Cycling, Chess and IP Addresses
MrVidmar
chess champion Susan Polgar and her supporters on Usenet for having
raised the issue of drugs in professional cycling, noting how many of
Lance Armstrong's former teammates have gone down for drug use, there is
an article in today's NY Times reporting that an arrest warrant has been
issued against Floyd Landis, the dethroned 2006 Tour de France winner.
The arrest is for computer hacking of the French National drug testing
laboratory for the purpose of tampering with data to make it look as
though the lab was sloppy and unreliable. They caught the hackers
because a Trojan infecting the labs computers was placed there from the
IP address of Landis' trainer and major defender Arnie Baker. Polgar's
husband, Paul Truong, was identified the same way as the author of
thousands of obscene posting to Usenet using the names of other living
chess personalities. Them there IP addresses don't lie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/sports/cycling/16landis.html?ref=global-home
Those chess related cases were settled last month with Polgar and
husband agreeing not to contest their removal from the other USCF for
cause and agreeing to never again in their lives to seek or accept any
leadership positions with the USCF(chess).
Bob Schwartz
> The arrest is for computer hacking of the French National drug testing
> laboratory for the purpose of tampering with data to make it look as
> though the lab was sloppy and unreliable. They caught the hackers
> because a Trojan infecting the labs computers was placed there from the
> IP address of Landis' trainer and major defender Arnie Baker.
If the French can't tell Arnie Baker from Flandis then jesus
fucking christ are they stupid. They aren't that hard to tell
apart, especially if you check the IP.
Bob Schwartz
Fred Fredburger
OTOH, Susan Polgar and Flandis are indistinguishable.
MrVidmar
Prosecutors don't always charge everyone involved in a criminal matter
at the same time. In the chess cases, Polgar's webmaster was arrested
by the US Secret Service and is under indictment. Neither Polgar nor
her husband have been indicted to this point. Stay tuned. In criminal
matters, things tend to move slowly everywhere.
That said, your comment is stupid in the extreme.
MrVidmar
attorneys here in the US. If they introduced false, manufactured
evidence in the arbitration proceeding conducted here in the US, it is
possible that they have run afoul of federal and state criminal statutes.
In the chess cases settled in Texas, we came across communications
during discovery that raised a red flag that a false affidavit may have
been submitted to the court. Courts, including arbitration panels of
the AAA, don't like it when the integrity of the proceeding is called
into question. I would expect the US Anti-doping Agency to take a hard
look at the tampering evidence with an eye to going to the authorities.
A. Dumas
Bob Schwartz
Aren't you the guy that said that the shit would hit the fan
once the Walsh book was published in English?
Aren't you the guy that mistook a gym teacher for a college
perfesser.
USADA has finished their job in this case and moved on. They
don't care about the French. Every single athlete that goes
in front of an arbitration panel lies to them. It happens all
the time. Dumbass.
Bob Schwartz
Henry
> Have been personally lambasted in court pleadings by former women's
> chess champion Susan Polgar and her supporters on Usenet for having
> raised the issue of drugs in professional cycling, noting how many of
> Lance Armstrong's former teammates have gone down for drug use, there is
> an article in today's NY Times reporting that an arrest warrant has been
> issued against Floyd Landis, the dethroned 2006 Tour de France winner.
> The arrest is for computer hacking of the French National drug testing
> laboratory for the purpose of tampering with data to make it look as
> though the lab was sloppy and unreliable. They caught the hackers
> because a Trojan infecting the labs computers was placed there from the
> IP address of Landis' trainer and major defender Arnie Baker. Polgar's
> husband, Paul Truong, was identified the same way as the author of
> thousands of obscene posting to Usenet using the names of other living
>
> Those chess related cases were settled last month with Polgar and
> husband agreeing not to contest their removal from the other USCF for
> cause and agreeing to never again in their lives to seek or accept any
> leadership positions with the USCF(chess).
of course IP addresses can lie.
MrVidmar
You are truly a stupid one. I didn't know you spoke for USADA. Do you
also speak for WADA? The answer to your rather stupid, self-serving
questions are not really and no.
And stupid one, while I would agree that a significant number of
athletes going before arbitration panels lie, that is quite different
from computer hacking and creating false evidence which are criminal
offenses. Just ask Ms Polgar's webmaster, Gregory Alexander, who is
under indictment for 34 counts of hacking and one count of aggravated
identity theft. If he doesn't sing the right tune, he'll be in prison
for a minimum of two years.
It's the real world, Stupid, and stupid people commit crimes and get
caught.
KurganGringioni
"MrVidmar" <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:1v2dnW0SZZEcXeTW...@giganews.com...
: Have been personally lambasted in court pleadings
Please go away.
bar
it was the chinese! framing flandis for ... something ...
bjwe...@gmail.com
> Have been personally lambasted in court pleadings by former women's
> chess champion Susan Polgar and her supporters on Usenet for having
> raised the issue of drugs in professional cycling, noting how many of
> Lance Armstrong's former teammates have gone down for drug use, there is
> an article in today's NY Times reporting that an arrest warrant has been
> issued against Floyd Landis, the dethroned 2006 Tour de France winner.
> The arrest is for computer hacking of the French National drug testing
> laboratory for the purpose of tampering with data to make it look as
> though the lab was sloppy and unreliable. They caught the hackers
> because a Trojan infecting the labs computers was placed there from the
> IP address of Landis' trainer and major defender Arnie Baker. Polgar's
> husband, Paul Truong, was identified the same way as the author of
> thousands of obscene posting to Usenet using the names of other living
> chess personalities. Them there IP addresses don't lie.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/sports/cycling/16landis.html
>
> husband agreeing not to contest their removal from the other USCF for
> cause and agreeing to never again in their lives to seek or accept any
> leadership positions with the USCF(chess).
Dumbass,
From the article:
"Investigators concluded that the program could have
originated from an e-mail message sent to the lab from
a computer using the same Internet protocol address
as Arnie Baker, Landis’s coach."
The Times says "could have originated" while you said
the Trojan "was placed there from the IP address [of Baker]."
As a lawyer, the difference between these two phrasings
should be obvious to you. Does this mean that you're
disseminating false evidence on Usenet?
Ben
MrVidmar
MrVidmar
>
> The Times says "could have originated" while you said
> the Trojan "was placed there from the IP address [of Baker]."
> As a lawyer, the difference between these two phrasings
> should be obvious to you. Does this mean that you're
> disseminating false evidence on Usenet?
>
> Ben
Fred Fredburger
> MrVidmar wrote:
>> I suspect Mr. Landis and Mr. Baker will be retaining criminal defense
>> attorneys here in the US. If they introduced false, manufactured
>> evidence in the arbitration proceeding conducted here in the US, it is
>> possible that they have run afoul of federal and state criminal statutes.
>>
>> In the chess cases settled in Texas, we came across communications
>> during discovery that raised a red flag that a false affidavit may
>> have been submitted to the court. Courts, including arbitration
>> panels of the AAA, don't like it when the integrity of the proceeding
>> is called into question. I would expect the US Anti-doping Agency to
>> take a hard look at the tampering evidence with an eye to going to the
>> authorities.
>
> Aren't you the guy that said that the shit would hit the fan
> once the Walsh book was published in English?
>
> Aren't you the guy that mistook a gym teacher for a college
> perfesser.
>
OH! Let me play too!
He's also the guy who KNEW Flandis was clean because he didn't "ride
like a robot."
Bob Schwartz
Dude,
Have you noticed that no one has welcomed you back?
Bob Schwartz
Howard Kveck
Bob Schwartz <bob.sc...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote:
Bill Crowther would have. Well, he'd have welcomed "Davey" back too.
--
tanx,
Howard
Caught playing safe
It's a bored game
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
bjwe...@gmail.com
>
> > The Times says "could have originated" while you said
> > the Trojan "was placed there from the IP address [of Baker]."
> > As a lawyer, the difference between these two phrasings
> > should be obvious to you. Does this mean that you're
> > disseminating false evidence on Usenet?
>
> > Ben
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! You might want to read some of the other news reports, Stupid.
I can wait for them to be translated from French.
Thanks,
Ben
Henry
wrote:
the chain of technical evidence is dodgy. the circumstantial evidence
is much more fun
Donald Munro
> it was the chinese! framing flandis for ... something ...
Publicity. He's going to be promoting their made in china irony meters.
Donald Munro
> OH! Let me play too!
You just want to play cos you heard the chess chicks are hot and Mrs
Fredburgers gone to Vegas or Vancouver.
Donald Munro
> Them there IP addresses don't lie.
<http://www.iss.net/security_center/advice/Underground/Hacking/Methods/Technical/Spoofing/default.htm>
ilan
> Have been personally lambasted in court pleadings by former women's
> chess champion Susan Polgar and her supporters on Usenet for having
> raised the issue of drugs in professional cycling, noting how many of
> Lance Armstrong's former teammates have gone down for drug use, there is
> an article in today's NY Times reporting that an arrest warrant has been
> issued against Floyd Landis, the dethroned 2006 Tour de France winner.
> The arrest is for computer hacking of the French National drug testing
> laboratory for the purpose of tampering with data to make it look as
> though the lab was sloppy and unreliable. They caught the hackers
> because a Trojan infecting the labs computers was placed there from the
> IP address of Landis' trainer and major defender Arnie Baker. Polgar's
> husband, Paul Truong, was identified the same way as the author of
> thousands of obscene posting to Usenet using the names of other living
>
> Those chess related cases were settled last month with Polgar and
> husband agreeing not to contest their removal from the other USCF for
> cause and agreeing to never again in their lives to seek or accept any
> leadership positions with the USCF(chess).
I would have quit chess because of this: "after the match was drawn
she lost on the drawing of lots" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Polgar
It is said that in cycling, some races are lotteries, but who would
have ever thought that chess matches are actual lotteries?
-ilan
MrVidmar
>>
>> The Times says "could have originated" while you said
>> the Trojan "was placed there from the IP address [of Baker]."
>> As a lawyer, the difference between these two phrasings
>> should be obvious to you. Does this mean that you're
>> disseminating false evidence on Usenet?
>>
>> Ben
>
> the chain of technical evidence is dodgy. the circumstantial evidence
> is much more fun
supporters said about the hacking involving Alexander. You have no idea
what the forensic computer evidence is. From what I know of the
Alexander matter, the amount of hard evidence that can be developed by
subpoenas to Internet service providers is significant. BTW, "chains"
of evidence rules are not really applicable to computer tracing. The
evidence is there and preserved. It's not like testing piss. What
Landis and Baker apparently did was the same as your comment, stupid.
MrVidmar
MrVidmar
> In article <0aednQFnnKuakufW...@giganews.com>,
> Bob Schwartz <bob.sc...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> MrVidmar wrote:
>>> KurganGringioni wrote:
>>>> "MrVidmar" <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1v2dnW0SZZEcXeTW...@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> : Have been personally lambasted in court pleadings
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please go away.
>>> Please go fuck yourself. Thanks.
>> Dude,
>>
>> Have you noticed that no one has welcomed you back?
>
> Bill Crowther would have. Well, he'd have welcomed "Davey" back too.
>
MrVidmar
from ideal, but much better than drawing lots. There are also, in
tournaments, several different tie break systems that can be used.
MrVidmar
In an e-mail to the Los Angles Times on Monday, Landis denied the
hacking allegation. He told the newspaper no warrant had been served
against him.
"I can't speak for Arnie, but no attempt has been made to formally
contact me," Landis said in the e-mail. "It appears to be another case
of fabricated evidence by a French lab who is still upset a United
States citizen believed he should have the right to face his accusers
and defend himself."
It's a nice attempt at deflection, but that's not at all likely. I
don't expect that Landis or Baker will address the forensic trail
leading to Baker's IP address any time soon.
Bob Schwartz
Dumbass,
Given that he's not in France and no one with authority to
pursue it in the US gives a shit I suspect you're right.
When the Lemond thing was going on I thought of you. I
suspect Lemond was in the market for a psychotic attorney
intensely focused on irrelevant tangents in his lawsuit
against Trek. Shame you weren't available.
Bob Schwartz
MrVidmar
> MrVidmar wrote:
>> Landis speaks:
>> In an e-mail to the Los Angles Times on Monday, Landis denied the
>> hacking allegation. He told the newspaper no warrant had been served
>> against him.
>>
>> "I can't speak for Arnie, but no attempt has been made to formally
>> contact me," Landis said in the e-mail. "It appears to be another case
>> of fabricated evidence by a French lab who is still upset a United
>> States citizen believed he should have the right to face his accusers
>> and defend himself."
>>
>> It's a nice attempt at deflection, but that's not at all likely. I
>> don't expect that Landis or Baker will address the forensic trail
>> leading to Baker's IP address any time soon.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Given that he's not in France and no one with authority to
> pursue it in the US gives a shit I suspect you're right.
The stupid comments flow from you like water over Niagara Falls. The
USADA and CAS spent a significant amount of money rebutting what was
apparently doctored, false evidence entered into arbitration proceedings
in this country as well as Europe. It would not be at all surprising if
USADA went to the US Attorney and asked them to open an investigation
against Landis and Baker. As well as criminal action the Federal
statutes provide for a parallel civil cause of action with statutory
damages of $1 million for each instance of hacking. State criminal laws
may also apply.
>
> When the Lemond thing was going on I thought of you. I
> suspect Lemond was in the market for a psychotic attorney
> intensely focused on irrelevant tangents in his lawsuit
> against Trek. Shame you weren't available.
Keep those asinine comments flowing, Stupid. ROTFL!!!!
>
> Bob Schwartz
Bob Schwartz
Dumbass,
Criminal cases is not what USADA does. Moninger, for example,
submitted doctored, false evidence at his hearing. USADA
refuted that evidence, got the judgement, and moved on. It
helped a lot that the organization is not run by someone with
massive OCD mental health issues. Dumbass.
Bob Schwartz
MrVidmar
cases. Stupid one, they are the victims of what looks like criminal
behavior on the part of Landis and Baker. As victims (it cost them
thousands of $$ to rebut tainted, doctored evidence resulting from
alleged illegal computer hacking) they would go to the US Attorney and
ask the US Attorney to open an investigation (criminal) against Landis,
Baker and anyone else involved. They would then have a civil attorney
advise them on brining a civil action against Landis, Baker and others
under Federal statutes that provide a civil cause of action for illegal
hacking, with mandatory statutory damages of $1 million per-hacking
instance. Take a look at United States of America Chess Association vs.
Susan Polgar, Gregory Alexander and John Does 1-20 Inclusive, Northern
District of California, Cause No. 3:08-CV-05126-MHP, pending before
Judge Patel. You can access the pleadings free by setting up a free
account at
https://www.litmaven.com
Read, learn, think before you write more stupid comments, Stupid.
Bob Schwartz
> Are you really this stupid??!! Of course USADA doesn't "do" criminal
> cases. Stupid one, they are the victims of what looks like criminal
> behavior on the part of Landis and Baker. As victims (it cost them
> thousands of $$ to rebut tainted, doctored evidence resulting from
> alleged illegal computer hacking) they would go to the US Attorney and
> ask the US Attorney to open an investigation (criminal) against Landis,
> Baker and anyone else involved. They would then have a civil attorney
> advise them on brining a civil action against Landis, Baker and others
> under Federal statutes that provide a civil cause of action for illegal
> hacking, with mandatory statutory damages of $1 million per-hacking
> instance. Take a look at United States of America Chess Association vs.
> Susan Polgar, Gregory Alexander and John Does 1-20 Inclusive, Northern
> District of California, Cause No. 3:08-CV-05126-MHP, pending before
> Judge Patel. You can access the pleadings free by setting up a free
> account at
> https://www.litmaven.com
>
> Read, learn, think before you write more stupid comments, Stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder
MrVidmar
ROTFL!! When you can't say something intelligent in an discussion,
you've found the perfect place to go. Congratulations. You're still
stupid, Stupid.
--D-y
This Polgar chick really hurt you bad, bro.
--D-y
Kurgan Gringioni
"MrVidmar" <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> Stupid comment, Henry. That pretty much was/is what the Polgar
> supporters said about the hacking involving Alexander. You have no idea
> what the forensic computer evidence is.
We don't want to hear about your lame chess legal drama. Please go away.
Kurgan Gringioni
"MrVidmar" <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> Are you really this stupid??!! Of course USADA doesn't "do" criminal
> cases. Stupid one, they are the victims of what looks like criminal
> behavior on the part of Landis and Baker. As victims (it cost them
> thousands of $$ to rebut tainted, doctored evidence resulting from
> alleged illegal computer hacking) they would go to the US Attorney and
> ask the US Attorney to open an investigation (criminal) against Landis,
> Baker and anyone else involved.
It won't happen.
The US Attorney won't care about this.
Please go away.
Bob Schwartz
USADA doesn't care about it either.
I think someone should test Laff's precious bodily
fluids for contamination.
Bob Schwartz
MrVidmar
MrVidmar
Attorneys building their career.
MrVidmar
MrVidmar
Nobody cares about chess. Then the US Secret Service searched Polgar's
webmaster's house and hauled away all of his computers. Five months
later a Grand Jury in Norther CA indicted the guy on 34 counts of
hacking and one count of aggravated identity theft. The investigation
is still open as to others.
All for now. Please go ahead and fuck yourself. :-)
MrVidmar
Gee, that's really too bad. Please fuck yourself. ;-)
Bob Schwartz
Every time is respond to you I feel like I have to
go wash my hands. Is that odd or what?
Bob Schwartz
RobertH
> This Polgar chick really hurt you bad, bro.
> --D-y
I can't believe after 37 posts this one was still up for grabs.
MrVidmar
you. Does your shrink address you as Stupid? He should.
bar
Godammit, that was MY line!! Serves me right for taking the morning
off from rbr.
-b-
p.s. "go fuck yourself" is trending quite high today ...
Henry
>
> >> The Times says "could have originated" while you said
> >> the Trojan "was placed there from the IP address [of Baker]."
> >> As a lawyer, the difference between these two phrasings
> >> should be obvious to you. Does this mean that you're
> >> disseminating false evidence on Usenet?
>
> >> Ben
>
> > the chain of technical evidence is dodgy. the circumstantial evidence
> > is much more fun
>
> Stupid comment, Henry. That pretty much was/is what the Polgar
> supporters said about the hacking involving Alexander. You have no idea
> what the forensic computer evidence is. From what I know of the
> Alexander matter, the amount of hard evidence that can be developed by
> subpoenas to Internet service providers is significant. BTW, "chains"
> of evidence rules are not really applicable to computer tracing. The
> evidence is there and preserved. It's not like testing piss. What
> Landis and Baker apparently did was the same as your comment, stupid.
unlike cycling (about which I know very little) or doping (which I
know nothing at all) I know much more about hacking.
bjwe...@gmail.com
Speaking of psychiatrists, you seem to have taken
your probably-rightful grievances about a campaign
against you or your pals waged by Polgar and her cronies,
and displaced them onto a bunch of people you don't
know. Like Landis. Hacking is not transitive. Just
because you're pissed off at both Polgar and Landis,
and Polgar's friend hacked a computer, does not
prove that Landis's friend hacked a computer. IOW,
I don't see how the chess-USCF is relevant at all.
There may be proof out there somewhere that Landis's
friend hacked a computer, or that documents entered
into evidence at Landis's hearing were stolen from a
hacked LNDD computer (which is different from saying
that someone forged a document to make it look like
it came from a LNDD computer) but we haven't seen this
evidence yet, especially for the latter charge.
Ben
MrVidmar
were more directed toward discrediting me as a way to make their point.
Having just spent nearly two years litigating these issues, I clearly
have a good idea of what I'm writing about as opposed to a blow hard
like Schwartz.
It's actually amusing to read the same debunked defenses here that
Polgar/Truong supporters used to blow smoke in various forums. I hope
people here take the time to read through the expert report of Dr. Cohen
that our side submitted to the Federal court in Texas as well as the
civil complaint in Federal court in California against Polgar and
Alexander and Alexander's indictment.
Anyone today who thinks they can hack into a computer system and not
leave an electronic trail is doing little more than make money for
defense attorneys.
KurganGringioni
Dumbass -
It won't happen. The only instance of the Justice Department getting
involved in a sports dispute are Marion Jones and Barry Bonds and the reason
they did that is Bonds and Jones lied to a grand jury and federal
investigators, respectively. They didn't even go after Mark McGwire after he
evaded Congress' questions and McGwire is a 100 times bigger fish than
Flandis who never got punished. In contrast, Flandis has been punished by
the UCI and the sporting event in question was on foreign soil. The Feds
won't touch this. Waste of their time.
Think about that for a second. The steroid taking cheater who broke Roger
Maris' and by extension, Babe Ruth's record (done in 154 games instead of
162) never got prosecuted and they're going to go after Flandis? Ha. Your
delusionality hasn't changed.
The US Attorneys let the sports governing bodies run themselves, as they
should. They've got bigger things to concern themselves with.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
>Anyone today who thinks they can hack into a computer system and not
>leave an electronic trail is doing little more than make money for
>defense attorneys.
Sorry, happens all the time. Far more than people will admit that were
the targets. Please stop trying to sound like a computer expert when
you are not - and you are proving it more and more by the post.
Whatever the final outcome or disposition of the alleged hacking of
Landis' friend or whoever, a bad hacker is in no way an indication or
marker of the abilities of those that truly good at what they do. And
believe it or not, it is highly unlikely that anyone that is an expert
on either side of the issue is going to discuss openly on rbr what the
latest tools and techniques happen to be.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Fred Fredburger
> It's a nice attempt at deflection, but that's not at all likely. I
> don't expect that Landis or Baker will address the forensic trail
> leading to Baker's IP address any time soon.
You're right. Neither Landis nor Baker are likely to address the
imaginary forensic trail that you've convinced yourself exists in some
hugely compelling way.
MrVidmar
The myth of the good hacker is just that, a myth. Start with the Cohen
Report and I'll send you several more expert reports to read. The latest
tools an technologies won't be discussed here by the experts, but they
are discussed by experts in testimony for court cases and
professionally. Having just gone through litigation focused on just
these issues, I have more insight into the issue than many people. Our
side learned a lot and paid a lot for the education. I estimate that
our side spent in excess of $400,000 for forensics and internet law
experts to acquire insight into the hacking of email and faking of
Usenet postings. I'm not an expert, but I do know what I'm writing about
here whereas people like Schwartz don't.
I have to think that the idea that cyclists have that they can beat any
test or get over on the authorities led to a situation with Landis and
Baker that just did not translate into the hacking milieu. How far the
case will proceed in France and the US is dependent on many unknowns,
but the issues are there as raised and discussed here.
Fred Fredburger
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:22:12 -0500, MrVidmar <vid...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Anyone today who thinks they can hack into a computer system and not
>> leave an electronic trail is doing little more than make money for
>> defense attorneys.
>
> Sorry, happens all the time. Far more than people will admit that were
> the targets. Please stop trying to sound like a computer expert when
> you are not - and you are proving it more and more by the post.
>
He's convinced himself that all ISPs log and retain every incoming and
outgoing packet and retain all system and application logs. We wont be
able to convince him otherwise.
MrVidmar
Freddy, I suggest that you tell that to the French investigating judge
who issued the arrest warrant. Have you seen the forensic data?
Unlikely. Let's wait and see what the French court makes public. What
we have now is the report from the lab director that the hacking was
traced back to them by the court. Time will tell.
What I'm curious to hear is Landis' attorney's denial that he knoew
anything about the possibly of false data being placed into evidence by
him on Landis' behalf in the CAS proceedings. I don't see an attorney
of his caliber putting his career in jeopardy for a client.
MrVidmar
You have no idea what I'm convinced of, period. Perhaps you would be
surprised by just how much data is stored and saved, even without formal
preservation requests.
Henry
not that I want to feed the troll, and I do agree with truism of this
comment, logs _can_ be stored and retained quite cheaply; I doubt that
most ISP's want to take on that overhead; I have managed a 2000 user
mail gateway and the logs were kept (hopefully) forever, but not the
attachments. Feed them into a database, archive.
--D-y
Neck and neck with "stupid", by an informal guesstimate.
I was hoping to transmit a sort of general meaning, if you know what I
mean, and I only want to borrow
your line this once I promise.
Possibly the most applicable instance, I have to say.
--D-y
bar
no hard feelings, bro ... you did what had to be done.
Bob Schwartz
> The myth of the good hacker is just that, a myth. Start with the Cohen
> Report and I'll send you several more expert reports to read. The latest
> tools an technologies won't be discussed here by the experts, but they
> are discussed by experts in testimony for court cases and
> professionally. Having just gone through litigation focused on just
> these issues, I have more insight into the issue than many people. Our
> side learned a lot and paid a lot for the education. I estimate that
> our side spent in excess of $400,000 for forensics and internet law
> experts to acquire insight into the hacking of email and faking of
> Usenet postings. I'm not an expert, but I do know what I'm writing about
> here whereas people like Schwartz don't.
Dumbass,
Was Professor Vayer one of the experts? You know, he's a professor.
Bob Schwartz
--D-y
wrote:
(snip snip, just want to ask a question)
So, I went looking and saw Lafferty's name (assuming another Brian is
the same Lafferty who used to go on about stuff like quarantining pro
bike riders, destroying the sport on purpose or at least ending racing
for a couple of years as effective and justifiable ploys in the War on
Doping) mentioned as one of the sue-ee's in the chess-mess that
vidmore is talking about-- ironically, whatever the letters stand for,
it's USCF for chess, too. Yeah, Chess Federation, I guess. Whatever.
Well well, looks like someone called someone else a poopyhead or
something in court, and else is mighty PO'd.
Question is, is this "vidmar" the same entity as Lafferty?
Can you imagine posting to a cycling newsgroup with the nom-de-net
"MrMerckx"? Effrontery, anyone?
They're all still doping. Chess players included.
<g>
Regards,
--D-y
Fred Fredburger
Sure, it CAN be done. As you say though, the motivation is generally
lacking.
Fred Fredburger
>
> You have no idea what I'm convinced of, period.
Of course I know what you're convinced of, nitwit! You keep telling us.
KurganGringioni
"--D-y" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:7c023290-1706-4f19...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 16, 5:00 pm, "KurganGringioni" <soulinthemach...@gmail.com>
> Question is, is this "vidmar" the same entity as Lafferty?
Dumbass -
Yes.
Unfortunately.
Fred Fredburger
> Have you seen the forensic data?
> Unlikely.
I have seen exactly as much as you have. In that way, we are the same.
there are differences though:
1. I'm aware that I don't know what the evidence is. You've convinced
yourself you know all about it because you're a delusional fuckhead.
2. You are WAY over your head on the technical bits involved. I'm not.
It's because you're way over your head that you have such unjustified
certainty. Besides being a delusional fuckhead, I mean.
Howard Kveck
MrVidmar <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > In article <0aednQFnnKuakufW...@giganews.com>,
> > Bob Schwartz <bob.sc...@sbcREMOVEglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> MrVidmar wrote:
> >>> KurganGringioni wrote:
> >>>> "MrVidmar" <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:1v2dnW0SZZEcXeTW...@giganews.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> : Have been personally lambasted in court pleadings
> >>>>
> >>>> Please go away.
> >>> Please go fuck yourself. Thanks.
> >> Dude,
> >>
> >> Have you noticed that no one has welcomed you back?
> >
> > Bill Crowther would have. Well, he'd have welcomed "Davey" back too.
> >
> Haven't heard from Bill for some time. Is he still posting here?
No, there was a "Trains" incident.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/eb2b7e132d046164
--
tanx,
Howard
Caught playing safe
It's a bored game
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Bob Schwartz
Unless the ISP admins have OCD. Then it makes perfect sense.
Bob Schwartz
Fred Fredburger
I did some packet captures on a moderately loaded DB server last month
in an attempt to track down the source of automated login errors. I
found it. I was lucky to have an extra 20 TB volume sitting around idle
that I could use to store and process the data that I collected over a 3
hour period.
OCD, deep pockets and lots of time on their hands..
Kurgan Gringioni
>
> Anyone today who thinks they can hack into a computer system and not leave
> an electronic trail is doing little more than make money for defense
> attorneys.
Dumbass -
It all depends on the security level on the system and the sophistication of
the hacker.
The security levels of computer systems are not uniform and neither are the
sophistication levels of hackers.
Right now I could hack into 4 unsecured wireless networks sitting here in my
bedroom and if I ran a MAC spoofer no one would be able to trace it after
the fact, not even Homeland Security. The reason I could do that is those
systems have zero security. Don't even need a password.
If some amateur level hacking doctor (Arnie Baker) could hack into some lab
simply by sending them an email, what makes you think that their security
measures are at a level to where they could trace it? They didn't even run a
sniffer for incoming mail.
bjwe...@gmail.com
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of psychiatrists, you seem to have taken
> > your probably-rightful grievances about a campaign
> > against you or your pals waged by Polgar and her cronies,
> > and displaced them onto a bunch of people you don't
> > know. Like Landis. Hacking is not transitive. Just
> > because you're pissed off at both Polgar and Landis,
> > and Polgar's friend hacked a computer, does not
> > prove that Landis's friend hacked a computer. IOW,
> > I don't see how the chess-USCF is relevant at all.
>
> > There may be proof out there somewhere that Landis's
> > friend hacked a computer, or that documents entered
> > into evidence at Landis's hearing were stolen from a
> > hacked LNDD computer (which is different from saying
> > that someone forged a document to make it look like
> > it came from a LNDD computer) but we haven't seen this
> > evidence yet, especially for the latter charge.
>
> > Ben
>
> Ben, the comments made trying to debunk the danger Landis and Baker face
> were more directed toward discrediting me as a way to make their point.
It's all about you, isn't it?
Ben
Donald Munro
> not that I want to feed the troll, and I do agree with truism of this
> comment, logs _can_ be stored and retained quite cheaply
Of every ethernet packet ? Not that any real hacker (as opposed to
script kiddy) would do the hacking from his own computer.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
>The myth of the good hacker is just that, a myth. Start with the Cohen
>Report and I'll send you several more expert reports to read
I get regular reports, including from my vendors, that are prepared by
experts, experts we pay for other than court cases. You are simply
wrong. There are, in fact, expert hackers, although they are not
(generally) what hackers were in the sense used in the 90s. Some are
even well paid for the damage they do. The Russian or East European
mafia level hackers are suspected of essentially using the equivalent
of dummy corporations to set up the bounces used to hide source,
rather than rely on grabbing available relays that may or may not be
there when they need them. Its organized in many cases and
professional in every sense.
No doubt you can create a tautology, where you define hackers as other
than professional level, then say that hackers aren't professional or
competent. I guess then you just wave your hand at all those that are
professional and competent and call them something like 'those guys'.
MrVidmar
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:35:50 -0500, MrVidmar <vid...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The myth of the good hacker is just that, a myth. Start with the Cohen
>> Report and I'll send you several more expert reports to read
>
> I get regular reports, including from my vendors, that are prepared by
> experts, experts we pay for other than court cases. You are simply
> wrong. There are, in fact, expert hackers, although they are not
> (generally) what hackers were in the sense used in the 90s. Some are
> even well paid for the damage they do. The Russian or East European
> mafia level hackers are suspected of essentially using the equivalent
> of dummy corporations to set up the bounces used to hide source,
> rather than rely on grabbing available relays that may or may not be
> there when they need them. Its organized in many cases and
> professional in every sense.
ROTFL! I'll ask our counsel to pass your message on to the Secret
Service the next time he's in contact with them.
MrVidmar
appreciate it a couple of years ago.
You still have no idea what, if anything, I'm convinced of. LOL!!
MrVidmar
yourself, but that you failed miserably. Thanks.
MrVidmar
substitute for reasoned argument.
--D-y
> Have been personally lambasted in court pleadings by former women's
> chess champion Susan Polgar and her supporters on Usenet for having
> raised the issue of drugs in professional cycling, noting how many of
> Lance Armstrong's former teammates have gone down for drug use, there is
> an article in today's NY Times reporting that an arrest warrant has been
> issued against Floyd Landis, the dethroned 2006 Tour de France winner.
> The arrest is for computer hacking of the French National drug testing
> laboratory for the purpose of tampering with data to make it look as
> though the lab was sloppy and unreliable. They caught the hackers
> because a Trojan infecting the labs computers was placed there from the
> IP address of Landis' trainer and major defender Arnie Baker. Polgar's
> husband, Paul Truong, was identified the same way as the author of
> thousands of obscene posting to Usenet using the names of other living
> chess personalities. Them there IP addresses don't lie.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/sports/cycling/16landis.html?ref=gl...
>
> Those chess related cases were settled last month with Polgar and
> husband agreeing not to contest their removal from the other USCF for
> cause and agreeing to never again in their lives to seek or accept any
> leadership positions with the USCF(chess).
Which apparently didn't take the bad taste out of your mouth, noting
how you sneaked back in here with a new "identity"-- "even worse".
IOW, I couldn't tell who you were by the tone (abusive) of your posts.
So I asked. "Much, much worse".
Offered in some sort of humorous framework, the "MrVidmar" thing might
be funny.
But, when it gets to the point where only you (and perhaps a few
sycophantic followers) "know the truth" or are "not stupid", then
there is a problem.
We live in a world where smart people, at least a few of whom knew
exactly where it was all heading, put the economy on the rocks, and
then held out their hands for the obscene bonuses they also knew were
coming.
IOW, there are important things to worry about, and places where
"justice" really does need to be served.
If, in reference to your "lambasting" in court, your obsession didn't
play in Peoria, so to speak, maybe you should take a hint there.
--D-y
MrVidmar
Sadly, your ability to read for comprehension deteriorates when reading
my posts. What we "know" is this:
1. French authorities, per comments from the French lab director,
indicate that their computer system was hacked and that data was altered
and used by Landis in his CAS hearings.
2. That same lab director stated that the French investigating
magistrate had traced the source of the hacking to the IP address of
Arnie Baker.
3. We know that Arnie Baker has a relationship with Landis that included
helping prepare and present his case to CAS.
I would assume that if Landis and Baker are prudent, they have already
consulted and/or retained criminal counsel to advise them. How much
electronic evidence has been obtained by the French magistrate remains
to be seen. Given the length of time involved since the CAS hearing and
alleged hacking and the governmental power at the magistrate's disposal
to obtain data, one has to think there is likely a good deal of forensic
evidence on which the arrest warrant, or at least the demand to appear
previously issued, is based.
What I am unclear of from the news reports is whether the arrest warrant
is based primarily on Landis and Baker's failure to appear as part of
the magistrate's inquiry or that it was based on both the failure to
appear and the charge of hacking combined.
What action USADA might take has been mentioned here. Whether they
decide to take action by meeting with the US Attorney or by commencing a
civil action to recover for monies spent rebutting spurious arbitration
evidence remains to be seen.
IMO, the bottom line is that Landis and Baker are far from getting out
of the woods on this one. Fooling UCI and WADA drug testers is one
thing. What is alleged here is an entirely different animal.
Cheers!
MrVidmar
> On Feb 15, 3:44 pm, MrVidmar <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Have been personally lambasted in court pleadings by former women's
>> chess champion Susan Polgar and her supporters on Usenet for having
>> raised the issue of drugs in professional cycling, noting how many of
>> Lance Armstrong's former teammates have gone down for drug use, there is
>> an article in today's NY Times reporting that an arrest warrant has been
>> issued against Floyd Landis, the dethroned 2006 Tour de France winner.
>> The arrest is for computer hacking of the French National drug testing
>> laboratory for the purpose of tampering with data to make it look as
>> though the lab was sloppy and unreliable. They caught the hackers
>> because a Trojan infecting the labs computers was placed there from the
>> IP address of Landis' trainer and major defender Arnie Baker. Polgar's
>> husband, Paul Truong, was identified the same way as the author of
>> thousands of obscene posting to Usenet using the names of other living
>> chess personalities. Them there IP addresses don't lie.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/sports/cycling/16landis.html?ref=gl...
>>
>> Those chess related cases were settled last month with Polgar and
>> husband agreeing not to contest their removal from the other USCF for
>> cause and agreeing to never again in their lives to seek or accept any
>> leadership positions with the USCF(chess).
>
> Which apparently didn't take the bad taste out of your mouth, noting
> how you sneaked back in here with a new "identity"-- "even worse".
> IOW, I couldn't tell who you were by the tone (abusive) of your posts.
> So I asked. "Much, much worse".
No sneaking back in. I've posted here before with the handle that I
used in the chess forums. Anyway, a bright guy like you would just have
to look at the IP I'm posting from to see that it's me.
>
> Offered in some sort of humorous framework, the "MrVidmar" thing might
> be funny.
>
> But, when it gets to the point where only you (and perhaps a few
> sycophantic followers) "know the truth" or are "not stupid", then
> there is a problem.
Yada, yada, yada.
>
> We live in a world where smart people, at least a few of whom knew
> exactly where it was all heading, put the economy on the rocks, and
> then held out their hands for the obscene bonuses they also knew were
> coming.
Nice diversion. You get extra points!
>
> IOW, there are important things to worry about, and places where
> "justice" really does need to be served.
>
> If, in reference to your "lambasting" in court, your obsession didn't
> play in Peoria, so to speak, maybe you should take a hint there.
Wrong. We actually got about 95% of our motions granted and were well on
the way to trial with a great position. Amongst the 14 defendants,
several we not at all happy about not going to trial. Settling was a
pure insurance company business decision. Go to Litmaven.com and read
all the papers--I do hope you have better things to do.
The only ones who were lambasted by the court were Polgar, Alexander and
Truong. Polgar caved when the court ordered her to produce her tax
returns to prove damages and for her husband to properly answer
interrogatories, many of which dealt with his 2000+ Usenet postings
under the names of other living people in the chess world.
> --D-y
Bob Schwartz
> The only ones who were lambasted by the court were Polgar, Alexander and
> Truong. Polgar caved when the court ordered her to produce her tax
> returns to prove damages and for her husband to properly answer
> interrogatories, many of which dealt with his 2000+ Usenet postings
> under the names of other living people in the chess world.
Forget doping. Sock puppets are killing the sport.
Bob Schwartz
MrVidmar
Oh Bob, you're so droll.
--D-y
(previous quote, first post by Brian Lafferty):
> > On Feb 15, 3:44 pm, MrVidmar <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> Have been personally lambasted in court pleadings by former women's
> >> chess champion Susan Polgar and her supporters on Usenet for having
> >> raised the issue of drugs in professional cycling, noting how many of
> >> Lance Armstrong's former teammates have gone down for drug use, there is
> >> an article in today's NY Times reporting that an arrest warrant has been
> >> issued against Floyd Landis, the dethroned 2006 Tour de France winner.
> >> The arrest is for computer hacking of the French National drug testing
> >> laboratory for the purpose of tampering with data to make it look as
> >> though the lab was sloppy and unreliable. They caught the hackers
> >> because a Trojan infecting the labs computers was placed there from the
> >> IP address of Landis' trainer and major defender Arnie Baker. Polgar's
> >> husband, Paul Truong, was identified the same way as the author of
> >> thousands of obscene posting to Usenet using the names of other living
> >> chess personalities. Them there IP addresses don't lie.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/sports/cycling/16landis.html?ref=gl...
(current post):
> The only ones who were lambasted by the court were Polgar, Alexander and
> Truong. Polgar caved when the court ordered her to produce her tax
> returns to prove damages and for her husband to properly answer
> interrogatories, many of which dealt with his 2000+ Usenet postings
> under the names of other living people in the chess world.
Up is down, left is right, etc. etc.
Revenge on Polgar, etc.
Revenge on Landis and Baker.
They really put the hurt on you, bro.
So, did the lifetime bans help you in your bid to ascend the to board
at USCF?
--D-y
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
>ROTFL! I'll ask our counsel to pass your message on to the Secret
>Service the next time he's in contact with them.
You are a joke fraying at the edges. First of all, the process of
determining source of attack is usually for the purpose of no more
than that. Unless your evidence is 'fly in amber' storage, I doubt
anyone could be convicted on the basis of IP addresses - not if it
comes from dynamic storage where the validity of the evidence could be
put in doubt very easily. Every significant case I've seen in the U.S.
was proven by the seizure of evidence at the site AFTER the trace
backs located the originator and a very ordinary run of the mill
search warrant was obtained.
As to how profound the typical law enforcement agency is and the
resources they bring to bear (not talking about whichever of the CSI
series you might be watching), there are too many cases where even
with the computer in their possession, local and state law enforcement
can't figure out what really happened. Like the guy in Massachusetts
that took 11 months and hundreds of thousands of dollars to prove that
a zombie was responsible for child porn on his computer.
Unfortunately, not atypical.
And don't bother telling the Secret Service. I know on speaking terms
(they would know me in context, like a computer technology conference,
but wouldn't recognize me from Adam in the local mall) a couple of
people at Verisign that work with the FBI and brief the Secret
Service. Since they hold the same views on both ties with the real
Russian mafia (that the Russian mafia funds both straight on denial of
service attacks and more sophisicated intrusions for purpose of
blackmail and industrial espionage) and the existence of a 'Russian
mafia' of hackers, I'm sure your friends at the Secret Service and/or
FBI have heard this already. Certainly it is brought up enough at the
commercial briefings and in the email white papers that come far too
regularly.
So as much as I hate to pick on a tired old joke, you really don't
have a clue, you don't know what you are talking about and you
apparently think if you repeat BS often enough, it will be something
other than BS. It is - it becomes tired old BS.
William R. Mattil
>
> You still have no idea what, if anything, I'm convinced of. LOL!!
>
We are convinced that you are nuts. That's the truth of it.
Thanks
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
Well, no. First of all, most of the hacking was done by an individual
in France that has already confessed. Your words certainly imply that
Landis and Baker did all of the hacking, not a small amount of the
total uncovered. While investigating that, a much smaller amount of
traffic assumed to be hacking was identified to the IP address of
Baker. The 'arrest warrant' per the judge's comments appear more
related to the general investigation than specific to the Baker/Landis
instance - IOW, it appears they are far more likely to want to know if
the consulting firm long under investigation had anything to do with
disseminating the information necessary for a couple of non-computer
experts to actually hack into that system.
You're the monomaniacal blind one here. A neutral presumption would be
that while investigating the widespread hacking of a consulting firm
in France, some secondary or tertiary evidence was turned up that may
or may not suggest further avenues of interest in the primary
investigation, so a summons was issued to Landis and Baker to conduct
questioning to make the determination. And just like when I ignored my
parking tickets and got issued a bench warrant, when Landis and Baker
ignored the summons, it eventually got kicked up to an arrest warrant.
I doubt it will go to the international warrant level. Landis will
probably appear only if he is serious about trying to return to the
Tour. And since that is almost as nonsensical as your explanations and
seculation, it will disappear in the disinterested fog of time. Landis
and Baker aren't even in the woods, much less trying to get out of
them.
And all the spun-out speculation that you are making is less
substantial than cotton candy.
MrVidmar
Sources and links for each assertion, please, particularly the
investigating judge's comments.
>
> You're the monomaniacal blind one here. A neutral presumption would be
> that while investigating the widespread hacking of a consulting firm
> in France, some secondary or tertiary evidence was turned up that may
> or may not suggest further avenues of interest in the primary
> investigation, so a summons was issued to Landis and Baker to conduct
> questioning to make the determination. And just like when I ignored my
> parking tickets and got issued a bench warrant, when Landis and Baker
> ignored the summons, it eventually got kicked up to an arrest warrant.
> I doubt it will go to the international warrant level. Landis will
> probably appear only if he is serious about trying to return to the
> Tour. And since that is almost as nonsensical as your explanations and
> seculation, it will disappear in the disinterested fog of time. Landis
> and Baker aren't even in the woods, much less trying to get out of
> them.
There are a significant number of assumptions on your part here. Again,
please provide cites and/or links to your asserted facts, particularly
the nature of "secondary or tertiary evidence was turned up that may
or may not suggest further avenues of interest in the primary
investigation, so a summons was issued to Landis and Baker to conduct
questioning to make the determination."
Your analogy to ignoring parking tickets is false. That is not to say it
is without some humorous value. Do carry on.
>
> And all the spun-out speculation that you are making is less
> substantial than cotton candy.
Careful. Your bias is showing. ROTFL!
MrVidmar
Revenge for what? LOL! They were discovered to not be what they
represented themselves to be, particularly her husband, Truong. They
were caught and continued to dig their own hole that they still haven't
climbed out of. There will be more to come, of that I have little doubt.
> Revenge on Landis and Baker.
Nah. Landis is just another deluded doper, IMO. Baker's potential
involvement in something illegal really does surprise me though.
>
> They really put the hurt on you, bro.
>
> So, did the lifetime bans help you in your bid to ascend the to board
> at USCF?
The lifetime ban of Polgar and her husband ever holding leadership
positions in the USCF came almost a year AFTER the board election. Even
you should be able to see, through your hostility, that it had no effect
on my candidacy.
There was a purpose to my running for the USCF Executive Board. I was
was to be the point person in the election for speaking truth to falsity
regarding litigation matters. That apparently worked well because
Polgar's attorneys claimed (falsely) that campaign material defamed her
and that the USCF's publishing of my campaign statements was defamatory.
Under oath, Ms. Polgar wholly failed to indicate what specific
statements made by me and any of the other defendants were defamatory.
Hence, the unhappiness of several defendants who were quite averse to
settling. I withdrew from the board race so as not to dilute in any
manner the anti-Polgar vote thereby helping to prevent three board
candidates, who were de facto her candidates, to be elected.
As to putting the hurt on me--that looks like wishful thinking on your
part. I'm still a USCF member; Polgar and Truong are not. I can seek
leadership roles in the organization (being a board member of the
Massachusetts Chess Association is one of those leadership positions);
they can't. They agreed to make good faith efforts to remove bribery
allegations made on their blogs against Bill Goichberg, one of the
defendants. They agreed to never contest the decisions of the board and
the delegates revoking their USCF memberships and removing them from the
USCF Executive Board for cause.
The litigation was time consuming and a drain of energy, but the end
result for the federation was, IMO, worth it. Unfortunately, the bogus
litigation commenced by Polgar and related litigation matters cost the
USCF over $500,000 in legal fees that could have been better used to
promote chess in the US.
> --D-y
>
Kurgan Gringioni
You wrote:
> Anyone today who thinks they can hack into a computer system and not leave
> an electronic trail is doing little more than make money for defense
> attorneys
You don't know what you're talking about.
Kurgan Gringioni
> No, except to the extent that personal attacks on me are used as a
> substitute for reasoned argument.
You wrote:
> Anyone today who thinks they can hack into a computer system and not leave
> an electronic trail is doing little more than make money for defense
> attorneys
That is simply not true.
--D-y
(snipped)
Gee, thanks for clearing that all up for me.
Especially the "no resentment of Landis" part. And Baker, too.
And not holding a grudge against your old chess buddies, either.
Hey, have you been keeping up with the Lance Armstrong comeback story?
What do you think his chances are for at least another podium at the
TdF this year?
How about the Greg Lemond crusade to put himself back in the record
books where he belongs?
Quite a lot has been happening since you went away. I think they might
have even translated LA Confidentiel into English, although I'm not
sure on that one. Maybe middle-late June? --D-y
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
>There are a significant number of assumptions on your part here. Again,
>please provide cites and/or links to your asserted facts, particularly
>the nature of "secondary or tertiary evidence was turned up that may
>or may not suggest further avenues of interest in the primary
>investigation, so a summons was issued to Landis and Baker to conduct
>questioning to make the determination."
Its true - you can't read for content or comprehension. Saying that
there are assumptions on my part is dumbass stupid when the entire
paragraph was clearly, well, for most readers, denoted as a
presumption. Geez, dickhead, try to understand that, unlike you, some
of us try to distinguish between facts and opinion. The evidence that
I mention, however, is simply that while investigating two related
targets (consulting firm and confessed hacker) that were involved in a
major breach, they found an additional, much smaller breach by people
(Landis, Baker) that were not at the level of the primary targets,
done in the same approximate time period. That would (for most people)
raise the question of whether the required information to make the
smaller breach was provided by the primary targets. IMO, a far more
logical sequence than yours. For this investigation, the Baker/Landis
hack is not primary evidence (at least until a relationship is
confirmed), but secondary evidence that may lead to a wider
investigation of the consulting firm. If you prefer, until there is an
established relationship, call it 'potential evidence'.
And the Baker/Landis hack was clearly stated as being found as part
of the investigation of the consulting firm and the confessed hacker.
As to the source, there are several posted as of today, most clearly
modifying various parts of articles written on the 15th (starting with
the nature of the warrant). I remember starting with the ESPN article
and did a few queries from information there. You can try Google if
its that important to you.
MrVidmar
> On Feb 17, 10:22 am, MrVidmar <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> (snipped)
> Gee, thanks for clearing that all up for me.
>
> Especially the "no resentment of Landis" part. And Baker, too.
> And not holding a grudge against your old chess buddies, either.
>
> Hey, have you been keeping up with the Lance Armstrong comeback story?
> What do you think his chances are for at least another podium at the
> TdF this year?
Nope. Don't know. Don't care.
>
> How about the Greg Lemond crusade to put himself back in the record
> books where he belongs?
Not following anything other than noting that the judge in the Trek case
has, IIRC, forced the parties to go to trial.
>
> Quite a lot has been happening since you went away. I think they might
> have even translated LA Confidentiel into English, although I'm not
> sure on that one. Maybe middle-late June? --D-y
So? Already read it. It's now very old news. But, thank God the US had
Armstrong to race clean all those years and the denizens of rbr to raise
his cleanliness to saintly status. ROTFLMAO!!!
Kurgan Gringioni
>>
>> How about the Greg Lemond crusade to put himself back in the record
>> books where he belongs?
>
> Not following anything other than noting that the judge in the Trek case
> has, IIRC, forced the parties to go to trial.
Jackass -
There was no trial. They settled.
MrVidmar
Thanks for the update. Now go fuck yourself if you haven't already.
Michael Press
MrVidmar <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Anyone today who thinks they can hack into a computer system and not
> leave an electronic trail is doing little more than make money for
> defense attorneys.
Arrests are imminent in the case of the files copied
from the CRU server at the Universtity of East Anglia.
It has been three months so authorities are closing in.
--
Michael Press
Donald Munro
>> You still have no idea what, if anything, I'm convinced of. LOL!!
William R. Mattil wrote:
> We are convinced that you are nuts. That's the truth of it.
Or his author is.
Donald Munro
> So as much as I hate to pick on a tired old joke, you really don't
> have a clue, you don't know what you are talking about and you
> apparently think if you repeat BS often enough, it will be something
> other than BS. It is - it becomes tired old BS.
AKA the Bush/Rumsfeld doctrine
Michael Press
cur...@the-md-russells.org wrote:
Are you saying that these criminals and other such are
_getting_away_with_it? C'est la fin des haricots!
--
Michael Press
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Jackass -
Naw. It's more fun to point out the factual falsehoods your fingers
speweth.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni,.