LMAO! One has to admit this has pure entertainment value ;-). Thanks for brightening my day!
On 25/08/09 8:53 AM, "Roy A. Crabtree" <[email protected]> wrote: > Specifically improper handling of a viral intrusion attack, > derision and exclusion of a possible source of that intrusion, > and what appears to be improper reference, possibly illegal > to the institution of an allied country (US to UK) or > violation of the laws of that country by a citizen of it (UK only). > > You may want to review the correspondence on the GNUBG mailing list. > > i was going to do a private side mail to MI5, but it appears their web form > only allows > 1800 characters. > > So I will post it to GNUBG, as well as leaving the correspondence in my gmail > Sent box > for inspection by them. > > Perhaps your response can be posted there as well. > > (Plus the historical archives as well for previous history on the technical > topic, > if not a common type of response to it). > > My understanding is that referring to a UK institution incorrectly while a > citizen of the > the UK, and at times even of the US, > > in regards to a viral intrusion attack and MI5, for example > > might have severe consequences if that attack goes unchecked > because an improper response failed to check it correctly. > > New technical ideas occur all the time; and the > > philosophical purpose of GNU > > as stated, indirectly if not also directly, includes the concept of > > beneficent free will interchange of ideas. > > When a member of your voluntary crew transgresses that principle, > > it is bad enough. > > when ad hominems are used in place of actual technical discussion, > from a momentary fit of pique, that can be passed off and rectified easily > enough. > > When it continues in the face of repeated requests and pleadings to rectify > the behavior > > and is compounded by e-nagging on it continuously on it on list afterwards > > then netiquette standards older than GNU are in breach > > and the reputation of GNU may come into question. > > When an actual viral attack on a GNU web site is in progress > > and a participating member raises a possible explanation of the source o > fit > > and ridicule is heaped upon the individual for doing so > > it gets into an area that could be construed as intentional maliciousness > and possibly slander and libel. > > If, in turn that breach of ethics further breaches the specific legal > ramifications > > require at law, both domestically and internationally > > as regards handling of the specifics of a viral intrusion attack, > > most of the time it will pass harmlessly off > > ...until someone is damaged or injured extensively > by such an attack NOT being handled properly. > > And when, further, a member of GNU, actually entails a comment that could be > actually in breach of the laws of the sovereign nation/state he is in, or even > simply derogatory as regards the institution of an allied state > > if an actual viral intrusion results in warrantable damage, and > > the actual person responsible at GNU for handling such an affair is the one > engaging in such a recourse > > it can result in a rather severe set of circumstances if > > the damage reaches a level warranting the official participation of those > agencies involved to resolve it. > > Alternatively , you might possibly conclude I am the source of the problem, > or pulling a grandstanding stunt: I am not. > > If in turn it came to be known that the specific capabilities of a NN > engine > were being used for some purpose OTHER than the public one that was > being stated in the GNU description of it > > by those maintaining it, or otherwise, > > and you had a chance to forestall that by reacting professionally and > properly > > it might be more than merely an embarrassment: > > it could damage the public perception of the free software > concept > and the resulting boon to society in general. > > Such as the NNP network of a game playing engine engaging in unfair > "cheating" > AND THEN BEING APPLIED to any other purpose than fairly playing gammon. > > (Example: I had an intrusion that I do not regard as being GNU based, > where > for about 5 months, a professional gammon playing site popped up > whenever I tried > to go to GNUBG. This is possible if a context sensitive HTML URL > intercept > is placed anywhere in the chain from server to browser; and half a > dozen other > different ways: it is only the most obvious one that it could have > been an intrusion > onto the GNUBG web site, and highly unlikely that any effective skulker > > would be stupid enough to do so) > > The public perception damage, if that were to be the case and become > publicized > > for example, by scurrilious individuals similar in practice, practic, and > practique to > > some would say Stephen Ballmer and Microsoft's practices > > it could be used as an advent to shut down open software as a viable > alternative. > > Sort of like Oprah getting riled because one of her book authors lied to her, > when her staff failed to vet the book and author in the first place. > > not that I think it would happen, but damaging it to gain control and > advantage: > > oh yeah, in a heart beat. > > Which I do NOT want to see happen. > > This is just a head's up. > > Usually when software demonstrates a capability of high utility more broad > than actually anticipated, the response is a positive one. > > Unfortunately, it COULD be taken after the fact to indicate, usually > incorrectly, > > that the individual involved doing so > > was actively AWARE of this additional capability and > > for some undisclosed reason > > did NOT want to give away the fact of it. > > last, but not least: > > do you really want GNU or even just GNUBG to become known > > (correctly or INcorrectly is largely irrelevant) > > fro hiding something that an intelligence service wants hidden > > and then actually being responsible for disclosing it > > simply because the ordinary chain of events (viral intrusion, report of > possible cause) > > was derided with ad hominems in a public forum > > instead of just being routinely reported to the correct intrusion/security > authority? > > Think on it. > > Then maybe get a grip and readjust a couple of attitudes. > > The last thing you want > > from someone actually UNDER such an intrusional attack (separate from GNU, > let's keep it clear) > > to be compelled under a circumstances of threat of death and > > an actual murder (cited already on the GNU list) > > and denoting a correlation between a viral intrusion onto your web site > > and his or her participation in it > > to actually take the case to Court and prove it in public as > > having been the case. > > As I already stated: > > I have few resources to do so: > > but if another person in the common group I _AM_ concerned with DOES die > > I may have to file a Bivens direct pleading on the matter. > > I would prefer to have it handled quietly and appropriately long before then. > > Whether or not the correlation is CAUSAL rather than > temporal/statistical/inferential > > is not the point. > > The point is that reports of cause of intrusion on a viral attack sequence > > should not be trimmed in advance of collimation > > or any 4th grade skulker will get through your security, > > play pinochle on your snout to deride you in public > > and walk away having accomplished their purpose. > > It is also not about being caught with your pants down. > > And if you do not get THAT, point, then I would suggest spending a vacation > day > > in Darfur: the correlation there IS causal and direct. > > I wish you the best. > > Cheers. > > To MI5: usually a waste of time. Sadly. > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Roy A. Crabtree <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:00 > Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Site being reported as "Attack Site" > To: Michael Petch <[email protected]> > > > Good luck, Michael. > You'll need it. > Passed on to GNU Central. > > ... and MI5. > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 17:56, Michael Petch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 24/08/09 3:52 PM, "Michael Petch" <[email protected] >> <http://[email protected]> > wrote: >> >>> >>> I am fall more aware with the situation than you are. I am being watched and >>> by Mi5 agents for years. >> >> >> As you can tell I disguise myself by making it appear I am not an English >> speaker . Normally I would have said ³I am far more aware with the situation >> than you are. I have been watched by Mi5 agents for years.². I have to keep a >> low profile. Shhh.. Don¹t tell anyone, Mike (err, make that Barbara) out! > >
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
