Hilarious security theater, My god, the dumb, it burns... Options

[Vigilant]

From here:
Security theater

"By this time, I think every arbitrator has wiped their hard drives and reinstalled their systems (or if they haven't, they should have, Jehochman is right that even top-of-the-line security software can miss things), so even a thorough forensic inspection of everyone's computer would be pointless."

Risker is so wrong on this, it's barely believable.

What has happened is that, if the leaker is a current ARBCOM member, they have buried all evidence (and even the possibility discussion) of of whomever was the real leaker.

"Oh no, I formatted my drive as Risker reccomended! No need to look here..."

One would think, that a group whose only product/project is an online database on a set of clustered servers would have true security professionals on staff before letting community volunteers have access, apparently unrestricted, to sensitive personal data.

Look at Sony, who was lax with hard security, and the extreme beatings that were administered in the press and blogs for their failure to safeguard customer data.

Shameful wikimedia foundation, just shameful.

[cyofee]

A more interesting question might be how Mr. McWhiney knows about the 300 Club. The simplest answer would be that he has an account here with over 300 posts. Or a buddy that does.

I don't have the eponymous 300 posts nor any friends here but I've known of the 300 club for quite some time. I always thought it was almost public knowledge, along with the fact that there supposedly aren't any smoking guns hidden there.

[Bielle]

I don't have the eponymous 300 posts nor any friends here but I've known of the 300 club for quite some time. I always thought it was almost public knowledge, along with the fact that there supposedly aren't any smoking guns hidden there.

You do now have 300 posts. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[gomi]

I don't have the eponymous 300 posts nor any friends here but I've known of the 300 club for quite some time. I always thought it was almost public knowledge, along with the fact that there supposedly aren't any smoking guns hidden there.

You do now have 300 posts. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Merely having made 300 posts here on the Review has not for some time been sufficient for access to certain more restricted areas of the forum. One also must be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[powercorrupts]

I don't have the eponymous 300 posts nor any friends here but I've known of the 300 club for quite some time. I always thought it was almost public knowledge, along with the fact that there supposedly aren't any smoking guns hidden there.

You do now have 300 posts. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Merely having made 300 posts here on the Review has not for some time been sufficient for access to certain more restricted areas of the forum. One also must be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

I wondered why I never got an invite to this 'exclusive club' Poetlister kindly pointed out to me via email ("I see you've not been invited"). Before then I must admit I'd never heard of it. It doesn't impress me though, so (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

[gomi]

I wondered why I never got an invite to this 'exclusive club' Poetlister kindly pointed out to me via email ("I see you've not been invited"). Before then I must admit I'd never heard of it. It doesn't impress me though, so (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

Yes, Poetlister is quite keen to get a peek in there, which was one of the proximate causes for the change in policy.

[powercorrupts]

I wondered why I never got an invite to this 'exclusive club' Poetlister kindly pointed out to me via email ("I see you've not been invited"). Before then I must admit I'd never heard of it. It doesn't impress me though, so (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

Yes, Poetlister is quite keen to get a peek in there, which was one of the proximate causes for the change in policy.

If I knew or thought more about it I'd have asked "how did you know?"! Pretty lax of me really - I was trying to suss him with various questions but managed to miss that one. There was a couple of emails in January though for some reason I gave him/her the benefit of the doubt and chatted as anyone would. Whatever anyone says, at that point I personally see what he did as the beginnings of genuine criminal behaviour, because he used that to try and get more personally 'involved' as another person, and it briefly worked. He became a lot less guarded though and tripped over himself pretty quickly - he sent me the picture of the girl a few months after to try and get back on track. I find it just amazing that people can excuse behaviour like that.

As for his accounts, do you have any idea who the 300 club one is? (presumably the older known ones by him are blocked). Actually - what is your policy on socking here? I can understand why most people are entitled to a WR account, as much as anything so you know who they are. But someone like PL is just never going to be able to stop himself from creating socks for one reason or other (which of course is why Abd is so ignorant on the matter).

[gomi]

Actually - what is your policy on socking here? I can understand why most people are entitled to a WR account, as much as anything so you know who they are.

Further discussion of this should probably go into WRR, but we strongly discourage multiple accounts, but we have very limited resources to actively prevent them. This is why we generally do not allow account creation from "free-mail" services like AOL, Yahoo, and Gmail. Multiple accounts do tend to be passively detected by the membership. We don't use the term "sock puppet" for our members, as a rule.