Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

William:

Which is why, when I raise these issues here with respect to the
function of the internet itself, and ICANN, Network Solutions,
etc., I also send the same to the FBI.  As a former District
Attorney and USN Intelligence Officer, I know what's
involved, which includes going to everyone who might have
some useful input, as you have here.

Indeed, the FBI itself has its own problems. Did you know that
in the protocols sent out to local officials around the country with
respect to testing for anthrax in the mail, they are to test only
those letters that are "suspicious," from a criminal point of
view, but none are to be tested for epidemiological purposes?
A letter shows up at the office of Senator X that went through
the Brentwood sorting facility and all hell breaks loose; when I
get a couple of letters that I happen to know also went through
the Brentwood sorting facility, by confirmation from the sender,
were my letters examined?  Hell, no. (Not likely they were
contaminated, but one must recall that one of the people who
got caught trying to board a plane with a whole bunch of
weapons just happened to be caught by a random check.)
So I would counter that it is a dangerous assumption to say
that the law enforcement community, especially the FBI,
knows what the hell it is doing.  Now we have a couple of
people in Connecticut who had anthrax (the lady who died;
source unknown) and a gentlemen who evidently had a
source through the mail -- the mail system that serves
Connecticut is the same one that serves Oregon, and uses
the same sorting machines going out of D.C.  Would not
an epidemiological factor in the anthrax testing regime
have been helpful to find that out beforehand? It seems
that the FBI can't think outside of its crime-oriented box.

Bill Lovell

William X Walsh wrote:

Sunday, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 3:55:39 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> But in any case, as internet inept as I may be, the question
> remains, has Network Solutions accepted money for which
> it provides a service to Hamas

I could register a name right now, make it look like it was registered
to someone in one of the countries that sponsor terrorism, and put a
website up at any of many thousands of hosting providers with the
name, and claim responsibility for anything from JFK's assassination
to bombing attacks that may take place in the future.

In other words, you are making many assumptions, that are best left to
law enforcement officials who have the tools to see if in fact that is
the case.

I'm of the opinion it would most likely turn out not to be the case.
We have many loons in this country who would get their sick thrills by
putting up sites like that one.

It's real easy to jump to conclusions, but when you start labeling
companies has accepting money or providing services to terrorists, you
are jumping to conclusions that require a lot more information that
what you have before such accusations could have any real credibility.

--
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

--
 

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html