I'm late for the show. FWIW, I, too, think the multiple threads should stay, and at least the first few pages of each one should be archived.
Regarding the email, yes, it is refreshing to see a non-antagonizing request to have a thread deleted. Nevertheless, the email is rhetorical and presumes a list of unstated premises which are false.
There is no "incident" that the email alludes to. There is a distinct pattern of disturbing behavior over an extended period of time. There is no context or additional information that would render Isabella Loretta Janke's behavior acceptable, justified, or legitimate. If Janke insists otherwise, she should post this information in one of her threads. If anything, it would be amusing to read. My guess is that the Nyberg/Edgelord defense would be invoked.
"Furthermore, though the undersigned is an attorney, we have been engaged as negotiators and facilitators."
This is a doubtful claim. Isabella Loretta Janke approached a legal firm because she would have been seeking a legal solution to her peculiar problem. I think it is after the facts of the situation were communicated to Lambert that she was advised that an attempt at a legal solution is not likely to succeed. Whether Janke accepts this remains an open question. Frustrated with Lambert, she may seek another legal firm that is prepared to take her money and engage in a quixotic quest to censor the Internet, just like with Ben Garrison's vain (and expensive) attempt to have his cartoon parodies removed.
"Negotiation" is the wrong noun. It implies that all parties get something they want, albeit in a compromised fashion. What exactly will Null and the forum gain from deleting Isabella Loretta Janke's thread? If money or something else of value was being offered to Null, then there would be a negotiation. A request to delete the thread buttressed with an inappropriate appeal to fairness and compassion is not a negotiation. I can't determine whether Lambert is confused or if he is deliberately trying to obscure that he is offering no substantive inducement to have the thread deleted.
A moralistic appeal on behalf of someone that rejects conventional morality without any apparent discomfort seems crass. To the extent that Isabella Loretta Janke's thread disregards conventional morality -- and I doubt that it does so -- she should be prepared to accept others acting as she does. Logical consistency demands this. If Isabella Loretta Janke is serious about her immorality, she would be understanding of the forum's pitiless indifference to whatever negative consequences she attributes to her threads' existence.
"Furthermore, our client would like to make you aware of the ongoing negative impacts on themselves as a result of the above URL and the ease with which it is discoverable via simple ineternet search engines."
Isabella Loretta Janke is obligated to explain why anyone should care about "the ongoing negative impacts" to her. I don't find a compelling reason to interest myself in her welfare in the same manner that she can't find a compelling reason to be interested in her victims' welfare.
Is it virtuous to forgive? Yes, but only where there is contrition and remediation (where possible). I see neither. Further, I think that Isabella Loretta Janke is a hazard. Her sadistic psychopathy is a danger to humans and animals, and this may very well worsen. As such, there is a moral imperative to widely publicize her aberrant behavior. A potential employer, friend, or partner should be able to make an informed decision whether to associate with Isabella Loretta Janke. If the content is true, then it is entirely ethical that it should be widely accessible so that the danger she represents can be avoided.
The following is just thread trivia; it has no special significance -- at least not at the present time. Ben Lambert is openly gay and markets himself as a gay lawyer that provides gay legal services.
See
https://web.archive.org/web/20210225161132/https://lambertworldwide.com/about/ben-lambert/
This is the alt text of the image of the company logo:
This appears to be something of a marketing gimmick. Is there a gay manner of practicing these areas of law that would distinguish his services?
And no, I don't think this is a high-powered legal firm. Three people comprise the team, and one of them is based in Vietnam and handles matters of Vietnamese business law.
See
https://web.archive.org/web/20210225170120/https://lambertworldwide.com/about/
They mainly provide legal services in estate planning (in particular for gay people) and general commercial law in multiple international jurisdictions via a network of affiliates. They have no expertise in IT-related law, defamation, or criminal law. Lambert writes about technology like a Baby Boomer, but he is much younger. His email has a list of URLs, but he refers to it in the singular
URL. He also refers to the content as an "article." Not once does he refer to a
thread. I am confident that he has no expertise in IT-related law. He is honest, though. He informed his fungus-infected client that a legal solution was unlikely.
This is mere conjecture, and I have no evidence. I think the DDoS attacks against the forum are more likely related to Byuu/Near rather than Isabella Loretta Janke. There was moral outrage all over Twitter about KF causing the suicide of yet another vulnerable person. Even Russell Greer got in on the moral indignation. There was sufficient background anger and hostility towards KF to motivate a self-righteous person to seek out and pay for one of the many euphemistically named "server stress test services." Null reported that the DDoS attacks were persistent and responsive to his mitigation efforts. That isn't necessarily beyond the capability of the DDoS attack vendors. The specific service provided largely comes down to the amount of money you are willing to spend. Near's stunt succeeded in bringing the hostility towards KF to a head. He appeared to have brought it past a certain threshold that would motivate the extra expense.
I think too much is being made of Isabella Loretta Janke's parents being employed by intelligence agencies. These agencies do exercise extrajudicial power, sometimes. That doesn't entail that the extrajudicial power extends to staff such that they can employ this power in a personal vendetta. This was always unlikely and has been made even less likely after the file dumps provided by Snowden and Manning. After these huge leaks, all Five Eyes extended their surveillance of their employees and better secured their LANs. It is much harder now to abuse the managerial trust placed in you. We won't be seeing any more intelligence agency leaks for a long time.
The other matter is the speculation that the FBI, CIA, and NSA have botnets. The Manning and Snowden leaks contain no evidence that these agencies have botnets. All of their capabilities and procedures have been laid bare. The data exfiltrations were comprehensive, and they included training materials, PowerPoint presentations, product catalogs, organizational hierarchy charts, software tool code names, field reports, AV evasion data, pretty much everything. There is no description of mass malware infection tools or procedures or of the organizational unit that is charged with this responsibility. They do use the euphemistically named RATs (Remote Administration Tools). The NSA calls them "implants." But these are deployed against specific targets. We know this from the software technical documentation, and because no AV vendor has caught them in a honeypot, reverse engineered them and published an analytical report. From the Wiki-Leaks NSA documents, we learn that "implants" are typically either introduced at some point in the computer hardware supply chain (there is a PowerPoint slide of a small team of NSA staff preparing a Cisco router for a hardware implant) or they rely on a zero-day exploit typically associated with a document format or web browser. We even learn where they buy their zero-day exploits from --
Vupen -- and that it costs 250K USD per year just to subscribe to the Vupen catalog. Mass infection, as per bot farmers, would quickly reduce the value of zero-day exploits and of implants. All of the many AV vendors operate honeypots, collect spam email, download software torrents and crawl websites to download documents and software files. This is the main method that they use to catch new malware samples. Intelligence agency implants would very likely get caught by an AV vendor if there was a mass distribution effort. If found to be novel, the sample will then be shared with other AV vendors. The malware then becomes detectable via a signature (and/or a pattern of behavior) and the zero-day widely known and reported to the software vendor. This would be a disastrous outcome for an intelligence agency that has invested in the development of an "implant" and paid many thousands of dollars for a zero-day exploit.
