4 ms·

Info from reddit: >The page moved. This is the page in question: http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/e-scams http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/e-scams Read the note

by ikeboy 11y ago

Info from reddit: >The page moved. This is the page in question: http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/e-scams http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/e-scams Read the note: For the the latest e-scams and warnings, visit the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center. Here's where the one in question is specifically: https://www.ic3.gov/media/2012/121012.aspx https://www.ic3.gov/media/2012/121012.aspx Here's the internet archive of the original page where it was removed: https://web.archive.org/web/20150201005359/http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/e-scams?utm_campaign=email-Immediate&utm_content=145512 https://web.archive.org/web/20150201005359/http://www.fbi.go... The text in the new page is identical! They didn't delete it. Edit: If the author of the article really cared about the truth of the matter, he could have taken 2 minutes to follow the new link they provided and found the page. That's how long it too me to find it. https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/48gxlq/fbi_claims_it_has_no_record_of_why_it_deleted_its/d0jxdfx https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/48gxlq/fbi_claims_...

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
That isn't a new page. The page on ic3.gov which is still there is the original page which has been present since 2012: http://web.archive.org/web/20120715000000*/https://www.ic3.gov/media/2012/121012.aspx http://web.archive.org/web/20120715000000*/https://www.ic3.g... The same content was posted to fbi.gov but then replaced with an indirect link to the other site. Also, if this was so easy to find then why didn't the government find it when responding to the FOIA request?
- ikeboy 11y ago
  >Also, if this was so easy to find then why didn't the government find it when responding to the FOIA request? They didn't ask "where is content about protecting phones to be found?"
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    Hence TFA: > And that's part of the problem with the FOIA process. It's something of a guessing game, where if you don't guess exactly the proper way to phrase what you want, they'll just come back with a no responsive documents response. If a private citizen responded to a subpoena the same way the government responds to FOIA requests they would be charged with contempt.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >If a private citizen responded to a subpoena the same way the government responds to FOIA requests they would be charged with contempt. Subpoenas need to specify exactly what they want as well. Not sure what you're getting at here.
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        > Subpoenas need to specify exactly what they want as well. Not sure what you're getting at here. What I'm getting at is if a private citizen responded to a subpoena the same way the government responds to FOIA requests they would be charged with contempt.
    - mikestew 11y ago
      When did you quit beating your wife? The author didn't, AFAICT, post the FOIA request. But I'll have to assume it was along the lines of "when did you delete the page that recommends users encrypt their phones?" With those assumptions, the FBI's response might not be helpful, but I don't think it's out of line or worthy of outrage.
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        It's definitely in line with how the government frequently responds to FOIA requests. That's the idea. edit: relevant link from sandworm101: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150626/09583531469/how-fbis-dysfunctional-search-systems-keep-information-out-foia-requesters-hands.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150626/09583531469/how-f...
        mikestew 11y ago
        Repeating yourself does not a point make. In response to what I wrote, how is the FBI's response unreasonable? And I'll warn you ahead of time that another "is so!" is not going to change my mind.
        11y ago
patcheudor 11y ago
It's also still hosted on the FBI domain here: https://www.fbi.gov/sandiego/press-releases/2012/smartphone-users-should-be-aware-of-malware-targeting-mobile-devices-and-the-safety-measures-to-help-avoid-compromise https://www.fbi.gov/sandiego/press-releases/2012/smartphone-...

by ikeboy 11y ago

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

That isn't a new page. The page on ic3.gov which is still there is the original page which has been present since 2012: http://web.archive.org/web/20120715000000*/https://www.ic3.gov/media/2012/121012.aspx http://web.archive.org/web/20120715000000*/https://www.ic3.g... The same content was posted to fbi.gov but then replaced with an indirect link to the other site. Also, if this was so easy to find then why didn't the government find it when responding to the FOIA request?

ikeboy 11y ago
>Also, if this was so easy to find then why didn't the government find it when responding to the FOIA request? They didn't ask "where is content about protecting phones to be found?"
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  Hence TFA: > And that's part of the problem with the FOIA process. It's something of a guessing game, where if you don't guess exactly the proper way to phrase what you want, they'll just come back with a no responsive documents response. If a private citizen responded to a subpoena the same way the government responds to FOIA requests they would be charged with contempt.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >If a private citizen responded to a subpoena the same way the government responds to FOIA requests they would be charged with contempt. Subpoenas need to specify exactly what they want as well. Not sure what you're getting at here.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      > Subpoenas need to specify exactly what they want as well. Not sure what you're getting at here. What I'm getting at is if a private citizen responded to a subpoena the same way the government responds to FOIA requests they would be charged with contempt.
  - mikestew 11y ago
    When did you quit beating your wife? The author didn't, AFAICT, post the FOIA request. But I'll have to assume it was along the lines of "when did you delete the page that recommends users encrypt their phones?" With those assumptions, the FBI's response might not be helpful, but I don't think it's out of line or worthy of outrage.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      It's definitely in line with how the government frequently responds to FOIA requests. That's the idea. edit: relevant link from sandworm101: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150626/09583531469/how-fbis-dysfunctional-search-systems-keep-information-out-foia-requesters-hands.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150626/09583531469/how-f...
      - mikestew 11y ago
        Repeating yourself does not a point make. In response to what I wrote, how is the FBI's response unreasonable? And I'll warn you ahead of time that another "is so!" is not going to change my mind.
        11y ago

patcheudor 11y ago

It's also still hosted on the FBI domain here: https://www.fbi.gov/sandiego/press-releases/2012/smartphone-users-should-be-aware-of-malware-targeting-mobile-devices-and-the-safety-measures-to-help-avoid-compromise https://www.fbi.gov/sandiego/press-releases/2012/smartphone-...