Jackie Singh / Jacqueline Singh / Jacqueline Anne Stokes / Jax / @find_evil / HackingButLegal / @HackingButLegal / piggytomlinson - Cybersecurity "expert," wannabe journoscum, former "hacker"; gunt guards Patrick Tomlinson, currently picking a fight with ONA Forums, GNAA Groupie

[bile demon]

Btw when she talks about her "surveillance panic", she is referring to the time she thought her smoke detector was spying on her:

Rookie mistake. Gotta make the spycam beep periodically next time you hide it in a smoke detector, stalkers. It didn't take long for Jackie to sniff it out once she realized the familiar sound was missing.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

If I wrote a story involving Snackie, it wouldn't be published. First, I'd be accused of being a racist sexist (or a sexist racist). Second, such a character would be considered too unbelievable.

I'd think it would be a story from modern day Meghalaya. Instead of Jackie wallowing in mud and filth to keep the tiger away, she's doing it to keep the nasty forum users away.

 

[RedMage]

Jackie malding again over Telegram's "lack of moderation"

https://archive.vn/FBSrw

While the author acknowledges the platform’s unmoderated nature has made it a haven for criminals, extremists, and foreign actors seeking to spread disinformation and propaganda, the article fails to adequately address Telegram's lax moderation policies. It is important to understand the role those policies play in enabling crime, psychological operations, and the general perpetuation of harmful conspiracy theories aimed at the West. The author’s suggestion that the platform has become the “spiritual home” of the Internet is outrageously facile and laughable on its face until you consider the myriad conspiracy theories with a theological bent which are disseminated on the app.

This isn't exclusive to Telegram of course as such content she takes issue with exists on other chat platforms. She's going to have a cow when Signal rolls out usernames as there is ZERO moderation there.

Examining Telegram's financial structure and its backers could provide valuable insights into the platform's motivations and potential biases. As you may be aware, Telegram and VKontakte have linked origins. Reportedly, their founders desired to make Telegram ‘bulletproof’, or takedown-resistant, after leaving Russia.

Funny she leaves out the reason why Durov left Russia. He was unhappy with the direction VK was going and the Russian government's attempt to completely control the platform. It came to a point where there was a warrant out for his arrest over user data as he was unwilling to hand over to Russian authorities. He no longers owns a stake in VK after selling it off - in which that money was used to develop Telegram.

Telegram's use of shell companies makes it difficult to hold the company accountable for its actions, as it is unclear who is ultimately responsible for the platform's decisions, or what government can truly hold it accountable.
While the Mother Jones article did not touch on Telegram's legal structure and how this helps to shield the platform from said accountability, I am hoping another investigative journalist will probe these areas more deeply.

It's in their Terms of Service. And depending on the country, as well (EU specifically)



Looks clear cut and it's easy to report public channels with malicious content. Sounds like Jackie wants this extended further than that.

Further, the organization’s Russian founding and its founders’ previous association with the Kremlin raise serious concerns about the platform's potential for misuse by state actors.

???

So because Durov is Russian, he must be linked to the Kremlin? When it was his administration that put out a warrant for him? She needs to elaborate on this.

Telegram's hands-off approach to moderation has widely raised concerns that the platform may be catering to specific political or ideological agendas. An exploration of potential motives behind Telegram's lax policies should be in play.

She should just say she doesn't want people with opposing political viewpoints to openly express themselves in an environment that is so lax. At least she'd be honest.

While Telegram provides some basic reporting capabilities, such as the ability to flag illegal content, these features provide the appearance of mere fig leaves, as they rarely result in visible moderation activity, and no U.S. law enforcement entity can claim to have an effective investigative capability on Telegram due to general lack of cooperation from the platform's owners.

Telegram isn't made for you, Jackie. You're free to use any other platform such as Tribel and Counter.Social where you can insulate yourself inside an echo chamber of the most deranged. One would hope you're not retarded enough to spend hours in the day to report public channels that post content you don't like - without pay. That's quite pathetic.

Because she does read her own thread - what exactly are you going to do about Signal, Jackie? Are you going to write up medium articles of people posting Signal group links to chats that contain content or political views you don't like? Or perhaps you're going to run to the feds and beg on your knees for legislation to kneecap Signal?

Perhaps even advocate for the EARN IT Act you're probably a fan of, judging by this Medium post.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Always love when somebody starts out decrying how a platform allows conspiracy theories to be posted and then goes on at length about their own conspiracy theory.

Putin's absolutely "seeding" the United States with an obscure social media platform that doesn't moderate. All part of his extensively complex multi-stage plan to carry out immense evil. What immense evil? Jackie doesn't know but it's clearly got to be bad, you can't trust those people after all. Imagine people from an authoritarian state (who left it) creating an unmoderated hard to suppress place to speak. It's terrifying and keeps me up at night. It's exactly what Putin must want to "destabilize" the most free speech protective nation to ever exist.

 

[ZipDisk]

Youtube thinks I want to watch the video again and keeps re-serving it. I realized the title of the keynote would also make for a great title for the thread.

Profiling Socially-Motivated Cyber Criminals - Jackie Singh.

 

[Marvin]

I lived in a country where telegram was our essential communications platform. I didn't speak the local language. Jackie is a fat American larper.

 

[JustStopDude]

I lived in a country where telegram was our essential communications platform. I didn't speak the local language. Jackie is a fat American larper.

You just described Jackie. She claims to speak Spanish but can't. You should add hypocrite to your description of her.

 

[An automatic clown]

Wait for the knock everyone. Any day now

 

[AutoClownMaker]

Wait for the knock everyone. Any day now
View attachment 5539921

Turning on each other would need the people to be coordinating in some way AND know each other.

There is no evidence of this.

And Jackie gives a crack'n "but legal" analysis here with the actual case. No, wait, that's not at all the case for Ms. butt legal.

In fact there is no evidence she's ever used PACER. Or courtlistener. Because she'd be citing the actual case and the specific elements of the case VS what a news org published.

 

[AnOminous]

In fact there is no evidence she's ever used PACER. Or courtlistener. Because she'd be citing the actual case and the specific elements of the case VS what a news org published.

I think she's too dumb to use it. It's not even hard for a person of normal intelligence, but everything's hard when you're a street-shitting tard.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Wait for the knock everyone. Any day now
View attachment 5539921

In fact there is no evidence she's ever used PACER. Or courtlistener. Because she'd be citing the actual case and the specific elements of the case VS what a news org published.

I think she's too dumb to use it.

A quick internet search gave me the facts of the case:

• Guttenberg's 14 year old daughter was killed in the Parkland school shooting in Florida
• Grieving, Guttenberg becomes an anti-gun advocate. Understandable.
• Some tard from Fresno thinks Guttenberg decided to wave his daughter's bloody shirt around purely to advance gun control. Also understandable.
• What isn't understandable is the messages, like "Celebrate (Jaime) being slaughtered, Decapitated. Silenced. Dancing no more. God Bless President Trump. Fuck Joe Biden" and "We want (Guttenberg) to be scared and not sleeping at night. (Expletive) off (Guttenberg). (Expletive) Joe Biden" (Source)

There's a debate to be had about the politics and the retardation to be found here, but this thread isn't it. Let's look at this as it relates to Fat Rick:

• Guttenberg didn't respond to the troll, so it became harassment. Patrick responds to his trolls daily, so it becomes an argument.
• Guttenberg's troll danced and pissed on the daughter's grave (figuratively). The Pests have yet to grave-dance.
• Guttenberg's troll threatened Guttenberg directly. The Pests haven't done any such thing, and in fact have uncovered proof Patrick may be the one SWATing himself.
• Guttenberg's troll used his own name and accounts tied to his name. The Pests use obvious troll accounts.

This is ignoring the fact that Patrick has the dox of at least two trolls and hasn't pressed any charges against either of them. The one time he took one (Nadolski) to court, he couldn't even get a restraining order. These cases are nothing alike. And if we're going to talk about vile messages sent on Xitter, Patrick has quite a few- such as "Rape is the most mild punishment you deserve."

I didn't even need PACER to come to those conclusions- simply sobriety, a functioning brain, and knowledge of the case. If any Kiwi wants to get the facts of Guttenberg's case from PACER, the case number is 22-cr-20356 (Source).

Snackie is just looking to get fame and clout off Patrick's suffering. She remembers the high she got, being the cybersecurity "expert" for Biden's campaign- and she wants more.

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

Wait for the knock everyone. Any day now
View attachment 5539921

Getting a bit sleepy due to all this waiting guys

 

[Ivan Daniloff]

The one time he took one (Nadolski) to court

He was shut down twice in the same day for a restraining order against Dan Mullen in September/maybe early October. Patrick’s only court “win” was paper aborting his daughter.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Wait for the knock everyone. Any day now
View attachment 5539921

The feds should PM me about their offers to flip so we can begin negotiations already. I'm ready to spill the beans on the whole operation! I've seen it all, the handshakes, the banana peppers, how to connect to a website with TOR, the whole shebang.

"They'll be mocked by their own community as there is no honor amongst psychopaths."

So turning on your community, friends and allies to save yourself is the "honorable" thing? You sure you aren't one "amongst" psychopaths, Jackie?

 

[AutoClownMaker]

There's a debate to be had about the politics and the retardation to be found here, but this thread isn't it. Let's look at this as it relates to Fat Rick:

• Guttenberg didn't respond to the troll, so it became harassment. Patrick responds to his trolls daily, so it becomes an argument.

*slow clap*

The only way this would be better is if an appellate court in the 7th had made such a decision. Wide spread trolling/arguments have been on the Internet for decades so the odds are good it's caselaw someplace. I would not be shocked if the longer existence of the telephone and crank calling would also cover this argument idea.

Having a criminal fight over doing something to Pat as the defendant isn't a life choice I'd make.

If any Kiwi wants to get the facts of Guttenberg's case from PACER, the case number is 22-cr-20356 (Source).

And this, right here, is why Ms. Butt Legal is far worse a source of information than 'a forum of dedicated right wing Nazi trolls' or whatever comes out of the orifice of Ms. Butt Legal.

 

[Lord Xenu]

Apparently Jackie was on some no-name hacker podcast yesterday to talk about her OWASP presentation.

Archive:
Bette Dangerous Podcast Ep71 — Surveillance Panic with Jackie Singh

Description: Cybersecurity professional Jackie Singh gives us deep background on her keynote speech exposing an internet hate cult and how we need to find ways to defend people from harms of digital black holes

(Source)

 

[AirdropShitposts]

lmao at this shit on that podcast's page:





The bottom line, Stone Cold AirdropShitposts says, is know that you're fucking crazy.

 

[AutoClownMaker]

Archive:
Bette Dangerous Podcast Ep71 — Surveillance Panic with Jackie Singh
View attachment 5541245

(Source)

"Why do you care about what people who don't love you have to say" - Yes Patrick. Why?

Bullied as a kid - so your reaction was to go to the GNAA crew? And you "loved this stuff".

Rather than publicly disavow the GNAA tied past the comments are how these people should not be trusted and you walked away. Is your past SO horrible you don't want the risk of these people outing you?

They almost grasp the privacy angle yet Jackie can't grasp privacy is established by NOT posting. Where is the advice to stop using credit cards and pay cash? Wear mask/hat/glasses to reduce face recognition in stores for them to sell data brokers. Nope, it is the fault of the data brokers and the people being sold have no responsibility. Without data brokering and selling advertisements you'd have to pay for things like your twatting. It would be interesting if Elon said for $X a month you won't be shown adverts and we won't sell your anonymized data. Would the legal orifice pay up to address one of her big concerns?

How "antisemetic" - The Israeli mob targets Americans.

So now Jackie is a Queen?

'Are the attackers psychologically motivated? If so, it is not you' Yea, sure. LOLcow laughing is not about the person who's being called an LOLcow with how they are behaving.

"Jackie molested 40 babies" - what an interesting comment. Doesn't the Jax pack claim every statement is an admission? *Jersh imitation* Very Interesting Chat.

"They are now trying to take Anne Frank away" If the Anne Frank diaries are actually made up is it OK to tell people that naw, these writings are an actual diary?

Once again the legal orifice shows her legal ass in publc. SLAPP is Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation Lawsuit. Not legal. LAWSUIT. And against is not attacks. Legal Orfice made this same mistake in the OWASP talk. Making it another time shows the mistake is based on ignorance VS misspeaking. (15 minutes in here and 26 mins into the OWASP)

Be sure to archive your own local copies as the podcast goes behind a paywall in 2 weeks.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Wide spread trolling/arguments have been on the Internet for decades so the odds are good it's caselaw someplace. I would not be shocked if the longer existence of the telephone and crank calling would also cover this argument idea.

Having a criminal fight over doing something to Pat as the defendant isn't a life choice I'd make.

A janny versed in legalese put a quick explanation of cyberstalking in Rick's thread:

It is. 18 U.S. Code § 2261A, called "Stalking", covers both physical and cyber stalking, however the later part is incredibly narrow. Notably, if you do Cyberstalking in the same state as the victim, this Federal law does not apply.

At any rate, 18 U.S. Code § 2261A (2) states that if you "with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate" place someone under surveillance and "engage in a course of conduct that":

• places that person in reasonable fear of the death [for animal or person close to the victim or themselves]
  
  or
• [causes distress in relation to the above]

The very same thing applies to electronic communications, just replace "place someone under surveillance" part with it. Notably, as used elsewhere in title 18, harassment refers to activity without any legitimate purpose. Constitutionally protected activity remains protected. 6th circuit recently came to the same conclusion (though in other words). "It is difficult to imagine what constitutionally-protected political or religious speech would fall under these statutory prohibitions. Most, if not all, of these laws' legal applications are to conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment." U.S. v. Bowker, 372 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2004)

Based on this, my knowledge of the case, and my (very limited, probably incorrect) legal knowledge, I can come to the following conclusions:
First and foremost, Kiwi Farms is in the clear. We explicitly denounce contacting lolcows, and admitting to doing so will get you banned. Furthermore, as a public figure who makes his every waking thought public, Patrick isn't immune from the criticism and mockery we hand out.

ONA is in a slightly different, very leaky boat, but they're still in the clear. To qualify as harassment, three criteria need to be met:

1. The actions need to be intentional
2. The actions need to be repeated
3. The actions need to put you in reasonable fear for your life and well-being

First, please note these criteria and consider Josh's wisdom in building a site culture that discourages contacting lolcows.

Now, ONA meets the first two criteria, but (as far as I know) they keep their harassment online. They don't threaten the pig. Any IRL activities involve observation. And more importantly Patrick responds. He tells them to piss off in the most belligerent way possible which makes it look like's a drunken wannabe tough guy trying to show off (he is but that's beside the point.) By responding belligerently, the harassment becomes an argument. If he never responded and ONA kept up the pressure, it'd be harassment, and he'd have a case.

Torswats throws an interesting wrench into the works. He's clearly not connected to ONA, but the question remains if Patrick paid him for the SWAT attacks.

tldr: if Patrick stopped trying to get the last word in, he could've brought ONA down years ago.

Any way you slice it, we're in for some wonderful, hilarious drama.

Legal Kiwis, please give me trash cans and correct me if my assumptions were wrong.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

3. The actions need to put you in reasonable fear for your life and well-being

Or, as is the case with Cyberstalking, reasonable fear of death (or serious bodily injury) to oneself or to one's "immediate family member" (including intimate partners), or "pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person".

Serious bodily injury is defined (through retarded ways of reference) as such:


See, 18 U.S. Code § 2261A (2) for Cyberstalking definition (though technically it doesn't use that term), 18 U.S. Code § 2266 for definition of serious bodily injury (which outsources that definition to 18 U.S. Code § 2119(2), which in turn outsources it to 18 U.S. Code § 1365)

they keep their harassment online. They don't threaten the pig. Any IRL activities involve observation. And more importantly Patrick responds. He tells them to piss off in the most belligerent way possible which makes it look like's a drunken wannabe tough guy trying to show off (he is but that's beside the point.) By responding belligerently, the harassment becomes an argument. If he never responded and ONA kept up the pressure, it'd be harassment, and he'd have a case.

That specific statute doesn't concern itself with whether you are harassing someone, merely whether you are placing them under surveillance or contacting them "with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate" and whether that would in turn "be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress".

All that said, I do not believe the ONA forums are doing anything that is not constitutionally protected activities (though I make no comment on the troll accounts as that initself is a murky territory). The Cyberstalking statute does not prohibit constitutionally protected activities, and the fact that Patrick is engaging back indicates that the latter part of the conviction requirement would not likely be reasonably met.