Talk:Sporgery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Supersedes

I always thought sporgery involved use of the supersedes header to overwrite actual messages, replacing them with new content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.241.137 (talk • contribs).

No, the sporgeries didn't have a supersedes header. But they used the same username and subject lines than real messages - to confuse. Due to certain flaws in the message headers, it was possible to cancel them with software that would detect them. --Tilman 19:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Supersedes was used now and then (December 1997, etc) during various phases of disruption for cancelling. I forget right now if supersedes was ever combined with the sporgery, but it would have stuck out like a sore thumb. One reason for the flaws in the headers was (probably) so that the software would recognize and not sporge its own articles, although I think it did do that sometimes. AndroidCat 04:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New attacks?

Starting early to mid January 08, new sporgery attacks have been hitting alot of groups. This is the first time I have personly noticed large scale sporgery in locational .general groups and other seemingly random groups. Perhaps other usenet users can confirm.

Does this deserve mention on the main page? 99.240.198.86 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

defence

Shouldn't the article mention common means of defence against such attacks? Such as using gpg-signatures to identify the actual poster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.23.63.195 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs updates

In the year 2000 I took the Sporgery file to the West Covina, California Field Offices of the FBI which contained extensive evidence exposing these computer crimes as being committing by the Scientology corporation, complete with Radix logs, audio tape recordings, and emails from ISP security offices who wished to file criminal complaints with the FBI against the Scientology people who attacked their computers.

This article on Sporgery needs to be updated to include the aftermath of the FBI's Scientology criminal investigation which was stalled before it began. At core was the inability for the FBI to show that a minimum dollar amount of $10,000 was lost as a result of Scientology's computer crimes, and while in the aggregate that dollar amount could be evidenced, at least one individual ISP would need to show that value or more in damages before criminal charges could be filed.

ISPs acquired on tape recordings Scientology criminals admitting they were attacking ISPs, trying to justify their criminal behavior under the guise of "defending our religion." A copy of all the materials was handed to the FBI Field Office, and a Scientology safe house in Dallas was uncovered and raided however no Scientology criminal went to prison.

Tory "Magoo" Christman was one of the females being sought in the crimes and she has since fled Scientology -- literally fled after being given police escort through two airports to effect her escape. She has no qualms against reporting on her involvement in these crimes.

All of which need to be added to this web page for completeness. NotSoOldHippy (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Has this been reported on, in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? -- Cirt (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The so-called "Green Folder" that was conveyed to the West Covina, California Field Offices of the FBI was reported in the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup in June of 1999 after a copy of the entire folder's contents was photocopied:

Initial notice

I don't know if that counts as a "reliable secondary source" however the Tory Magoo mentioned in the article maintains a web site complete with phone number and email address. She routinely confirms her activities on behalf of Scientology, and she can confirm that she was worried the FBI would want to talk with her after the "Green Folder" contents were handed to the FBI Field Offices.

The other copies of the Green Folder, all the evidence papers and electronic copies were expunged or shredded about 2 years ago since the Computer Crimes divisions et al. of relevant agencies were not interest in prosecuting the computer crimes. The FBI's copy probably got microfilmed and the paper destroyed, the microfilm merely cached.

I would expect that a Freedom of Information Act request might turn up a preliminary investigation of the Dallas Field Offices of the FBI in to the "unauthorized computer access" Scientology committed, but no actual investigation was launched to my knowledge. Certainly none of the people who ordered or committed the attacks were ever arrested. NotSoOldHippy (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientology series?

I would like to remove this entry from the Scientology Series. While Scientologists may have adapted sporgery to great effect, the practice is still active on Usenet today without Scientologists' participation (as far as I know). This is a Usenet phenomenon used by Scientologists at one time, but it is not really a Scientology phenomenon.

Any opinions Phiwum 17:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I haven't observed the phenomenon unrelated to scientology. (Some other newsgroups were flooded in 1999 in an effort to make it appear as unrelated, but it quickly concentrated on ars only)--Tilman 17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The usenet group sci.crypt is regularly flooded with sporgeries. I don't know who is doing it or why, but I don't think it has a damn thing to do with Scientology. Phiwum 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you mention a few links from google groups? I wonder if it is the same structure. And hey, it could also be something encrypted. --Tilman 05:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for a recent example, check the thread "JSH: I need a question answered." A few of the posts are genuine, but the majority are sporgeries. [1] (And the possibility that someone is using a large sporgery flood in sci.crypt to send an encrypted message is not outside the realm of possibility, but too unlikely to count for much.) Phiwum 11:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. This is disturbing. Post #6 is really like the sporgeries I remember. I thus change my position to "neutral". --Tilman 18:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sci.chem has become completely useless due to sporge, the sporger is concealing everything with Disassociated Press text, even the header fields. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/topics 69.0.56.155 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Scientology corporation specifically targeted non alt.religion.scientology newsgroups specifically to throw suspicion off of their corporation, that was confirmed in a number of message postings (and web pages) offered by Tory M.

Later applications of the Sporgery software that was released in to the wild most certainly could be being utilized by people with political or actual religious ideologies to spam flood newsgroups which convey discussions about subjects individuals are not mentally or educationally equipped to debate (such as Creationists' inability to discuss the observable fact of evolution.)

It seems reasonable to suggest that Sporgery should be removed from the suit of Scientology pages except that Sporgery did start with Scientology, was software developed by a Scientology customer or owner/operator, and seemingly was released in to the wild by Scientology in an effort to enlist unwitted non-combatants in to Sporging other newsgroups as part of the corporation's efforts to detract suspicion off of them for the original crimes. So I would say it remains a Scientology issue. NotSoOldHippy (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientology Series Redux

The initial script the Scientology Corporation used to sporge a.r.s. was in fact not original to them: they got a copy from a hacker web site and installed it on one computer at their "Big Blue" building. The source of that original hacker version does not negate the validity of placing the sporgery article under the Scientology series--- the Scientology corporation vastly modified the script and the methodology and the practice of disrupting Usenet to silence criticism that the Scientology corporation may justly be called the parent of sporgery.

Therefore to remove the sporgery article from the Scientology series makes no sense at all. It would be like removing the article about General Relativity from the Physics series. Scientology Inc. created sporgery as we know it today.

At one time the Scientology mob had six computers, running at Mister R's house, pumping sporgery into usenet. The vast majority of the sporgery articles were canceled by cancelbots before they propagated, but that still left hundreds of thousands of sporgery articles posted by Scientology Inc. every week.

--Desertphile (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the software used in the Sporgery attacks should be detailed in the article itself as well since there have been source code made available for "politicial use." A number of versions of the Sporgery software was utilized against alt.religion.scientology, an issue which was discussed with the West Covina Field Offices of the FBI when the "Green Folder" was provided. NotSoOldHippy (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Also the Scientology crime syndicate was the first criminal enterprise to use the software and modify it for maximum damage than any other entity. The FBI asked how human rights advocates knew that the software Scientology was using was "in development" and buggy, and documents covering the ways in which the sporgery was emitted, at times broken and with just a few characters in the message body text was presented to the FBI along with lists of Scientology people who were caught committing the computer crimes.

For the extant article, undeniably these sporgery crimes were Scientology crimes. That others committed sporgery before and after doesn't detract from the facts outlined in the article. Damotclese (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sporgery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20030630154818/http://killfile.org:80/dungeon/why/hipcrime.html to http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/why/hipcrime.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)