After having read the email exchange, one thought kept popping into my head. Damn, this guy has way too much free time. The solution to this entire issue was simple throughout the email chain, yet junior G-man seemed completely oblivious to it.

quote:

Originally posted by Muddflap:
Anyone that has perused the forum at all, should have a pretty good idea that law enforcement is completely supported.

^^^^ This hits it on the head. If I thought otherwise, I would not be a player here.

And, keep up the good work, Para.

I am Ex-LEO and feel quite welcome here. We often debate LE fiascos and triumphs equally and with reasoned discourse. Which is as it should be. I wonder if this dude may be someone with access to the DHS network but is not a sworn member of Fed LE.

Wow. I would not want this guy as a member just based on his attitude. Obviously SigForum is pro-LE and has many LE members.

I don’t use my agency computer or the agency Wi-Fi for anything personal period. Do that at home.

Now I am on certain sites such as Facebook, Instagram, etc on my agency computer using a fake account and email, but that is for agency investigative purposes only. That is why Para is right to be suspicious even if it is a non-agency email but coming from an agency network.

My taxes pay for this guy to be applying to forums while he is working? This kind of activity gives G workers a bad name. Or is this part of his job research??

He's obviously there for his people skills. Communication and all.

I suspect he’s young and simply made a dumb rookie mistake in using an agency portal for the purpose of anything not related to his duties. He ought to be thankful the request was denied. People get jammed up for that all the time. His reaction to Para trying to gingerly sort things out was enough to make one wonder if there’s a screw loose in addition, however.

That email chain reads as if you were discussing something with damn near anyone from Seattle. Total passive-aggressive 'I deserve it my way' 'I want it now.' His whole series of responses reads in defense of his bad behavior. He behavior was called out, and instead of admitting the error he tripped down. I think the man, or woman is just a snot used to getting their way.

You can peruse all of sig forum posts and not be a member. The only things that I know you get as a member are access to the registered users, and to post.

This guy may have been up to nothing, and just wanted to post, but I doubt it.

Para, any idea where his IP is from? Not that you need to mention it at all, but I would be curious if it was the PNW.

Let me see if I have this straight.

Para got a registration request via a DHS server. As is his choice, he rejects it, as he does with all similar requests.

He gets contacted by the person who submitted the registration request. After explaining why the registration request was rejected, Para was threatened with reputational assassination, aka public humiliation by the rejected registrant (who, I might add, states he is a federal employee). That was a bad idea on their part; more on this later).

If the rejected registrant wasn't using a fed.gov computer or phone (requiring he be logged on using his CAC/PIV), how exactly did he get into the DHS network???

Either he is not being truthful, you've just stumbled on a HUGE security hole, or both.

And to echo others, in my three decades as a federal contractor (both embedded staff and not), federal employee, and an employee of a National Laboratory I assure you if he was using a fed.gov computing device, even if he was using a hotmail.com eddress, and was on his own time, his actions are a HUGE violation of the computer network use agreement you accept EVERY time you log on to a fed.gov computing device. I did a long assignment at DHS, embedded with their Science and Technology Directorate. Access to my assigned computer required the DHS version of a CAC/PIV. I literally stuck the card into a reader and that let me get to a log screen. The logon used my username and a stupidly long password (IIRC, a minimum of 16 characters) to let me into the UNCLASS netweork. So far as I know, using a CAC/{PIV is necessary if you want to long onto any fed.gov network.

Moreover, his use of a federal network creates another problem - if it is on a government computer network it is subject to FOIA. Even using a personal eddress to send yoga pants missives to your female paramour, if it passes across a fed.gov server, it is ALL subject to FOIA. It seems to me I recall someone having troubles around using fed.gov systems and personal email accounts circa 2016???? Russia something????

I'll come out an say it. I think Para caught him in a lie. He was seeking an account here in some form of an official capacity.

We do not know if his chain-of-command approved him to do so, partly because his was a stupidly inept use of a fed.gov computing device to do it.

Finally, I submit this for your consideration.

1. The rejected registrant's actions may, I stress MAY, have identified a hole in DHS' computer network security if he used a private device to send a registration request via a DHS server. I would urge you to consider reporting that to DHS.

2. The rejected registration clearly threatened you with reputational assassination over a rejected registration. I'd be filing a formal complaint against that asshole because he states he will use his professional network to harm your reputation ("I would like to know so I can pass this information to all my friends and coworkers and associates who work in the same field as I am.") What he did in threatening your reputation was not only wrong, it was NOT a part of his official duties.

Idiot. All he had to do was pull out his cell phone, turn off WiFi and register.

His loss, he's missing out. At a bare minimum this place is a wealth of knowledge. If you choose it to be, this place can be like family. Nope instead he puffed up his chest and is left out.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
2. The rejected registration clearly threatened you with reputational assassination over a rejected registration. I'd be filing a formal complaint against that asshole because he states he will use his professional network to harm your reputation ("I would like to know so I can pass this information to all my friends and coworkers and associates who work in the same field as I am.") What he did in threatening your reputation was not only wrong, it was NOT a part of his official duties.

Isn't that the text book definition of Coercion?

quote:

Coercion (/koʊˈɜːrʒən, -ʃən/) is compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner by use of threats, including force.[1][2][3] It involves a set of various types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response, for example: a bully demanding lunch money from a student or the student gets beaten. These actions may include extortion, blackmail, torture, threats to induce favors, or even sexual assault. In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.

Dunno, I am not an attorney, but

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/3617

I'm sure glad you are vigilant. We thank you for your hard work. I fully support this particular decision.

Long time member, but not a lot of posts.
All I know is that as long as I've been coming to this site, Para has done nothing but look out for us and the site.
GO PARA!!!!

Sigforum supports all LEOs and recognizes the work they do.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
The solution to this entire issue was simple throughout the email chain, yet junior G-man seemed completely oblivious to it.

That's the way I read that too. This could have been as simple as "Thanks for the info, I'll register from home/my phone...". Easy peasy.


The whole I'm offended/I'm the victim stance this person takes is unwarranted and leads me to believe they are an entitled individual.

I'm sure most of us would have said ok thanks, I'll re-apply when I get home.

ShouldBFishin's post above is 100% my understanding of our opinions of LEO and 100% my read on the prospective member.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
I'm sure most of us would have said ok thanks, I'll re-apply when I get home.

Bingo! What is so hard about that?

quote:

Originally posted by DSgrouse:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
2. The rejected registration clearly threatened you with reputational assassination over a rejected registration. I'd be filing a formal complaint against that asshole because he states he will use his professional network to harm your reputation ("I would like to know so I can pass this information to all my friends and coworkers and associates who work in the same field as I am.") What he did in threatening your reputation was not only wrong, it was NOT a part of his official duties.

Isn't that the text book definition of Coercion?

I have no intention of pursuing this, and the only reason you guys are reading that email exchange is because no one likes being threatened, and I would rather that people be able to see the conversation, instead of an anecdotal re-telling of the conversation.

This is similar to what banned members will do- they'll give their version of events, and nothing else. I can tell you one thing to a certainty- no one has ever been banned from a web forum for cause. It's just like prison- everyone is innocent. It's always the big, mean asshole admin being a big mean asshole, and the banned member did nothing wrong. Yep. Ain't that something?

So, when he tells me he's going to tell his sad story to anyone who'll draw nigh, this is what he gets.

But, beyond making sure the truth is known, I don't care to take any action.

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:
SIGforum supports law enforcement and acknowledges the tough job they do.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by DSgrouse:
That email chain reads as if you were discussing something with damn near anyone from Seattle. Total passive-aggressive 'I deserve it my way' 'I want it now.' His whole series of responses reads in defense of his bad behavior. He behavior was called out, and instead of admitting the error he tripped down. I think the man, or woman is just a snot used to getting their way.

You can peruse all of sig forum posts and not be a member. The only things that I know you get as a member are access to the registered users, and to post.

This guy may have been up to nothing, and just wanted to post, but I doubt it.

Para, any idea where his IP is from? Not that you need to mention it at all, but I would be curious if it was the PNW.

^?^
( * )
|| ||

That’s my dogs hiney; you can kiss it too. Get all up in there.