How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby Plutonia » Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:15 pm

AhabsOtherLeg wrote:Sarah Palin's getting in on this whole sock-puppetting business, according to Wonkette, albeit in a more limited and traditional manner.

There are loads of screencaps, so best just to post a link:
http://wonkette.com/438825/is-sarah-pal ... k-fan-page

Could this be news management, maybe, to make the other stuff seem more benign and comical - the old "incompetent, not evil" meme - or just to push it out of the media altogether? They'll want some cover for their other activities, and Sarah always seems to be obliging.

Sarah Palin is backed by Scientologists and they've got Sea Org corps who do sock-puppetry for cents a day.

I saw someone hard-selling that leaked book (Sarah Palin tell-all) on #anonleaks the other day and my impression was it's a trap of some sort. The Anon's I saw discussing it were also wary. tl;dr: Step away from the teh facebook. :cthulhu:
[the British] government always kept a kind of standing army of news writers who without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented & put into the papers whatever might serve the minister

T Jefferson,
User avatar
Plutonia
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:29 pm

I didn't even know there was an "expose" coming out till I read that story. She's pally with Sharron Angle as well, of course, who turned up in the Crimanon video. Creepy stuff.

Facebook would be a step up for me at this point. I've been hanging out on IMDB. :eeyaa
"The universe is 40 billion light years across and every inch of it would kill you if you went there. That is the position of the universe with regard to human life."
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby Maddy » Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:23 pm



Well, now we know where the scary, hysterical looking smile and stare comes from.

ImageImage
Be kind - it costs nothing. ~ Maddy ~
User avatar
Maddy
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:33 am
Location: The Borderlands
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:05 pm

.

Hm, this stinks (though I don't think it's intentional) that there should be more focus on Sarah Palin's very very retail and weak-piss version of sock-puppetry (she'll claim she was barely aware of it as such and just ran two FB pages, is all) than on the USAF commissioning software that will allow thousands of sock-puppets who may be a lot harder than that to detect, let alone the HB Gary stories.

Ah, kill me justdrew, but don't say this post of yours doesn't (also) belong here -- amazing that it's NYT. Or, I guess, not so amazing long as it's about something safely "old news" enough not to make a current stink. Which you wish this would!!!

justdrew wrote:IT scams, sockpuppet armies, and the rest...
down on Fail-again Isle...


Judging from the few examples that have come to light in the last few weeks, it seems likely a large percentage of 'it contracts' let by the government 'security community' are nothing but cons coning con men...

This looks like it could grow into "PROMIS 2.0" ...

in fact, all that needs to happen now is for this Montgomery clown to announce that his warz were for realz and that the gubamint is trying to steal it and silence him. wait for it... wait for it...

actually, this probably does warrant a thread of it's own, but I'll let someone else do that if they like. This THING he sold appears to have been a major source of "preferred information" used extensively by the "say-anything/scare-everybody" so-called security mafia under bush (and still largely in place today).

There's no fucking way they didn't KNOW this software was bullshit, but they NEEDED someone to lie to them, in the right ways. I bet there's a channel from Cheney's people directly to Montgomery, which they used to feed him what they wanted to hear next.

It's a classic con... and the SUCKER is America.

February 19, 2011
Hiding Details of Dubious Deal, U.S. Invokes National Security
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON — For eight years, government officials turned to Dennis Montgomery, a California computer programmer, for eye-popping technology that he said could catch terrorists. Now, federal officials want nothing to do with him and are going to extraordinary lengths to ensure that his dealings with Washington stay secret.

The Justice Department, which in the last few months has gotten protective orders from two federal judges keeping details of the technology out of court, says it is guarding state secrets that would threaten national security if disclosed. But others involved in the case say that what the government is trying to avoid is public embarrassment over evidence that Mr. Montgomery bamboozled federal officials.

A onetime biomedical technician with a penchant for gambling, Mr. Montgomery is at the center of a tale that features terrorism scares, secret White House briefings, backing from prominent Republicans, backdoor deal-making and fantastic-sounding computer technology.

Interviews with more than two dozen current and former officials and business associates and a review of documents show that Mr. Montgomery and his associates received more than $20 million in government contracts by claiming that software he had developed could help stop Al Qaeda’s next attack on the United States. But the technology appears to have been a hoax, and a series of government agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Air Force, repeatedly missed the warning signs, the records and interviews show.

Mr. Montgomery’s former lawyer, Michael Flynn — who now describes Mr. Montgomery as a “con man” — says he believes that the administration has been shutting off scrutiny of Mr. Montgomery’s business for fear of revealing that the government has been duped.

“The Justice Department is trying to cover this up,” Mr. Flynn said. “If this unravels, all of the evidence, all of the phony terror alerts and all the embarrassment comes up publicly, too. The government knew this technology was bogus, but these guys got paid millions for it.”

Justice Department officials declined to discuss the government’s dealings with Mr. Montgomery, 57, who is in bankruptcy and living outside Palm Springs, Calif. Mr. Montgomery is about to go on trial in Las Vegas on unrelated charges of trying to pass $1.8 million in bad checks at casinos, but he has not been charged with wrongdoing in the federal contracts, nor has the government tried to get back any of the money it paid. He and his current lawyer declined to comment.

The software he patented — which he claimed, among other things, could find terrorist plots hidden in broadcasts of the Arab network Al Jazeera; identify terrorists from Predator drone videos; and detect noise from hostile submarines — prompted an international false alarm that led President George W. Bush to order airliners to turn around over the Atlantic Ocean in 2003.

The software led to dead ends in connection with a 2006 terrorism plot in Britain. And they were used by counterterrorism officials to respond to a bogus Somali terrorism plot on the day of President Obama’s inauguration, according to previously undisclosed documents.

‘It Wasn’t Real’

“Dennis would always say, ‘My technology is real, and it’s worth a fortune,’ ” recounted Steve Crisman, a filmmaker who oversaw business operations for Mr. Montgomery and a partner until a few years ago. “In the end, I’m convinced it wasn’t real.”

Government officials, with billions of dollars in new counterterrorism financing after Sept. 11, eagerly embraced the promise of new tools against militants.

C.I.A. officials, though, came to believe that Mr. Montgomery’s technology was fake in 2003, but their conclusions apparently were not relayed to the military’s Special Operations Command, which had contracted with his firm. In 2006, F.B.I. investigators were told by co-workers of Mr. Montgomery that he had repeatedly doctored test results at presentations for government officials. But Mr. Montgomery still landed more business.

In 2009, the Air Force approved a $3 million deal for his technology, even though a contracting officer acknowledged that other agencies were skeptical about the software, according to e-mails obtained by The New York Times.

Hints of fraud by Mr. Montgomery, previously raised by Bloomberg Markets and Playboy, provide a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of government contracting. A Pentagon study in January found that it had paid $285 billion in three years to more than 120 contractors accused of fraud or wrongdoing.

“We’ve seen so many folks with a really great idea, who truly believe their technology is a breakthrough, but it turns out not to be,” said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr. of the Air Force, who retired last year as the commander of the military’s Northern Command. Mr. Montgomery described himself a few years ago in a sworn court statement as a patriotic scientist who gave the government his software “to stop terrorist attacks and save American lives.” His alliance with the government, at least, would prove a boon to a small company, eTreppidTechnologies, that he helped found in 1998.

He and his partner — a Nevada investor, Warren Trepp, who had been a top trader for the junk-bond king Michael Milken — hoped to colorize movies by using a technology Mr. Montgomery claimed he had invented that identified patterns and isolated images. Hollywood had little interest, but in 2002, the company found other customers.

With the help of Representative Jim Gibbons, a Republican who would become Nevada’s governor and was a longtime friend of Mr. Trepp’s, the company won the attention of intelligence officials in Washington. It did so with a remarkable claim: Mr. Montgomery had found coded messages hidden in broadcasts by Al Jazeera, and his technology could decipher them to identify specific threats.

The software so excited C.I.A. officials that, for a few months at least, it was considered “the most important, most sensitive” intelligence tool the agency had, according to a former agency official, who like several others would speak only on the condition of anonymity because the technology was classified. ETreppid was soon awarded almost $10 million in contracts with the military’s Special Operations Command and the Air Force, which were interested in software that Mr. Montgomery promised could identify human and other targets from videos on Predator drones.

In December 2003, Mr. Montgomery reported alarming news: hidden in the crawl bars broadcast by Al Jazeera, someone had planted information about specific American-bound flights from Britain, France and Mexico that were hijacking targets.

C.I.A. officials rushed the information to Mr. Bush, who ordered those flights to be turned around or grounded before they could enter American airspace.

“The intelligence people were telling us this was real and credible, and we had to do something to act on it,” recalled Asa Hutchinson, who oversaw federal aviation safety at the time. Senior administration officials even talked about shooting down planes identified as targets because they feared that supposed hijackers would use the planes to attack the United States, according to a former senior intelligence official who was at a meeting where the idea was discussed. The official later called the idea of firing on the planes “crazy.”

French officials, upset that their planes were being grounded, commissioned a secret study concluding that the technology was a fabrication. Presented with the findings soon after the 2003 episode, Bush administration officials began to suspect that “we got played,” a former counterterrorism official said.

The C.I.A. never did an assessment to determine how a ruse had turned into a full-blown international incident, officials said, nor was anyone held accountable. In fact, agency officials who oversaw the technology directorate — including Donald Kerr, who helped persuade George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, that the software was credible — were promoted, former officials said. “Nobody was blamed,” a former C.I.A. official said. “They acted like it never happened.”

After a bitter falling out between Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Trepp in 2006 led to a series of lawsuits, the F.B.I. and the Air Force sent investigators to eTreppid to look into accusations that Mr. Montgomery had stolen digital data from the company’s systems. In interviews, several employees claimed that Mr. Montgomery had manipulated tests in demonstrations with military officials to make it appear that his video recognition software had worked, according to government memorandums. The investigation collapsed, though, when a judge ruled that the F.B.I. had conducted an improper search of his home.

Software and Secrets

The litigation worried intelligence officials. The Bush administration declared that some classified details about the use of Mr. Montgomery’s software were a “state secret” that could cause grave harm if disclosed in court. In 2008, the government spent three days “scrubbing” the home computers of Mr. Montgomery’s lawyer of all references to the technology. And this past fall, federal judges in Montana and Nevada who are overseeing several of the lawsuits issued protective orders shielding certain classified material.

The secrecy was so great that at a deposition Mr. Montgomery gave in November, two government officials showed up to monitor the questioning but refused to give their full names or the agencies they worked for.

Years of legal wrangling did not deter Mr. Montgomery from passing supposed intelligence to the government, according to intelligence officials, including an assertion in 2006 that his software was able to identify some of the men suspected of trying to plant liquid bombs on planes in Britain — a claim immediately disputed by United States intelligence officials. And he soon found a new backer: Edra Blixseth, a onetime billionaire who with her former husband had run the Yellowstone Club in Montana.

Hoping to win more government money, Ms. Blixseth turned to some influential friends, like Jack Kemp, the former New York congressman and Republican vice-presidential nominee, and Conrad Burns, then a Republican senator from Montana. They became minority stakeholders in the venture, called Blxware.

New Pitches

In an interview, Mr. Burns recalled how impressed he was by a video presentation that Mr. Montgomery gave to a cable company. “He talked a hell of a game,” the former senator said.

Mr. Kemp, meanwhile, used his friendship with Vice President Dick Cheney to set up a meeting in 2006 at which Mr. Kemp, Mr. Montgomery and Ms. Blixseth met with a top Cheney adviser, Samantha Ravich, to talk about expanding the government’s use of the Blxware software, officials said. She was noncommittal.

Mr. Flynn, who was still Mr. Montgomery’s lawyer, sent an angry letter to Mr. Cheney in May 2007. He accused the White House of abandoning a tool shown to “save lives.” (After a falling out with Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Flynn represents another party in one of the lawsuits.)

But Mr. Montgomery’s company still had an ally at the Air Force, which in late 2008 began negotiating a $3 million contract with Blxware.

In e-mails to Mr. Montgomery and other company officials, an Air Force contracting officer, Joseph Liberatore, described himself as one of the “believers,” despite skepticism from the C.I.A. and problems with the no-bid contract.

If other agencies examined the deal, he said in a December 2008 e-mail, “we are all toast.”

“Honestly I do not care about being fired,” Mr. Liberatore wrote, but he said he did care about “moving the effort forward — we are too close.” (The Air Force declined to make Mr. Liberatore available for comment.)

The day after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, Mr. Liberatore wrote that government officials were thanking Mr. Montgomery’s company for its support. The Air Force appears to have used his technology to try to identify the Somalis it believed were plotting to disrupt the inauguration, but within days, intelligence officials publicly stated that the threat had never existed. In May 2009, the Air Force canceled the company’s contract because it had failed to meet its expectations.

Mr. Montgomery is not saying much these days. At his deposition in November, when he was asked if his software was a “complete fraud,” he answered, “I’m going to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment.”


its worth pointing out that much of this plays itself out in public and private enterprises everyday. A generation of clueless know-nothing management pay outrageous prices for consultants and contractors and receive "goat shit" in return everyday. but they're spending money and give good meeting, so the bullshit get's papered over, the enterprise limps along (often only due to the constantly under-threat, underpaid, and unappreciated skeleton crew of "inside talent" having to re-do everything. but "the board" etc never hear anything about that.) These clueless managers and executives think the light of the world shines out of their ass, and anything they need appears on command, just a matter of throwing money at the right contractor.

here's an example of this sort of imperial-mindset manger in action...

Laziest memo ever? Rumsfeld asked undersecretary to deal with other countries

In 2003, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld sent to an associate what may well be the laziest memo of all time -- especially on orders of high importance.

The Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal dug through the digital archives at Rumsfeld.com and uncovered an extraordinary message Rumsfeld sent to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.

In no more than 56 words, Rumsfeld managed to ask Feith to find solutions to US foreign relations issues in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Pakistan, and Korea.

He offered no guidance on what the issues were or how to deal with any of them, other than invoking "coercive diplomacy" -- a broad concept if there ever was one -- for Syria and Libya.

"We also need to solve the Pakistan problem," he declared in the memo, without offering a hint on what said problem may entail. "And Korea doesn't seem to be going well."

The former Secretary of Defense is currently making the media rounds promoting his memoir, "Known and Unknown." He resigned in December 2006, engulfed by criticisms about misjudging necessary troops levels in Iraq as well as his role in promoting intelligence that turned out to be false.





Exclusive: Military’s ‘persona’ software cost millions, used for ‘classified social media activities’

By Stephen C. Webster

February 22, 2011 @ 5:49 pm


Most people use social media like Facebook and Twitter to share photos of friends and family, chat with friends and strangers about random and amusing diversions, or follow their favorite websites, bands and television shows.

But what does the US military use those same networks for? Well, we can't tell you: That's "classified," a CENTCOM spokesman recently informed Raw Story.

One use that's confirmed, however, is the manipulation of social media through the use of fake online "personas" managed by the military. Raw Story recently reported [1] that the US Air Force had solicited private sector vendors for something called "persona management software." Such a technology would allow single individuals to command virtual armies of fake, digital "people" across numerous social media portals.

These "personas" were to have detailed, fictionalized backgrounds, to make them believable to outside observers, and a sophisticated identity protection service was to back them up, preventing suspicious readers from uncovering the real person behind the account. They even worked out ways to game geolocating services, so these "personas" could be virtually inserted anywhere in the world, providing ostensibly live commentary on real events, even while the operator was not really present.

When Raw Story first reported on the contract for this software, it was unclear what the Air Force wanted with it or even if it had been acquired. The potential for misuse, however, was abundantly clear.

A fake virtual army of people could be used to help create the impression of consensus opinion in online comment threads, or manipulate social media to the point where valuable stories are suppressed [2].

Ultimately, this can have the effect of causing a net change to the public's opinions and understanding of world key events.

'Classified social media activities'

According to Commander Bill Speaks, the chief media officer of CENTCOM's digital engagement team, the public cannot know what the military wants with such technology because its applications are secret.

"This contract," he wrote in reference to the Air Force's June 22, 2010 filing, "supports classified social media activities outside the U.S., intended to counter violent extremist ideology and enemy propaganda."

Speaks insisted that he was speaking only on behalf of CENTCOM, not the Air Force "or other branches of the military."

While he did reveal who was awarded the contract in question [3], he added that the Air Force, which helps CENTCOM's contracting process out of MacDill, has even other uses for social media that he could not address.

A series of targeted searches for other "persona management software" contracts yielded no results.

Mystery bidder

While data security firm HBGary Federal was among the contract's bidders listed on a government website, the job was ultimately awarded to a firm that did not appear on the FedBizOpps.gov page [4] of interested vendors.

A controversy over the HBGary firm, which recently had its inner-workings dumped onto the Internet [5] by hackers with protest group "Anonymous," was what initially brought the "persona" contract to light.

HBGary, which conspired with Bank of America and the Chamber of Commerce to attack WikiLeaks [6], spy on progressive writers [7] and use malware against progressive organizations, was also revealed to have constructed software eerily similar to what the Air Force sought.


"This contract was awarded to a firm called Ntrepid," Speaks wrote to Raw Story.



Ntrepid ? ANY RELATION to eTREPID? the first story in this post? which was founded in part by a las vegas moneybags, last name of Trepid?

"In addition to the classified activities this software supports, USCENTCOM, like most military commands, does use social media to inform the public of our activities. I should emphasize that such uses do not employ the kind of technology that was the subject of this contract solicitation."

Ntrepid Corporation, registered out of Los Angeles [8], bills itself as a privacy and identity protection firm in some job postings, and a national security contractor in others, but its official website was amazingly just one page deep [9] and free of even a single word of description.

In spite of their thin online presence, Speaks said the firm was awarded $2,760,000 to carry out the "persona management" contract.

He added that it was unclear why an the contract went to an unlisted bidder, and that he would try to find out and report back.

Privacy? Or something else?

Ntrepid's chief technology officer, Lance Cottrell [10], founded the privacy firm Anonymizer, Inc. [11] in 1995, making him a global leader in identity protection and cryptography. He also runs theprivacyblog.com [12].

Far from just being involved in privacy efforts, Ntrepid is a player in the national security realm and was invited to give a presentation for the US EUCOM i3T conference [13], which took place in Berlin last week.

Event organizers described the affair as a series of talks "on the challenges to developing technology, demonstrations of advanced technology pertinent to facilitating and/or enabling security and stability, ways and means of analyzing socio-cultural risks and opportunities, and the operationalization and execution of solutions to mitigate or avail issues with U.S. and multinational partners."

Featured speakers included the US EUCOM director of intelligence, the director of the Air Force Research Labratory and the chief information officer of the Defense Intelligence Agency, among other high-profile names [14].

While the company is remarkably scarce with information on their website, descriptions of the firm's goals seem to vary depending on their job openings.

One post [15] seeking a "senior QA test engineer," filed with corporate candidate tracking firm Catsone.com, describes Ntrepid as "the global leader in online privacy, anonymity, and identity protection solutions".

But another help wanted ad [16], seeking an "intelligence analyst" on Appone.com, described Ntrepid as "a leading provider of technology and managed services to national security customers in the areas of cyber operations, analytics, language engineering, and TTL".

Its customers are both public and private sector, the ad said.

A Linked In profile [17] of the company cited them as providers of "software, hardware, and managed services for cyber operations, analytics, linguistics, and surveillance." It had at least 30 employees, according to the business networking site, all located in either San Diego or Washington, DC.

Cottrell himself has advocated on behalf of civil liberties, claiming that widespread Internet surveillance tends to provide no real security benefits [18].

Efforts to contract both Ntrepid Corporation and Mr. Cottrell did not trigger a response by late Tuesday. A phone number could not be located.

URL to article: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/22/e ... ctivities/

URLs in this post:

[1] Raw Story recently reported: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/18/r ... al-people/

[2] valuable stories are suppressed: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/08/09/di ... ltra-cons/

[3] the contract in question: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... 2&_cview=0

[4] did not appear on the FedBizOpps.gov page: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... bmode=list

[5] had its inner-workings dumped onto the Internet: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/07/a ... embership/

[6] attack WikiLeaks: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/09/d ... wikileaks/

[7] spy on progressive writers: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/14/u ... f-critics/

[8] registered out of Los Angeles: http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx

[9] just one page deep: http://www.ntrepidcorp.com/

[10] Lance Cottrell: http://obscura.com/about-me/

[11] founded the privacy firm Anonymizer, Inc.: http://www.anonymizer.com/company/about/management.html

[12] theprivacyblog.com: http://www.theprivacyblog.com/

[13] US EUCOM i3T conference: http://www.ncsi.com/eucom11/index.shtml

[14] among other high-profile names: http://www.ncsi.com/eucom11/speakers.shtml

[15] One post: http://ntrepid.catsone.com/careers/inde ... rID=339908

[16] another help wanted ad: https://www.appone.com/MainInfoReq.asp? ... hScreenID=

[17] A Linked In profile: http://www.linkedin.com/company/ntrepid-corporation

[18] no real security benefits: http://www.thenewnewinternet.com/2010/0 ... veillance/


AFAIK... the first publicly know such software was called "megaphone" and released by Israeli government for their private speakers to use in their hasbara activities.


SPECTACULAR WORK, JUST DREW! THANK YOU! (Are you "only" Drew or Drew the Just, by the way?)

I marked two things in red above. One was that Montgomery is under indictment for passing bad checks in Vegas, something sure to WIN him sympathies with a certain demographic.

The other was the Al Jazeera Scroll Code. Can you believe bullshit on that scale was ever given credence? Not that it mattered.

We keep seeing it: incompetence and crime go together. Crime is for well-connected fuckers with balls who are too stupid to believe the risks and smart enough to be cunning.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby justdrew » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:17 pm

JackRiddler wrote:(Are you "only" Drew or Drew the Just, by the way?)

drew, just drew, this life, maybe "andrew the just" once upon a time? :shrug: (I didn't really put much thought into it at the time)

JackRiddler wrote:I marked two things in red above. One was that Montgomery is under indictment for passing bad checks in Vegas, something sure to WIN him sympathies with a certain demographic.

The other was the Al Jazeera Scroll Code. Can you believe bullshit on that scale was ever given credence? Not that it mattered.

We keep seeing it: incompetence and crime go together. Crime is for well-connected fuckers with balls who are too stupid to believe the risks and smart enough to be cunning.


passing bad checks, now what casino is going to take a check? His buddy Trepid's casino perhaps? A check he was told would never be cashed, but that Trepid held onto as a leash?
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby DevilYouKnow » Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:18 pm

In December 2003, Mr. Montgomery reported alarming news: hidden in the crawl bars broadcast by Al Jazeera, someone had planted information about specific American-bound flights from Britain, France and Mexico that were hijacking targets.

C.I.A. officials rushed the information to Mr. Bush, who ordered those flights to be turned around or grounded before they could enter American airspace.

“The intelligence people were telling us this was real and credible, and we had to do something to act on it,” recalled Asa Hutchinson, who oversaw federal aviation safety at the time. Senior administration officials even talked about shooting down planes identified as targets because they feared that supposed hijackers would use the planes to attack the United States, according to a former senior intelligence official who was at a meeting where the idea was discussed. The official later called the idea of firing on the planes “crazy.”

French officials, upset that their planes were being grounded, commissioned a secret study concluding that the technology was a fabrication. Presented with the findings soon after the 2003 episode, Bush administration officials began to suspect that “we got played,” a former counterterrorism official said.


Absolutely incredible.
DevilYouKnow
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:27 pm

1) The keywords, themes, and images of anything *subversive to power* are hijacked as decoys.

2) The whistleblower is chilled with the very keywords that (s)he is most sensitive to as a way of saying 'We know and We are bigger than you.'
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby wallflower » Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:25 pm

John Allen Paulos knows innumeracy can be dangerous. I really like that to confront the danger he writes popular articles about numbers. Somehow a Jan. 2003 piece directed to the TIA plan came to mind with Drew's articles. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=97755&page=1

Here's a snippett:
Mathematically Flavored Science Fiction

A mathematically flavored science fiction scenario about the identification of future terrorists helps make the point.

Assume for the sake of the argument that eventually (maybe by 2054), some system of total information-gathering becomes so uncannily accurate that when it examines a future terrorist, 99 percent of the time it will correctly identify him as a pre-perpetrator. Furthermore, when this system examines somebody who is harmless, 99 percent of the time the system will correctly identify him as harmless. In short, it makes a mistake only once every 100 times.

Now let's say that law enforcement apprehends a person by using this technology. Given these assumptions, you might guess that the person would be almost certain to commit a terrorist act. Right? Well, no. Even with the system's amazing data-mining powers, there is only a tiny probability the apprehended person will go on to become an active terrorist.

The Calculation

To see why this is so and to make the calculations easy, let's postulate a population of 300 million people of whom 1,000 are future terrorists. The system will correctly identify, we're assuming, 99 percent of these 1,000 people as future terrorists. Thus, since 99 percent of 1,000 is 990, the system will apprehend 990 future terrorists. Great! They'll be locked up somewhere.

But wait. There are, by assumption, 299,999,000 non-terrorists in our population and the system will be right about 99 percent of them as well. Another way of saying this is that it will be wrong about 1 percent of these people. Since 1 percent of 299,999,000 equals 2,999,990, the system will swoop down on these 2,999,990 innocent people as well as on the 990 guilty ones, incarcerating them all.

That is, the system will arrest almost 3 million innocent people, about 3,000 times the number of guilty ones. And that occurs, remember, only because we're assuming the system has these amazing powers of discernment! If its powers are anything like our present miserable predictive capacities, an even greater percentage of those arrested will be innocent.
create something good
User avatar
wallflower
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:31 am

So I read it again, because it's incredible.

This part:

The software he patented — which he claimed, among other things, could find terrorist plots hidden in broadcasts of the Arab network Al Jazeera; identify terrorists from Predator drone videos; and detect noise from hostile submarines — prompted an international false alarm that led President George W. Bush to order airliners to turn around over the Atlantic Ocean in 2003.

The software led to dead ends in connection with a 2006 terrorism plot in Britain. And they were used by counterterrorism officials to respond to a bogus Somali terrorism plot on the day of President Obama’s inauguration, according to previously undisclosed documents.

‘It Wasn’t Real’

“Dennis would always say, ‘My technology is real, and it’s worth a fortune,’ ” recounted Steve Crisman, a filmmaker who oversaw business operations for Mr. Montgomery and a partner until a few years ago. “In the end, I’m convinced it wasn’t real.”

Government officials, with billions of dollars in new counterterrorism financing after Sept. 11, eagerly embraced the promise of new tools against militants.

C.I.A. officials, though, came to believe that Mr. Montgomery’s technology was fake in 2003, but their conclusions apparently were not relayed to the military’s Special Operations Command, which had contracted with his firm. In 2006, F.B.I. investigators were told by co-workers of Mr. Montgomery that he had repeatedly doctored test results at presentations for government officials. But Mr. Montgomery still landed more business.

In 2009, the Air Force approved a $3 million deal for his technology, even though a contracting officer acknowledged that other agencies were skeptical about the software, according to e-mails obtained by The New York Times.


Okay, let's vote.

a) Idiots duped by LAUGHABLE super-tech claims from con-man. (Voodoo option)

b) Apathy plus loads of cash flying around plus backscratching plus no audit. (Incompetence, corruption, enrichment)

c) Feeling of absolute impunity among the gangsters, self-service crime for cronies, weakest link now being thrown off sled. (In-your-face robbery -- whatchoo gonna do about it?)

d) Story itself is limited hangout, buck-passing, "bad software" excuse covers up conscious fabrications of terror scares that also fucked with the Europeans for fun, no charges forthcoming against Montgomery for this stuff anyway. (Diversion)

A combo of some or all of the above, but in what percentages?

I think the voodoo is one of the elements.

.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby justdrew » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:42 am

yeah, it's such a complete cluster-fail, I think you've nailed most of the major points there, it's all of the above. I hope "all documents relating to "e" trepid and "n" trepid" have been requested via FOIA already, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that. What galls me is the mileage Obama should be getting from this. His invisible/seen-but-not-heard Justice Department should be all over this, and publicly, no "hearings on capital hill" - just down the memory hole they hope... sigh... one more point of failure.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby wallflower » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:55 am

I vote: a) Voodoo option

But I think it's complicated. The reason I pointed to John Allen Paulos's article is that it's very simple, or an example of a line of thinking which would be obvious to most researchers, but not necessarily obvious to the researcher's commanders or to the vice president.

A similar dynamic was playing out in the HBGary affair and Barr. The young "coder" kept telling Barr that his certainty was misplaced, that his system was obviously flawed. But the power disparity between them meant the message never got through. Barr couldn't hear what he was being firmly, directly, politely told.

The administration's war on Al Jezeera made no sense. Even I could see that, and all sorts of very serious people were saying as much publicly. But of course "they" don't know know what we know; the ones in power told themselves. This is not an isolated problem and it's scary as hell. What's particularly scary is the sort of thinking that's the first line of defense against mad notions, like basic probability, ordinary sound reasoning, seems the first to fly out the window.
create something good
User avatar
wallflower
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:40 pm

.

I think it is mostly b) and c), which are degrees of the same thing. An environment full of unchecked corruption (option b) will over time produce in-your-face gangsterism (c). I added d) because it's easy to imagine, but hard to assess. For example: If a bogus warning about attacks on flights from Paris was generated in 2003, the year of "Freedom Fries," it may have been greeted unquestioningly as a great excuse to fuck with the Surrender Monkeys. It could also work in reverse: Word goes out that Bush officials want to paint the French as soft on terror. The software accommodates them by discovering secret messages on Al Jazeera. Or they may have only decided to blame the software for the bogus warning now that Montgomery's scams are unraveling generally.

It's the old corrosive truth of post-reality: they're lying then, they're lying always, why are they telling the truth about anything now?

Getting back to option a), one dimension of tech voodoo is in the mystic regard for "intellectual property." No one may know the secret ingredient in Coke! This thing was supposed to hear submarines. Didn't the buyers, from a government that possesses many submarines, test whether it worked? The biometric facial recognition claims were also subject to straightforward testing. Didn't they have access to hardware schematics, source code? Did the government lack people who could figure these out?

Now the idea that "Al Qaeda" encodes secret messages into Al Jazeera broadcasts is not so far from pedestrian racism (Muslims are all one freedom-hating club) and paranoia on the model of John Birch Society seeing Commies under the bed. The greater crazy is to think that TV-watching software could discover such messages, without knowledge of the code or any reason whatsoever to think they were present in the first place. Did anyone on this board ever make a more outlandish claim?

wallflower wrote:I vote: a) Voodoo option

But I think it's complicated. The reason I pointed to John Allen Paulos's article is that it's very simple, or an example of a line of thinking which would be obvious to most researchers, but not necessarily obvious to the researcher's commanders or to the vice president.

A similar dynamic was playing out in the HBGary affair and Barr. The young "coder" kept telling Barr that his certainty was misplaced, that his system was obviously flawed. But the power disparity between them meant the message never got through. Barr couldn't hear what he was being firmly, directly, politely told.

The administration's war on Al Jezeera made no sense. Even I could see that, and all sorts of very serious people were saying as much publicly. But of course "they" don't know know what we know; the ones in power told themselves. This is not an isolated problem and it's scary as hell. What's particularly scary is the sort of thinking that's the first line of defense against mad notions, like basic probability, ordinary sound reasoning, seems the first to fly out the window.


.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:14 pm

.

On Edit, it seems I would have been better served reading this entire thread, as this was more or less covered in depth a few pages ago:

Image

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... -price.ars

Confident in his abilities, Barr told one of the programmers who helped him on the project, "You just need to program as good as I analyze."

But on February 5, one day after the Financial Times article and six days before Barr's sit-down with the FBI, Anonymous did some "pwning" of its own. "Ddos!!! Fckers," Barr sent from his iPhone as a distributed denial of service attack hit his corporate network. He then pledged to "take the gloves off."

When the liberal blog Daily Kos ran a story on Barr's work later that day, some Anonymous users commented on it. Barr sent out an e-mail to colleagues, and he was getting worked up: "They think all I know is their irc names!!!!! I know their real fing names. Karen [HBGary Federal's public relations head] I need u to help moderate me because I am getting angry. I am planning on releasing a few names of folks that were already arrested. This battle between us will help spur publicity anyway."

Indeed, publicity was the plan. Barr hoped his research would "start a verbal braul between us and keep it going because that will bring more media and more attention to a very important topic."

But within a day, Anonymous had managed to infiltrate HBGary Federal's website and take it down, replacing it with a pro-Anonymous message ("now the Anonymous hand is bitch-slapping you in the face.") Anonymous got into HBGary Federal's e-mail server, for which Barr was the admin, and compromised it, extracting over 40,000 e-mails and putting them up on The Pirate Bay, all after watching his communications for 30 hours, undetected. In an after-action IRC chat, Anonymous members bragged about how they had gone even further, deleting 1TB of HBGary backup data.

They even claimed to have wiped Barr's iPad remotely.

The situation got so bad for the security company that HBGary, the company which partially owns HBGary Federal, sent its president Penny Leavy into the Anonymous IRC chat rooms to swim with the sharks—and to beg them to leave her company alone. (Read the bizarre chat log.) Instead, Anonymous suggested that, to avoid more problems, Leavy should fire Barr and "take your investment in aaron's company and donate it to BRADLEY MANNINGS DEFENCE FUND." Barr should cough off up a personal contribution, too; say, one month's salary?

As for Barr's "pwning," Leavy couldn't backtrack from it fast enough. "We have not seen the list [of Anonymous admins] and we are kind of pissed at him right now."

Were Barr's vaunted names even correct? Anonymous insisted repeatedly that they were not. As one admin put it in the IRC chat with Leavy, "Did you also know that aaron was peddling fake/wrong/false information leading to the potential arrest of innocent people?" The group then made that information public, claiming that it was all ridiculous.

Thanks to the leaked e-mails, we now have the full story of how Barr infiltrated Anonymous, used social media to compile his lists, and even resorted to attacks on the codebase of the Low Orbit Ion Cannon—and how others at his own company warned him about the pitfalls of his research.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby Plutonia » Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:17 am

JackRiddler wrote:So I read it again, because it's incredible.

This part:

The software he patented — which he claimed, among other things, could find terrorist plots hidden in broadcasts of the Arab network Al Jazeera; identify terrorists from Predator drone videos; and detect noise from hostile submarines — prompted an international false alarm that led President George W. Bush to order airliners to turn around over the Atlantic Ocean in 2003.

The software led to dead ends in connection with a 2006 terrorism plot in Britain. And they were used by counterterrorism officials to respond to a bogus Somali terrorism plot on the day of President Obama’s inauguration, according to previously undisclosed documents.

‘It Wasn’t Real’

“Dennis would always say, ‘My technology is real, and it’s worth a fortune,’ ” recounted Steve Crisman, a filmmaker who oversaw business operations for Mr. Montgomery and a partner until a few years ago. “In the end, I’m convinced it wasn’t real.”

Government officials, with billions of dollars in new counterterrorism financing after Sept. 11, eagerly embraced the promise of new tools against militants.

C.I.A. officials, though, came to believe that Mr. Montgomery’s technology was fake in 2003, but their conclusions apparently were not relayed to the military’s Special Operations Command, which had contracted with his firm. In 2006, F.B.I. investigators were told by co-workers of Mr. Montgomery that he had repeatedly doctored test results at presentations for government officials. But Mr. Montgomery still landed more business.

In 2009, the Air Force approved a $3 million deal for his technology, even though a contracting officer acknowledged that other agencies were skeptical about the software, according to e-mails obtained by The New York Times.


Okay, let's vote.

a) Idiots duped by LAUGHABLE super-tech claims from con-man. (Voodoo option)

b) Apathy plus loads of cash flying around plus backscratching plus no audit. (Incompetence, corruption, enrichment)

c) Feeling of absolute impunity among the gangsters, self-service crime for cronies, weakest link now being thrown off sled. (In-your-face robbery -- whatchoo gonna do about it?)

d) Story itself is limited hangout, buck-passing, "bad software" excuse covers up conscious fabrications of terror scares that also fucked with the Europeans for fun, no charges forthcoming against Montgomery for this stuff anyway. (Diversion)

A combo of some or all of the above, but in what percentages?

I think the voodoo is one of the elements.

.

A+B+C = Snakeoil, greed, ignorance and fear. Plus the creeping delusion of chronic self-deception that prevents one from discerning what's real from what just sounds really great.

To the point, insiders talking amongst themselves:
The Effect of Snake Oil Security

By Robert Hansen

Saturday, September 4th, 2010

I’ve talked about this a few times over the years during various presentations but I wanted to document it here as well. It’s a concept that I’ve been wrestling with for 7+ years and I don’t think I’ve made any headway in convincing anyone, beyond a few head nods. Bad security isn’t just bad because it allows you to be exploited. It’s also a long term cost center. But more interestingly, even the most worthless security tools can be proven to “work” if you look at the numbers. Here’s how.

Let’s say hypothetically that you have only two banks in the entire world: banka.com and bankb.com. Let’s say Snakoil salesman goes up to banka.com and convinces banka.com to try their product. Banka.com is thinking that they are seeing increased fraud (as is the whole industry), and they’re willing to try anything for a few months. Worst case they can always get rid of it if it doesn’t do anything. So they implement Snakeoil into their site. The bad guy takes one look at the Snakeoil and shrugs. Is it worth bothering to figure out how banka.com security works and potentially having to modify their code? Nah, why not just focus on bankb.com double up the fraud, and continue doing the exact same thing they were doing before?

Suddenly banka.com is free of fraud. Snakeoil works, they find! They happily let the Snakeoil salesman use them as a use case. So our Snakeoil salesman goes across the street to bankb.com. Bankb.com has seen a two fold increase in fraud over the last few months (all of banka.com’s fraud plus their own), strangely and they’re desperate to do something about it. Snakeoil salesman is happy to show them how much banka.com has decreased their fraud just by buying their shoddy product. Bankb.com is desperate so they say fine and hand over the cash.

Suddenly the bad guy is presented with a problem. He’s got to find a way around this whole Snakeoil software or he’ll be out of business. So he invests a few hours, finds an easy way around it and voila. Back in business. So the bad guy again diversifies his fraud across both banks again. Banka.com sees an increase in fraud back to the old days, which can’t be correlated to anything having to do with the Snakeoil product. Bankb.com sees their fraud drop immediately after having installed the Snakeoil therefore proving that it works twice if you just look at the numbers.

Meanwhile what has happened? Are the users safer? No, and in fact, in some cases it may even make the users less safe (incidentally, we did manage to finally stop AcuTrust as the company is completely gone now). Has this stopped the attacker? Only long enough to work around it. What’s the net effect? The two banks are now spending money on a product that does nothing but they are now convinced that it is saving them from huge amounts of fraud. They have the numbers to back it up - although the numbers are only half the story. Now there’s less money to spend on real security measures. Of course, if you look at it from either bank’s perspective the product did save them and they’ll vehemently disagree that the product doesn’t work, but it also created the problem that it solved in the case of bankb.com (double the fraud).


This goes back to the bear in the woods analogy that I personally hate. The story goes that you don’t have to run faster than the bear, you just have to run faster than the guy next to you. While that’s a funny story, that only works if there are two people and you only encounter one bear. In a true ecosystem you have many many people in the same business, and you have many attackers. If you leave your competitor(s) out to dry that may seem good for you in the short term, but in reality you’re feeding your attacker(s). Ultimately you are allowing the attacker ecosystem to thrive by not reducing the total amount of fraud globally. Yes, this means if you really care about fixing your own problem you have to help your competitors. Think about the bear analogy again. If you feed the guy next to you to the bear, now the bear is satiated. That’s great for a while, and you’re safe. But when the bear is hungry again, guess who he’s going after? You’re much better off working together to kill or scare off the bear in that analogy.

Of course if you’re a short-timer CSO who just wants to have a quick win, guess which option you’ll be going for? Jeremiah had a good insight about why better security is rarely implemented and/or sweeping security changes are rare inside big companies. CSOs are typically only around for a few years. They want to go in, make a big win, and get out before anything big breaks or they get hacked into. After a few years they can no longer blame their predecessor either. They have no incentive to make things right, or go for huge wins. Those wins come with too much risk, and they don’t want their name attached to a fiasco. No, they’re better off doing little to nothing, with a few minor wins that they can put on their resume. It’s a little disheartening, but you can probably tell which CSOs are which by how long they’ve stayed put and by the scale of what they’ve accomplished.

Robert Hansen is the CEO of SecTheory.

____________________________________________________

Comments:

# MM Says:
September 7th, 2010 at 4:24 pm

I agree that there is a real problem with the sale of snakeoil security solutions. However, I don’t necessarily agree with the root cause you identified here. I think the real issue is that we have designed security strategies backwards. Security is not always a cost center, and in fact doing poor security properly can allow organizations to pass any cost associated to security onto unknowing consumers. In other words security for them is free. From my perspective however, practicing this type of security strategy is unethical and socially irresponsible. But then what do I matter?

The fact is that the average enterprise simply does not care enough. This isn’t because the CSO is only there for a short time, it is because the CSO’s responsibility is more focused on the enterprise not being fined for violating any particular standard. Therefore, the driving force behind security investment is not security itself but rather compliance. As a direct result there EXISTS a market for security snakeoil.

This is the first major area of a backwards security strategy. When compliance drives security rather than security driving compliance.

The second major area is the area of ignorance/indifference. The fact of the matter is that the average business decision maker is totally ignorant/indifferent of/to the real issues and social impact of poor information security. Unfortunately, the market is built to increase this ignorance/indifference as opposed to combat it.


For example, take a company that has invested a lot of time and effort into a particular product. While the product may have become less and less effective over time the cost associated with redesigning that solution to be more effective in a current environment is much higher than innovating the product to a certain extent and marketing the heck out of it. Put simply, less overhead = increased profits. Therefore, there is money to be made by creating less effective security but making the world feel as though you created the end all solution. What is unfortunate is the fact that there are good vendors out there who are creating innovative products and really combating other vendors who push ignorance. Sadly, though these products often are viewed as “high-cost” products that can only sell to particular markets because their overhead is higher. Unfortunately, the average consumer does not do the necessary research to understand the difference between the two.Furthermore, the consumer who does do the research may fall back onto the first major area I identified anyways (it’s about compliance not security). Either way, the provider of the less secure product is making money hand over fist, while the higher cost solution is fighting for a market.

The environment of ignorance allows vendors selling snakoil to survive and thrive in the existent snakeoil market.

The final area of a backwards security strategy that I’ll discuss here is the area of demand. There is a major demand for simplicity in the security market. Unfortunately, security is a constant chess match between threats and defenders. Which at the end of the day is anything but simple. However, the demand for simplicity reduces the criticality of necessary components for ensuring security such as higher network visibility and lower-level endpoint lockdown controls. In addition it allows capabilities that should never be key competitive differentiators to play a major role in security technology adoption. As security technology buyers demand solutions that tell them and show them less, they create less and less effective security strategies. However, the strategy itself will over time cost less and less money to implement. Now some might argue that this time of organization will get hacked and lose more money over time. To that I would simply say, “MAYBE.” The fact is that it would have to be a pretty big hack to justify that for a large enterprise. Moreover, the numbers are not in your favor for justifying that arguement. E.g. if a company spends $15,000/year recovering from malware and saves $30,000/year on a low cost security solution, at the end of the day they still netted $15,000. For the sake of arguement let’s say that the organization does have that rare occasion where they really get nailed and do lose a lot of money…

In that case the company can publicly redeem itself by citing the fact that they met the criteria demanded by compliance boards and they are leveraging the best security products available (according to what the ethos states based on marketing messages). Thus, the fact that they got hacked, really isn’t their fault.

So the real problem with snakoil security is that compliance has created a market for it, ignorant and indifference have created a sustainable environment for it, and business decision makers are demanding it.


[the British] government always kept a kind of standing army of news writers who without any regard to truth, or to what should be like truth, invented & put into the papers whatever might serve the minister

T Jefferson,
User avatar
Plutonia
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How the Spooks Would Attack YOU and ME Too.

Postby Stephen Morgan » Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:29 pm

Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 159 guests