Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:39 am Post subject: Our first Cease & Desist, courtesy of Target | |
|
Today I received a letter via email from lawyers representing Target regarding a post made by "Target Sucks" on July 3rd, 2006 that contained Targets 2006 Asset Protection Directives (APD).
Target asserts that the APD is "confidential, proprietary and trade secret information" and that its reproduction constitutes a violation of Targets copyright. Target also asserts that the security procedures contained in the APD provide would be "wrongdoers" with a "blueprint for circumventing Target's security procedures in connection with shoplifting or other criminal activity" and that such a "blueprint" jeopardizes both Targets property and the safety of Target customers and employees. Target has requested:
With regard to the first request, removal of the post, I will comply. Not only because the information may be "confidential, proprietary and trade secret information" or that it may violate Targets copyright, but also because, on its face, the information appears to me to bear little relevance and value to our community. Had "Target Sucks" posted portions of the APD for purposes of discussion, criticism, or comment the situation would be much different (fair use/fair dealing). But, as it stands, the post appears to be nothing more than disclosure for the sake of disclosure. With regard to the second request, supplying Target with contact information for the individual registered as "Target Sucks", I will not comply without a court order. Read the letter from Targets lawyers (PDF) edit: Read my response to Targets lawyers (PDF) Last edited by sleK on Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 1222
Location: Ontario, Canada
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:53 am Post subject: | |
|
Well done sleK!
This shows that your forum works, that the corporate towers are reading (or some Target employee ratted the poster out), and employee dissention is a force to be reckoned with. I also applaud you on maintaining the confidentiality of your posters. Thank you. Good luck, and keep us posted. |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1947
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:56 am Post subject: | |
Well, that stinks. Well, you did the right thing. You gotta love them lawyers. 
|
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2187
Location: A little bit sideways!
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:00 am Post subject: | |||
I would like thank sleK on this too. Thanks. ~GoodFella |
|||
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 6810
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:09 am Post subject: | |
|
If nothing else, it proves that these forums do get noticed by the corporate toads.
I think you did the right thing in this case but I hope it doesn't wind up extending to things like sales figures and portents. I'm still hanging onto what little is left of our First Amendment rights. |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:27 am Post subject: | |
|
I'm actually surprised that it took this long to get even one C&D. This is not to suggest that you guys regularly post material that could be subject to such action but, considering the corporate players involved and the current corporate knack for litigating damn near anything, I had half expected to have these things rolling in regularly when we started this forum.
Having been subject to much worse behaviour from supposedly more worker-friendly organizations, I believe that this reflects well on the companies we're here to discuss. Nevertheless, now that the C&D ice has been broken so to speak, let's just hope that the floodgates DON'T open and the letters DON'T start rolling in regularly. |
|
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 1222
Location: Ontario, Canada
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject: | |
|
As long as it is something we find in the media, I think we are okay to post it. And most information we really need does find its way there.
The post in question, which I did read, didn't give much worthy of comment for us. It might have meant something to someone in LP at that organization, or maybe a comparison of LP strategies to other organizations' strategies, I don't know. Anyway sleK, we also hope the floodgates stay closed, it would be a major disservice to the service you provide here. Keep up the good work. |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:55 pm Post subject: | |||
It appears to be little more than trouble for trouble's sake (starting @ 10th post) which creates a pretty indefensible position to be in if, in fact, the information is as Target claims and Target intends to proceed with a suit of some sort. |
|||
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 5
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:45 am Post subject: Saw your new blog | |||
|
|||
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 15
| Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 2:34 am Post subject: | |
|
interesting... read this...
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_07.php#004827 |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:06 am Post subject: | |
Gotta love the EFF. 
|
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:49 am Post subject: | |
| Update: Target sues unnamed blogger | |
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 6810
Location: Central CA
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:28 am Post subject: | |
|
Guess he wasn't as invulnerable as he thought he was.
California law also allows sites such as this one to be sued under slander and or libel statutes, the courts having upheld that the person who knowingly provides a medium or a channel for slander or libelelous statements against another person can be held accountable also. The days of hiding in the electronic void and making unfounded and unsupportable defamatory accusations against another person's character may be numbered. Not sure if most would consider it good or bad but it's very likely going to become a fact of life. |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:06 am Post subject: | |||
Judging by his continued postings on other sites and the continued creation of new blogs and groups he still believes he is invulnerable. Oh well, it will be interesting to watch regardless. |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:01 am Post subject: | |
|
More goodies. I found a copy of the complaint filed by target in googles cache. It's a total mess though, it's a PDF file that the original site has apparently moved or removed thus you can only view it as HTML So, I took it upon myself to clean up a copy.
link: 20060905.target_vs_john_doe.pdf Note that this IS NOT an official document. Nor is it even complete. A whole bunch of illegible crap was removed to facillitate an easy read and, due to the conversion process, may contain errors. If you want to view the file in it's messy entirety, check out the google cache link at the top of this post. |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 916
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:17 am Post subject: | |
| Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, this target sucks entity. | |
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1391
| Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:25 am Post subject: | |
|
It looks to me like there's still a link over on RW... under 'stuff you should know' ...thread name "New site for Target & Wal Mart documents can be found at:"
Document is pretty clear there. It appears that the document should be addressed Target vs. JANE Doe, not a John at all. She had her picture posted until just a couple of days ago. |
|