Ads 468x60px

Friday, November 11, 2011

And Then He Started Dropping Names...

“Privacy is an illusion therefore it doesn’t matter if yours is violated”


I didn’t expect privacy when I dove into that chat room off a dark and rarely used Data Back Road in 1998, so why should I care that there are privacy violations occurring every day?

Oh, right, because I did expect privacy.  That’s why we all had screen names.  That’s why we all lied about our addresses and phone numbers, only met people from “On Line” in Public Places, attempted to mask our IP addesses, etc and so on.  It was the only place NOT regulated by Corporations and Government, and as such there was a dangerous and alluring aspect to the Internet.  It was the last Frontier, the Wild West without a Sheriff.

So when Zuckerburg and Parker and the rest of the Silicon Valley Cartel decided over Martini’s one night to embrace the FBI's position that Privacy no longer means Anonymity it changed the game.  It meant we no longer have to tolerate being under the Microscope, being judged by “what you published on the Internet”.  It meant the loud debate and scare-journalism of the Carnivore era is used in our favor, just like it works in the Stalker’s favor.

It means, that when the Cartel clinked glasses, the moment you typed my name in to Google and chased my identity down a Rabbit Hole, these two young men made it possible for me to turn the tables, and in the most embarrassing ways.  In reality, the Silicon Valley Cartel armed me with the weapons necessary to fight back.

Two years before Social Networking launched ~2003, our government decided that Privacy no Longer Meant Anonymity.

Assistant FBI Director Donald Kerr was quoted as saying:

The Carnivore device works much like commercial "sniffers" and other network diagnostic tools used by ISPs every day, except that it provides the FBI with a unique ability to distinguish between communications which may be lawfully intercepted and those which may not. For example, if a court order provides for the lawful interception of one type of communication (e.g., e-mail), but excludes all other communications (e.g., online shopping) the Carnivore tool can be configured to intercept only those e-mails being transmitted either to or from the named subject. ... [it] is a very specialized network analyzer or "sniffer" which runs as an application program on a normal personal computer under the Microsoft Windows operating system. It works by "sniffing" the proper portions of network packets and copying and storing only those packets which match a finely defined filter set programmed in conformity with the court order. This filter set can be extremely complex, and this provides the FBI with an ability to collect transmissions which comply with pen register court orders, trap & trace court orders, Title III interception orders, etc.... ...It is important to distinguish now what is meant by "sniffing." The problem of discriminating between users' messages on the Internet is a complex one. However, this is exactly what Carnivore does. It does NOT search through the contents of every message and collect those that contain certain key words like "bomb" or "drugs." It selects messages based on criteria expressly set out in the court order, for example, messages transmitted to or from a particular account or to or from a particular user.[7]After prolonged negative coverage in the press, the FBI changed the name of its system from "Carnivore" to the more benign-sounding "DCS1000." DCS is reported to stand for "Digital Collection System"; the system has the same functions as before. The Associated Press reported in mid-January 2005 that the FBI essentially abandoned the use of Carnivore in 2001, in favor of commercially available software, such as NarusInsight (a mass surveillance system).[8]

Yes, yes, The Carnivore only applied to Homeland Security and the FBI and Criminal Prosecution.  But Civil Privacy laws don’t have any teeth.  If you can drum up the $30k to start a lawsuit against your Stalker and his Accomplices, the settlements rarely amount to more than a few thousand dollars.  The monetary value of Privacy, Peace of Mind and Anonymity is extraordinarily low.  It is very difficult to fight back against Stalking in the Internet Age, thanks to the Social Network, specifically Facebook & Twitter, especially when in 2007, the FBI reaffirmed that

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence

If I can’t prosecute my Stalker because the information he has gathered and researched on me is “Publicly Available” then it serves to reason that my Stalker, and his Accomplices, can not prosecute me for the very same reasons.  Mark Zuckerburg has made it possible for me to use the very same tools, the very same data, to use “Publicly Available Information” against my Stalker, and every single person who provided him assistance support or acted as side line cheer leaders as he invaded my Privacy.

If I have to accept the fact that my Privacy was violated, if my Anonymity was infringed, then it serves to reason that you have to accept it as well.  You have to live with the same words tossed casually at me when I first complained about my Stalker:  "Suck it up, there's nothing you can do."  Your hands are as tied as mine are.

Don Stovner wanted to be the man from Cancun.  I admit it was wrong of me not to ‘fess up when he started down that path.  I should have said to him in August 2009 that the man in Cancun was nothing but a scruffy loser, one of three assholes who tried, and failed, to ruin our Spring Break in Cancun.  He dropped Spencer Shockley’s name and even went so far as to connect me to a man calling himself Spencer via cell phone.  Don Stovner's cell phone, not Spencer's cell phone.

Don Stovner wanted to be the boy from Perris, inserting himself into a world which existed before the Digital Age.  In his effort to explain why my Grandfather’s belongings were scattered about his Little House in Las Vegas, he went to great lengths to establish a personal history with me, my family and specifically my grand parents.  What frightened me and eventually led to my fury over the privacy violations, was that he knew the Perris property, but in his usual fashion, he got the years wrong.  It would have been impossible for him to have receive the items stored at the Little House as "gifts" from my grandfather, nearly 10 years after his death.

It might have been duplicitous of me to hide my fury over Perris.  Should I have told him that I had vowed to destroy and cause extreme havoc for the people who ransacked Perris ~1990?  No, instead I let him believe that I accepted his story for 2 years.  But when his sister Sandra Daggett began sending haughty holier than thou messages via Facebook, I decided that I would let Don Stovner be the boy from Perris and his family could deal with their own privacy violations.  After all, if he was the boy from Perris, then it serves to reason that his Mother, Carole Stovner Krieg, his Brother Montgomery Stovner, and his Sister Sandra Stovner Daggett, are the dirty white trash dead beats who destroyed the Perris Property.

So I ask again, did you assist Don Stovner in his acquitision of my “Publicly Available Information”?  Did he drop your name as he crafted his story?  Are you sure you didn’t help him, facilitate him, support him in his violation of my privacy?  Think hard, because over a two year period, Don Stovner dropped a lot of names in his mission to establish himself as a part of my life.

He pulled names from my personal life as well as my professional life.  This is where the nastiest part of my retaliation comes into play: The Professional Realm.

How many Directors of large publicly traded companies assisted Don Stovner in violating my privacy?  I know of 3, possibly 4.  What is shocking, as I roll through the data, is that there is a distinct possibility that a CIO facilitated this violation.  Wouldn’t it be a tragedy if no one stands up and cries “Uncle”?   Can you imagine the ripple effect of the accusation complimented by two years of evidence that a Corporate Director, Senior Manager or *gasp* a Chief Information Officer assisted Don Stovner in violating my privacy?

All I want is the stolen property returned.  Sure it's meaningless household trinkets from my Grandfather.  Of course it's trival high school and college diaries.  But is it MY meaningless and trivial property.  It was stolen from my family and from me.  Taken by subterfuge and deceit.  But then, would you expect anything less from dirty white trash dead beats?

As you sit here fuming over my very public posts, keep in mind that The Man of Year, Mark Zuckerberg, has made this possible.  The same “Publicly Available Information” that Don Stovner used to violate my privacy, the same information that Mr. Zuckerberg says is fair game, is the same Information I can use to publicly embarrass the people who assisted Don Stovner.  The difference here is that there are no penalties for Don Stovner violating both my on line and real life, but when we add the assistance and facilitation of representatives of publicly traded companies there are dire consequences.

Once the question is asked, it hangs there in everyone’s mind.  People are thinking about it.  People are questioning it.  This is the internet – until the servers are refreshed the data exists, it’s “out there” and the smudge on what once was a promising career becomes permanent.

The cast of characters in this ridiculous charade made up by Don Stovner is long.  The Stalker has implicated so many people in his attempt to legitimize his behavior that it’s hard to keep track.  So many of these people have championed his cause, praising his quest for happiness, as if “coming out” to his victim is some sort of personal Victory to be relished and celebrated.  What tends to get lost is the fact that these characters are real people who have made real contact with me in an effort to legitimize the Stalker.  There should be no reason to keep any of this information private.

Think long and hard now.  Were you a character in the Stalker’s Charade?  Did you facilitate one of his lies?  Did you provide credibility for him?    So when I ask

Randy Who?

… keep in mind that Don Stovner brought you here.  He dove into the Web which pre-existed Social Networking and attempted to drag the last piece of my Anonymity into the realm of public information.  Well, my dear readers, my personae which existed in the days of pre Social Networking won’t be dragged into the Main Frame of Publicly Available Information without a body count. Or should that be "reputation" count?  Because in all honesty, my body count will be tallied by the number of careers I destroy.  Think hard.  Did you help him?

This is my personal experience – real life events that happened to me.  Not fiction, not a story, not make believe.   After 23 years of being Stalked, Terrorized, Followed, Watched and Burglarized, I realized there are only two options which could possibly satisfy me:  Money or Revenge.

Since it has been made abundantly clear that I will never have my personal property returned, I have chosen Revenge.

No comments: