Just found this:https://www.dailywire.com/news/alleged-whistleblowers-name-appears-in-transc... 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 wrote: On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 08:06:38 PM PST, Razer wrote: On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell 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 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 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... | | |

I hope everyone here has read George Orwell's book, "1984". I probably read it 45 years ago, in high school.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four      The protagonist, Winston Smith, his job was at the "Ministry of Truth", and it was to continually re-write old news articles to ensure that they agreed with the current government's desired version of history.  "We have always been at war with Eastasia...".   Naturally, this story was written long prior to the existence of easily-used computers to accomplish this task.  These days, in the age of search-engines, that task would be seemingly made far easier:  Don't change the data, change the indexes to the data.  Make the old, "bad" data simply disappear. We are now seeing, in realtime, precisely this kind of erasure.  And amazingly, they are doing this AS IF they think that nobody will already know the name of the 'whistleblower', Eric Ciaramella, and AS IF they think that we won't see their dishonest work. And I remind all of you of my accusation from the October 2004 lawsuit Amendment that the personnel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals not only initially faked the case 99-30210 during the period of June 1999 through about April 2000, they also quickly re-forged that case docket about April 2000 when I unexpectedly wrote that court and demanded the appeal that I was not then aware already actually existed.  http://cryptome.org/jdb/jdb-v-usa-oct2004.pdf   I only learned about that fraud about June 20, 2003, and because of the impending deadline for re-filing that lawsuit, I was only able to get a small number of references to case 99-30210 into it.  Try to find them. If anybody thinks that the only proper target of an Assassination Politics    https://cryptome.org/ap.htm   system are government employees, think again!                      Jim Bell On Sunday, November 10, 2019, 07:31:56 AM PST, Greg Newby wrote: 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 https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2019-November/thread.html, and more specifically starting with Jim's posting, here: https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2019-November/077522.html 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. Best, Greg 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-transc...

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 wrote:      On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 08:06:38 PM PST, Razer wrote:     On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell 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 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 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...   |

  |

  |

   

On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 04:21:02AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2019, 08:06:38 PM PST, Razer wrote:

On November 9, 2019 12:53:03 PM PST, jim bell 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.

LOL - why the fuck do you re-use Trump's idiotic nick names for his political rivals? Wouldn't the POTUS be at the top of your AP list?

...

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 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 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... |

|

|

-- GPG fingerprint: 17FD 615A D20D AFE8 B3E4 C9D2 E324 20BE D47A 78C7