Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 9th 08, 02:43 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Second forensic expert finds problems

On Aug 8, 7:54 pm, wrote:
26 Oct 2007
Good Morning, Joel:
I appreciate your concern but I strongly suspect that any investigation
that we or another company does will not yield results of "evidential
value"; by that I mean provable, by a preponderance of facts, evidence upon
which one would rely to not just bring a complaint to court, but to
actually prevail on that complaint at trial. Rather, what I expect that we
could find, depending on how your emails have been preserved since the time
of these incidents, is evidence that someone was "spoofing", that is,
impersonating another's email.
The way this is usually discerned is in the differences in the IP
addresses of the email owner and the impersonator. Assuming that one did
find a difference in IP addresses, then the different IP address would have
to be traced. And it is in that step that I believe we would come up empty,
as the canny spoofer will have covered his/her tracks. Thus, the best
outcome I would foresee is that we could show that an unknown someone was
impersonating the true email account holder. And even then, one couldn't
rule out the possibility that the true email account holder was spoofing
him/herself, a tactic one imagines a skilled chess player might use.
We also discussed yesterday that some of your Board want to learn whether
an imposter was posting scurrilous messages about other members on message
boards, chat rooms, etc. I have had direct, recent experience with this
kind of activity involving the alleged leaking of insider information in
one case and the making of what were clearly defamatory comments about an
individual. Short of a subpoena which generally can only be issued by a
party after litigation has already commenced, or a warrant or similar
authority from law enforcement, entities like Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail, MSN and
Google will refuse to disclose any ownership or account holder's records.
Even in cases where the posting violates the service provider's own rules,
the best reaction one can get is the the allegedly offending postings are
removed and the individual's account is shut down. But nothing prevents
that individual from setting up another account with the same or a
different provider.
I sympathize with the Board members who feel outrage at what they believe
has happened. Realistically, however, I believe that an investigation would
show possibilities, perhaps probabilities, but not certainties. And, if the
Federation has not already done so, we would make recommendations to insure
that the network and email system was less vulnerable to these kinds of
attacks.
Please feel free to call or email with comments,
questions...
Regards,
Mike
byte-metrics.com
forensics advice
Hi Joel: I've asked my broker to give me a quote for $2 Mil / $4 Mil.
Whatever the increase, my custom and practice is to accede to a client's
demand for higher coverage but to absorb that increased cost within a
higher rate. I do have a standard contract but let's get the insurance
question answered and then let's talk. I want to make sure that I fully
understand your concerns and expectations. In particular, if you believe
that, regardless of the outcome of an investigation, my company and
possibly me personally will be named in a current or new claim by a
disgruntled member, I need to know this from the beginning. If that or
similar was your belief, I would amend my contract to include an indemnity
from the Federation in the event that ByteMetrics/I was sued for doing the
Federation's bidding. On the other hand, what I've envisioned up to this
point is that, assuming that we were engaged, we would be so through a law
firm representing the USCF. We would report our findings to the law firm
and it would report to the USCF. I think it highly unlikely, given what
you've described of the situation to me thus far, that a "smoking gun"
would be found, or, if one was, that it would have any "fingerprints" on
it. Therefore, what I've imagined so far is that our report would detail
what we found and opine on the likely explanations for those findings. We
would also make recommendations for additional security measures if those
had not already been implemented. Assuming it was handled right, what we
reported to the law firm and what it reported to the USCF would be
privileged and confidential. We could have that discussion with the
attorney representing the USCF, prior to our engagement. Anyway, let's
talk, if you wish, of course. I'm reachable at --. Regards, Mike
byte-metrics.com
22 Oct 2008
Good Morning, Joel:
I hope you are doing well.
I saw the prior NY Times article. What a tangled
web...
Please let me know if I can help. And please bear in mind that the
preferred way to do this is through a law firm to help insulate the USCF
from having to reveal what it learns from any investigation.
Regards,
Mike
byte-metrics.com
First Forensic expert finds problems
11 Oct 2008
Hi Randy,
Please find attached 2 documents. One is our standard contract and the
other is Schedule A (cost and time estimate). If all looks good simply sign
the contract and send back with 1/2 payment.
As I noted in the "Comments" section of Schedule A, Leonard Stimmel, our
expert, has already identified some technical discrepancies during his
initial review.
I look forward to hearing back!
Greg
Greg Beckemeier
United Forensics


I am responding to insure that this important posting is preserved
beyond the six days.
  #2   Report Post  
Old August 9th 08, 06:01 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default Second Serving

On Aug 8, 8:43*pm, samsloan wrote:
On Aug 8, 7:54 pm, wrote:



26 Oct 2007
*Good Morning, Joel:
*I appreciate your concern but I strongly suspect that any investigation
that we or another company does will not yield results of "evidential
value"; by that I mean provable, by a preponderance of facts, evidence upon
which one would rely to not just bring a complaint to court, but to
actually prevail on that complaint at trial. Rather, what I expect that we
could find, depending on how your emails have been preserved since the time
of these incidents, is evidence that someone was "spoofing", that is,
impersonating another's email.
*The way this is usually discerned is in the differences in the IP
addresses of the email owner and the impersonator. Assuming that one did
find a difference in IP addresses, then the different IP address would have
to be traced. And it is in that step that I believe we would come up empty,
as the canny spoofer will *have covered his/her tracks. Thus, the best
outcome I would foresee is that we could show that an unknown someone was
impersonating the true email account holder. And even then, one couldn't
rule out the possibility that the true email account holder was spoofing
him/herself, a tactic one imagines a skilled chess player might use.
*We also discussed yesterday that some of your Board want to learn whether
an imposter was posting scurrilous messages about other members on message
boards, chat rooms, etc. I have had direct, recent experience with this
kind of activity involving the alleged leaking of insider information in
one case and the making of what were clearly defamatory comments about an
individual. Short of a subpoena which generally can only be issued by a
party after litigation has already commenced, or a warrant or similar
authority from law enforcement, entities like Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail, MSN and
Google will refuse to disclose any ownership or account holder's records.
*Even in cases where the posting violates the service provider's own rules,
the best reaction one can get is the the allegedly offending postings are
removed and the individual's account is shut down. But nothing prevents
that individual from setting up another account with the same or a
different provider.
*I sympathize with the Board members who feel outrage at what they believe
has happened. Realistically, however, I believe that an investigation would
show possibilities, perhaps probabilities, but not certainties. And, if the
Federation has not already done so, we would make recommendations to insure
that the network and email system was less vulnerable to these kinds of
attacks.
*Please feel free to call or email with comments,
questions...
*Regards,
*Mike
*byte-metrics.com
* forensics advice
*Hi Joel: I've asked my broker to give me a quote for $2 Mil / $4 Mil..
Whatever the increase, my custom and practice is to accede to a client's
demand for higher coverage but to absorb that increased cost within a
higher rate. I do have a standard contract but let's get the insurance
question answered and then let's talk. I want to make sure that I fully
understand your concerns and expectations. In particular, if you believe
that, regardless of the outcome of an investigation, my company and
possibly me personally will be named in a current or new claim by a
disgruntled member, I need to know this from the beginning. If that or
similar was your belief, I would amend my contract to include an indemnity
from the Federation in the event that ByteMetrics/I was sued for doing the
Federation's bidding. On the other hand, what I've envisioned up to this
point is that, assuming that we were engaged, we would be so through a law
firm representing the USCF. We would report our findings to the law firm
and it would report to the USCF. I think it highly unlikely, given what
you've described of the situation to me thus far, that a "smoking gun"
would be found, or, if one was, that it would have any "fingerprints" on
it. Therefore, what I've imagined so far is that our report would detail
what we found and opine on the likely explanations for those findings. We
would also make recommendations for additional security measures if those
had not already been implemented. Assuming it was handled right, what we
reported to the law firm and what it reported to the USCF would be
privileged and confidential. We could have that discussion with the
attorney representing the USCF, prior to our engagement. Anyway, let's
talk, if you wish, of course. I'm reachable at --. Regards, Mike
*byte-metrics.com
* 22 Oct 2008
*Good Morning, Joel:
*I hope you are doing well.
*I saw the prior NY Times article. What a tangled
web...
*Please let me know if I can help. And please bear in mind that the
preferred way to do this is through a law firm to help insulate the USCF
from having to reveal what it learns from any investigation.
*Regards,
Mike
*byte-metrics.com
*First Forensic expert finds problems
* 11 Oct 2008
* Hi Randy,
*Please find attached 2 documents. One is our standard contract and the
other is Schedule A (cost and time estimate). If all looks good simply sign
the contract and send back with 1/2 payment.
*As I noted in the "Comments" section of Schedule A, Leonard Stimmel, our
expert, has already identified some technical discrepancies during his
initial review.
*I look forward to hearing back!
*Greg
*Greg Beckemeier
United Forensics


I am responding to insure that this important posting is preserved
beyond the six days.


I am responding to point out that Sams posting was not necessary and
an example of overindulgent self importance for him to do it.
  #3   Report Post  
Old August 9th 08, 06:04 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default Second Serving

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 22:01:49 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:


I am responding to insure that this important posting is preserved
beyond the six days.


I am responding to point out that Sams posting was not necessary and
an example of overindulgent self importance for him to do it.


He may be making the same error as the FSS, in confusing preservation
of a Google reference with preservation of the post. However, he may
want to keep it around in Google.
  #4   Report Post  
Old August 9th 08, 06:44 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Second Serving

On Aug 9, 1:04*am, Mike Murray wrote:

I am responding to insure that this important posting is preserved
beyond the six days.

I am responding to point out that Sams posting was not necessary and
an example of overindulgent self importance for him to do it.


He may be making the same error as the FSS, in confusing preservation
of a Google reference with preservation of the post. *However, he may
want to keep it around in Google.



Just how do /you/ know so much about the FSS?!


Just as I often wonder why it is that "Rob Mitchell"
responds to questions asked of nearly-IMnes as if
he thinks he /is/ PI, it also has occurred to me that,
without the FSS to impersonate him, Mr. Sloan
would somehow be perceived as even less important
than he already is. As they say in Andean: "kwee
bo gno?", or "who gains?". Obviously, promoting
the FSS to celebrity status has had the effect of
boosting the status of the real SS (or at least
gaining him much-desired attention) in rgc. Thus,
it is not inconceivable to think that Mr. Sloan could
be pretending to impersonate himself, just as the
Evans ratpackers so often create alter-egos to
write "in agreement with" their nonsense, to lend
an appearance of heft, or of independent support,
as outlined in a treatise by the parrot-oxical LP.

Heck, for all we know this "Mottershead" character
might be one of those invented characters, made up
to lend support to Mr. Sloan's accusations (a few of
which have consistently been confused over the
gender and even the number of possible FSSs).

Now, I don't claim to be any expert on such
technical matters as the preservation of Google
postings and whatnot, but it seems to me that if
you were to carefully place the subject in a glass
bottle filled with formaldehyde, and then seal it up
tight, it ought to last at least as long as it will be
of any interest to science.

And, speaking of science, I recall that in another
thread there was some disagreement between a
Mr. Einstein and a Mr. Evans regarding the speed
of light inside a vacuum cleaner. I happened to
watch a video which discusses the matter, and I
must say that it is no wonder that Mr. Einstein
was so confused, for he repeatedly confounded
the concept "clock readings" with the term "time",
and "time" with apparent time (or miscellaneous
clock-readings by confused observers who were
jostled about, to and fro), which of course is not
time at all. Probably then Mr. Evans was correct,
and Mr. Einstein just erred in his desperate efforts
to conform reality to some unproved theoretical
equations.

I will say this: in my travels to Mars I never had
any problem with time itself speeding up, and
once I got a wireless atomic-clock-synchronized
Timex, everything was just peachy. The watch
did get more difficult to read, however, as it
seemed to almost shorten in length as I passed
close around the sun. Well, what do you expect
for $59.95... .


-- help bot




  #5   Report Post  
Old August 9th 08, 06:56 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default Second Serving

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 22:44:35 -0700 (PDT), help bot
wrote:

On Aug 9, 1:04*am, Mike Murray wrote:


I am responding to point out that Sams posting was not necessary and
an example of overindulgent self importance for him to do it.


He may be making the same error as the FSS, in confusing preservation
of a Google reference with preservation of the post. *However, he may
want to keep it around in Google.


Just how do /you/ know so much about the FSS?!\


All I know is what I read in the papers, well, actually the
newsgroups. The night Mottershead disclosed his investigation,
somebody started deleting all the FSS posts from Google -- hundreds of
'em. Many posters concluded that the FSS believed getting 'em out of
Google deleted them from Usenet -- not true.

How come you don't remember this stuff, Bot? Cosmic ray hit your hard
drive or something?


it also has occurred to me that,
without the FSS to impersonate him, Mr. Sloan
would somehow be perceived as even less important
than he already is. As they say in Andean: "kwee
bo gno?", or "who gains?". Obviously, promoting
the FSS to celebrity status has had the effect of
boosting the status of the real SS (or at least
gaining him much-desired attention) in rgc. Thus,
it is not inconceivable to think that Mr. Sloan could
be pretending to impersonate himself, just as the
Evans ratpackers so often create alter-egos to
write "in agreement with" their nonsense, to lend
an appearance of heft, or of independent support,
as outlined in a treatise by the parrot-oxical LP.


Many people suspected this until the Mottershead report came out.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USCF Financial Problems "The sky is falling." p944dc rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 5 February 8th 08 04:10 PM
Expert Opinion: Mottershead Report Valid p944dc rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 January 24th 08 01:52 AM
Polgar's Expert? B. Lafferty[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 11 October 11th 07 02:13 PM
USCF Pension and Finance Problems and Slow Response From Board OdessaChess[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 September 24th 07 11:59 PM
Chess Problems Software/Websites: Any Recommendations?? Berkeley Brett rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 September 7th 07 04:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017