FBI must cough up Carnivore info

[Paul Wilders]

{QUOTE-> Privacy advocates have won another round in their fight to gain access to more information about the FBI's Carnivore e-mail surveillance system.

A federal judge this week ordered the FBI to expand its search for records about Carnivore, also known as DCS1000, technology that is installed at Internet service providers to monitor e-mail from criminal suspects. The court denied a motion for summary judgment and ordered the FBI to produce within 60 days "a further search" of its records pertaining to Carnivore as well as a device called EtherPeek, which manages network traffic.

The FBI has defended Carnivore by assuring the public that it only captures e-mail and other online information authorized for seizure in a court order, but the Electronic Privacy Information Center ( EPIC) has voiced concerns over potential abuse. EPIC sued the FBI, the investigative arm of the Justice Department, in July 2000 under the Freedom of Information Act so it could examine Carnivore-related documents.... <-QUOTE}

Read the full story:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-870178.html

[Mr.Blaze]

Yesssssssssssssss Stick it to them stick it to those mofos i knew that freadom of information act was the loop hole guess what this opens up to.

now trojan and viruse companys may have aces to green lantern as well as off shore companys yesssssssssssssss yessssss by by geen lantern mawwwwwwwwwwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

finaly some one socket it to the goverment yesssssssssssssssssssssssssss

[Response]

In September 2000, the Justice Department commissioned IIT Research Institute, an arm of the Illinois Institute of Technology, to undergo a review of Carnivore. Two months later, the institute released its findings, saying the technology "protects privacy and enables lawful surveillance better than alternatives." The report said Carnivore provides investigators with no more information than is permitted by a given court order and that it poses no risk to Internet service providers.

[luv2bsecure]

What a load of $%#@$ !!!!!!!!!
You managed to REALLY &%$$ me off!!
I wonder who "Response" could be? A spook? A spook-friendly member posting anonymously? Whoever "Response" is they are fundamentally dishonest spreading disinformation by omission.

Hey, if you're going to come in here and post on this board, let's at least be honest and give ALL the facts. *Especially if you're going to cut n' paste from an article without telling the WHOLE truth.

I got a little hot under the collar reading your piece. I remember, very well, the report from the Illinois Institute of Technology being roundly criticized by privacy groups and even security pros like Matt Blaze ( *http://www.crypto.com/ ) who blasted the report as a sham. I REMEMBERED WELL, *So I went hunting.

And what do you know??? Your post was lifted nearly word for word from a *CNET article from November 22nd, 2000. (A date (11-22) the FBI should remember well -- Dallas, Texas? 1963?) In fact, your final paragraph WAS word for word.

If you are going to quote verbatim from an article, at least be HONEST about it! What else, "Response," did that same article say?

Well, let's see, you might have been honest and mentioned that (quoting from the SAME article you lifted your post from): *Several prominent universities, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), backed out of the application process after the Justice Department released the guidelines for the study, saying restrictions placed on the scope of the review took away from its independence.

When IIT was chosen to perform the review, critics said it would not be independent because the IIT reviewers were government insiders.

For example, Dean Henry H. Perritt from the university advised President Clinton's transition team on information policy. Other members of the university's review team have either worked in the past on government projects or hold active security clearances.

And here's the REAL KICKER from right after they had selected Illinois Institute of Technology and didn't want people to know the above:
(From the same article you ripped your post off from)

The Justice Department had blacked out this information when it released a document about the selected team. However, people reading the documents with Adobe software were able to view the unaltered document, which adds to suspicions about the review process.

The link that Mr. Wilder posted was about the court ruling against the FBI in its long fight with EPIC (which, by the way, the "bureau" is losing at every turn). The final insult from your plagiarized post was that this suit was mentioned in this very article from CNET with these words, "EPIC sued the FBI for information through the Freedom of Information Act and is conducting its own analysis.

In a second batch of paperwork received from the FBI last week, EPIC concluded that Carnivore can capture and archive "unfiltered" Internet traffic--contrary to FBI assertions.

"The little information that has become public raises serious questions about the privacy implications of this technology," EPIC general counsel David Sobel said in a statement. "The American public cannot be expected to accept an Internet snooping system that is veiled in secrecy."

Anybody wanna read the article in CNET from 2000?
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-248954.html?legacy=cnet

"Response," you can't come into this forum and attempt to trick us with disinformation that has been thoroughly discredited. But, good try. People here are smarter than you may realize. It makes me think you ARE with the "bureau" as your post of disinformation is *about the quality of work we've come to expect the last few years from the FBI. How pathetic.

John Little.......That's spelled L-i-t-t-l-e.

[Detox]

Excellent work Luv2b!! Quite an eyeopener for those of us who are a little (ok a lot) behind on news like this.

[FanJ]

{QUOTE-> Excellent work Luv2b!! Quite an eyeopener for those of us who are a little (ok a lot) behind on news like this. <-QUOTE}

I second that.

Thanks John.

[Checkout]

Omm...Omm...Omm...

[luv2bsecure]

Deeeeeep Breath.
one.
two.
three.
HOLD
and exhale.
Omm...Omm...Omm...
Checkout, could you relight the incense?
We're getting pretty good at this!
:)
John

[Checkout]

Drink this. *It'll make you feel relaxed.
Eat this. *It'll make you sleepy.
Smoke this. *It'll tighten your wig.

(Hic)

Privacy...Omm...Security...Omm...Out-of-body-experiences...Omm...

[Jooske]

Not only not the American public. Remember the Netherlands is famous for being the most phone/wire tapped country in the world. Not that we really worry, think people just as easy call the national security services to give them something to look at.
Read yesterday some kind of equivalent in Australia with changing the definition who or what is a terrorist so they can use any kind of system to snoop on citizens and without any reasons. Of course one can expect to locate suspects they will include the computer snooping.
Trying to find back the URL with that article for you, will edit when i find it back.

[Checkout]

Perhaps "Response" (if he/she really is a member of the EffingBI) can help out here. *:D

[FanJ]

{QUOTE-> Remember the Netherlands is famous for being the most phone/wire tapped country in the world. <-QUOTE}

Eh?

[spy1]

John - Good catch! I read 'Response's' post yesterday, but by the time I finished rolling around on the floor laughing, I had to get ready for work!

Noticed he/she/it hasn't posted back to the thread (their computer is probably still smoking from your response - keyboard too hot to touch *<g> ) , but let me just throw in an observation:

In all my dealings with people in various places when trying to rouse them about the latest government rape of their privacy, I notice that there are many people who, far from being government agents themselves, are simply terrified to even contemplate the fact that our government would do these kinds of things to them.

Their responses/defenses are explained quite simply - it's DENIAL of the problem, and they'll use whatever lame 'study' is available to re-assure themselves that all is right with their world, or fall back on the 'If you don't have anything to hide, why should you care what the government does?" non-argument.

They simply can't handle what's going on these days and their response is to stick their heads up their - um, in the sand, that is.

That's not to say that there aren't people out there deliberately spreading mis-information about these issues - there are and they do - but the greatest threat to our personal liberty today as a country isn't those people, it's the people who will not acknowledge (or do anything about) *the problem when it's staring them in the face.

Apathy and denial, pure and simple, has brought us to where we are today - it'll eventually destroy us if something doesn't change. Pete

[Checkout]

{QUOTE-> In all my dealings with people in various places when trying to rouse them about the latest government rape of their privacy, I notice that there are many people who, far from being government agents themselves, are simply terrified to even contemplate the fact that our government would do these kinds of things to them.
<-QUOTE}
Nixon. *Hoover. *North. *Echelon. *Carnivore. *Magic Lantern. *Hey, what's not to trust?

[Blacksheep]

I propose a toast to watchdogs who expose dirty deeds to the light of day!

[spy1]

And I will gladly raise my glass with yours, Blacksheep -
to freedom! Pete

[Response]

Hey pete,

How are you doing?

Wonder if any of you read the full article that Paul posted.

Go back and read the whole article ..especially the last paragraph. Then look at my post.


Look familiar??????

As you see...I posted not one word of my own..to paraphase or comment.


I just wanted to see if everyone was awake over here.


Be Well people.

Name Game, Backstroke, New Years..Time Out for now!


Gald to see your forum is thriving.

[spy1]

Who was that masked man? :) Pete

[Response]

BTW

I posted it since the author of that article end up his piece as those words being the "current" response from the Justice Department on the current issue.


It is not their response at all. But he put it there for a reason... then wrote no more. What he should have done is more research just like
luv2bsecure has already done.

I too got hot under the collar when I read that...for all the same reasons all of you are now taking another look at it.

[luv2bsecure]

Response: *You are right - the article that was linked in the first post that started this thread included the same language. CNet is getting lazy in lifting from their past stories (by two different writers.) When you post something without attribution, whether it was from an article today or two years ago on the same subject, most would assume you lifted the written piece as your own. But, I'll give you that one - it was in both articles. So, what that tells us is that Pete was right when he wrote:
{QUOTE-> I notice that there are many people who, far from being government agents themselves, are simply terrified to even contemplate the fact that our government would do these kinds of things to them.
<-QUOTE}
Obviously, you wouldn't have cut 'n pasted the final paragraph one for word if it wasn't meant as a comment from you. Hence your name of "Response" when you posted as an unregistered visitor. *So, what changes from my original response to your "response" is that I know you're probably not from the FBI, as you took your post from the latest article rather than the older one that explained the problems with the study. And that is what matters here. What I should have done was level my aim at you for gullibility and CNet for their inexcusable failure to remind readers that the IIT study has been completely discredited.

I know by the time I got to the final paragraph of the latest CNet article I had smoke coming out of my ears from someone even TRYING to use that flawed IIT study as anything but a front job for Carnivore. (Especially considering the individuals involved.) So my criticism stands even as I am quite relieved that "Response" didn't apparently know what he was defending when he cut 'n pasted from the latest article. At least, I hope not. My apologies for having you pegged as a spook. If you didn't know, you didn't know. I also apologize for having you pegged as a plagiarizer. Understand I had no idea you were posting from the article word for word. It was a comment all its own, especially when coupled with the visitor name you used -- "Response." You chose to just post part of the article and that's where I am angered by CNet for not telling the whole story about the ITT study in this latest article - as they did so well in their other.

I agree with Pete's astute observation that one doesn't have to be a spook to buy this stuff, but merely in denial about what's going on with Carnivore and the FBI's claim of integrity in their use of it and their false insistence it cannot do more than their claims. I hope you are not so naive as to feel the FBI is an agency full of good old boys who wouldn't dare abuse such technology. Why not join us here for more discussion?

Or.... am I being paranoid if a small part of me wonders if you already are here with us? I must admit though, my paranoia has been running high of late knowing that under the guise of the (anti) PATRIOT ACT the spooks are having a field day. But then again, I bet a lot of us wonder when a visitor drops by for a thought if its not a member making a point without having to answer for it. It wouldn't be the first time. If this whole issue of the FBI/EPIC face-off and the "truth about Carnivore" is of intense interest to anyone, please email me as I have tons of things I could send you to review.

John Little ( I only spell my last name for freedom-busting spooks.)

[Response]

I have some more time right now..the day the court order came out on this recent decision I had a copy of it.

This is what it says....

This IS the Court Order
http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/court_order.html

I know exactly what it means and I do not need someone from zdnet, cnn, the washington post, or
newsbytes to interpret what it means.

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/175507.html

All these guys are looking for an angle and copy each other for their news outlet.

I like to read the "facts," and not interviews from either side as to what the judge's decision means>

[spy1]

John - I think it's writerranger jerking our chain, waddayou think? And where's that article I saw earlier this morning about how Carnivore is a whole lot less selective in what it collects than the FBI originally would have had us believe (something from EPIC, I believe). Pete

[luv2bsecure]

Okay...

Response: Just how DO you feel about the issue at hand? Maybe I have you pegged all wrong. I just posted my last thing and read your "BTW" and now I am confused. You have now posted before I did and seemed as put out as me that the CNet articles are different (in that this latest one wrote what you pasted in your post without the further reporting of the questions about the review process and the final results of the ITT study.) Are you saying you agree with all of those who have blasted the IIT Report? Even after learning that was a paste from the latest article, I assumed you were defending the benign nature of Carnivore (mainly because of the name you chose "Response"). I was glad to read your latest post as it sounds like you are actually agreeing with what I wrote concerning the "independent report." Just confused by the name, etc. That's why maybe just a sentence or two along with your original posting of a paragraph from the article would have helped. If you are on board and don't actually buy that IIT study, I am glad to know that.

BTW, I have written to CNet about their mentioning the IIT Report in this latest article on EPIC's win in court without mentioning all they have reported in the past. I'll keep everyone posted as to whether I receive a reply.

John

[spy1]

lol! Dueling posts at the SAME minute!

Response - Welcome to the forum!

Seriously suggest you register - you see how fast un-registered posters get less-than-savory reps attributed to them? :) Whether it's deserved or not?

(John, that's no reflection on you whatsoever, I was thinking the same things after his first post!). Pete

[luv2bsecure]

Everytime I post, Response has posted something else right after I hit "post". Now, it looks like you WERE with EPIC all along. Now I really wish you would have added something to your paste from the CNET article. If you are *as involved and interested as you appear to be, I am very, very curious why you posted just that pasted paragraph under the name of "Response" and without comment? Just really curious as much as anything. *It sounds like you could have had a lot to offer.

Pete, that article about EPIC's arguments was the link in Mr. Wilder's original post. That was the CNET article dated March 27th. EPIC's involvement in the suit and information on all litigation over Carnivore can be found at http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/ *

You might also be interested to know, if you haven't seen the news already, that EPIC filed suit yesterday against Tom Ridge's Office of Homeland Security over their secret plans on the National ID card. I would have mentioned this earlier, but we've been dealing with this interesting post from "Response" which seemed to be a defense of the FBI in their defense against the EPIC lawsuit.

Whew!

John *

[spy1]

Yes, John, the last one you mentioned was the one I was referring to. Pete

[Response]

Hi John,
You can beat me up any old time. I had to get David's permission by phone, and he was out, to post this from his website. *I normally do that, even though I have a hard copy of it myself.

This is the document that everyone is writing about. I know you are more interested in my opinions at this point so I will tell you that I was disapppointed in the MEMORANDUM ORDER , you and I have similar veiws on the subject of privacy, but nevertheless this is really what happened that day.

Reading it now, if you were to write up a summary of what it *means and what was decided by JUGDE JAMES ROBERTSON on this FOIA Civil Action...what would you say?


Memorandum Order.
Case: Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice, et al.
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Case Number: No. 00-1849(JR).
Date: March 25, 2002.
Source: Tech Law Journal transcribed from the original in the Court's file. The original also included a clerk's stamp stating that it was filed on March 25, 2002. The original also included a handwritten pleading number: 35.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/epicvdoj/20020325order.asp



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ELECTRONIC PRIVACY
INFORMATION CENTER *
Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, et al.,

Defendants.
: *
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: Civil Action No. 00-1849 (JR)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This case involves plaintiff's FOIA request to the FBI for the "release of all FBI records concerning the system known as 'Carnivore' and a device know as 'EtherPeek' for the interception and/or review of electronic mail (e-mail) messages." Defendant's search resulted in the processing of 1,957 pages of material to plaintiff (with some pages redacted). Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at 1. On August 1, 2001, defendants moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff responded with a motion to stay the proceedings pending discovery, arguing that it needs discovery as to the adequacy of FBI's search for documents responsive to its FOIA request. Defendants opposedd the granting of any discovery, and moved for a protective order.

The heart of the discovery dispute appears to be plaintiff's concern that the FBI did not adequately search for documents in FBI divisions, including the offices of General Counsel and Congressional and Public Affairs, that would have dealt with the legal and policy implications of Carnivore, as opposed to the system's technical aspects. In response to plaintiff's FOIA request, the FBI search its Central Records System (CRS), the files of the Electronic Surveillance Technology Section (ESTS) in Quantico, Virginia, and the Contracts Unit (based on information from ESTS personnel regarding contractor involvement). Decl. of Scott Hodes ¶¶ 18-20. Although records from all FBI divisions, including the offices of General Counsel and Congressional and Public Affairs, are indexed to CRS, the FBI does not appear to contend that all records from those divisions would necessarily be found on CRS. Id. (underscore) P 15; Pl.'s Mot. to Stay at 6-9 (raising this issue).

In evaluating the adequacy of an agency's search for records responsive to a FOIA request, the "issue is not (underscore not) whether any further documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the government's search for responsive documents was adequate." Weisberg v. United States Dep't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis in original). And agency "cannot limit its search to only one or more places if there are additional sources that are likely to turn up the information requested." Valencia-Lucena v. United States Coast Guard, FOAI/PA , 180 f.3d 321, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). "[I]f a review of the record raises substantial doubt, particularly in view of well defined requests and positive indications of overlooked material, ... summary judgment is inappropriate." Id. at 326 (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff has raised a "positive indication" that the FBI may have overlooked documents in other FBI divisions, most notably the offices of General Counsel and Congressional and Public Affairs, that would be responsive to plaintiff's request for "all FBI records concerning the system known as 'Carnivore' and a device know as 'EtherPeek' for the interception and/or review of electronic mail (e-Mail) messages."

It is according this 25th day of March 2002,

ORDERED that defendants conduct and complete within 60 days of the date of this order a further search of FBI records reasonably expected to produce the request information, including (but not necessarily limited to) the files of the FBI offices of General Counsel and Congressional and Public Affairs.

It is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to stay the proceedings [#29] is denied without prejudice to its renewal upon completion of the further search and the disclosure of any responsive documents thereby located, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to substitute the Department of Justice as the proper defendant [#26-1] is granted.

______________________
JAMES ROBERTSON
United States District Judge

[FanJ]

Hi Response,

Welcome from me too.

{QUOTE-> I know you are more interested in my opinions at this point so I will tell you that I was disapppointed in the MEMORANDUM ORDER , <-QUOTE}

Would you mind to tell me why you were disappointed?
Sorry, my English and knowledge about these kind of things is not so big....
Thanks! *:)

And thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread sofar!

[luv2bsecure]

Dear Response:

For some reason you do not want to tell us why you posted such a bizarre reply to the first post. The paragraph you pasted was the paragraph supporting the FBI's position and the standard cover that the IIT study somehow proved that the FBI has been telling us the truth all along.

I HAVE to ask again: WHY did you select the FBI- defending paragraph to paste in as your post as your response to the first mention of the EPIC victory? It wasn't until I listed the way things REALLY are that you seemed to change your tune. I'm not "beating you up" Response, it's just that you have NOT given an answer to a very simple question. PLUS, you have not explained if that was not YOUR position why you posted that with the name of "Response." Obviously meaning that was your response!

Where you stand on Carnivore and where you stand on the 3-25 decision by Judge Robertson is two different things. If I understand you right, you were not happy with the order of 3-25? Where do you stand on Carnivore?

Now, your challenge - You should also know this is something I follow daily as well and your talk about having a "hard copy" the day of the ruling and all of that means nothing - SO DID I!

{QUOTE-> This is the document that everyone is writing about. I know you are more interested in my opinions at this point so I will tell you that I was disapppointed in the MEMORANDUM ORDER , you and I have similar veiws on the subject of privacy, but nevertheless this is really what happened that day.

Reading it now, if you were to write up a summary of what it *means and what was decided by JUGDE JAMES ROBERTSON on this FOIA Civil Action...what would you say? <-QUOTE}

1. I didn't read David Carney's text transcript on the Tech Law Journal site until just now. I'm glad I did because the text transcription on his site is wrong and there are several KEY omissions. For whatever reason, his transcription differs from the filed original of the actual order which can be viewed at:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/court_order.html
Rest assured this will be taken care of.

2. The omissions are as follows:

A. There is a missing sentence in the text transcription immediately following the order for the FBI to continue their search. It should read as follows:
"It is further ordered that plaintiff's motion to stay the proceedings is denied, and defendant's motion for a protective order is denied."

For some reason, Response, the text transcription confuses two paragraphs and places the phrasing of one with the other. The paragraph above is all there is to that. The text transcription completely left out the Judge's refusal to grant the FBI a protective order. This was a BIG victory for EPIC. *You didn't mention that.

The next paragraph is HUGE and it is missing completely from the text transcription (fire the typist):

"It is further ordered that defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to its renewal upon completion of the further search and the disclosure of any responsive documents thereby located."

Response, the above is where you see the convolution of paragraphs. The "renewal upon completion" sentence belongs in THIS paragraph -- NOT the other. BIG difference. This was a huge blow to the FBI for Judge Robertson to not throw this all out on summary judgment.

The final portion WAS in the text transcription which was an expected defeat for EPIC. That was the judge granting the motion for the requested substitution asked for by the FBI and the DOJ - *for DOJ to be the sole defendant. No biggie.

Bottom line on this is simple: The transcription you relied on left out two of the three big wins by EPIC in this ruling. If you have a hard copy of the ruling why did you not quote from that rather than the flawed text transcription which made the ruling look less than victorious for EPIC?

1. FBI is ordered to continue the search for sixty days.
2. FBI request for summary judgement was denied.
3. FBI request for protective order was denied.

That's all that really mattered to keep this case alive and not looking good for the Department of Justice.

How would I write the summary? A BIG victory for EPIC.
How would I have written it based on the flawed text translation you relied on? Disappointed.

But, you had a hard copy the day of the ruling. Why didn't you know this? Why did you rely on Carney's Tech Law Journal for a transcription?

I have met your challenge. Now, could you meet mine and explain why you seemed to clearly be defending the FBI and Carnivore with your choice of paragraphs that you pasted as your post (and your choice of username which seemed to indicate that paragraph was your "response")?

I eagerly await your reply. Thanks for the heads-up on the translation errors on Carney's site. Again, the original document can be viewed at http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/court_order.html
Scroll to the bottom and read the missing sentences, that were nowhere in your post, which gave THREE big victories on March 25th to EPIC and was a BLOW to the FBI/DOJ.

Regards,

John

[Checkout]

I look forward to seeing this thread when it becomes a movie. * ;D

[luv2bsecure]

In case the text translation at Tech Law Journal is fixed by the time anyone reads this, rest assured that as of 1:40 a.m. EST on April 4th the missing sentences were still there. If it is fixed and you want to see what "Response" was relying on, here is the cached version from Google -
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:cp89vTD9svYC:www.techlawjournal.com/courts/epicvdoj/20020325order.asp+tech+law+journal+%22memorandum+order%22&hl=en

[Blacksheep]

Ahhh... Truth & Justice now is better than any movie. ::)

John is doing a smashing job as counselor, eh wat? ;D

[Checkout]

{QUOTE-> John is doing a smashing job as counselor, eh wat? ;D <-QUOTE}
Indeedly-doodly. *And I hope that Response is who we think he is, and that the Writearrange persona will be resurrected. *He's a good man to have around.

[Response]

Hi John,
Yes I knew the .txt at David's site was flawed. I had already posted the link to the Page at Epic here for everyone, which by the way then links to his site with a statement saying that" one can get the text versions there." That of course is not totally accurate as both of us now know.

I do not think anyone at Epic realizes that...do you?



When I spoke to David on the phone I did not tell him that it was flawed but I did let him know that the phone number he had given in his privacy statement was incorrect. He had not updated that since 1999. How I tracked down his current phone number is another story. Nevertheless he thanked me. I have not gone back to see if he had made that change yet.

It did not take you long, also ,to figure out that my original post did not come out of the year 2000 news blurb but rather the recent one that Paul started out this thread.

You had then decided to make some other contacts to get what we both consider inaccurate *reporting. I like your style. I thought about doing the same thing with David at his legal site, but the poor guy seemed over worked....he had recently moved (the reason for the wrong number), and if people do not start subscribing to his newsletter his site will soon be history. He will not be able to keep the thing going. It is getting tough all over out there.

I guess that is one of the reasons I did not call him out on the Epic vs. DOJ.

I thought about cleaning up his text by adding the missing bits before I posted it here. But then I could not have kept my promise to him that I would give him hyperlink credit in this forum.

Great detective work, John.

"disinformation by omission" seems to be a common theme on the Internet and they linger there with a life of their own for all to see. I have not trusted the Internet *for years.


I also noted that the hard copy I have of that ruling is also different that then one posted by Epic at their site.
That also puzzled me...but the difference is minor...even the clerk of the court is allowed to make changes. Must be a rev. number in there someplace.

You stated "Thanks for the heads-up on the translation errors on Carney's site".

You are welcome, John, and I too think you are doing a smashing job.


I will make a statement to you now.

This thread would have died a long time ago had I not posted and continued to do so. You all would have moved on to the new one Pete posted which is equally disturbing in it's content. Not many had posted there last time I checked. But this thread is still popular no matter what icon Zhen had set up to alert the members.

It does not hurt my eyes. :)

I seem to be the real focus. That usually happens, as Pete pointed out, when people are not totally upfront.

The perception is "they have something to hide."
For others, it is even worse.

The other fact is that " if "they are not part of the community at large, Emotions run rampart and the issues of privacy coupled with "rights" of a group to remain protected as opposed to the masses becomes the real focus.

That seems to be a big struggle here since I had joined.

Many of you were not even here then. But you are now.

It is an interesting global neighborhood you have created. FanJ is doing a good job.


Be Well,

John

[luv2bsecure]

Hello, Response:

You wrote a lot, but I have to assume you are not going to explain anything so I guess I'll let that go. You have to understand the reason you became the "focus" was contradictory statements.

1. Posting what seems clear was a defense of Carnivore with your pasting the one paragraph which cites a study that has been roundly discredited.

2. You said you were disappointed in the court's ruling of March 25. You offered a challenge to read the order, which you posted, and see how I would summarize it. I guess you thought I would agree that the order was not a real victory for EPIC. But, as noted above, you left out the portions that made it a slam-dunk victory for Epic and a blow to the DOJ and Carnivore.

3. You now say you knew of those omissions before you made your post and offered your challenge. If that is true, that is very puzzling. Why would you not have mentioned that you had left out the portions that made EPIC's victory - a victory? (No, please, I don't want to really know. We are all thoroughly confused enough by now.)

4. You said in your last post, "I too think you are doing a smashing job," referring to a post by a couple of our members. I think you very well know that the "smashing job" they were referring to is shedding light on the truth and destroying your credibility. Why was that important? Because you said one thing, then another, then another, tried to make me look like I was wrong about the EPIC vs DOJ case, and generally have been all over the map on this issue, one that is VERY IMPORTANT to me, and to a lot of other freedom-loving people, not only in America, but around the world.

5. *Though this thread has focused on you because of your rather odd original post, and confusing follow-ups, it has also served a purpose in hopefully getting members and visitors here interested in the ongoing EPIC suit against the FBI/DOJ.

Yes, EPIC does now know of the error in the text translation you based your "disappointment" of the ruling on (even though you now say you knew it had left important information out) so I don't quite understand why you were disappointed. But, whatever.

About the other thread involving the Office of Homeland Security - *I agree completely that the thread is important. In fact, Pete started the thread after I posted the following in THIS THREAD on April 3rd -
{QUOTE-> You might also be interested to know, if you haven't seen the news already, that EPIC filed suit yesterday against Tom Ridge's Office of Homeland Security over their secret plans on the National ID card. I would have mentioned this earlier, but we've been dealing with this interesting post from "Response" which seemed to be a defense of the FBI in their defense against the EPIC lawsuit. <-QUOTE}

So you are correct, I pointed out how important THAT was and also pointed out we were spending time having to sort out truth from fiction concerning this suit - due to your posts. I wasn't going to abandon this until the lights had been turned on, and sufficiently bright enough, to scatter the roaches.

I noticed you signed your last post "John" - what a coincidence. That adds to the confusion even more. But, please, no need for an explanation. This has been interesting.

John (as in Luv2bSecure)

[Response]

Signed it John since that is my name.

The basis of Epic response to the IIT review fall along these lines...

The Draft Report states that Carnivore is, indeed, capable of collecting more information than law enforcement is legally authorized to acquire:

While the system was designed to, and can, perform fine-tuned searches, it is also capable of broad sweeps. Incorrectly configured, Carnivore can record any traffic it monitors. Draft Report, Section ES.5.
While the reviewers apparently considered only the potential that the system could be "incorrectly configured," the ease with which Carnivore can mistakenly conduct a "broad sweep" suggests that it is clearly subject to intentional abuse as well. The unauthorized over-collection of private communications, whether accidental or intentional, raises fundamental issues under both federal wiretap law and the Fourth Amendment. We do not believe that this infirmity can be cured through any sort of technical "fix." Rather, it is an inherent flaw in any system that provides law enforcement with direct access to an ISP's data traffic.


I spend a lot of time here/ and physically at the building
I have probably file more FIOA's than Epic to date.
http://foia.fbi.gov/

These guys also know me by site.
http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/04_3.html



I am going to be busy next week.
April 7-10, 2002
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 4th Annual International Techno-Security Conference
http://www.thetrainingco.com/html/Conferences.html
http://www.techsec.com/




April 6-8, 2002
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina Internet Security Alliance's First International Conference
http://www.asisonline.org/upcoming.html
http://www.isalliance.org/


This is what I think of most things on the internet these days.
http://tlcwebdesign.hypermart.net/itmustbe.htm


But I have not checked out blazes basement yet.


"you left out the portions that made it a slam-dunk victory for Epic and a blow to the DOJ and Carnivore."


Not I John. It was not my site.



"5. *Though this thread has focused on you because of your rather odd original post, and confusing follow-ups, it has also served a purpose in hopefully getting members and visitors here interested in the ongoing EPIC suit against the FBI/DOJ."


I certainly hope so.


EPIC is a public interest research center in Washington, D.C. It
was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging
civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First
Amendment, and constitutional values. EPIC is a project of the
Fund for Constitutional Government. EPIC works in association
with Privacy International, an international human rights group
based in London, UK and is also a member of the Global Internet
Liberty Campaign, the Internet Free Expression Alliance and the
Internet Privacy Coalition.


Never asked John..do you live in the States.

Be Well, John

[Checkout]

Somewhat overawed. *'Scuse me, need to re-evaluate my posts.

Done.

Okay, so I'll prolly still write crap. *But I'll feel better about it now.

[luv2bsecure]

You know, I'm going to leave this alone - right here.

I realize you are trying to sound friendly, but I also know it is in an effort to glaze over the confusion you brought about.

I will say this ONE more time:

If you KNEW the facts of the order of 3-25, then it wouldn't have mattered what site had poor information. Your attempt at explaining that:
{QUOTE-> I thought about cleaning up his text by adding the missing bits before I posted it here. But then I could not have kept my promise to him that I would give him hyperlink credit in this forum.
<-QUOTE}

is about as LAME as they come. How could you KNOW you were posting misinformation with the key victories of EPIC left out - and not mention it??? *Please.

Your last post shows you know how to cut 'n paste from www.epic.org - great. You list all of your busy schedule at security conferences (complete with dates and links) in an effort to rehabilitate yourself and make us think you are some big security wizard - great. Oh, and you spend a lot of time at the Hoover building, the home of the FBI. Great. *

I am sure you meant the DOJ knows you by "sight" not by "site"......and, by the way, you said you have probably filed more "FIOA" requests than EPIC to date? I highly doubt that. If you had, you would surely have typed that acronym more than a few times and know that it is a FOIA request, not a "FIOA"...........

Give it up, "John".....

John (as in Luv2Bsecure)

[Response]

No, *site is the correct word.

I do not need *your redemption John.

You said it all in your first two...
What a load of $%#@$ !!!!!!!!!
You managed to REALLY &%$$ me off!!

[Paul Wilders]

Gentlemen,

Sofar, this has been a very worthwhile thread. *Please lay back for a while, and after that, let's not flame *;).

regards.

paul

[luv2bsecure]

I agree, with full apologies. I got too carried away in that last post. I hate it when I read threads that disintegrate into that, and here I did just what I can't stand. There are some things that you feel you just have to say but know you shouldn't. Yet sometimes the keyboard just begins to type away on its own. *:-[
Sorry to all.

John

[Detox]

First off, I am not flaming or anything nasty like that. I have followed this thread with interest and have learned a lot of things that I knew nothing about before, and are worthwhile to say the least.
However, as an American who is rather proficient with the English language, I must point out that Luv2b is correct... A person knows you by "sight". A physical place or location is a "site".

[Paul Wilders]

Gents,

I for one like a good debate *;D. All I want to avoid is this thread turning into a personal spitting contest - regardless who's right and who's wrong. Not accusing anyone here * ;).

regards.

paul

[Response]

These guys also know me by site.
http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/04_3.html



The reason they "know me by site"...they have used it for years to register for conferences...like the one that begins monday. Believe it or not the DOJ people are humanbeings just like yourself with families and not all spies...some of them have taken their familes with them. But as Pete can tell you the weather is not going to be that great for them this next week. Spy1 was invited, as were many others, to this conference many many months ago..I even offered to some free registration. One took me up on it and will be staying in one of my spare bedrooms. He is from New Jersey.


John, I asked if you lived in the states. You never answered. Other conferences are coming up..they are about security and privacy. You are not my enemy.

The FOIA's *that I do are for familes of Vietnam Vets. Did not bring that into the picture since it has nothing to do with this thread or forum. I file many others.

I posted the....

You said it all in your first two...
What a load of $%#@$ !!!!!!!!! *
You managed to REALLY &%$$ me off!!

Not to throw it back at you..but rather to let you know there was not much I could do for you based upon your last post. But you still wanted to do something for me..

You wanted me to know that there was "me" and as you presented yourself constanly as "we". You have done everything possible, right down to spelling.

That was done here to another member who is now band from posting. That is sad.. for his passions run akin to yours...seeking the truth.

I do alot of cut and paste. Epic and I have many common goals. Their transitions since 1994 has expanded to be of interest to many more people.


But it still remains...
".....to focus public attention on emerging
civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First
Amendment, and constitutional values. "


We never got a chance to discuss this in a "open" forum....

"The Draft Report states that Carnivore is, indeed, capable of collecting more information than law enforcement is legally authorized to acquire:

While the system was designed to, and can, perform fine-tuned searches, it is also capable of broad sweeps. Incorrectly configured, Carnivore can record any traffic it monitors. Draft Report, Section ES.5.
While the reviewers apparently considered only the potential that the system could be "incorrectly configured," the ease with which Carnivore can mistakenly conduct a "broad sweep" suggests that it is clearly subject to intentional abuse as well. The unauthorized over-collection of private communications, whether accidental or intentional, raises fundamental issues under both federal wiretap law and the Fourth Amendment. We do not believe that this infirmity can be cured through any sort of technical "fix." Rather, it is an inherent flaw in any system that provides law enforcement with direct access to an ISP's data traffic."


It will be discussed "here" this next week..."we' do not intend to cancel anyone's registration.

[Paul Wilders]

Hello Response,

As for:

{QUOTE-> ..That was done here to another member who is now band from posting. <-QUOTE}

No doubt you are fully entitled to your own opinion. Nevertheless, this is off topic. Would you kindly stay on topic, and refrain from off topic remarks like the above mentioned? Thanks in advance.

regards.

paul

[Checkout]

{QUOTE-> Hello Response,

As for:


No doubt you are fully entitled to your own opinion. Nevertheless, this is off topic. Would you kindly stay on topic, and refrain from off topic remarks like the above mentioned? Thanks in advance.

regards.

paul


<-QUOTE}

Paul, the post you are referring to is a forgery. *As a professional writer, I can absolutely assure you of that.
I strongly recommend that the real "Response" registers.

Paul, I further suggest, after strong analysis, that prohibition of domains does not work. *Yes, to use movie parlance, He's Ba-a-a-ack...

[Paul Wilders]

{QUOTE-> Paul, the post you are referring to is a forgery. *As a professional writer, I can absolutely assure you of that.
I strongly recommend that the real "Response" registers. <-QUOTE}

If that's the case, registration from the one and only Response is needed indeed. We are re-evaluating the necessaty for obligatory registration for a while now; this will boost the evaluation.

{QUOTE-> Paul, I further suggest, after strong analysis, that prohibition of domains does not work. <-QUOTE}

We know...

Thanks for the heads up!

regards.

paul

[spy1]

All I'd like to add is that, yes, Response, I wish you would actually register.

I'm not seeing anything 'hinky' about your posts (after the first one, anyway) and it would be to your benefit to register to stop any confusion.

Thanks for the additional info. Pete

[luv2bsecure]

Good eye, Checkout. Did you notice a marked difference in style? Anyway, I fully agree with the registration idea. It's too easy as it is now, for anyone else to post under his, or anyone else's username.

Before we are back to the subject, the "hinky" stuff was clear as a bell to me. In my neck of the woods, when trying to recover from something that would be better left well enough alone, we call it, "digging a deeper hole for yourself." That's what I found frustrating. Nothing added up. 2+2 should equal 4. Either he was on the "inside" and knew all of this, or he was not on the "inside" (which was clear), tried to recover, and fell even deeper into question. I saw, with each post, confusion and subterfuge. This is not a flame, but merely responding to the last post (if it WAS "Response") and to Pete (who didn't see anything "hinky" after the first post) as to why it truly was important to determine credibility so the thread could be read with some sense of common trust that what was being posted was solid, valid information. I abhor the slams against spelling. I am against that completely. I thought pointing that out was in context under the claims and circumstances. OK, enough.

Yes, I live in the United States.

Oh, Pete, I loved the word "hinky" by the way. Good 'ole CarolinaSpeak *:)

I have received several inquiries concerning Carnivore and asking just what the problems are. "Response" said it will be discussed "here" next week and I'm not sure what he was referring to. Because, actually, this is OLD information. The real issue in the first place was simply the EPIC victory against the Department of Justice back on March 25th. But, it would do us all well to remember why the court fight is being waged.

I think the best source for that information can be found in a letter from Dave Sobel, the EPIC lead counsel, to the DOJ back in late 2000. It not only gives the problems with Carnivore, but the problems with the IIT "independent" review of Carnivore. You can find that at *http://www.epic.org/privacy/carnivore/review_comments.html *

There is no question that Carnivore, and now it's sister program dubbed "Magic Lantern," have the potential for widespread abuse. In the wake of 9-11, I think it is even more important that we be vigilant and guard against abuse by the powers-that-be. Much can now be done to you, to me, to anyone all under the guise of "fighting terrorism."

John

[Checkout]

{QUOTE-> Did you notice a marked difference in style? <-QUOTE}
If anything, too easy.

edit: off topic remark removed - Forum Admin.

[Response]

VF probably would find it suitably insulting, for he mentions the episode still to this day, he feels hurt..that is not important to most... but since Paul again has jumped into this thread asking everyone to behave it appears the rules only apply to da members.


On the conspiracy theory..I am not an Irish Science Fiction Writer nor am I a Radical times two Guy from Chantilly, VA and "here" happen to be in Myrtle Beach among people who know how to have a rational debate on the subject of privacy and security. I have not seen that happen in this forum to date.

You guys are like vultures looking for a victim. You are not interested in fixing the system or protecting peoples rights..you have an agenda. I respect your rights..but you are using the same "tactics" you are so deathly afraid that a government entity is going to use in it's pursuit to try an protect its people.

That analogy carries right down to this Yet another B. Board where many are doing their best to "make it secure" for everyone..but not one of you really knows what modifications have been installed no matter how hard Corey and so many others are trying to work and test to make it a better product. That is a technical solution they are looking for...not an emotional one.

Are you 1.1..who is up on the the daily security issues.
Just because they are availabe are they working..are they installed ??? It never ends.

You know guys..words and symbols are very powerful things as we all know. The symbols that you have linked to in this forum speaks volumes of not only who you are but also where you stand. There is nothing wrong with that... for you want to be heard and not stifled. But the very presence of those symbols drives YABB crazy..trying to link with cluster.icq.com, gofree.indigo.ie,web.2rad.net and so many more.
Schakenklein knows that and so do all of you.

You scare the pants off most people by your *verbal intimidation. Those that are really paranoid that come here are frighten off by what they see in their technical logs even before they post. They have no idea what it all means.

And here you all are, urging Response to register. Not so you can have a productive dialog..but rather to prove to yourself if a domain solution can really be found.

You are even now considering cutting yourself off even further to Anon. posters as you "guard" this place on the Internet.

When this board transitioned to freedom2 server 0028,51 everyone I know had hopes that the rules and regs. Zhen had helped setup would be a welcomed change from other boards and make it unique.

Free Speech..behave yourself..and lets all help each other even if the other guy is having a bad day..or even if "sometimes the keyboard just begins to type away on its own."

That happens to everyone.

I do not know what kind of writing style you are looking to analyze...or what spelling mistakes you would like to attribute to another person... you would be chasing ghosts.

Paul, I wish you well. It is a tough call.

[Paul Wilders]

Response,

{QUOTE-> VF probably would find it suitably insulting, for he mentions the episode still to this day, he feels hurt.. <-QUOTE}

We have contacted the person in question in order to solve the problems; alas with no satisfying result.

{QUOTE-> that is not important to most... but since Paul again has jumped into this thread asking everyone to behave it appears the rules only apply to da members. <-QUOTE}

The user agreement goes for anyone willing to post on this board.

{QUOTE-> That analogy carries right down to this Yet another B. Board where many are doing their best to "make it secure" for everyone..but not one of you really knows what modifications have been installed no matter how hard Corey and so many others are trying to work and test to make it a better product. That is a technical solution they are looking for...not an emotional one.

Are you 1.1..who is up on the the daily security issues. <-QUOTE}

Well, as all boards constantly are improving, coming with new mods, security patches and even versions, so is YaBB. A technical issue indeed, and all needed patches have been applied to this board.

{QUOTE-> ..But the very presence of those symbols drives YABB crazy..trying to link with cluster.icq.com, gofree.indigo.ie,web.2rad.net and so many more. <-QUOTE}

I wouldn't call it "driving YABB crazy"; it's a choice we have made to use these symbols (ICQ etc). We regard them as an asset.

{QUOTE-> You scare the pants off most people by your *verbal intimidation. <-QUOTE}

No reports sofar *indicating that. As often is the case when debating, posters on both sides might use strong words. In principal there's nothing wrong with that.

{QUOTE-> Those that are really paranoid that come here are frighten off by what they see in their technical logs even before they post. They have no idea what it all means. <-QUOTE}

No reports of that either. On a side note: those really paranoid ones are commonly the ones who know exactly what they see in their logs. One comes with the other.

{QUOTE-> And here you all are, urging Response to register. Not so you can have a productive dialog..but rather to prove to yourself if a domain solution can really be found. <-QUOTE}

As long as this board has been up, this urge to register has been up in the newsfader on top of the board; an explanation is provided in the announcement forum. Thus: we are not urging Response in particular to register - we urge all to do so - Response included. Productive dialogs can be found all over this board.

{QUOTE-> You are even now considering cutting yourself off even further to Anon. posters as you "guard" this place on the Internet. <-QUOTE}

I'll take it, whenever you use the word "you", this is referring to the Admins only. Indeed we are considering registration before posting. A commonly used practice on countless boards all over the net. We do prefer not to - otherwise we would have started that way from start. If on the other hand this freedom is abused (name spoofing, trolling), we have no choice other than reconsidering.

{QUOTE-> Free Speech..behave yourself..and lets all help each other even if the other guy is having a bad day..or even if "sometimes the keyboard just begins to type away on its own."

That happens to everyone. <-QUOTE}

In case such a slip of the tongue happens, we are in the habit of contacting the one(s) involved to solve the problem. This works in 99,9% of all times. Unfortunately, not in all cases - although we would prefer a 100% succes.

{QUOTE-> Paul, I wish you well. It is a tough call. <-QUOTE}

Thanks. The irony: it only is a though call if people abuse the freedom on this board. If that would not happen, we all could live happily together..

regards.

paul *



*



*

[Checkout]

It saddens me that VF/Spy/"Response" is an intelligent, and intellectual, potential contributor. *Whereas the real response is far more than that - a proactive defender of our rights. *Somehow this guy got twisted through 180 degrees. *That's a damned shame, as he'd be a valuable asset against common foes.

How about it, VF? *Would you consider registering, and contributing your skills positively instead of negatively?

[Response]

I vote to ban Response.


Ok guys, it is time to do a 360. Paul and Paul face the same problem here at this *board that we all face in the real world.

The identification, control, and elimination of a threat. In that process many of you good people had been affected. To a varying degree many of you understood why he took the action to ban someone. Some of you even were aware of technical ways he "could" and even other of "us" know of ways he could have gone even further to isolate, identify and protect you all from an individual.

But he did not. To be more precise...he could not within the framework of the Internet or the board. The issue was not life threatening to any of you. What if it was???? How would you even know????

In the process of working the problem, some toes where trampled but not many cried out in this thread.

Banned Users Problem
http://www.security-pro.co.uk/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gen;action=display;num=1017922315

But others then, were made aware of another problem even for members.
The ability of anyone to use a proxy for multiple identities. The same way some of you use that feature to protect your privacy.


Will Paul ever have to take other steps in the future?

Would he? And in the process would it be *"elimination of suspects" or do you really think the tool(s) are sophisticated enough to pin it down and never affect any of you?


http://www.security-pro.co.uk/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=osif;action=display;num=1018124395;start=4
I could - but I will not do so




These are the same issues that are faced, will be questioned, subject to abused in regards to the FBI or anyone who ventures to protect the well being of a people.

My focus in life remains on the "solutions". Not only for the Internet but rather the real world.
We hold that in common .. if we do not...then what?

[Checkout]

There's another point of view and another way to tackling the spoofing problem.

In all free societies, we enjoy our freedom at the expense of a minority who abuse. *We cannot deny the abusers without relinquishing our freedom.

The answer is: *tolerance. *I propose we exercise the same here; don't ban, just recognise the tone and direction of the imflammatory material, and give them all the attention they deserve: *none.

Get in touch with YaBB and see if guests can be limited to no more than, say, five posts per day. *Delete without notice or explanation posts which fall into this category.

Anyone want change from this $0.02?

[snowman]

* * * * *If I may be allowed a comment on the registration issue it would be appreciated.

* * * * naturally...clearly I am an un-registered poster.
there are members of this BB that have known me for no less than a couple of years.....Paul W is well awear of me from sharing many threads together........an a few members here know I have a reason for not registering.......an certainly I am not opposed to registering in general........in time I hope to be able to do so...........but that at the moment.

* * * *most..if not everyone here is well awear that if a person really wants to do so...he can obtain several "new" addresses without all that much effort......jumpimg through the hoops is not unknown..if a person wants to do so.

* * * furthermore...most if not everyone here knows how to block urls and entire sub-ranges......even a person jumping through the hoops can eventual be blocked or worn down.......without all that much energy being spent.

* * *Checkout made imo a valid point in being tolarant of the outright idiots who just refuse to show respect to others......an Paul and the mods can then do what they feel is best in handling the hostle person.

* * *name spoofing is no issue whatsoever IMO....each poster has their own posting style....an say if someone wants to pretend to be me.....people will quickly notice.....there are no dummies at this BB.....you folks are highly awear and alert...........an you can bet it would not that long for me to tell the imposter to....well I wont say what I would tell the imposter.....LOL

* * *this BB belongs to its members..an I don't know of any member here who can't hold his/her own in a debate.....an I certainly don't believe that any member of this BB is going to run away from any issue by locking down the entire forum. * *You folks are better than that.

* * *recently I had a first hand experince of being locked of a forum because of not being a registered member....although I had posted at the forum for a long time...never cause any problems.....had friends there...an in turn was locked out like a stray dog.....an of course the BB "had its reasons"

* * *should Paul or any moderator at this BB advise me to correct my attitude if its out of line.....if I have any self-respect I'll respect that..........an abide by the request. * that doesn't mean I wont hold my own if being flamed by a poster......any poster. * What it does mean is that I will respect the entire BB.....because its the right thing to do........not because of being registered or un-registered.....simply because its the right thing to do.

* * * *registration wont make a person be polite and respectful......thats either in the person or it isn't.

* * * *an definitely there will always be some idiot coming along looking for trouble......personally I cherish my peace of mind far to much to allow some petty fool to cause me to lose it that easily. * *there are no strings on my back for anyone to pull as if I were some puppet.....an the fools can just take a hike down the pike cause they wont disturb me.....I may not be all that smart but nither am I all that dumb and weak as to give up my peace of mind to a fool.

* * * very honestly I enjoy this BB and its members...an perhaps someday Paul will see fit to ask that everyone register......but let that decision be made for the right reasons......an not a decision "forced" to be made by some un-rulely poster......

* * *thank you each and all for allowing me to express this

[FanJ]

Hi Checkout, Snowman, and others,

Thanks for expressing your feelings and thoughts on the subject!!!

I really hope you don't mind, but maybe it's better that I leave it to Paul to answer.
But be assured that I too would like the board be a very friendly one, without anybody causing headaches!

[Paul Wilders]

Gentlemen,

Tolerance it is; no registration will be needed over here.

I do hope we will not have to reconsider in the future.

regards.

paul

[Checkout;]

{QUOTE-> Tolerance it is; no registration will be needed over here. <-QUOTE}
I applaud your decision. *Vigilence is the key.
Thank you.

[luv2bsecure]

The last few posts have been excellent. It also shows this forum for what it is: A THINKING GROUP OF PEOPLE!

I agree with the decision totally.

John

[Checkout]

{QUOTE-> The last few posts have been excellent. It also shows this forum for what it is: A THINKING GROUP OF PEOPLE!

I agree with the decision totally.

John <-QUOTE}
(Smile) *You're a good man, Charlie Brown! *:)

[snowman]

* * * * Paul

* * * * its truely refreshing seeing the open-mindness and courage you have expressed in your decision. *you have always shown yourself to be a head above the crowd an have done so once again. * This is also imo an expression of the fine members here at this BB......my sincere respect is herewith extended to everyone.



* * * * Carnivore: * * which was the topic this thread began on.........a subject that I have shunned like the flu............

* * * * *everyone wants to know...is there actually such a tthing as carnivore....is so...where is it....who is controling it....whats its purpose....etc. etc......

* * * *

* * * * the bible says to never let the right hand know what the left hand is doing. * *is their anyone here who has never heard of the shell game? * is it possible everyone is looking in the wrong places. * *Does such statements sound stupid........well just maybe thats the way its intended............there is an old story> *the angels asked God....Lord, where will we hide "wisdom" so that the people will never find it? * an God replyed: "right under their noses.!

* * *

* * * * in a few days trout season begins in my area....an I'll be fishing in beautiful mountain lakes.....creeks with water so clear it could be bottled and sold.........I look for fish where fish live...........an thats not in my bathtub!

* * * if information is being collected off the internet....where does a person look to find whats collecting that information?

[Checkout]

If Carnivore exists (and most people seem to believe it does) we, the end users, will never be able to detect it.

Consequently, we must assume that it, and Echelon, and trojans, and keyloggers, and spyware do exist and protect ourselves accordlingly. *The price of security and privacy is constant vigilance and self-education.

[snowman]

* * * * *Checkout

* * * * *Greetings.....most difinitely agree with you...what you stated are points well made.


* * * * * Checkout obviously you are a highly inteligent person.......withs lots of good old common sense.

* * * * * as you may have noticed in my previous post..I shun the subject of carnivore. * There are those who believe there is a carnivore and those who don't. *But what you said should be the practice no matter what the opinions are.

* * * *regards
* * * * * * * * * * *snowman

[Checkout]

{QUOTE-> you are a highly inteligent person.......withs lots of good old common sense. <-QUOTE}
What's that "whooshing" sound? *Oh yeah - it's my ego being inflated! * ;D

[snowman]

* * * * *LOL........hey, the truth is true.....an the snowman says it like he see's it.........an Checkout you are certainly deserving of the compliment.........

[Checkout]

Paul, can we start a new sub-forum called "Mutual Admiration" please? *:)

[Paul Wilders]

{QUOTE-> Paul, can we start a new sub-forum called "Mutual Admiration" please? *:) <-QUOTE}

seems we have one already *;D..

Thanks for the compliments gentlemen.

regards.

paul