of the stories where “the evidence strongly contradicted Kelley’s published accounts”. That story has been posted on dozens of websites (I counted 60). Who’s going to correct, or raise flags on all those?

Then there’s the doubt. With Kelley claiming, according to the USA Today report, that he was “being set up”, there’s no way that even a serious investigation by the paper (which included a eight-person team, a 20-hour interview with Kelly by three veteran journalists from outside the company and extensive use of plagiarism-detection software) is going to confirm with any sense of certainty what was faked or plagiarised. So what, exactly, do you correct? Do you delete his whole oeuvre?

It’s a tough one, and perhaps a sober reminder for journalists (and bloggers) using the Internet as a source that it’s not just emails that appear to come from our bank that we need to double check. Is there a technological solution to this? A digital watermark or trace that can allow someone to instantly correct a story, or at least notify those hosting the material that there’s a problem?