:40PM EST November 13. 2012 - Paula Broadwell, ex-mistress of former CIA chief David Petraeus, could have used several methods to hide her identity if she sent anonymous, threatening e-mails to Tampa socialite Jill Kelley, experts say.
But the FBI has many techniques available to trace such communications, said Shawn Henry, who retired in March as the FBI's executive assistant director in charge of all civil and criminal cyber investigation.
"Somewhere along the way, her IP address was captured," Henry said. An IP address, or internet protocol address, is a string of numbers unique to a particular computer or device on the internet. With it, authorities can usually track the identity of the person who sent an e-mail or visited a website.
Someone trying to remain anonymous can hide e-mails by routing them through different servers and using public computers that don't keep activity logs, he said. Broadwell may have thought she had done everything to hide her tracks, but often people make mistakes, leaving their e-mails traceable by investigators, he said.
The Associated Press, citing a law enforcement source who declined to be identified, reported that Petraeus and Broadwell apparently used a "dropbox" to conceal their e-mail traffic.
Rather than transmitting e-mails to the other's inbox, they composed at least some messages and left them in a draft folder or in an electronic "drop box," the AP reported. Then the other person could log onto the same account and read the draft e-mails, avoiding the creation of an e-mail trail that might be easier to trace.
The scandal has widened, with the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan under investigation for alleged "inappropriate communications" with Kelley.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed that the Pentagon had begun an internal investigation into thousands of pages of e-mails from Gen. John Allen to Kelley. A senior Defense official described the e-mails as "flirtatious."
It's not clear whether there was an effort to hide that e-mail trail, and Allen has denied wrongdoing.
Covering up your online tracks can be time-consuming - even for high-powered men who manage secret operations, said Janet Sternberg, a communication and media studies professor at Fordham University.
"Being anonymous would take so much trouble, you wouldn't have time to do the behavior you were trying to hide," said Sternberg, who argues that almost all forms of electronic communication leave traces. "What's surprising is how much there is to discover. Look at his (Petraeus') cellphone and text messages. If he left this evidence around there is probably more evidence to discover."
With cloud services, long e-mail chains, and more storage capabilities, e-mail inboxes and drop boxes can contain thousands of pages of e-mails that users may think are gone but may simply be stored out of sight but within reach of searching authorities, experts said.
"Every circumstance is going to be a little different," Henry said. "It may have been relatively easy or difficult for FBI investigators. It depends on how hard someone tried to hide their transactions. And they can try really hard and then make a mistake."
The FBI would deploy its resources to uncover the sender of an anonymous e-mail depending on the credibility of the suspicious e-mail, the severity of the threat and the target, said Henry, who worked at the FBI for 24 years and is now president of CrowdStrike Services, a cybersecurity firm.
"You absolutely would have to look at the totality of the situation," he said. "There are a whole host of things you factor in."
Before pursuing any investigation, FBI agents would seek an opinion from a prosecutor to determine whether it's possible that laws had been broken, he said.
"We would rarely pursue an investigation without going to an independent prosecutor," he said. "These types of cases are not atypical. They happen relatively frequently."
Usually, the cases are worked with local law enforcement, Henry said.
"If the bureau decided to work it, it would indicate to me that there was more to it," Henry said. "If the target is named and it's a high-level official, that would raise people's attention. It indicates to me that there was more to this, not just a random e-mail."
How long such an investigation takes would vary with the number of leads that need to be run down and the complexity of the cybertrail, he said.
"In these types of cases, there are many complexities," Henry said. "If they discovered the director of CIA is involved you want to make sure you get all the facts because it's going to impact a lot of other people. The bureau would want to collect all of the evidence and really fully flesh this out before it went public."
In Petraeus' case, Sternberg and others believe e-mail hosts worked with authorities to access the drop box he and Broadwell used. "You can tell that Google must have given the government information about the IP address of every computer that ever accessed that inbox," Sternberg said.
Google acknowledges that it does receive requests from government agencies around the world to "provide information about users of our services and products," according to a Google policy statement posted online.
The company scrutinizes such request to make sure it complies with local laws, and "may refuse to produce information or try to narrow the request."
Of all the free webmail services, Google collects and correlates the most data from users of its free Gmail service, including IP addresses, key words in e-mail text and information from search queries and web page visits, said Caitlin Johanson, security strategist at CORE Security.
The data is primarily used to profile users of Google's online services for advertising purposes. It is technically feasible for the company to map out the successful login activities of a Gmail account holder who is using several aliases and logging in from the same network, Johanson said.
"The information is there for Google to get, but you just can't ask Google for it," Johanson said. "I believe you'd have to get a subpoena or supply enough information as to why they should give you that documentation."
Orlando Scott-Cowley, an e-mail expert who works for Mimecast, a London-based cloud e-mail management vendor, said he stresses to clients that e-mail - business and personal - comes with limited privacy.
"When we talk to businesses about how they use e-mail, we teach users that e-mail isn't secure and that you shouldn't use it to receive or send confidential information," he said.
It's the reason why credit card numbers and hospital patient information aren't sent via e-mail, he added.
People have been trying to find a way to communicate secretly for years but have not really achieved that goal, said Paul Hill, a senior consultant with SystemExperts, a security consulting firm.
He said drop boxes have been used for years by people trying to hide information with varying success.
His advice: "Don't cheat on your spouse, and don't leave around all the evidence because sooner or later someone is going to find it."
Of course, life isn't that simple.
For high-powered men juggling careers, frequent travelling and family responsibilities, having an affair or sending inappropriate e-mails comes down to emotions and attraction, says Sheri Meyers, who has a doctorate in psychology and works as a marriage and family therapist.
Sending secure communications and coding e-mails to make them indiscoverable took a back seat to passion.
"I blame it on humanity," she said. "There is a need for connection. Their arousal and how good contact felt overruled all reason or worry that they were going to get caught."
BurfordTJustice posted some interesting information! :-)
> "When we talk to businesses about how they use e-mail, we teach users that
> e-mail isn't secure and that you shouldn't use it to receive or send
> confidential information," he said.
> It's the reason why credit card numbers and hospital patient information
> aren't sent via e-mail, he added.
That's why I was suspicious of an email communication supposedly sent by a police officer in Cheshire to my old AOL email addresses which are no longer used.
As it transpires, the message *was* genuine. I now accept that.
> BurfordTJustice posted some interesting information! :-)
>> "When we talk to businesses about how they use e-mail, we teach users that
>> e-mail isn't secure and that you shouldn't use it to receive or send
>> confidential information," he said.
>> It's the reason why credit card numbers and hospital patient information
>> aren't sent via e-mail, he added.
> That's why I was suspicious of an email communication supposedly sent by a > police officer in Cheshire to my old AOL email addresses which are no longer > used.
> As it transpires, the message *was* genuine. I now accept that.
Information for you about how to contact them isn't exactly what I would call confidential information and there is no reason that they would need to cover it. They *could* have signed it digitally so that you could have easily authenticated it - but it wasn't necessary to encrypt it as it was not of a confidential nature that required encryption nor another more secure channel of communication.
If you genuinely believed that it was a forgery, then you should have called them anyway to report that crime - after all, you are a crime fighter aren't you?
FromTheRafters wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote on 11/14/2012 :
>> BurfordTJustice posted some interesting information! :-)
>>> "When we talk to businesses about how they use e-mail, we teach users
>>> that
>>> e-mail isn't secure and that you shouldn't use it to receive or send
>>> confidential information," he said.
>>> It's the reason why credit card numbers and hospital patient information
>>> aren't sent via e-mail, he added.
>> That's why I was suspicious of an email communication supposedly sent
>> by a police officer in Cheshire to my old AOL email addresses which
>> are no longer used.
>> As it transpires, the message *was* genuine. I now accept that.
> Information for you about how to contact them isn't exactly what I would
> call confidential information and there is no reason that they would
> need to cover it. They *could* have signed it digitally so that you
> could have easily authenticated it - but it wasn't necessary to encrypt
> it as it was not of a confidential nature that required encryption nor
> another more secure channel of communication.
IIRC I only became aware of said message because someone *here* told me about it. Not a good way for them to get in touch IMO.
It was the use of the word 'myself' - instead of 'me' - which caused me some doubt. That's what an Irish fella might say, init?!!
(i.e. The message didn't say "please contact *me*")
> If you genuinely believed that it was a forgery, then you should have
> called them anyway to report that crime - after all, you are a crime
> fighter aren't you?
Perhaps you are right. I've learned from the experience. Thank you for your helpful advice, FTR :-)
> BurfordTJustice posted some interesting information! :-)
>> "When we talk to businesses about how they use e-mail, we teach users >> that
>> e-mail isn't secure and that you shouldn't use it to receive or send
>> confidential information," he said.
>> It's the reason why credit card numbers and hospital patient information
>> aren't sent via e-mail, he added.
> That's why I was suspicious of an email communication supposedly sent by a
> police officer in Cheshire to my old AOL email addresses which are no > longer
> used.
> As it transpires, the message *was* genuine. I now accept that.
Information for you about how to contact them isn't exactly what I
would call confidential information and there is no reason that they
would need to cover it. They *could* have signed it digitally so that
you could have easily authenticated it - but it wasn't necessary to
encrypt it as it was not of a confidential nature that required
encryption nor another more secure channel of communication.
If you genuinely believed that it was a forgery, then you should have
called them anyway to report that crime - after all, you are a crime
fighter aren't you?
--
UK police have turned into the Keystone Cops.
They are know the world over as a Joke.
Thus Jihadists flow into the UK like water
over a broken dam.
>>> If you genuinely believed that it was a forgery, then you should have
>>> called them anyway to report that crime - after all, you are a crime
>>> fighter aren't you?
>> Perhaps you are right. I've learned from the experience. Thank you for
>> your helpful advice, FTR :-)
> It didn't help that your "pal" JaxAss (*|*) sent a forgery herself to
> put doubt in your mind.
Perhaps not, but I find Jax a refreshing change to thelikes of SeaNyph and Aardvark who both appear to be filled with hate.
> Why didn't you listen to me? You could have avoided the 4:30 "raid" if
> you just believed me that they wanted to talk. That's exactly what I
> didn't want you to have to go through, and your wife as a witness to it
> all. :-(
One can't put a young head on old shoulders, Graham. You should know that by now! ;-)
My wife has known me since she was fourteen years of age and knows me well. No one would ever be able to convince her that I would ever harm a child, nor would I.
I appreciate your concern about me. *Thank you* for being a cyber-friend
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> ~BD~ wrote on 11/14/2012 :
>>> BurfordTJustice posted some interesting information! :-)
>>>> "When we talk to businesses about how they use e-mail, we teach users
>>>> that
>>>> e-mail isn't secure and that you shouldn't use it to receive or send
>>>> confidential information," he said.
>>>> It's the reason why credit card numbers and hospital patient
>>>> information
>>>> aren't sent via e-mail, he added.
>>> That's why I was suspicious of an email communication supposedly sent
>>> by a police officer in Cheshire to my old AOL email addresses which
>>> are no longer used.
>>> As it transpires, the message *was* genuine. I now accept that.
>> Information for you about how to contact them isn't exactly what I would
>> call confidential information and there is no reason that they would
>> need to cover it. They *could* have signed it digitally so that you
>> could have easily authenticated it - but it wasn't necessary to encrypt
>> it as it was not of a confidential nature that required encryption nor
>> another more secure channel of communication.
> IIRC I only became aware of said message because someone *here* told me
> about it. Not a good way for them to get in touch IMO.
> It was the use of the word 'myself' - instead of 'me' - which caused me
> some doubt. That's what an Irish fella might say, init?!!
> (i.e. The message didn't say "please contact *me*")
>> If you genuinely believed that it was a forgery, then you should have
>> called them anyway to report that crime - after all, you are a crime
>> fighter aren't you?
> Perhaps you are right. I've learned from the experience. Thank you for
> your helpful advice, FTR :-)
> --
Funny that the advice is helpful now, when it is exactly the same advice given to you some months ago.
That's the last time you get it, since you obviously don't trust me or
my judgment. I offered to examine the headers sent to you, - that offer
was declined. I told you face to face on Skype the message(s) Aardie
got were authentic - no effect. I posted numerous times on this group
the *truth* that they wanted to hear your side of the story - no effect.
You could have easily avoided the 'raid' if you just listened to me. I
don't lie, especially about something serious like that. Why do you
call me an "online friend" if I can't be trusted in your eyes? All I
was trying to do was help, despite what anyone else says. Now Aardie
and Dustin got their wish, to see you got 'raided'. I was hoping to
avoid that by giving you numerous "heads-up's". IMO, you deserve what
happened because you didn't trust me. Even your other 'pals', Jenn and
Dave did not approve of my intervention, that was FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.
Geeze...
I think it's time you re-evaluate who you can trust. You got Jenn
refusing to pass along the contact info, then uploading to a place where
JAXASS posted it in public, that led to another asshole posting an
officer's private info on the group (not good). JaxAss sending you fake
police messages (all in good fun, right?). Now Dave 'resents' my
involvement, even though my motive was non-selfish and altruistic. I
hope in hindsight you can see that now.
Jenn, Dave, and JaxAss led you down the wrong path. I never changed my
story, and had to go against my self-imposed email ban so you could have
the information you needed to settle this in a more preferable manner.
They let their personal dislike of Aardie to interfere with information
you needed. Jaxass went so far as to convolute the issue by sending
fake email, nice friend you have there. After all is said and done
today- who do you trust now?
You should tell your buddies they did you no favors. All they did was
make the situation worse by putting doubt in your mind that the whole
incident was a ruse of some sort, and I and FTR were part of it. Now
that they know the truth, I see no apologies forthcoming. "Nothing is
going to happen" - remember that mantra? Well something *did* happen,
and I was there the whole time trying to get you to do something to
avoid it happening.
I hope everybody is happy now. I know I'm not, but at least I can walk
away with a crystal-clear conscious knowing I did the right thing.
> That's the last time you get it, since you obviously don't trust me or
> my judgment. I offered to examine the headers sent to you, - that offer
> was declined. I told you face to face on Skype the message(s) Aardie
> got were authentic - no effect. I posted numerous times on this group
> the *truth* that they wanted to hear your side of the story - no effect.
> You could have easily avoided the 'raid' if you just listened to me. I
> don't lie, especially about something serious like that. Why do you
> call me an "online friend" if I can't be trusted in your eyes? All I
> was trying to do was help, despite what anyone else says. Now Aardie
> and Dustin got their wish, to see you got 'raided'. I was hoping to
> avoid that by giving you numerous "heads-up's". IMO, you deserve what
> happened because you didn't trust me. Even your other 'pals', Jenn and
> Dave did not approve of my intervention, that was FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.
> Geeze...
> I think it's time you re-evaluate who you can trust. You got Jenn
> refusing to pass along the contact info, then uploading to a place where
> JAXASS posted it in public, that led to another asshole posting an
> officer's private info on the group (not good). JaxAss sending you fake
> police messages (all in good fun, right?). Now Dave 'resents' my
> involvement, even though my motive was non-selfish and altruistic. I
> hope in hindsight you can see that now.
> Jenn, Dave, and JaxAss led you down the wrong path. I never changed my
> story, and had to go against my self-imposed email ban so you could have
> the information you needed to settle this in a more preferable manner.
> They let their personal dislike of Aardie to interfere with information
> you needed. Jaxass went so far as to convolute the issue by sending
> fake email, nice friend you have there. After all is said and done
> today- who do you trust now?
> You should tell your buddies they did you no favors. All they did was
> make the situation worse by putting doubt in your mind that the whole
> incident was a ruse of some sort, and I and FTR were part of it. Now
> that they know the truth, I see no apologies forthcoming. "Nothing is
> going to happen" - remember that mantra? Well something *did* happen,
> and I was there the whole time trying to get you to do something to
> avoid it happening.
> I hope everybody is happy now. I know I'm not, but at least I can walk
> away with a crystal-clear conscious knowing I did the right thing.
> --
> Awwwwww, you po thing.
I only saw this message of Graham's because you responded and cross-posted, BTJ.
>>> People have been trying to find a way to communicate secretly for years >>> but
>>> have not really achieved that goal, said Paul Hill
>> Those are the "people" that shouldn't even try. The remailer system
>> continues to ellude governments trying to trace the senders.
>> --
>> Only in your dreams....You really should stop posting about government >> stuff
>> as you is always WRONG>
>I too believe that G.Morgan is wrong about the 'security' of the
>remailer system.
Oh yeah? How do you know that?
>No way for him to know the *actual* truth, is there?!!
Actually there is.
I know when the bomb threat to the University of Pittsburgh earlier this
year happened, the US government got warrants to seize the remop's
machines and take disk images of them. You know what information they
got? NOTHING!!!
Learn how the remailers work and you'll see why. As long as you don't
leave any evidence on the computer that was used to send an anon email
(or Usenet post), and no evidence in the "sent folder" of the SMTP
server you use - it's impossible to track down the sender if enough hops
are used.
Of course, one has to know *how* the system works to avoid making
mistakes... You would likely make a mistake, or a series of them.
>>>> People have been trying to find a way to communicate secretly for years >>>> but
>>>> have not really achieved that goal, said Paul Hill
>>> Those are the "people" that shouldn't even try. The remailer system
>>> continues to ellude governments trying to trace the senders.
>>> --
>>> Only in your dreams....You really should stop posting about government >>> stuff
>>> as you is always WRONG>
>> I too believe that G.Morgan is wrong about the 'security' of the
>> remailer system.
> Oh yeah? How do you know that?
I've just watched Skyfall! ;-)
I've also got friends in high places who keep me informed, Graham.
>> No way for him to know the *actual* truth, is there?!!
> Actually there is.
> I know when the bomb threat to the University of Pittsburgh earlier this
> year happened, the US government got warrants to seize the remop's
> machines and take disk images of them. You know what information they
> got? NOTHING!!!
You've said you don't trust your police officers. I have a notion that
you don't trust your 'government' either (FBI/CIA?).
What on earth, then, persuades you that whoever told you that they got
"NOTHING" was telling you the truth?!!! Think about that, Graham.
> Learn how the remailers work and you'll see why. As long as you don't
> leave any evidence on the computer that was used to send an anon email
> (or Usenet post), and no evidence in the "sent folder" of the SMTP
> server you use - it's impossible to track down the sender if enough hops
> are used.
Tell me Graham, for what purpose do *you* use them?
Ooops! That would no doubt be seen by some as 'slime'.
To rephrase:- Do you ever use a remailer, Graham? If so, why?
> Of course, one has to know *how* the system works to avoid making
> mistakes... You would likely make a mistake, or a series of them.
I *do* know how the system works (now!). I'm sure I /would/ make a
mistake if I tried to hide - that's why I do the exact opposite and wear
my heart on my sleeve. It's why I became a little annoyed and upset when
folk like the 'respectable' MVP Robear Dyer told outright and blatant
lies - it denigrates the accolade of MVP. Peter Foldes was much the same
- mind you, he *also* claimed to be an MVP.
--
Note - groups changed.
>> You've said you don't trust your police officers. I have a notion that
>> you don't trust your 'government' either (FBI/CIA?).
> Of course I don't trust our government. All one needs to do is look
> around to see how they consistently deceive us.
Just as I thought.
>> What on earth, then, persuades you that whoever told you that they got
>> "NOTHING" was telling you the truth?!!! Think about that, Graham.
> Wasn't a 'who', it was a bunch of 'whos' - and a lot of articles on
> tekkies website's.
It's more than possible, in *my* opinion, that the whole 'bunch' were
fed disinformation. Unless you are an insider (actually work for the
'government') you will *never* know the truth. That's my opinion, btw.
I may have missed it, but I've not noticed you, or Aardvark, SeaNymph or
FTR, criticise Dustin Cook for being involved in his illegal activities
with HHI - the distribution of pirated music. Can you explain why you've
not done so?
Have no doubt. He *will* be caught - it's just a matter of time.
--
--
LOL Surely you jest??
>Tell me Graham, for what purpose do *you* use them?
>Ooops! That would no doubt be seen by some as 'slime'.
>To rephrase:- Do you ever use a remailer, Graham? If so, why?
I have, yes. Why? I dunno, just for the hell of it. It's useful to
learn in case I ever need it for an actual good reason.
It's not like I'm a 'whistle blower' trying to take down a dirty
corporation I have inside knowledge of bad deeds done.
> > Of course, one has to know *how* the system works to avoid making
> > mistakes... You would likely make a mistake, or a series of them.
>I *do* know how the system works (now!).
This will be good.
Would you please educate me and the rest of the readers exactly how they
work? No cheating or links to other sites... just your current
understanding of how they work. I'll be Googling certain phrases to
make sure there is no plagiarism, mind you! ;-)
> I'm sure I /would/ make a
>mistake if I tried to hide - that's why I do the exact opposite and wear
>my heart on my sleeve.
And the snot you left behind from wiping your nose on it.
>It's why I became a little annoyed and upset when
>folk like the 'respectable' MVP Robear Dyer told outright and blatant
>lies - it denigrates the accolade of MVP.
I never had much respect for that title in the first place.
>Peter Foldes was much the same
>- mind you, he *also* claimed to be an MVP.
We all know he is/was a liar. Did you ever find out what happened to
him and why he's not posting anymore?
--
LOL Everybody knows but you 2.
Why are you not working?
How you gonna pay down your eyeball deep debt??
~BD~ wrote:
>I may have missed it, but I've not noticed you, or Aardvark, SeaNymph or
>FTR, criticise Dustin Cook for being involved in his illegal activities
>with HHI - the distribution of pirated music. Can you explain why you've
>not done so?
How do you know I have not told him my opinion privately ?
>> Tell me Graham, for what purpose do *you* use them?
>> Ooops! That would no doubt be seen by some as 'slime'.
>> To rephrase:- Do you ever use a remailer, Graham? If so, why?
> I have, yes. Why? I dunno, just for the hell of it. It's useful to
> learn in case I ever need it for an actual good reason.
> It's not like I'm a 'whistle blower' trying to take down a dirty
> corporation I have inside knowledge of bad deeds done.
>>> Of course, one has to know *how* the system works to avoid making
>>> mistakes... You would likely make a mistake, or a series of them.
>> I *do* know how the system works (now!).
> This will be good.
> Would you please educate me and the rest of the readers exactly how they
> work? No cheating or links to other sites... just your current
> understanding of how they work. I'll be Googling certain phrases to
> make sure there is no plagiarism, mind you! ;-)
No. Not today! :-)
>> I'm sure I /would/ make a
>> mistake if I tried to hide - that's why I do the exact opposite and wear
>> my heart on my sleeve.
> And the snot you left behind from wiping your nose on it.
Yuk!
>> It's why I became a little annoyed and upset when
>> folk like the 'respectable' MVP Robear Dyer told outright and blatant
>> lies - it denigrates the accolade of MVP.
> I never had much respect for that title in the first place.
Maybe you'll explain why that is? I was interested to note that
Malwarebytes didn't choose to use the popular MVP's 'Hosts' file but
chose a one man band's 'Hosts' file provider instead.
http://mysteryfcm.co.uk (Interestingly, Dustin's 'BugHunter' facility is
also hosted there, as you'll no doubt spot under 'friends').
>> Peter Foldes was much the same
>> - mind you, he *also* claimed to be an MVP.
> We all know he is/was a liar. Did you ever find out what happened to
> him and why he's not posting anymore?
I tried sending a message to Daphne Foldes through LinkedIn but she
didn't respond. So the answer is no, I don't know for sure. As you
probably saw, Hot-Text thinks he's in prison (but methinks he was joking!).
--
--
LOL
>> I may have missed it, but I've not noticed you, or Aardvark, SeaNymph or
>> FTR, criticise Dustin Cook for being involved in his illegal activities
>> with HHI - the distribution of pirated music. Can you explain why you've
>> not done so?
> How do you know I have not told him my opinion privately ?
I *don't* know. How could I ?(rhetorical)
You primed me - *have* you told him that what he is doing is not only
illegal but morally wrong?
--
>>> I may have missed it, but I've not noticed you, or Aardvark, SeaNymph or
>>> FTR, criticise Dustin Cook for being involved in his illegal activities
>>> with HHI - the distribution of pirated music. Can you explain why you've
>>> not done so?
>> How do you know I have not told him my opinion privately ?
> I *don't* know. How could I ?(rhetorical)
> You primed me - *have* you told him that what he is doing is not only
> illegal but morally wrong?
> --
> --
> Bet????
How did you make *your* post, in answer to mine, before I'd actually posted my question?
>>> I may have missed it, but I've not noticed you, or Aardvark, SeaNymph or
>>> FTR, criticise Dustin Cook for being involved in his illegal activities
>>> with HHI - the distribution of pirated music. Can you explain why you've
>>> not done so?
>> How do you know I have not told him my opinion privately ?
> I *don't* know. How could I ?(rhetorical)
> You primed me - *have* you told him that what he is doing is not only
> illegal but morally wrong?
> --
> --
> Bet????
How did you make *your* post, in answer to mine, before I'd actually
posted my question?
Truly surprising, BTJ! Amazing, in fact! <nods>
--
He He, we know what you are going to do before you do it...LOL!!!
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:13:24 +0000, the cowardly, slimy cunt wrote:
> G. Morgan wrote:
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>> If you genuinely believed that it was a forgery, then you should have
>>>> called them anyway to report that crime - after all, you are a crime
>>>> fighter aren't you?
>>> Perhaps you are right. I've learned from the experience. Thank you for
>>> your helpful advice, FTR :-)
>> It didn't help that your "pal" JaxAss (*|*) sent a forgery herself to
>> put doubt in your mind.
> Perhaps not, but I find Jax a refreshing change
Only because it's a fucking scumbag trolling cunt just like you.
> to thelikes of SeaNyph
> and Aardvark who both appear to be filled with hate.
LOL. No hate here.
Do I threaten to kill others' family members? Do I mock the afflicted? Do I call the female loved ones of others prostitute? Do I constantly bring up the personal and private business of others? Do I lie about others?
Does SeaNymph do any of the above?
Now fucking tell me who appears to be filled with hate, you cowardly cunt.
>> <SNIP RATIONALISATION FOR ABJECT COWARDICE>
You're a fucking pathetic excuse for a human being.
-- He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but rejoices for those which he has. - Epictetus AD 55 – AD 135
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:29:27 -0600, G. Morgan wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>>> If you genuinely believed that it was a forgery, then you should have
>>> called them anyway to report that crime - after all, you are a crime
>>> fighter aren't you?
>>Perhaps you are right. I've learned from the experience. Thank you for
>>your helpful advice, FTR :-)
> It didn't help that your "pal" JaxAss (*|*) sent a forgery herself to
> put doubt in your mind.
I don't believe the Beartroll sent him anything at all, mate. rather, it was trying to claim responsibility for the *official* police emails he was sent.
> Why didn't you listen to me?
Because a) he's fucking stupid and b) a fucking coward.
> You could have avoided the 4:30 "raid" if
> you just believed me that they wanted to talk.
He thought you were out to get at him, mate. Just as he thinks everyone else who doesn't bow down to him is.
> That's exactly what I
> didn't want you to have to go through, and your wife as a witness to it
> all. :-(
He should have thought about that before a) he threatened my kids' lives and b) when he had the opportunity to contact the investigating officer in July.
-- He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but rejoices for those which he has. - Epictetus AD 55 – AD 135
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:51:30 +0000, the cowardly, slimy cunt wrote:
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> ~BD~ wrote on 11/14/2012 :
>>> BurfordTJustice posted some interesting information! :-)
>>>> "When we talk to businesses about how they use e-mail, we teach users
>>>> that e-mail isn't secure and that you shouldn't use it to receive or
>>>> send confidential information," he said.
>>>> It's the reason why credit card numbers and hospital patient
>>>> information aren't sent via e-mail, he added.
>>> That's why I was suspicious of an email communication supposedly sent
>>> by a police officer in Cheshire to my old AOL email addresses which
>>> are no longer used.
>>> As it transpires, the message *was* genuine. I now accept that.
>> Information for you about how to contact them isn't exactly what I
>> would call confidential information and there is no reason that they
>> would need to cover it. They *could* have signed it digitally so that
>> you could have easily authenticated it - but it wasn't necessary to
>> encrypt it as it was not of a confidential nature that required
>> encryption nor another more secure channel of communication.
> IIRC I only became aware of said message because someone *here* told me
> about it.
That's right. to make sure you fucking read it and did the right thing. Some fucking hope, eh?
> Not a good way for them to get in touch IMO.
As you fucking know, and I told you until I was blue in the fucking face, you stupid cunt, it was the *only* way they had to contact you.
> It was the use of the word 'myself' - instead of 'me' - which caused me
> some doubt. That's what an Irish fella might say, init?!!
Bullshit. It was proven beyond any possible doubt that it was an official communication from Runcorn police. I have absolutely no idea what she wrote in it.
> (i.e. The message didn't say "please contact *me*")
That's not what she told me. FTR and G. Morgan read what she wrote to me too, so stop fucking lying about it. There are three of us here who know what she told you.
>> If you genuinely believed that it was a forgery, then you should have
>> called them anyway to report that crime - after all, you are a crime
>> fighter aren't you?
> Perhaps you are right.
Of course he is. You should either have responded to her request or, if you believed it was a forgery with which I was connected, you should have reported the crime you suspected of having been committed.
You just go ahead and keep rationalising your fucking cowardice, don't you?
> I've learned from the experience.
LOL. You *never* fucking learn.
> Thank you for
> your helpful advice, FTR
Would that be the advice you completely ignored and went on to question his integrity because he gave it?
-- He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but rejoices for those which he has. - Epictetus AD 55 – AD 135
