With Telegram being outed as having foreign influences and chat in its forums....

[wbino]

does Steam monitor languages for criminal acts or coded messages?
Or have the ability to do so?

[xBCxRangers]

Nguyên văn bởi Brian9824:

Nguyên văn bởi xBCxRangers:

snip

Again you cut out the quote and edited it to remove the parts that you don't like. Let me fix that for you AGAIN

Nguyên văn bởi GAO Memo:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) have mechanisms to share and receive domestic violent extremism threatrelated information with social media and gaming companies. However, neither
agency has developed a strategy that articulates how it identifies and selects
companies to engage with or the goals and desired outcomes of those
engagements. Without a strategy or goals, the agencies may not be fully aware
of how effective their communications are with companies, or how effectively
their information-sharing mechanisms serve the agencies’ overall missions.

As anyone who reads it would see it clearly says the GAO is recommending actions that the FBI and DHS take, not anything that Steam would have to do. Of course if you knew what the GAO did that would be obvious as they only recommend actions for the Government not private businesses.

Hopefully the FBI and DHS improve their strategies, but that has nothing to do with Steam and is 100% up to the FBI and DHS.

'The FBI and DHS have some tools for sharing information WITH and receiving information FROM social media and gaming companies on threats related to domestic terrorism. But neither agency has developed strategies and goals related to such information-sharing efforts."

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106262

And it is not a "GAO Memo", you have misquoted the document. Do not know who GAO is, now even misrepresented, the statement itself, on the link provided. Being you mispelled a word in that statement. "threatrelated". What's that?

Stop doctoring documents, in what the document says per a bonafide link, what it is, and who is even providing the document and their role.

People need help with their games. Try that, and i recommend staying from these matters you clearly do not understand, relying on misinformed people, not to read the document or evidence provided.

[Brian9824]

Nguyên văn bởi xBCxRangers:

But neither agency has developed strategies and goals related to such information-sharing efforts."

Yep, hence why they tell you their recommendation is that they develop strategeis, again nothing to do with Steam

Nguyên văn bởi xBCxRangers:

And it is not a "GAO Memo", you have misquoted the document. Do do not know who GAO is, now even misrepresented, the statement itself, on the link provided. Being you mispelled a word in that statement. "threatrelated". What's that?

You should read up on what misrepresented is, a spelling mistake is not misrepresenting something especially when its the result of a non standard symbol they used. Agian here is the letter, feel free to copy and paste it yourself

https://www.gao.gov/assets/D24106262.pdf

Nguyên văn bởi xBCxRangers:

Stop doctoring documents, in what the document says per a bonafide link, what it is, and who is even providing the document and their role.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/D24106262.pdf

Perhaps this time you will read the actual document. Please do not make false claims of people doctoring documents you haven't even read.

[xBCxRangers]

Nguyên văn bởi Brian9824:

snip, as to prevent misinformation

The document clearly states, that gaming companies are sharing information, with the government, and "tools' to do so, that they have not explained, and that you or i, do not know.

Learn from this lesson in the future please.

[Brian9824]

Nguyên văn bởi xBCxRangers:

The document clearly states, that gaming companies are sharing information, with the government, and "tools' to do so, that they have not explained, and that you or i, do not know.

I have not said otherwise so guess you never read what i wrote. What I did say was the GAO does not suggest any changes on Steam's part, it suggests changes on what the FBI and DHS do.

Not sure why you keep refusing to read what I write and then try to argue things I am not claiming.

[Komarimaru]

Well, the PDF been posted enough times. It's obvious certain people don't want to admit what it clearly says.

This is why I said, and I am sad I have to repeat it, it's up to the company to work with any government body for such things.

[Brian9824]

Nguyên văn bởi Komarimaru:

Well, the PDF been posted enough times. It's obvious certain people don't want to admit what it clearly says.

This is why I said, and I am sad I have to repeat it, it's up to the company to work with any government body for such things.

Yep, ironically enough Facebook, Twitter, etc are mentioned in their Report by name, Steam is not as well. Another fun fact people keep editing out and ignoring because it doesn't fit the narrative they keep trying to push of Steam being evil and about to be smacked down for their made up violations.

They talked with Roblox, Discord, Reddit, and a few others, but nothing remotely suggests Steam was even one of them. Yet people keep trying to bring Steam into it.

[xBCxRangers]

Nguyên văn bởi Komarimaru:

Well, the PDF been posted enough times. It's obvious certain people don't want to admit what it clearly says.

This is why I said, and I am sad I have to repeat it, it's up to the company to work with any government body for such things.

That is correct. What the other poster implied, is the government is working on behalf of the company, having to soley share information, with the company, not the other way around, for which the document clearly says they do.

Companies have a role, in sharing information with government law enforcement agencies, as well as local authorities if it is a requested.

And in that, given the current document, even more so, enhancing the "tools" they already have, in getting that information.

And my opinion, (and this now goes to my opinion, not fact as it was presented), is that the 'government", is going to need more than "reports".

They're going to need "proactivity", rather than reactivity. And that means, Steam has to change their current model, and my contention (opinion) is that they already have.

But as we've seen, posters who seem to think they know everything, know little or nothing.

And that's why if you're going to be "proactive" you need to vet folks, who know what they're doing, and bring experience to these matters, in doing so.

[Komarimaru]

Nguyên văn bởi Brian9824:

Nguyên văn bởi Komarimaru:

Well, the PDF been posted enough times. It's obvious certain people don't want to admit what it clearly says.

This is why I said, and I am sad I have to repeat it, it's up to the company to work with any government body for such things.

Yep, ironically enough Facebook, Twitter, etc are mentioned in their Report by name, Steam is not as well. Another fun fact people keep editing out and ignoring because it doesn't fit the narrative they keep trying to push of Steam being evil and about to be smacked down for their made up violations.

Not sure why anyone would do such a thing to be honest. If you read the document, it clearly states that

1. Companies are have to agree to work with said bodies of government.

and, more importantly and the main reason it was started....

2. The FBI is learning from said companies on how they operate and maintain their sites and online community. Aka, how quickly something volatile is removed, actions taken, and who they contact about it if needed.

It's a whole, talking to each other for resolution thing, to be put simply.

[Komarimaru]

Nguyên văn bởi xBCxRangers:

Nguyên văn bởi Komarimaru:

Well, the PDF been posted enough times. It's obvious certain people don't want to admit what it clearly says.

This is why I said, and I am sad I have to repeat it, it's up to the company to work with any government body for such things.

That is correct. What the other poster implied, is the government is working on behalf of the company, having to soley share information, with the company, not the other way around, for which the document clearly says they do.

Companies have a role, in sharing information with government law enforcement agencies, as well as local authorities if it is a requested.

And in that, given the current document, even more so, enhancing the "tools" they already have, in getting that information.

And my opinion, (and this now goes to my opinion, not fact as it was presented), is that the 'government", is going to need more than "reports".

They're going to need "proactivity", rather than reactivity. And that means, Steam has to change their current model, and my contention (opinion) is that they already have.

But as we've seen, posters who seem to think they know everything, know little or nothing.

And that's why if you're going to be "proactive" you need to vet folks, who know what they're doing, and bring experience to these matters, in doing so.

Unfortunately, a company does not have to share any information. Not sure where you got that idea. They can can agree to work with a government body, but they were never be required to.

Another wrong point there, the FBI actually is learning how companies tools work. Not the other way around, though does offer education for companies that have no tools themselves.

It's 30+ pages of reading. But would suggest someone actually read it before making such mistakes. They do repeat things many times, but shouldn't take too long to read.

[Brian9824]

Nguyên văn bởi Komarimaru:

Nguyên văn bởi Brian9824:

Yep, ironically enough Facebook, Twitter, etc are mentioned in their Report by name, Steam is not as well. Another fun fact people keep editing out and ignoring because it doesn't fit the narrative they keep trying to push of Steam being evil and about to be smacked down for their made up violations.

Not sure why anyone would do such a thing to be honest. If you read the document, it clearly states that

1. Companies are have to agree to work with said bodies of government.

and, more importantly and the main reason it was started....

2. The FBI is learning from said companies on how they operate and maintain their sites and online community. Aka, how quickly something volatile is removed, actions taken, and who they contact about it if needed.

It's a whole, talking to each other for resolution thing, to be put simply.

Its just spam to try to say Steam is bad, and cause drama

[xBCxRangers]

Nguyên văn bởi Komarimaru:

Nguyên văn bởi xBCxRangers:

That is correct. What the other poster implied, is the government is working on behalf of the company, having to soley share information, with the company, not the other way around, for which the document clearly says they do.

Companies have a role, in sharing information with government law enforcement agencies, as well as local authorities if it is a requested.

And in that, given the current document, even more so, enhancing the "tools" they already have, in getting that information.

And my opinion, (and this now goes to my opinion, not fact as it was presented), is that the 'government", is going to need more than "reports".

They're going to need "proactivity", rather than reactivity. And that means, Steam has to change their current model, and my contention (opinion) is that they already have.

But as we've seen, posters who seem to think they know everything, know little or nothing.

And that's why if you're going to be "proactive" you need to vet folks, who know what they're doing, and bring experience to these matters, in doing so.

Unfortunately, a company does not have to share any information. Not sure where you got that idea. They can can agree to work with a government body, but they were never be required to.

Another wrong point there, the FBI actually is learning how companies tools work. Not the other way around, though does offer education for companies that have no tools themselves.

It's 30+ pages of reading. But would suggest someone actually read it before making such mistakes. They do repeat things many times, but shouldn't take too long to read.

If a company gets a subpoena, they will do what they're told, unless they want to challenge the subpoena. However, as it would seem, they are cooperating with the government.

I would also note, if you did read those 30 plus pages, the "NYPD Intel Unit" is not mentioned, being, this is about Federal Agencies, not local law enforcement authorities, who unfortunately, seem to do better at gathering information, than even federal authorities at times.

[Komarimaru]

Nguyên văn bởi xBCxRangers:

Nguyên văn bởi Komarimaru:

Unfortunately, a company does not have to share any information. Not sure where you got that idea. They can can agree to work with a government body, but they were never be required to.

Another wrong point there, the FBI actually is learning how companies tools work. Not the other way around, though does offer education for companies that have no tools themselves.

It's 30+ pages of reading. But would suggest someone actually read it before making such mistakes. They do repeat things many times, but shouldn't take too long to read.

If a company gets a subpoena, they will do what they're told, unless they want to challenge the subpoena. However, as it would seem, they are cooperating with the government.

I would also note, if you did read those 30 plus pages, the "NYPD Intel Unit" is not mentioned, being, this is about Federal Agencies, not local law enforcement authorities, who unfortunately, seem to do better at gathering information, than even federal authorities at times.

I never said the NYPD was mentioned for one, where did I ever say that?

I commented on another post, where it was brought up, to correct misinformation on what the NYPD do for two divisions due to working with them.

As for subpoenas, that's anyone. Doesn't matter if a billion dollar company or a homeless person on the streets. Could involve testimony, documents or inspection of records/premises. And you only have to supply what is requested, and still have legal rights of privacy etc.

[Brian9824]

Nguyên văn bởi Komarimaru:

Nguyên văn bởi xBCxRangers:

If a company gets a subpoena, they will do what they're told, unless they want to challenge the subpoena. However, as it would seem, they are cooperating with the government.

I would also note, if you did read those 30 plus pages, the "NYPD Intel Unit" is not mentioned, being, this is about Federal Agencies, not local law enforcement authorities, who unfortunately, seem to do better at gathering information, than even federal authorities at times.

I never said the NYPD was mentioned for one, where did I ever say that?

I commented on another post, where it was brought up, to correct misinformation on what the NYPD do for two divisions due to working with them.

As for subpoenas, that's anyone. Doesn't matter if a billion dollar company or a homeless person on the streets. Could involve testimony, documents or inspection of records/premises. And you only have to supply what is requested, and still have legal rights of privacy etc.

You can also tell them no to a subpoena. Lots of companies fight government subpoena's and win quite often because they are very heavy handed and overstate their reach quite often.

Although I do not know what that has to do with this thread...

[Boblin the Goblin]

Nguyên văn bởi xBCxRangers:

Nguyên văn bởi Brian9824:

Again you cut out the quote and edited it to remove the parts that you don't like. Let me fix that for you AGAIN



As anyone who reads it would see it clearly says the GAO is recommending actions that the FBI and DHS take, not anything that Steam would have to do. Of course if you knew what the GAO did that would be obvious as they only recommend actions for the Government not private businesses.

Hopefully the FBI and DHS improve their strategies, but that has nothing to do with Steam and is 100% up to the FBI and DHS.

'The FBI and DHS have some tools for sharing information WITH and receiving information FROM social media and gaming companies on threats related to domestic terrorism. But neither agency has developed strategies and goals related to such information-sharing efforts."

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106262

And it is not a "GAO Memo", you have misquoted the document. Do not know who GAO is, now even misrepresented, the statement itself, on the link provided. Being you mispelled a word in that statement. "threatrelated". What's that?

Stop doctoring documents, in what the document says per a bonafide link, what it is, and who is even providing the document and their role.

People need help with their games. Try that, and i recommend staying from these matters you clearly do not understand, relying on misinformed people, not to read the document or evidence provided.

He didn't doctor anything.

Acussing him of such isn't a great idea.

[xBCxRangers]

Nguyên văn bởi Komarimaru:

Nguyên văn bởi xBCxRangers:

If a company gets a subpoena, they will do what they're told, unless they want to challenge the subpoena. However, as it would seem, they are cooperating with the government.

I would also note, if you did read those 30 plus pages, the "NYPD Intel Unit" is not mentioned, being, this is about Federal Agencies, not local law enforcement authorities, who unfortunately, seem to do better at gathering information, than even federal authorities at times.

I never said the NYPD was mentioned for one, where did I ever say that?

I commented on another post, where it was brought up, to correct misinformation on what the NYPD do for two divisions due to working with them.

As for subpoenas, that's anyone. Doesn't matter if a billion dollar company or a homeless person on the streets. Could involve testimony, documents or inspection of records/premises. And you only have to supply what is requested, and still have legal rights of privacy etc.

You have plenty of posts on this very thread on your work along with them, but unless you worked "for' them, you would have zero knowledge of their manpowers, and how they go about montitoring issues.

And you if you did, you certainly would not bringing it up here. I was a paid police officer, and they wouldn't trust me with that, let alone you.