Empirical confirmation confirming the deletion in Facebook: I'm part of a public group where the group admin posted an image of the transcript where the name appears, "without comment." So, the name was in the image, but not written. That was Saturday night, US eastern time.
Sunday morning, the posting is gone. I had commented on the posting, and now the links in my FB notification feed that go to the comments are also gone (i.e., Facebook "comment_id" and "notif_id" strings in the posting URLs simply redirect to the group's main page).
Sunday morning, the same person started a new thread that talks about the deletion. Depending on the interest in the group of experimenting, perhaps we will also talk about the topic of the post that was deleted, or other details. That could help to determine whether the deletion was automated, based on obvious trigger terms (via automated optical character recognition), or manual by the FB watchdog corps. It seems possible that automated deletion would then lead to ongoing manual oversight.
MEANWHILE, this also got me thinking about archives deletion. You can find this thread in the monthly archives at
Jim has identified gaps in the available copies of the Cypherpunks list archives from 2003, and so far we haven't found earlier archives that contain the redacted materials. Deletions would have occurred sometime after postings in 1995 or so.
How easy would it be for a state actor to remove archives from the current server? Very easy: they simply need to show up at the data center with a national security letter, login via console, and take care to erase their tracks. It's possible the intrusion would be detected by the server admin or someone else, but also possible it would not be noticed until any evidence trail has long gone cold.
My understanding (I wasn't there) was that this type of scenario was part of the inspiration for cypherpunks distributed remailers. We no longer have a distributed architecture. More importantly, the CP community isn't maintaining resilient no-delete archives.
I'll give some thought to how I might contribute to such an architecture, perhaps starting simply by an additional offsite backup. The current list server could add a few controls, like checksums and even encrypted copies of the archive. But without distributing copies elsewhere, and publicizing information about the controls for data integrity and availability, the risk would persist.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 04:25:19AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> Just found this:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/alleged-whistleblowers-name-appears-in-transcript-released-by-schiff>
> Alleged Whistleblower’s Name Appears In Transcript Released By Democrats
>
>
>
> Controversy over whether or not to reveal the name of the man widely believed to be the whistleblower whose complaint prompted the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry ratcheted up even further on Wednesday after Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out an article and quote including the whistleblower’s alleged name. While Democrats and the left-leaning media expressed outrage about Trump’s social media post, an impeachment inquiry transcript released by the office of Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff includes the very name Trump tweeted out.
>
> As reported by RedState, Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee who is heading up the Democrats’ impeachment efforts, appears to have accidentally allowed the name widely identified as the whistleblower to appear in the transcript of the committee’s interview with top U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor. [end of quote]
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 08:21:02 PM PST, jim bell <
jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 08:06:38 PM PST, Razer <
g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell <
jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't think that re-publishing a name, which has probably already
> >been re-re-re-re-re-re-re-published thousands of times, could
> >constitute "interfering with a criminal investigation". But your
> >imagination may differ.
> > Jim Bell
> >
>
>
> You can do whatever you like until they tell you to stop.
>
> Sounds like you are abandoning your foolish idea that after thousands of other people have named Eric Ciaramella, it is somehow wrong to do so,
> > Then you can't,
> So far, nobody has told me, or thousands of other people, to stop mentioning Eric Ciaramella's name. Nor are they likely to do thatThe law which "protects" "whistleblowers" likely doesn't even cover this guy, who didn't actually see anything; he was simply TOLD it, and the accuracy of that telling is highly suspect. And, to boot, he isn't a lawyer, and is highly unlikely to have been able to interpret what he was told as being "legal" or "illegal",
> >and I'm sure there's some legal facility for making sure leaked information gets reeled in as much as possible to avoid bungling up the investigation.
> I don't think it's even "leaked". It was PUBLICIZED by some in the news media, after having been GIVEN the name by government employees. It is called NEWS. These things happen. I seem to recall seeing that Shifty Schiff actually accidently spoke the name. The cat, then, was out of the bag.
> >There's a bunch of federal codes I'm not up on, but the above is the bottom line and that line only rises higher towards you neck, and a garrotting, if it involves national security.
> I guess that's the closest we can get you to admit that you are full of shit. This case had little to do with "national security".
>
>
> >Disclaimer: I am not a Lawyer. DO NOT call me in the middle of the night for bail money.
> After 10,000+ hours in a Federal prison law library, learning all sorts of Federal law, I'm as close to being a lawyer as you will likely see, absent a bar-card.
> Jim Bell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 12:47:26 PM PST, Razer <
g2s@riseup.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >This is your answer and China will stomp you if you INTERFERE WITH A
> >CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION too. So will any court system on earth.
> >
> >Get psychiatric help.
> >
> >"Facebook says it is removing mentions of the alleged whistleblower’s
> >name and will revisit this decision if the name is widely published in
> >the media or used by public figures in debate."
> >
> >On November 9, 2019 10:44:33 AM PST, jim bell <
jdb10987@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
> >
> >I wonder what they mean by "deleting the name"? Do they mean deleting
> >any posting or comment containing the name 'Eric Ciaramella'? Or just
> >that name? Or any posting that says that "Eric Ciaramella is the
> >whistleblower"?
> >This sure sounds like Facebook is adopting the policies of Red China,
> >"The Great Firewall of China".
> >I've got a solution to that problem: The people who work for Facebook
> >are identifiable, and mortal.
> >
> >Notice that the news source this story came from is "apnews". How
> >appropriate.
> > Jim Bell
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Rr
> Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail
>
> |
> |
> |
> | | |
>
> |
>
> |
> |
> | |
> Facebook is deleting the name of the potential whistleblower
>
> Facebook says it is deleting the name of the person who has been identified in conservative circles as the whist...
> |
>
> |
>
> |
>
>
>
>