FBI 'Deputizing' Businesses and granting them 'shoot to kill' rights!

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


You can see a lot more detailed information about this type of stuff in this book I found on Amazon. I've read it three times and I am planning on buying at least a 1000 more copies.

Robert O'Harrow : No Place To Hide

If you really want to go more in depth this book is a definite source.

[edit on 11-2-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas:
I've read it three times and I am planning on buying at least a 1000 more copies.

I've discovered that I do less damage to a book if I DON'T fold the page corners.

Keeps me from having to buy... A THOUSAND COPIES?

when you give an idiot a gun
they don't just hurt "bad guys"

reply to post by kerontehe

Originally posted by Knobee

Be well.

Knobee thanks for your candidness.

Could you follow-up by printing your company's name, so that the consumer could make an informed choice as to whether or not to engage in its services?

Seeing this 'sticker in the window' would (I think you'd agree) go along way toward calming people's fears.

best
scrap.

reply to post by Ancrom


The same would apply to a computer and internet connection.

No where in the OP article does it refer to "deputizing". The shoot to kill right is not a right and can not be granted by any entity.

It is a personal liberty that one chooses to excercise or not based on their own moral decision.

And, you don't have to give an idiot a gun, they obviously have access to all sorts of technology.

Originally posted by Knobee

Go to a meeting. Meet us. We aren't evil. We are people like you that want to keep bad things from happening to the infrastructure that you use every day (and just for a moment consider that the "incident" is another wild conspiracy theory).

Tell us more about the definition of the "bad things" that might happen to the infrastructure and exactly how you have been instructed to stop them from happening, please-- since you are on the "inside". Were you or were you not told you could "guard" your particular portion of the infrastructure with lethal force without legal ramifications? Let's say your particular portion of the infrastructure is a bank and for whatever reason, there's a panic run on this bank--- what exactly is your understanding of your InfraGuard responsibilities in a scenario like this? Or use whatever scenario you were given as examples. I'd like to understand what this means from your point of view.

[edit on 2/11/08 by kattraxx]

Could you follow-up by printing your company's name, so that the consumer could make an informed choice as to whether or not to engage in its services?

Seeing this 'sticker in the window' would (I think you'd agree) go along way toward calming people's fears.

Or, it might just make more people even more afraid of shadows ....

A brief google will discover that I work for the Internet Systems Consortium (www.isc.org...). You can learn more about me on LinkedIn as well: www.linkedin.com...

List of things that ISC does that you might use:

• BIND
  
• F-ROOT
  
• DHCP
  

I'm in the training and support group at ISC, and I'm the primary instructor for the classes that teach people how to deploy nameservers to work correctly. Feel free to signup (no, sorry, it's not free), learn about DNS and help support the infrastructure of the Internet.

Other things that I do that people might find conspiratorial:

• Church Member & Teacher (non-fundi)
  
• Firefighter / Hazmat / NASCAR CFR
  
• CERT Volunteer
  
• Red Cross Volunteer
  

My company, my fire department, my CERT Team, and the Red Cross chapter are aware of and support my membership in InfraGard.

I'll assume that at this point the conspiracy folks will come to some interesting conclusions about me... Heck, I might even get my own thread.

AlanC

[Edited to remove wayward italics]

[edit on 2/11/2008 by Knobee]

Tell us more about the definition of the "bad things" that might happen to the infrastructure and exactly how you have been instructed to stop them from happening, please-- since you are on the "inside".

First off, I've not been "instructed" on how to stop anything. We aren't TOLD what to do.

InfraGard members communicate best-common-practices with others in the organization that share the common "building blocks". For example, I talk to some banking sector guys because we use similar IT infrastructure, but I consider myself to be more in the telecom or emergency services sectors...

As Phyllis stated in the article, the people in InfraGard are "subject matter experts" that are probably much more familiar with what they need to do to secure their "infrastructure bits" than anyone in government.

As far as what I do to help secure infrastructure... I teach classes and provide support for people that are deploying BIND/DNS to make sure that it's done correctly, and with the least risk.

Were you or were you not told you could "guard" your particular portion of the infrastructure with lethal force without legal ramifications?

I was never told anything about how to guard my infrastructure, so no, I was not ever told that I could use lethal force, with or without legal ramifications.

Let's say your particular portion of the infrastructure is a bank and for whatever reason, there's a panic run on this bank--- what exactly is your understanding of your InfraGuard responsibilities in a scenario like this? Or use whatever scenario you were given as examples. I'd like to understand what this means from your point of view.

I'm not in the banking sector, but know people that are... I'm ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that they've never been told to "shoot to kill" by anyone advising InfraGard.

Nobody is advising InfraGard members to shoot to kill. It's all about communication.

AlanC

when you give an idiot a gun
they don't just hurt "bad guys"

I've never been given a gun.. I've always purchased my own... well, except for that one that my brother-in-law gave me, but we don't talk about that one, OK?

reply to post by Knobee


Thanks again Knobee for your openness

I have two general questions for you and do not mean them as a personal attack - only that you are a representative of company related to this OP

First from this:

In November 2007 more than 2,400 CPUs were donated to the Internet Systems Consortium (www.isc.org...), a nonprofit 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation dedicated to supporting the infrastructure of the universal connected self-organizing Internet, for use to build a completely open general search index. Wikia has worked closely with the ISC to help organize and deploy the resources using various open source technologies. The cluster will be community organized and provide open access to all resources it produces including the resulting indexes and compressed crawl data.

“We believe that a completely open foundation must drive the future of search, following the same principles as the Internet and Web that it builds upon,” said Jeremie Miller, founder of Jabber and Wikia Search Architect. “Search is becoming one of the most powerful tools humankind has ever created — only transparency and open participation will protect these tools from abuse.”

The tools enable every searcher to share and participate in simple and familiar ways. The Wikia Search community is devoted to both transparency and privacy — meaning every ranking decision is open to the public and absolutely nothing is automatically stored about any user’s executed search queries in order to protect privacy.

A note on the difference between Wikia, Inc. and Wikipedia.org: Wikia, Inc., is an independently operated company and therefore Wikia, Inc. and all of Wikia, Inc.’s subsequent projects, including “Wikia Search” are in no way related to Wikipedia.org or The Wikimedia Foundation.

www.businesswire.com...

1) In your opinion would the above in bold 'sort of' touch a grey area relative to government information sharing and an organization supporting a 'public' transparent search tool such as WIKIA SEARCH? (I guess I want to ask you, do you feel that the WIKIA search agent should apply a disclaimer for online users related to the OP - or is it user beware?

2) Do you have an opinion as the the upcoming retroactive immunity vote for telecom's and their warrant-less FISA information sharing with the government.

Best,

scrap

[edit on 11-2-2008 by scrapple]

Thanks again Knobee for your openness

Thanks...

I have two general questions for you and do not mean them as a personal attack - only that you are a representative of company related to this OP

Hrm.. ISC does not represent InfraGard, I represent ISC to InfraGard. (Please note that this edit is getting very complex, so if it looks like crap, I'm sorry... I'm doing my best)

1) In your opinion would the above in bold 'sort of' touch a grey area relative to government information sharing and an organization supporting a 'public' transparent search tool such as WIKIA SEARCH? (I guess I want to ask you, do you feel that the WIKIA search agent should apply a disclaimer for online users related to the OP - or is it user beware?

ISC as an organization is not involved in InfraGard (as I stated above).

I've not been involved with the Wikia cluster at all, and if I was, the only thing that I'd EVER discuss with anyone is making sure that all of the services stay accessible under any conditions.

Nothing regarding user's searches, etc. would EVER be supplied to anyone, if that's where you were going.

I've walked through the area where the Wikia CPUs live, but beyond that, nothing. (Actually, I think that ISC's only real involvement in Wikia is to provide network connectivity and co-location services, so the InfraGard involvement would be back to physical security of the hardware...)

As a general rule, I'd recommend that everything that you do on the Internet be treated as "user beware".

2) Do you have an opinion as the the upcoming retroactive immunity vote for telecom's and their warrant-less FISA information sharing with the government.

One of my co-workers at ISC (and someone I respect very much) is involved in the congressional testimony to remove immunity from corporate spying (AT&T). He was interviewed on PBS-TV regarding the case (I'll let you figure out who it was).

I do NOT support immunity for warrant-less information sharing, but also know enough about the Internet that if I have something that I don't want someone else listening to / watching, to use a VPN.

AlanC

Originally posted by Knobee

ISC does not represent InfraGard, I represent ISC to InfraGard. (NOTED!)

ISC as an organization is not involved in InfraGard (NOTED!).

As a general rule, I'd recommend that everything that you do on the Internet be treated as "user beware". (CHECK!)

I do NOT support immunity for warrant-less information sharing, but also know enough about the Internet that if I have something that I don't want someone else listening to / watching, to use a VPN. (CHECK!)

AlanC

I guess the only thing I am shooting at is - an (albeit false) assumption of privacy concerning public/corporate infrastructure/domain use and the government.

You stated

Nothing regarding user's searches, etc. would EVER be supplied to anyone

Your own association as I (may mis)understand it with InfraGuard makes you simply a potential Liaison of sorts between your hardware support company and the FBI for example.

While I have to take you at your word, and respect your stated position relative to Protect America (FISA) Act, the idea that the Gov. could someday come a-calling, asking more from your relationship - is the only issue I have.

I am not implying that in such a case that you would provided any information without a warrant / OK'd from your legal department. But why would the Government even need 'deputies' at all, when an interface with an independent company's legal department/representative should hypothetically be the correct interface?

Conversely, If you saw or heard something via your professional association with a hardware and software data structure, that seemed to be of National Interest, can such 'Liaisons' be trusted to push it up the proper corporate chain (e.g. through legal) to the proper authorities?

I think many will probably agree that strong FISA(warrants)and independent judicial review serves our combined best interests in these cases.

I am not implying that in such a case that you would provided any information without a warrant / OK'd from your legal department. But why would the Government even need 'deputies' at all, when an interface with an independent company's legal department/representative should hypothetically be the correct interface?

This is where you are missing the point of InfraGard... we aren't (and never have been) "deputized". We don't "inform", and we don't "shoot to kill".

Anyway, I think this thread has devolved.

Be well, and keep the home fires burning.

Originally posted by Knobee

I am not implying that in such a case that you would provided any information without a warrant / OK'd from your legal department. But why would the Government even need 'deputies' at all, when an interface with an independent company's legal department/representative should hypothetically be the correct interface?

This is where you are missing the point of InfraGard... we aren't (and never have been) "deputized". We don't "inform", and we don't "shoot to kill".

Ahh, deputy was my typing mistake. I had above better termed you a liaison correct? That is what you are - a point man of sorts, and you didn't really answer my question about pushing or acting on information you may have access to through legal channels at your company before interfacing with the Government.

By the way was your friends first named Brian?

Not that it matters as of today. The US Senate just stripped the US Courts' ability to judge corporate malfeasance in relation to illegal warrantless spying - so now I will also safely say this thread is moot!

The FBI & agencies like it are working for of all of the worldly societies that we should despise.

This is the classic 'divide and conqouer' tactic used during the hitler regime. Remember the brown shirts? But know this all you infraguard folks. When there done with you and you have intimidated and bullied your way around your neighborhood and you have recieved your special priviliges like getting to stay out after dark getting to eat a little better than the rest of us and such THEY WILL TURN ON YOU NEXT. And what are you going to tell the fellow sitting next to you at the shelter. You know the one you intimidated? You will most likely be hated and scorned.
God save us from these monsters that are turning us against one another.

reply to post by mek12


Well, they can only turn you against your neighbor or friend if you let them. No matter what business is "Deputized" by the F.B.I. does not mean that you necessarily have to be a customer of that business. Think about this logically for a moment. If you don't buy "Brand X", how can "Brand X" know to report on you? Well, okay maybe it's not just "Brand X", but "Brand X", "Brand Y", and "Brand Z"? Well, then take your business elsewhere, or open your own business and do not let the money tempt you to be a "Deputized" business as the F.B.I.'s snitch.

Why is it so difficult for anyone on here to understand that to defeat any of the "conspiracies" out there, just do not cooperate, use passive-resistance, and out-think them. Guns, grenades, and other weapons may be the first thought sometimes, but they should only be used as a last resort. Use the pink and gray brain matter between your ears for once. Violence is not the first option, but the last. This post was not all about mek12's comment, I just happened to respond to it, so mek12, take what you want from My reply as it is also a response to ATS.


[edit on 12-2-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

All of this is clearly set up to ensure that in the event of a dictator getting into power in the United States, the civilians are unable to do anything about it.

This is pretty much exactly how other nations have fallen into dictatorship. First the laws are amended to make sure the term 'traitor' has a greater scope and punishment... and slowly rights of travel, ownership, speech, opinion, and privacy are revoked.
IT IS ALWAYS DONE WITH THE PRETENSE OF ADDED SECURITY FOR THE CIVILIANS.

Basically, if Bush wants to make himself dictator, no-one is allowed, nor capable of doing anything about it... or it could be Cheney. Or pretty much any nut job to come along next.

Basically, I'd be getting the hell out of the States right now if I were you. It's clear where this is heading... exactly where it has gone every single time these trends have emerged in other countries. Dictatorship.

Get out.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
reply to post by mek12

 

Well, they can only turn you against your neighbor or friend if you let them. No matter what business is "Deputized" by the F.B.I. does not mean that you necessarily have to be a customer of that business. Think about this logically for a moment. If you don't buy "Brand X", how can "Brand X" know to report on you? Well, okay maybe it's not just "Brand X", but "Brand X", "Brand Y", and "Brand Z"? Well, then take your business elsewhere, or open your own business and do not let the money tempt you to be a "Deputized" business as the F.B.I.'s snitch.

Why is it so difficult for anyone on here to understand that to defeat any of the "conspiracies" out there, just do not cooperate, use passive-resistance, and out-think them. Guns, grenades, and other weapons may be the first thought sometimes, but they should only be used as a last resort. Use the pink and gray brain matter between your ears for once. Violence is not the first option, but the last. This post was not all about mek12's comment, I just happened to respond to it, so mek12, take what you want from My reply as it is also a response to ATS.

I wonder if anyone even read this post, or understood it for that matter. Non-confrontational methods and passive-aggressive techniques work.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I read it and agree. While violence is an option it should be one of last resort. Certainly we should devise and develop plans that would cripple if not bankrupt those that choose to adhere to such actions. [If indeed that is what is going on, my mind is still open]. However if the history of our people is any indicator we will not get up off our butts and be inconvienenced in any way. That is a topic for another thread.

respectfully

reluctantpawn