Yesterday...

[Dulloldfart]

Welcome, Guy I like you Thanks for all the great info

Ooh, look, an anonymous account supporting another anonymous account that has just had some suspicion directed at it.



Paul

 

[Mick Wenlock]

For better or worse, this appears to be standard operating procedure (SOP) in all too many jurisdictions. There was a case in the last few years involving Canadian Peter Pocklington. Mr. Pocklington moved to the United States with his family and got involved in some business deals, where he lost a lot of money, apparently leading him to file for bankruptcy.

To make a long story short,the authorities allege that he had transferred assets to his wife, and accordingly accused him with bankruptcy fraud. Some prosecutor decided to go after him, and as a result Mr. Pocklington's home was invaded at 7am one morning, by half-a-dozen police officers, complete with with flak jackets and automatic weapons. If memory serves, everyone in the house was had guns pointed at their heads, and were forced to the ground and handcuffed. Mr. Pocklington stated that his 90 year old mother had just come to visit the previous day and she nearly had heart failure when he was raided.

The man was, in NO sense of the word, a dangerous criminal. IMO, these tactics are used primarily to intimidate.

First things first - apart from Pocklington's own story what independent data do you have? Why would the police assume that he or his family were harmless? Police officers learn very early on that only an idiot assumes that a potential crime scene is safe.

SWAT teams are NOT deployed on a whim - they cost money - more money than the usual team of a couple of armed officers and a detective. There is prep time, debrief time, equipment, rehearsal and so on - all of which comes out of the budget. Police Chiefs don't do it unless they have to.

And yes when they are deployed they are designed to intimidate. The basic idea is to cow any person in the target area and to make them confused and afraid to move. But that is a tactical plan - it is not a general plan to intimidate people after the action.

That is an excellent suggestion. What Emma needs to watch out for in particular is how chain-of-custody is handled, i.e. who has access to the computers/drives and why. Remember the cult's propensity for planting of evidence.

Guy Fawkes

seriously - how is emma supposed to do that? Telling the cops to account for their evidence? Not going to get very far. All anyone can do is wait to see if anything turns up and then, if needed and possible, sue the police for not doing their job.

 

[Lurker5]

Huh?

Ooh, look, an anonymous account supporting another anonymous account that has just had some suspicion directed at it.



Paul

Huh?

 

[Sindy]

You can make it harder for them to get your IP addresses by using a proxy. Tor is a particularly good one. Don't get me wrong... tor isn't bulletproof, but is a damn sight better than surfing naked.

See: https://www.torproject.org/index.html.en

You also might wish to look into services such iPredator, allegedly run by the (former) operators of the Pirate Bay. For a few Euros a month, you can use a virtual private network (VPN) which will make it appear as if you're connecting from a Swedish IP.

All traffic between your ISP and the VPN endpoint is encrypted, so it cannot be eavesdropped upon.

Guy Fawkes

You can use Startpage too (Great Video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv3SCbI5KFM

Katherine Albrecht, woman on the video, is the author of Spy Chips She is a huge Privacy Advocate. Tor is a hassle, I think. Tor is what OSA uses.

 

[Zinjifar]

seriously - how is emma supposed to do that? Telling the cops to account for their evidence? Not going to get very far. All anyone can do is wait to see if anything turns up and then, if needed and possible, sue the police for not doing their job.

Seriously, that is the issue, but, you're right, there's not much she can do about it. It's a *good* thing that it's a criminal complaint, in the sense that it leaves the evidence completely in police custody, as long as *they* keep it there. Sometimes the cops can be amazingly stupid though and, if they think they have a 'helpful' complainant, I can see them letting them 'help' to understand all the 'data'.

So, I think it is a good idea to file a complaint for 'false arrest' and anything but the kitchen sink in the meantime; to let them know that people are watching. But, this is in Emma's court now and it'll be up to her and her attorney.

I've heard some people suggest that it's best *not* to complain, since it will put the Prosecutor under pressure to actually file charges, but, I think that would be a mistake. Not being involved, I'd actually *love* to see a real charge filed. The potential for discovery in a *criminal* case far exceeds anything possible in a civil tort. Could you imagine a subpoena for the hosting companies internal communications regarding the charges or anything related?

But, practically speaking, it's more likely that the prosecutor, realizing the potential danger will try to get out of this quietly.

Time will tell.

Oh, and I still want to see the charges filed against Google and Yahoo and those other evil spiders

Zinj

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Yep - It was Earthlink.

Just to clarify - I'm engaging a lawyer not just in case I need the defence, but to make sure the police don't let the CoS anywhere near my equipment.

Excellent idea, although I have some reservations with depending solely on the law to keep the cult's sooty paws off of your hardware. It's too late for this particular case, but you might wish to consider the following for future contingencies:

As many of you are doubtless aware, anonymity is the best defence against the clams -- they can't attack you if they don't know who/where you are.

This is not possible in your case, so you have to adopt a fallback position: deny them access to the data on your machine(s). This is done by encrypting your computer disks. All your email, all your private data, should be stored on an encrypted partition.

Therefore, if your machine is seized (or stolen) they get nothing. Even if the computer is legally seized, they cannot access (i.e. decrypt) the data without your cooperation. This gives you a little more leverage, not to mention time to consult with an attorney, before giving anything up.

Same thing goes with email. All email coming into your email box should be PGP-encrypted; this means that the authorities cannot read your email without your knowledge nor consent. (If you would like, I can elaborate on how this can be done.)

Also to check whether the warrant should have been issued in the first place based on what they call "evidence" and to see if I have any path of recourse.

If I can prove to the police (which I think is very likely) that there should never have been a warrant signed off by the magistrate, I intend to take action against any and all parties involved and get compensation for the loss of equipment, time off work, stress & duress and any other costs involved.

I think that the best you can hope for is to have the warrant quashed. The probability of getting any compensation (even attorney's fees) is highly unlikely, IMO.

Guy Fawkes

 

[RogerB]

Lol. Nick's technologically challenged.

He's still a genius!!!!

R

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Thats great Cherished. Thanks. I can't access my gmail from work but I'll read it as soon as I get home.

Gmail?! Gawd, no!

I do NOT recommend GMail, for the following reasons:

1) GMail accounts can (and have been) hacked; and perhaps more seriously,

2) American privacy laws are, at best, laughably weak, and worst, non-existent.

The main legislation governing email privacy in the U.S. is the ECPA, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In a nutshell, the provisions of the ECPA are as follows:

* Email less than 180 days old is considered "in transit" and requires a warrant to access;

* Email 180 days old (or older) is considered as "stored" and does NOT require a warrant to access -- in fact, the email can be handed over to the authorities at will.

It should be noted that, even in the case where email is <180 days old, so-called "transactional information" i.e. the headers, From:, To:, Subject:, etc. are not protected by the ECPA, i.e. they can be freely turned over to law-enforcement (or anyone else) on request.

Since 9/11, and the passage of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, email privacy has been lessened even further. I am, of course, referring to the so-called National Security Letters (NSLs). These NSLs, which legally require an ISP (or other online service) to hand over any information they have on a subscriber, do NOT require a judge's signature. Rather, only the signature of an FBI supervisor is required, which means that NSLs are wide open to abuse. See:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/National_Security_Letter

http://epic.org/privacy/nsl/

http://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-and-liberty/national-security-letters

https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters

The only way to safely use a GMail account is if the email is PGP-encrypted.

It is entirely possible to set things up in such a way that all email coming into your GMail account is PGP-encrypted; furthermore, it can be done so as to hide all the transactional information as well. Any law-enforcement official who attempts to access the contents will get nothing without your cooperation.

Guy Fawkes

 

[Smurf]

I don't believe there's any faggotry from Mr Nobody, AnonKat. There was absolutely no reason to add Emma's name to the post.

Sure there was... as far as MR was concerned. He's made it clear many times on his blog that ESMB is a useless & hostile natter board owned by Emma. This was MR's way of stabbing her in the back and twisting the knife.

 

[uniquemand]

Gmail?! Gawd, no!

I do NOT recommend GMail, for the following reasons:

1) GMail accounts can (and have been) hacked; and perhaps more seriously,

2) American privacy laws are, at best, laughably weak, and worst, non-existent.

The main legislation governing email privacy in the U.S. is the ECPA, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In a nutshell, the provisions of the ECPA are as follows:

* Email less than 180 days old is considered "in transit" and requires a warrant to access;

* Email 180 days old (or older) is considered as "stored" and does NOT require a warrant to access -- in fact, the email can be handed over to the authorities at will.

It should be noted that, even in the case where email is <180 days old, so-called "transactional information" i.e. the headers, From:, To:, Subject:, etc. are not protected by the ECPA, i.e. they can be freely turned over to law-enforcement (or anyone else) on request.

Since 9/11, and the passage of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, email privacy has been lessened even further. I am, of course, referring to the so-called National Security Letters (NSLs). These NSLs, which legally require an ISP (or other online service) to hand over any information they have on a subscriber, do NOT require a judge's signature. Rather, only the signature of an FBI supervisor is required, which means that NSLs are wide open to abuse. See:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/National_Security_Letter

http://epic.org/privacy/nsl/

http://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-and-liberty/national-security-letters

https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters

The only way to safely use a GMail account is if the email is PGP-encrypted.

It is entirely possible to set things up in such a way that all email coming into your GMail account is PGP-encrypted; furthermore, it can be done so as to hide all the transactional information as well. Any law-enforcement official who attempts to access the contents will get nothing without your cooperation.

Guy Fawkes

Dude, all privacy can be compromised, it's a question of the difficulty involved versus the reward of gaining access. I choose to live an open life. I recommend it to all. I am aware it compromises security and tactical/operational information. Then again, I post to message boards, work when I can, hang out in a hot tub, and drink coffee, so it's kind of silly for people to hack me. If they're that interested, go for it. I promise to bore them.

 

[Smurf]

Earthlink's possible involvement concerns me and this might be one avenue to explore. In the U.S. I don't believe it's legal for an Internet Service Provider to divulge information without a court order. If Earthlink did COS "a favor" that would be a federal offense that could put them in very hot water. Earthlink is a pretty big target for a damage claim.

Excuse me... Sky Dayton & Earthlink has been real cozy with the COS & OSA-Legal for over a decade. When EL was based in Pasadena, Rick Moxon & his OSA cohorts had an office on the EL campus.

EL denied it's association on a public level as have all of Scientology's mutliple front groups over the years. I've heard there is less Scios working for EL since they moved their base to Atlanta after taking over the Mindspring ISP, but multiple Scio publics & their business' still use Earthlink.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Emma,

Earthlink's possible involvement concerns me and this might be one avenue to explore. In the U.S. I don't believe it's legal for an Internet Service Provider to divulge information without a court order. If Earthlink did COS "a favor" that would be a federal offense that could put them in very hot water. Earthlink is a pretty big target for a damage claim.

fisherman

As per my other post, the FBI has taken to use so-called National Security Letters to get information on alleged criminal offences, not just those related to terrorism. That said, it would still be a good idea to follow-up on your suggestion.

Guy Fawkes

 

[RogerB]

New anonymous (lower-case) poster who just happens to appear right at this moment.

Hmmm.

Paul

Oh, Paul . . . totally lucid and brilliant . . . as usual!

I luv it . . . I laughed out loud when I read this

R

 

[Lucretia]

He's still a genius!!!!

R

Hi Emma. I am so disgusted with our nasty little cult I can't say!!! This should not happen. Go for the goolies girl!!!!!

Re: Nick Xenophon - I really think he is worth contacting. He is a lawyer, he knows other lawyers, and he also has contacts in various places. He also needs to know the depths these lousy stinking bottom crawlers with sink to to silence anyone who sheds light on them. This will add grist to his mill if nothing else, but he may be able to help in other ways.

 

[paradox]

Dude, all privacy can be compromised, it's a question of the difficulty involved versus the reward of gaining access. I choose to live an open life. I recommend it to all. I am aware it compromises security and tactical/operational information. Then again, I post to message boards, work when I can, hang out in a hot tub, and drink coffee, so it's kind of silly for people to hack me. If they're that interested, go for it. I promise to bore them.

Yep. If I were an investigator, seeing encrypted or otherwise indecipherable traffic or content, or "off shore" proxy traffic would definitely send up a RED FLAG. [hey! i said red flag]. Open and above board definitely good practice. Interwebs exploits, hacks and such "lulz" best left to the kiddie scripters and such who are still in their "I'm invincible and untouchable" teenie years stage of living.

 

[Zinjifar]

The smartest bit of 'security' anyone can use on a regular basis is 'need to know'.

99.9% of 'leaks' is blabbermouths

Zinj

 

[TG1]

What Z said.

 

[Panda Termint]

Loose lips cause yips!

 

[Escalus]

Saw the story over on WWP Em. + energy to you and gobsmack the fuckers yeah.

desperate losers are desperate. email should be in admin data. talk if needed, but sounds like you are in good hands.

Escalus out.

 

[Alanzo]

Good to see you have the Pledgie up, Emma.

Is there any way to make the amount raised invisible?

You don't want the cult to know how big the war chest is.