-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
I believe it is very unfair to speak of who IS and ISN'T affected roast. I mean, you mentioned me up in your other post. Well...I have contracted models who I promote who were signed up on CamWealth, and have asked me to represent their interests in this....I am working on an Indy site, and this smears the hell out indy sites and could drastically affect my business...I work on a voluntary basis to bring about a co-operative of camgirls, and to further the camgirl cause as far as working conditions and treatment and fair pay and so on...I think all of these show I am affected...and I also proved I am an active model to the mod at CGN...So you know not what you speak here. In fact I provided about 3 times more than they needed.
But honestly this post isn't about me, but about you deciding who is and isn't affected by this...based on what? Who can you point out who is loud and NOT affected at all? I mean you use the words:
"Alot of people seem to be jumping in..." and I am not sure who these ALOT are?
I have written to Coolbreeze and will say here, I specifically do NOT want access to sensitive information, because I don't want that liability...However, I don't really want Coolbreeze to have that access either...or Camgirl...or anyone else but a duly appointed representative of the courts.
I specifically saw MANY California IDs in the JPG that was up there, and I would like for Michael to get involved if he will. To help us get this documeted with the authorities, get the women notified and then get a lawsuit going if that is to be. I'm not so sure that Coolbreeze going through the IDs and sorting them and such is appropriate at all. I VERY VERY much appreciate the job he did in exposing them, but then they should be burnt to a DVD and sent to a certtified attorney, or the authorities. It is their job to do discovery of evidence, and I think, technically, right now Coolbreeze has crossed the line, even if un-meaning to into black hat territory and could even be breaking the law by going through these and not reporting the breaches he has found.
That's where I sit.
B
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
If CoolBreze is the one discover them, how do you think is possible doing that without actually having access to them? If it is something be discovered I prefer CoolBreze to have my ID and tell me, than Franci_davis or some stalker. CoolBreeze started the investigations exactly because the models asked him to, and it's in all's interest to know which site is safe and which isnt.
Otherwise, our unprotected infos would stay there forever, available for all with some internet skills to get them. But probably for some, ignorance is bliss in this matter.
On the other side, even a law sue is important for some, there are models who just want their infos to remain safe and dont care about the sue more than their privacy, so they might not want their ID directed to any lawyer either, especially if it's a person from miles a way she doesnt know.I agree that the models in cause have to be asked, each, what to do next with their infos, and each model to decide for herself. It would be unfair to be treated like a group and others to make decisions for their infos.
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bambalina
I have written to Coolbreeze and will say here, I specifically do NOT want access to sensitive information, because I don't want that liability...However, I don't really want Coolbreeze to have that access either...or Camgirl...or anyone else but a duly appointed representative of the courts.
I specifically saw MANY California IDs in the JPG that was up there, and I would like for Michael to get involved if he will. To help us get this documeted with the authorities, get the women notified and then get a lawsuit going if that is to be. I'm not so sure that Coolbreeze going through the IDs and sorting them and such is appropriate at all. I VERY VERY much appreciate the job he did in exposing them, but then they should be burnt to a DVD and sent to a certtified attorney, or the authorities. It is their job to do discovery of evidence, and I think, technically, right now Coolbreeze has crossed the line, even if un-meaning to into black hat territory and could even be breaking the law by going through these and not reporting the breaches he has found.
That's where I sit.
B
You're still not getting it. There is nothing exposed but open directories unless I sort the data. No way of knowing what's in those directories without doing that. Doing what I'm doing tells me if there was even harmful exposure at all. And when there is, it stays with me (and Camgirl) until the exposure has been closed off by the sites. Which is the PRIMARY issue here.
SOMEONE has to do this to make the sites fix the problems. Be happy it's me. Because I have no interest in your real name, or where you live, or what your phone number is. You saying that I've 'crossed the line' is a slap in the face. Would you rather I just drop it? That would be fine with me. This is taking waaaaaay longer than I anticipated. But I also know you don't speak for everyone and that the problem still needs to be addressed regardless of your feelings. So I'm going to get it done. Me. Because I trust me. And I don't know your lawyer friend, or whoever else from here you're talking about.
Breeze
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
I am not in the least worried about CB discovering the folders, I am not in the least worried about him downloading the stuff and taking screenshows of the open folders and so on. I am however worried when a few days pass where he has the data, and there is NO plan thusfar to pass the info on to the authorities. If you think duly appointed officer of the court is not trustworthy enough, then the FBI cybercrimes division, the local cybercrimes divisions for each jurisdiction where the IDs are from, etc.
I'm really sorry, but it seems to me like the members of SW did a preliminary investigation caused by Francis, and we started rolling on this and now you and CGN have rolled in and want to be completely in control. But that just isn't possible, because others are going to get involved if this doesn't get reported quickly to the authorities.
I like all of you from CGN, and trust you fairly well, but we do not know your actual agenda here, both literally and figuratively. The way you and CB seem to pooh pooh the fact of these open folders being left there while you investigate shows me that you have more agenda than just to close the holes...make the models safe...this stuff will be on google, and some really yucky people can read it and start the search, just as you people did...and the likelihood is not "Oh they have been there for years, so it's ok" because they haven't been publically discussed on the open Webz for years..only NOW, that anyone can know to go looking.
I am not saying this investigation or this operation is WRONG, just that it cannot take forever, and be delayed, there needs to be reports to law enforcement, THEY need to gather the same evidence YOU have. FBI testimony will change things...Coolbreeze testimony may not.
Lastly, who are you to decide who goes about reporting to the women or who has a right or doesn't have a right to have this info? You are civilians and are now holding private information which belongs to these ladies, and you are probably at least technically guilty of a felony. I think I would contact a lwyer if I were you and ask what your gaping liability and legal status is at this point. Because in things like this it quickly goes from being a white knight, to possession of private identification which you have no right to.
If you choose not to hear what I am saying, so be it. I am NOT trying to be a bitch here, but a friend, who sees this from perspective that might be worthwhile to you to hear. You are NOT law enforcement, and you have NO reason to be holding those IDs for even ONE second loger than it takes to transfer the data to the Feds or other law enforcement. Or, at the VERY LEAST, should contact an attorney of your own and make sure that you aren't commiting a crime by possessing those IDs without the permission of their owners.
B
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CoolBreeze
You're still not getting it. There is nothing exposed but open directories unless I sort the data. No way of knowing what's in those directories without doing that. Doing what I'm doing tells me if there was even harmful exposure at all. And when there is, it stays with me (and Camgirl) until the exposure has been closed off by the sites. Which is the PRIMARY issue here.
See? This is my problem with this. That you consider this YOUR problem and not a law enforcement one. If there are open folders and you KNOW they contain identification that is a legal nightmare for the women, should it fall into the wrong hands, it is your responsibility to report it, and not to the owner, but to law enforcement since that info could now be OUT THERE and having a case number and an investigation means those women will have a defense againt identity theft or whatever else comes their way. YOU having it is not scary because I believe you will do nefarious things with it, but because you will do what you are doing...which is to NOT report it and have the breaches recorded and duly noted by law enforcement.
Also, sorry, but a lawyer is a dult appointed officer of the court, and has responsibility and oath to keep silent and to not breach trust...You and Camgirl do not...so while I like you two and personally pretty much trust ya, sorry, but the lawyer is more trustworthy for THIS.
So, I will take it upon myself, and today I will make two calls...one to FBI Cybercrimes, and one to a criminal attorney specializing in cyber-crimes. I would have hoped you'd have seen the positives of these two things when I said it and done it, since I don;t really want to get that involved...but SOMEONE needs to do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CoolBreeze
SOMEONE has to do this to make the sites fix the problems. Be happy it's me. Because I have no interest in your real name, or where you live, or what your phone number is. You saying that I've 'crossed the line' is a slap in the face. Would you rather I just drop it? That would be fine with me. This is taking waaaaaay longer than I anticipated. But I also know you don't speak for everyone and that the problem still needs to be addressed regardless of your feelings. So I'm going to get it done. Me. Because I trust me. And I don't know your lawyer friend, or whoever else from here you're talking about.
Breeze
I apologize if you feel slapped in the face. But I stand by my statement, because I think you are blinded to the fact that you flirting with some VERY sticky laws and you ARE seeing private information that you don't belong seeing...and I don't believe "well I had no interest in their private info" will be a very good defense. It just isn't you job to sort past the very first ID on any site...once you see ONE ID you know that site is "bad" and should move on and not keep sorting...
Sorry if this bugs you, and I'm hoping you see, that I just disagree with you. I do not want to cause you or anyone else trouble, nor do i want to be taken for showing anything but friendship here...I believe you guys are AWESOME but that you are going in the wrong direction now that this investigation has broken open...
Sorry,
B
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
No matter what...for now...I will back off and let others chime in on their feelings...If I am completely wrong, so be it...I will make my calls and see how that pans out...I will not give any names or anything, but ask what procedure should be followed...Otherwise I am backing off as well as I see this potentially going south quickly...
B
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
A lawyer have to respect the confidentiality of his clients. What about the models who dont even know him and are not his clients? Wouldnt he pass the infos to his clients aka the models he is in touch with? If few models will have the Ids of other hundred of girls, wouldnt that be illegal? As soon as it found out all the models who see the links will go and look.
Is not only Breeze who is looking for compromised files, there are others talkers right now doing that. Persons who WILL post them in public if they find them.
So my proposal is to let Breeze do his think instead of replying here, collect the proves and then make sure the exposed files are protected. The sooner he finishes, the more safe our infos are.
Quote:
If you think duly appointed officer of the court is not trustworthy enough, then the FBI cybercrimes division, the local cybercrimes divisions for each jurisdiction where the IDs are from, etc.
I'm pretty sure in my country, the authorities cant wait to find something like that. Most of the models don't pay taxes, so this will turn into them. Are you willing to assume sending few hundred of models in Court or be put under investigation for that?
Not mentioning other countries where this activity is ILLEGAL, and the models don't want their IDs to go to authorities.
Stop blaming him for wanting to help. After all, the could have look inside anyway and don't tell to anybody, like others done, and are not accused now. You will like to know the sites u've been exposed, right? Than stop blaming the person who gives you the most important infos just because you don't agree with this procedure.
I'm starting to think it would have been better for him to make a silence investigation, close the directories and u'd have never knew where you were exposed.
It's the most easy for him to say " files closes, proves sent to authorities, the consequences dont matter, bye bye" and everything else to remain in shadow.
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
bambalina- I dont understand why you keep posting here when you acknowledge all this is being google indexed and public for all to read. I think your comments are better suited to the thread at CGN because all this cross thread talk is making my head hurt.
I too am concerned about all this. I would like to see the links shut down immediately as they are found rather then documented but I dont really understand it at all. Breeze said "You're still not getting it. There is nothing exposed but open directories unless I sort the data. No way of knowing what's in those directories without doing that. Doing what I'm doing tells me if there was even harmful exposure at all. And when there is, it stays with me (and Camgirl) until the exposure has been closed off by the sites. Which is the PRIMARY issue here."
So what I think would put some us at ease is a an assurance (again) from Breeze that once he finds something thats not suppose to be- that it will be brought to the attention of who ever its suppose to be- whether thats a lawyer, the FBI or the sites affected to have them closed off properly.
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eroteea
A lawyer have to respect the confidentiality of his clients. What about the models who dont even know him and are not his clients? Wouldnt he pass the infos to his clients aka the models he is in touch with?
No, a lawyer wouldn't since that would be illegal and get them disbarred. A lawyer is an officer of the court. So must follow the law or be removed as a lawyer forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eroteea
Is not only Breeze who is looking for compromised files, there are others talkers right now doing that. Persons who WILL post them in public if they find them.
No shit, way to repeat my main concern. If coolbreeze found INFO in one day, what makes you think these others won't? That's all I will say about that...ONE DAY...makes a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eroteea
So my proposal is to let Breeze do his think instead of replying here, collect the proves and then make sure the exposed files are protected. The sooner he finishes, the more safe our infos are.
Why do you keep replying with this stuff then? Stop. I will stop. We will shut up.
My name was brought into this up there after we ALL agreed to shut up and just let things happen...or I never would have opened my mouth HERE again.
So lets make this the last reply in the chain and be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eroteea
I'm pretty sure in my country, the authorities cant wait to find something like that. Most of the models don't pay taxes, so this will turn into them. Are you willing to assume sending few hundred of models in Court or be put under investigation for that?
So don't report a crime because you're afraid they will report it to the taxman? Maybe in your country, but the FBI does not report camgirls to the IRS when they bring forward a problem with IDs. I promise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eroteea
Not mentioning other countries where this activity is ILLEGAL, and the models don't want their IDs to go to authorities.
That doesn't apply to the US, Britain, Canada, where criminal law covers this stuff and things will get done. Why do you bring up such argumentative crap that has nothing to do with ONE country documenting this as a crime and making that evidence official?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eroteea
Stop blaming him for wanting to help. Than stop blaming the person who gives you the most important infos just because you don't agree with this procedure.
First, he has yet to give anyone any INFOS. Secondly I don't blame him, he is a hero...right now...but even a hero can do things wrong. I am just pointing out that in THIS country it is very likely he is breaking the law for every second he holds IDs to which he has no rights or permission, and he should, the minute he has them, move to document his investigation with the authorities. That is ALL I am saying. So stop making my words into insults of CoolBreeze. They are NOT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eroteea
I'm starting to think it would have been better for him to make a silence investigation, close the directories and u'd have never knew where you were exposed.
But that didn't happen. It's public NOW, and what should have been, is NOT what IS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eroteea
It's the most easy for him to say " files closes, proves sent to authorities, the consequences dont matter, bye bye" and everything else to remain in shadow.
That would have been serving the cam-sites and have been an incredibly prickish thing to do, as well as out of character for what I know of CoolBreeze thusfar, and also THAT DIDN'T happen. So focus on the reality of being QUIET here. Focus on what IS happening. Focus on seriously considering that I might have some valid points.
B
PS. Now stop replying HERE. OK!?!
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
Bambalina. I don't know what your damage is, but you are the one who's drawing the most attention to this issue in public. And you're talking loudly about things you very obviously have no knowledge of. You know nothing about what I've discovered and what I have not. You are NOT a network security expert, and your dead wrong about any criminal activity. There is none. Not by me, and not by the sites. There is no legal case. At least not against the sites that I have been looking in to. And I would not know that if I had not taken the time required to identify the sites and sort the data. But I have figured out what's going on and had I taken your advice and rushed into contacting the authorities or a lawyer, a lot of girls and CGN would have ended up looking really foolish and most likely have been further exposed.
So I'm going to tell you personally to back the hell off, and stop talking about things you know nothing about. I will have another an update posted to the PRIVATE area of CGN tomorrow. Once I've taken the time to write out my findings in such a way as to not be misunderstood.
You say you're just trying to "be a friend", but you're doing more damage than good and quite frankly are pissing me off with your continued pushing and public posts. Pushing IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. You remind me of someone I've dealt with before, and no, I don't trust you. You come across as being emotional, rash and a fire starter. At least in this instance. I will not be intimidated or scared into doing something foolish or potentially more harmful to those involved, so get out of my face or do your own investigation. No one's stopping you. Let me say that again, so we're clear. I'm not interested in your advice or comments on this matter any longer. They don't hold any weight. I'm doing what I believe to be best in this case, and if you don't like the way I'm going about it, go right ahead and do it yourself. I however, am experienced in both network security and personal privacy law, and know what I'm doing. And what I'm doing is in the best interest of the affected parties. And YES, I CAN say I know what's in their best interest because it's very simple. What's in their best interest is for the least amount of people possible to have access to their personal information, and for that personal information to be closed off from the public as quickly as possible. Period. I'm not dragging my feet or hanging onto information longer than is required. And you're in no position to judge how long it should take. I am. I told everyone from the start that it would take time. And that I was doing this ON MY OWN TIME, and without request for any sort of compensation or thanks. And to be patient. I even said please. Yet this is what I get back. Shame on you.
As for the rest of you who have been waiting for updates on this situation, I think it's pretty safe to say that you can relax a little. What's happened at the sites I found to have open directories is not a major security breach, but more a problem with how the affected performers uploaded their information, and to where. If you followed the procedures for these sites correctly, you should not be at risk at all. Perhaps the sites I identified are not following "Network Best Practices", and I am encouraging them to seal off the open "public" directories, but they are not legally "at fault". And that's all I'm going to say here in public until I've gotten the rest of this mess cleaned up.
Breeze
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CoolBreeze
There is no legal case. At least not against the sites that I have been looking in to. And I would not know that if I had not taken the time required to identify the sites and sort the data.
This is where I can jump in and tell you that you are incorrect unless you were specifically hired and given permission to access those accounts by the owners and operators by the site in order to address security issues.
Just simply by accessing the records without the consent or knowledge of the site owners and the models probably violated the sites' privacy policies and possibly 46 state's online database protection statutes. Your intent or motive is irrelevant to the situation. An unauthorized access is an unauthorized access.
And if you have in fact been hired as a consultant and authorized by the sites I think that would be useful information to share with everyone. Your access would then be considered legal and not a breach. I apologize if I missed that revelation in one of your posts.
If you have not been hired, now all of those sites will be required to provide notice to almost every US based model, at least, who has submitted her DL as to verify age under 2257.
Here's a link to the laws in 46 states....
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13489
And here's the California statute with the relevant portions highlighted..
Quote:
1798.29. (a) Any agency that owns or licenses computerized data
that includes personal information shall disclose any breach of the
security of the system following discovery or notification of the
breach in the security of the data to any resident of California
whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed
to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. The disclosure
shall be made in the most expedient time possible and without
unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law
enforcement, as provided in subdivision (c), or any measures
necessary to determine the scope of the breach and restore the
reasonable integrity of the data system.
(b) Any agency that maintains computerized data that includes
personal information that the agency does not own shall notify the
owner or licensee of the information of any breach of the security of
the data immediately following discovery, if the personal
information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by
an unauthorized person.
(c) The notification required by this section may be delayed if a
law enforcement agency determines that the notification will impede a
criminal investigation. The notification required by this section
shall be made after the law enforcement agency determines that it
will not compromise the investigation.
(d) For purposes of this section, "breach of the security of the
system" means unauthorized acquisition of computerized data that
compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal
information maintained by the agency. Good faith acquisition of
personal information by an employee or agent of the agency for the
purposes of the agency is not a breach of the security of the system,
provided that the personal information is not used or subject to
further unauthorized disclosure.
(e) For purposes of this section, "personal information" means an
individual's first name or first initial and last name in combination
with any one or more of the following data elements, when either the
name or the data elements are not encrypted:
(1) Social security number.
(2) Driver's license number or California Identification Card
number.
(3) Account number, credit or debit card number, in combination
with any required security code, access code, or password that would
permit access to an individual's financial account.
(4) Medical information.
(5) Health insurance information.
(f) (1) For purposes of this section, "personal information" does
not include publicly available information that is lawfully made
available to the general public from federal, state, or local
government records.
(2) For purposes of this section, "medical information" means any
information regarding an individual's medical history, mental or
physical condition, or medical treatment or diagnosis by a health
care professional.
(3) For purposes of this section, "health insurance information"
means an individual's health insurance policy number or subscriber
identification number, any unique identifier used by a health insurer
to identify the individual, or any information in an individual's
application and claims history, including any appeals records.
(g) For purposes of this section, "notice" may be provided by one
of the following methods:
(1) Written notice.
(2) Electronic notice, if the notice provided is consistent with
the provisions regarding electronic records and signatures set forth
in Section 7001 of Title 15 of the United States Code.
(3) Substitute notice, if the agency demonstrates that the cost of
providing notice would exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars
($250,000), or that the affected class of subject persons to be
notified exceeds 500,000, or the agency does not have sufficient
contact information. Substitute notice shall consist of all of the
following:
(A) E-mail notice when the agency has an e-mail address for the
subject persons.
(B) Conspicuous posting of the notice on the agency's Web site
page, if the agency maintains one.
(C) Notification to major statewide media.
(h) Notwithstanding subdivision (g), an agency that maintains its
own notification procedures as part of an information security policy
for the treatment of personal information and is otherwise
consistent with the timing requirements of this part shall be deemed
to be in compliance with the notification requirements of this
section if it notifies subject persons in accordance with its
policies in the event of a breach of security of the system.
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
I am going to with-hold public comment for one more day. Even though I have been personally and I think UNFAIRLY attacked here. I also do not believe all that I am reading on CGN, so i recommend ALL girls go there for themselves and read the posts, as the "jpgs" posted don't add up with explanation given by CoolBreeze at ALL. Nothing else here in public, till tomorrow night. Just see for yourself.
B
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
Quote:
unless you were specifically hired and given permission to access those accounts by the owners and operators by the site in order to address security issues.
I dont think you understand. Breeze didnt look into internal files, he's not a hacker to pass their security. He found those files on the PUBLIC domain. Anybody can see them, without anybody's permission.
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eroteea
I dont think you understand. Breeze didnt look into internal files, he's not a hacker to pass their security. He found those files on the PUBLIC domain. Anybody can see them, without anybody's permission.
They are not public domain...they are copyrighted files legally owned by the camsite, and to download them without permission....well, I will stay quiet like I said...ONE more day....
B
PS. Are either you or Coolbreeze saying you believe these are files intended for public consumption? Or do you know beforehand, that even though they are mistakenly in the clear, that it doesn't BELONG that way?
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
I have personally contacted, and am working with, the FBI.
Breeze
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CoolBreeze
I have personally contacted, and am working with, the FBI.
Breeze
Well well well...
Yay!
B
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CoolBreeze
I have personally contacted, and am working with, the FBI.
Breeze
Please feel free to contact me via PM. Perhaps we can work together on it.
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
I am pretty sure he doesnt need another contact.
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
Im very confused here, Who is breeze, and what's going on @[email protected]
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
More later, but I personally am quite distressed having this all going on, especially since Coolbreeze has allowed Camgirl access to YOUR IDs. And camgirl is posting this on their forum:
I've seen the Michael's site and there he says he doesnt offer consultations only some advices and his site for informing only. It's a little confusing, also, he can offer his advice if he wants, just because he's asking for infos makes others suspicious, and I am suspicious about that too. He is not a person with first and last name, why would he ask, under a nickname the name of the agent Breeze has contacted?
Why he wants to direct him to another contact, of HIS? when the procedure is standard.
And many other details, the way he is pushing too, is fishy, or you hired him and you put pressure on him too... dont know, but if he offers volunteer to help, why he is so pushy with this? If he really offered to do this for no money, why an lawyer, if he really is, would waste his time with this? What's in this of him? it's his hobby to help the cam girls like other have, or something else? just wondering.
QUOTE B
So, for some reason King CoolBreeze and Queen Camgirl, who are the only anointed allowed access to the holy of holies of these open folders
you forgot to mention the stalkers.
QUOTE B
I have a right to be angry
sure you do but your solution is...? sending the links even the FBI told Breeze to NOT, to Michael because YOU trust him? or I just dont understand your practical solution from your long posts about how you felt insulted. If you leave the emotions behind, is there something practical to do? I asked what do you want NOW.. and you didnt answer.
As you can see, it's easy to stay away and watch how others deal with this, and comment when you dont like, is much harder to actually do the things you criticize.
Also, Michael, with all the respect if he has good intentions, doenst seem to know so much about this business as he thinks. For instance he said once the affiliates have the Ids of the girls too, which is untrue. I am model AND affiliate, been on many sites and never had been provided with the models Ids. So I'm not wondering he's not in the deeper technical issues that can be in this.
QUOTE
Michael offered to call the FBI on Monday,
Michael said he would call anyway, even he was refused for cooperation. I bet you woudltn give your real name to somebody you met on a forum, even more, who is pushy with you. Breeze done well to refuse it. I don't have a good feeling about this. Period. he contacts FBI, and he has his own lawyer too, no need to have "recomandations" from people he doesnt trust.
CG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not liking or trusting these people very much at all. MY .2 cents.
B
PS. By the way, they insult me, and Michael and question the motives of people, and I was threatened if I posted ANY of that, I was posting info from their private area, and thus I would be BANNED. So to post this is to be banned. So be it.
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
Also, so long a specific info is not posted, I would think that since the FBI is officially on the case, hackers won't be going searching for these sites, since to do so is legal suicide, that we can now discuss OTHER aspects of this.
Also, if they are doing what they said, they have already written the affected to close their open folders and we SHOULD all be safe now, and expecting to be told what sites were affected ANY MINUTE.
B
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
I am truly flabbergasted that this person thinks it is acceptable to question EVERYTHING that has come from SW, and bring all of our people and research and so on into question. To slander members here, lie about me several times on CGN, question and distrust EVERY motive....
But we should trust Coolbreeze, who is a person who gave ID access to a person called Camgirl, without our permission. She admits to having access to and seeing 300 IDs. On top of this, we are supposed to trust their motives and what they are going to do with your IDs, and we're now going on, what? Day 5 or 6 that they STILL haven't outright said whether they contacted the sites and had these folders CLOSED.
Just some things to consider.
B
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
Last thing...it will probably be said "why talk about it publically!?" and such...
Well, this has become more serious and we need to be SURE those links are closed quickly....
http://camgirls-united.com/google.jpg
We're live on google...so finding this has little to do with it being buried on the site anymore...and everything to do with a search....
B
PS. For those who asked...THAT is why I had such push and urgency....timebomb is now ticking...
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
I'm not even going grace your MISINFORMATION with a response Bambalina. You did exactly NOTHING to help with this situation, but seemed to go out of your way to try and take credit and make sure it was visible to the whole world before the sites had addressed the issues. Which effectively put performers at a greater risk of exposure.
I'm updating this thread now to inform you who have been watching it, that the sites I found to have open public directories with personally identifying performer or customer information have addressed the issues and those directories are now closed to the public. And to assure you that in no way, shape, or form am I or Camgirl storing ANYONE'S personal information. We had access to links. Which were also accessible by the entire world up until today.
A summary of my findings, as well as the list of sites, has been posted to Model's only private area on CGN.
CoolBreeze - CGN Moderator
-
Re: warning about your privacy 2
could someone tell me where on that site the relevant post is - I find it sooo hard to navigate. am in models only, where next???