F B I National Embarrassment
- Thread starter mAlice
- Start date
seven
New Member
PsyOps
Pixelated
Would you like an in-depth lesson on how IPSec works? I am deeply familiar with it. It's what I work with every day.
- Do you know what ISAKMP is?
- What ports are used in ISAKMP?
- Is it UDP or TCP?
- What are the phases of ISAKMP?
- What is the next phase in establishing an IPSec VPN tunnel after ISAKMP successfully completes?
- What are the protocols involved in encryption?
- What are the cipher algorithms available?
- What are hashing algorithms available?
Of course this stuff is easily googled, so I know you can find most of the answers. But, I am going to assume you don't have a clue to any of those answers unless you look it up. This is what I do for a living, and I can tell you that even if something is encrypted - either via VPN or SSL/TLS - the info is unintelligible, but the IP addresses over the ISPs are quite traceable.
black dog
Free America
Pot meet Kettle.
Some young men saddle up, pussys like you wear pink hats....
Cool stuff. I'll get my resume brushed up for you.
But this has nothing to do with what I'm saying. IP addresses are traceable, sure. I'm talking about not logging that information to start with. If the connection logs don't exist, they don't exist.
Pot meet Kettle.
Ahh.the troll boy checks in..flings poo..leaves....
Blew your self important self away doe....
Sure kid. Blew away.
The FBI is not denying that it failed to pass along to the Miami field office what they considered a credible claim.
As it turns out this isn't the first time a report was not passed down concerning a potential threat.
What makes it the FBI's problem to act is that the information was called into them.
They never passed it along to either another federal agency or local law enforcement.
seven
New Member
Ahh.the troll boy checks in..flings poo..leaves...
After Being Passed By CONGRESS
read up ...
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/no-trump-didnt-make-easier-people-mental-illness-buy-guns/
Typically, being “adjudicated as a mental defective” requires, you know, adjudication. That makes sense. Lots of people are accused of having a mental defect. It happens millions of times a day on Twitter. But mere accusations are never sufficient to deprive people of their constitutionally protected rights. A plain reading of the language of the Brady Bill would imply some sort of due process rights — hence the word “adjudicated.” If someone has been held by a judge and jury to be mentally impaired, then by all means take away his guns. If not, he retains his Second Amendment rights along with all of the other rights of a free American adult.
The rulemakers at the Social Security Administration thought otherwise. In a rule promulgated on December 19, 2016, they determined that “adjudicated as a mental defective” also meant anyone who successfully filed a disability claim for mental health reasons and requested that someone else be appointed to help manage their disability payments.
What do those mental disorders include? It’s a long list! Some, like schizophrenia, sound like good reasons to keep firearms out of a person’s hands. Others sound decidedly less dangerous. Autism spectrum disorder, for example, does not appear to have any connection to gun violence. For others on the list, such as eating disorders, proposing a connection to a propensity for violence is laughable.
Nevertheless, Obama’s SSA believed that people who were, say, anorexic, and who asked for help managing their finances must be deprived of their constitutional rights. The SSA acknowledged that they received objections during the regulation’s notice-and-comment period, but dismissed them. To those who pointed out the due process problems, SSA replied that anyone whose rights were taken away could apply to get them back. Problem solved!
Deprivation of any other right would not be dismissed so cavalierly. Commenters also pointed out that the category of mental illnesses was “too broad, and equate ‘severe mental issues the same as other issues’ such as ‘eating and anxiety disorders.’” This, too, the SSA dismissed with nothing more than a promise not to abuse the power that they had delegated to themselves.
[clip]
In their opposition, Republicans attracted a coalition of unlikely allies. The American Civil Liberties Union, not known for their extreme views on the Second Amendment, endorsed the action. In a press release before the vote, the ACLU condemned the rule, saying:
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.
Other mental health advocates joined the ACLU in supporting the Republican bill. The National Disability Rights Network noted the “absence of any meaningful due process protections.” The Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law said that the rule “is inconsistent with the statute it implements, has no evidentiary justification, would wrongly perpetuate inaccurate stereotypes of individuals with mental disabilities as dangerous, and would divert already too-scarce SSA resources.” And the National Alliance on Mental Illness said the rule “may have unintended negative consequences, including deterring individuals from seeking or receiving help when they need it.”