Of course, I was, and continue to be unable to discern the nature of the hidden files, but we know that people like Mike Fiola were victimized by the same sort of programs that actually scanned the Internet for pornography which is why he lost his job, his home and his reputation trying to defend himself against charges associated with the tactic. It is a simple program, a line of code actually, that can infect a computer by way of an e-mail being opened, direct access, hiding it in another program or in the case I observed, pasting the code into a stored document. So I've known for more than two years that two of my flash-drives have indeed been corrupted. I'm sure that law enforcement does as well, another aspect of Access, Corruption and Recovery, so I don't use the flash-drive, but like the mini-DV tapes that were handed to me by the King of the Stooges, they constitute evidence of what I'm discussing here, so I've made no attempt to destroy or dispose of those things.
The subject matter I'm discussing here includes those things, the ACR tactics of law enforcement, malicious code, illegal access to accounts, computer files copied and corrupted while I was detained, and hijacking of communications and accounts. So all of the examples of corruption are significant, as are the instances when they were confiscated, corrupted or when alterations or deletions took place. The hijacking of the accounts that include the essays has been ongoing, and so I've done my best to describe these things as they occur. The deletions are case-specific, targeted for transparent reasons, and the redirect to the URL that was designated as malicious was typical of the subject matter, so I simply made a print that included the URL which disappeared soon after, and continued to write on the subject.
As I mentioned previously, no e-mail account that I've used in the past is accessible to me. That is because the passwords were changed by intruders, and there have been many examples of how parties hostile to my interests have acquired passwords and accessed accounts. Some of those are well-known to the hacking community, but when I use a public computer, stealing passwords is not a problem because they control the servers and the computers. (This is why I found it amusing that after all I've written on the subject, the California EDD ordered me to establish an Internet-based account with their office despite my protests, and why I had to laugh when I saw the "LogMeIn" programmed installed at the computer I started using to post these essays, as well as the run command "control userpasswords2" in the command field. Am I supposed to be too stupid to understand these things after several years of writing on the subject? I guess so. At least in the CLEO Alternate Universe which presumes I'm an uneducated idiot).
Of course all of these tactics are illegal, and the Public Servants who provide access to hostile parties (read CLEO-friendly), do so with malicious intent. The IP Scam, my designation for prints or communications that are falsely attributed to me, has been in progress at every location I've been obliged to use, which is exacerbated by the fact that there are no public computers that do not also have an Internet connection. In other words, I can't use a word processor without also allowing for illegal, malicious access. And it doesn't take long for my storage media to be corrupted because of this, nor is my property secure when law enforcement decides to execute a Raid, Rummage and Ransack mission. What to do?
So knowing these things are part of the law enforcement agenda, I've continued to write while trying to maintain control of the text, with mixed results. I recently perused some of the essays posted at Hubpages and wasn't exactly shocked to see entire segments had disappeared. The segments describing specific examples of law enforcement misconduct or hackery associated with the account were conspicuously absent. What a surprise, huh?
In most cases the alterations target specific dates, reference numbers or the time that a particular example occurred. When, for instance, I described the time/date stamp had been backed up an hour when I logged-on, there was also a conspicuous effort to portray the time of that entry as well. And why do I not find this surprising? Because of all the examples of illegal access, password theft, the IP Scam and other CLEO contrivances, the control of the accounts and servers also allows for destruction of the evidence that it occurred, (except when the evidence of it winds up on internal computers).
Unfortunately for your humble writer, the accounts that have been hijacked can still be attributed to me. I have no way of closing the accounts because I can't access them. Nor do I have any means of controlling what hostile parties might post on the Internet using a photo and perhaps personal information known to law enforcement officials. Obviously, law enforcement has used photos in the past to falsify reports and has provided many examples of the tactics described for the purpose of false attribution, so it would be surprising if they hadn't done something similar with a bogus Internet posting of some kind. I also know that amongst the stolen property law enforcement refuses to acknowledge, are photos that would be useful to them for the same reasons, but more importantly to me when I made those reports was that the documents that showed that these things were described to them as early as 2005 were also stolen. In other words, law enforcement officials by way of Kevin M. Cimarusti and John Andrew Whitcraft, Jr., destroyed evidence of official reports that pertained to the thefts before they occurred, as well as documentation that pertained to the identity theft issues ten years earlier. How's that for controlling the environment?
But we will proceed with the knowledge that the Internet is a hostile environment with many hazards for anyone targeted by law enforcement, as well as those of us who would like to maintain control over our accounts, the text associated with them and the attribution of hijacked accounts. I've already described, and documented, the fact that I was redirected to a counterfeit website where bogus phone records were displayed. The conspicuous effort to preclude comparison of those records with internal records made it clear that there was some red meat so to speak.
But prior to that I knew that phone service was redirected anyway. One of the reasons I established the account was to prove it, and it didn't take long before I found myself talking to people who had no idea where their company was located, or other basic information like the Time Zone where they were located, which resulted in some comical exchanges between myself and the alleged "representatives" of those companies or agencies. After the bogus phone records at the counterfeit site were noted, printed and brought to the attention of the representatives who became visibly perturbed and defensive, there was no point participating in the charade any longer, so I discontinued service.
Later, however, I had a very good reason to make a call because the Elder Abuse Hotline was the only means of doing so. I sent certified mail to Steve Cooley directly, but Adult Protective Services was the agency with jurisdiction over that matter. When I called APS, I was told to call another number for a "local" representative who would be handling the complaint. But instead of calling it, knowing from experience that it was futile, I did a Google search and found a location associated with that number. I decided to visit the address and see who was actually there, whether APS had an office there which seemed doubtful.
What I found was the office of an attorney who wasn't available to speak to, but hanging on the wall I saw a portrait photo, presumably including the female attorney, of several dozen military personnel in uniforms along with some other military memorabilia. Obviously, the phone number I had been given was not Adult Protective Services, nor was the office suitable for any such endeavor. But as if to add some comedy to the exercise, the people staffing the office told me that it was once used by Social Services which may have accounted for the mistake. (This is why the primary effort here is to separate the Bullshit from the Burgers).
At this point, 10:24 a.m. on August 31, 2011, I will save this post in the hope that the text will be preserved and continue with this post later.
© humble journalist
And in so doing, we were supplied with the proof of what is described above. When I tried to save and close the account, I got the following display instead:
"Blogger: An error occurred. CONFLICTING EDITS. There was more than one attempt to edit this resource at the same time. This may have been because you double clicked on a link or a button or because someone else is also editing this blog or post. Please hit the back button on your browser and try again. If the problem persists, please contact the Blogger Help Group. We apologize for any inconvenience"
"Blogger: An error occurred. CONFLICTING EDITS. There was more than one attempt to edit this resource at the same time. This may have been because you double clicked on a link or a button or because someone else is also editing this blog or post. Please hit the back button on your browser and try again. If the problem persists, please contact the Blogger Help Group. We apologize for any inconvenience"
And of course, the loyal Public Servant, the CLEO Stooge, the IT Tech who is controlling the server was at her terminal when it occurred, so the tug-of-war continues, the First Amendment another CLEO casualty. Most of the time I haven't actually witnessed it, but because of the configuration of the library, the personnel involved with illegal access are rather obvious. The printout of this message was made a few minutes after the above essay was posted and shows a time of 10:28 a.m. August 31, 2011. Thanks for the demo.
No comments:
Post a Comment