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?

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por Brian9824:

Publicado originalmente por Komarimaru:

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...

Apple got a subpoena involve the San Bernardino shooters.

Guess what Apple did? They told them they will not unlock the shooter's phones because they couldn't. When the government tried to force them to put in a backdoor in later updates, Apple told them no again.

Subpoenas are only as strong as the law allows. Unless they are done very correctly, they go absolutely nowhere.

[The Commendatore]

Oh, God. The "I was a police officer" fanfic again. That will never end, will it? Despite how much it has been debunked.

[xBCxRangers]

Publicado originalmente por Boblin the Goblin:

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

'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.

I am not cussing him sir, but it was obvious he doctored the document, to say what it literally did not say. It said, exactly what it say it says. And that is, these companies sharing information with the government. Not soley the other way around.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

Publicado originalmente por Komarimaru:

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.

Actually, they would trust opsec personal over and police officer any day.

Opsec personal don't have a history of corruption and civil rights violations in their history of operation.

[Brian9824]

Publicado originalmente por Boblin the Goblin:

Publicado originalmente por Brian9824:

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...

Apple got a subpoena involve the San Bernardino shooters.

Guess what Apple did? They told them they will not unlock the shooter's phones because they couldn't. When the government tried to force them to put in a backdoor in later updates, Apple told them no again.

Subpoenas are only as strong as the law allows. Unless they are done very correctly, they go absolutely nowhere.

Yep, politicain's especially tend to be pretty clueless when it comes to the actual laws. Thats why Trump filed 70+ lawsuits after the election and lost every single one because he had no clue on the law and how it works.

Its why so many states pass laws that are then over-turned on appeal

[xBCxRangers]

Publicado originalmente por The Commendatore:

Oh, God. The "I was a police officer" fanfic again. That will never end, will it? Despite how much it has been debunked.

It has never, and never will be debunked. That is a promise. But you can try, and i can assure you will not be successful.

[Unicorn Slayer]

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

I am not cussing him sir, but it was obvious he doctored the document, to say what it literally did not say. It said, exactly what it say it says. And that is, these companies sharing information with the government. Not soley the other way around.

I didn't see anyone claim you were cussing anyone out, did you mean to say accusing? If so you are literally doing so while saying you aren't

[xBCxRangers]

Publicado originalmente por Boblin the Goblin:

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

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.

Actually, they would trust opsec personal over and police officer any day.

Opsec personal don't have a history of corruption and civil rights violations in their history of operation.

Oh i'm sure, but more appropriately, they have a "hook", meaning they know someone of rank over at the puzzle palace to get the job, which unfortunately, happens many more times, than not. Those cake details are not easy to get.

[The Commendatore]

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

Publicado originalmente por The Commendatore:

Oh, God. The "I was a police officer" fanfic again. That will never end, will it? Despite how much it has been debunked.

It has never, and never will be debunked. That is a promise. But you can try, and i can assure you will not be successful.

It was debunked.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

Publicado originalmente por Boblin the Goblin:

He didn't doctor anything.

Acussing him of such isn't a great idea.

I am not cussing him sir, but it was obvious he doctored the document, to say what it literally did not say. It said, exactly what it say it says. And that is, these companies sharing information with the government. Not soley the other way around.

Except it just says they have tools.

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.

Doesn't say that they are actively sharing information. In fact, it says neither agency hase strategies to do so.

Even their recommendation is about those agencies developing strategies.

GAO recommends that the FBI and DHS each develop strategies and goals for sharing information related to domestic violent extremism with social media and gaming companies. The agencies concurred with the recommendations.

Nothing in the article talks about or even hints at actively monitoring. It only talks about solidifying strategies of when and how to share the information if the need arises.

[xBCxRangers]

Publicado originalmente por The Unicorn Slayer:

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

I am not cussing him sir, but it was obvious he doctored the document, to say what it literally did not say. It said, exactly what it say it says. And that is, these companies sharing information with the government. Not soley the other way around.

I didn't see anyone claim you were cussing anyone out, did you mean to say accusing? If so you are literally doing so while saying you aren't

So what does this mean?

Publicado originalmente por Boblin the Goblin:

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

'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.

Acussing him of such isn't a great idea.

[xBCxRangers]

Publicado originalmente por The Commendatore:

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

It has never, and never will be debunked. That is a promise. But you can try, and i can assure you will not be successful.

It was debunked.

Never was, and can never be. Again, that's a promise. In fact, although stating that alone, may not be a crime, it's never a good to impersonate. And so, i'm on pretty firm ground on that.

And being your fellow posters want to read a simple document, and try and convince us a nickel is fifty cents, did not work, not with me.

When you read a document it says what it says, not what we "want" it to say.

[Unicorn Slayer]

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

Publicado originalmente por The Unicorn Slayer:

I didn't see anyone claim you were cussing anyone out, did you mean to say accusing? If so you are literally doing so while saying you aren't

So what does this mean?

Publicado originalmente por Boblin the Goblin:

Acussing him of such isn't a great idea.

Um do you not know what the words cussing and accusing mean? They mean two different things One starts with an A , the other starts with a C

[The Commendatore]

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

Publicado originalmente por The Unicorn Slayer:

I didn't see anyone claim you were cussing anyone out, did you mean to say accusing? If so you are literally doing so while saying you aren't

So what does this mean?

Publicado originalmente por Boblin the Goblin:

Acussing him of such isn't a great idea.

Oh, the horror! A typo! Whatever will the world do...

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

Publicado originalmente por The Commendatore:

It was debunked.

Never was, and can never be. Again, that's a promise. In fact, although stating that alone, may not be a crime, it's never a good to impersonate. And so, i'm on pretty firm ground on that.

And being your fellow posters want to read a simple document, and try and convince us a nickel is fifty cents, did not work, not with me.

When you read a document it says what it says, not what we "want" it to say.

Nope, wrong.

[xBCxRangers]

Publicado originalmente por Boblin the Goblin:

Publicado originalmente por xBCxRangers:

I am not cussing him sir, but it was obvious he doctored the document, to say what it literally did not say. It said, exactly what it say it says. And that is, these companies sharing information with the government. Not soley the other way around.

Except it just says they have tools.

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.

Doesn't say that they are actively sharing information. In fact, it says neither agency hase strategies to do so.

Even their recommendation is about those agencies developing strategies.

GAO recommends that the FBI and DHS each develop strategies and goals for sharing information related to domestic violent extremism with social media and gaming companies. The agencies concurred with the recommendations.

Nothing in the article talks about or even hints at actively monitoring. It only talks about solidifying strategies of when and how to share the information if the need arises.

Yes they are admitting they're sharing information...

'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 yes, they are going to enhance those strategies, as per the report.