From: security curmudgeon (jericho@attrition.org)
To: Todd Painton (tpainton@new.rr.com)
Cc: Heathens (staff@attrition.org)
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 06:50:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Loser.. your worse than Newsweek

: http://www.attrition.org/postal/z/020/911-06.html
:  
: Nowhere did I say the Government wanted "hackers, most of which are
: clueless script kidiots, helping them in their investigation" 
:  
: Did I?  NO! 

No, you didn't.. (very good that you can read btw)..

: Try to think beyond hacking for a second.  The original mail meant
: this... 
:  
: If the US Government received data or information that averted a
: terrorist attack or "evidence" that lead to the location etc of
: terrorist, they would take it.  AND likely reward it. 

Meant? Now, on your holier-than-thou logic, you should ask yourself what
you asked me. Did your original mail say that? Did it? NO!

                                               ^^^^^^

my dork impression. hope you liked.

: If you think this is absurd you obviously have never worked in any kind
: of intelligence organization.  If you had you may have heard the old
: adage "No tip is too insignificant to dismiss" 

dood, shut the fuck up and go read what you sent in. it was script kiddy
bullshit and you clearly had NOT thought about what you said. in fact, it
was so important you mail us this random comment that you didn't even
fully expand on what you thought was a good idea. instead, you came across
with this half assed bullshit mail that you now have to qualify in a lame
attempt to get off 'going postal'.

: In case you don't get out much ( which I expect is highly likely oh pale
: faced nerd) you might look here..

oh no, must..find..knife..for..wrists...

: http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/
:  
: It's the first place I would go if I found evidence anywhere..

ahh thank you for clearing up what kind of asshole you are, and
contradicting your earlier mail.

you originaly (supposedly) implied the government wanted legitimate help in
sorting evidence found yadda yadda. now you say that you would take said
evidence and try to profit off it rather than do_the_right_thing(tm). you
are a top knotch patriot i tell you.

: Now if you have any integrity you will post my rebuttal if you don't Ill
: understand you don't have the balls to. 

be glad too, along with my reply so that others can see what kind of
materialistic self contradicting man smelt you are.

From: security curmudgeon (jericho@attrition.org)
To: Todd Painton (tpainton@new.rr.com)
Cc: Heathens (staff@attrition.org)
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 22:10:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: Loser.. your worse than Newsweek

: Top notch patriot?  HAH I laugh at your squinty pimply efforts to rebut

[insipid babble snipped..]

: interesting nor the people involved in it!  Your original comments on
: retrieval of information dealing with terrorist activities were so
: narrow minded that you cant even address the topic without using buzz

So narrow minded.. yet you didn't address the issue I brought up, that of
"chain of custody". You then alluded to some crap about me "never having
worked in any kind of intelligence organization." This becomes quite
amusing when you reveal that you are a physician. I'd hazard a guess that
YOU have never worked in any kind of intelligence organization. While I
have only done casual consulting for one of them, I do know a bit about
evidence and law enforcement. That is where my "chain of custody" comment
comes in, and anyone with a passing familiarity of that would understand
why that sufficed as a full blown rebuttal unto itself. But hey, you stick
your finger in people's asses, not work in the intel community, so I don't
expect you to understand. 

: originally to the F word, I should have known better.. No I know all
: about your type, its called Narcissistic Personality Disorder.. Too bad
: there is no good cure for it.. I guess that means your SOL. 

I am not one to usually quote the bible, but you really should heed Luke
4:23.

In the mean time, please.. keep mailing. You are fully justifying being up
on Going Postal.

From: security curmudgeon (jericho@attrition.org)
To: Todd Painton (tpainton@new.rr.com)
Cc: Heathens (staff@attrition.org)
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:01:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: Loser.. your worse than Newsweek


: : [insipid babble snipped..]
: 
: Oh I get it, the parts where you are the butt of witty insults gets
: clipped and called "[insipid babbly snipped]" 

If witty I would have left them in.

: "Chain of custody" is really only important with evidence used in a
: court of law. 
: 
: Websters gives 4 definitions for "evidence" only one says anything about
: a court of law.  Do you think the FBI worries about "Chain of Custody" 
: if someone learns of an impeding suicide bombing at crowded Mall? 

Yes, they do. Else the bad guy walks and can plan the next bombing. If
they truly didn't care, they would shoot first and ask questions later as
a matter of bureau policy.

: : YOU have never worked in any kind of intelligence organization. While I
: : have only done casual consulting for one of them, I do know a bit about
: : evidence and law enforcement. 
: 
: OH?
: You might want to think about who collects the evidence in murders,
: rapes, beatings, molestations, and pretty much every other crime that
: involves death and injury.

Uh, I am quite aware of that. Even when consultant do it for the FBI or
any other LE organization, they are acting under the strict guidelines of
evidence collection and must adhere to the chain of custody. To do so
invalidates any evidence collected. It is that simple.

: : I am not one to usuall quote the bible, but you really should heed Luke
: : 4:23.
: 
: You didn't quote the bible you thumped it.

Oh jeez, please. If you are going to continue to reply could you PLEASE
get a little more interesting? This thread is lower than our standards
because my opposition isn't very witty and won't realize when he has been
thoroughly spanked in a verbal spar. Worse, when you pound YOUR chest
about being a physician, proceed to give me advice that I should seek a
cure for my problem, and get slapped back with an appropriate quote, you
flounder yet again and reply with this dimwitted dribble.

Fact is, you know shit about computers, security, law enforcement and
evidence. Yet you tried to give us some cracked out suggestions/opinion
about it, then tried to qualify it, and still fell on your face.

You are an arm chair expert like so many others who write to us.