G
guest
Guest
Jackie Singh is not a cybersecurity processional. A racist? I[URL='https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/2733006/senior-biden-campaign-cybersecurity-expert-participated-in-racist-internet-troll-group/']t would seem so.[/URL] A bad mother? Perhaps; Josiah has teased court documents that seem to suggest this. But one thing she is not is a cybersecurity professional.
Let’s do a thought exercise together. For a moment, suspend your disbelief and assume Jackie is not running the new Torswats Return Telegram account. I know it’s hard, but for the time being assume it really is some other weirdo out there on the internet. And even though you may not have a clue as to what it takes to be a cybersecurity professional, for now imagine that’s your job title.
You ready? Pop quiz, hot shot:
QUESTION 1
You’re a cybersecurity professional. The FBI recently arrested and revealed that some greasy teenager named Alan Fillion is Torswats, the swatting menace plaguing American phone lines across the nation. You’re a cybersecurity professional, so obviously you’ve heard this good news. The FBI even praised a cybersecurity professional named Brad "cafrozed" Dennis for helping them crack the case, and simultaneously discredited the findings of a “self-described” cybersecurity professional named Jackie Singh:
But what’s this? You’ve just stumbled upon a NEW Torswats account on Telegram! How can this be? As you click on the account and your eyes take in the details, your heart sinks: for some explanation-defying reason, this new Torswats account has an image of YOU as the profile picture! And even more bewilderingly, their first post states that swats to YOU are FREE. You’re familiar with swattings; they’re incredibly dangerous, people have been killed as a result. And now anyone in the world can come across the same account you just found, send a message like “um yeah can you swat so-and-so” – and you could die.
Your mind is racing; do you:
(A) Immediately notify the police and the FBI; notify your friends and family; notify your employer (if applicable); consider moving out of your home (even temporarily).
(B) Post the details for this new swatting service to your Twitter account that has more than 35,000 followers (many of whom surely don’t like you); antagonize this unhinged swatter by including an insulting message aimed toward him or her; possibly also do A.
(C) Do nothing.
The correct answer is A; a less-correct answer would be C. Jackie’s answer:
QUESTION 2
You’re a cybersecurity professional. You’ve undoubtedly notified law enforcement about this new swatting service; they almost certainly would’ve told you to keep it quiet while they conduct their investigation. But an idea springs to mind: what if YOU talk to the swatter and see if they let slip some incriminating details, or even just their motivations? You are a cybersecurity professional after all, and with this strange focus on you, they’ll almost certainly want to talk to you.
You visit the swatter’s Telegram account and your heart sinks again: they’ve now changed their account heading to “MURDER (YOUR NAME) TOR SWATS IS BACK” and they’re still offering to swat you for free. Do you:
(A) Attempt to “lightheartedly” converse with them; ask probing questions; forward your conversation to law enforcement.
(B) Call them a little bitch; threaten to kill them if they show up to your home in person (an admittedly strange thing to say to someone in the business of sending others to peoples’ homes); ask no questions to ascertain motivation or expose other identifying information; directly antagonize the crazy person trying to murder you by posting the conversation to social media; possibly notify law enforcement.
(C) Do nothing.
Again, the correct answer is A and the less-correct answer is C. Jackie’s answer:
QUESTION 3
This isn’t a multi-choice question like the others; this is just something to reflect on. You believe this Torswats Returns account is being run by Petter, the person Jackie Singh originally accused of being Torswats that was all but cleared by the FBI. You have a private conversation with Petter; why would you then forward this screenshot to Torswats Returns? Does this make any sense to do so, especially if you believe they’re the same person? And if it’s not Petter, couldn’t Torswats Returns use this screenshot to frame you and muddy the waters of what is almost certainly a federal investigation now?
CONCLUSION
Jackie Singh is not a cybersecurity professional. A cybersecurity professional, or any logical person, would not behave in the manner in which she’s behaving. She’s either a completely irrational, incompetent MORON, or she doesn’t actually believe the threat being presented by this Torswats Returns account is real -- which logically, leads one to the conclusion that she’s running the Torswats Return account. Why? For attention? For fear of being exposed as a fraud again after being fired from her volunteer position on the Biden campaign? Who knows.
But if we pretend for a moment that she’s NOT actually Torswats Returns – and we can safely assume, thanks to the FBI, that it is in fact NOT Petter like Jackie seems to believe – then I can only draw the conclusion it’s someone framing Jackie as being Torswats Returns. And they wouldn’t even be doing most of the work; Jackie is doing the vast majority of the work herself in making herself appear guilty.
Because Jackie Singh is an idiot.
And Jackie Singh is not a cybersecurity professional.
POST-CONCLUSION NOTE
After seemingly giving her the idea that she could have sent Torswats Returns a screenshot of her conversation with Petter (which seems potentially legally actionable, but I have no idea and blood from a stone and all that), I’m a bit reluctant to post this and maybe give her other “ideas.” But I haven’t seen discussion about just how incongruent her actions have been to how a real “cybersecurity professional” would behave; she’s acting like how a child might after watching “Hackers” and “The Matrix” back to back. If you want an example of how a real cybersecurity pro conducts an investigation, look at the work Brad “cafrozed” Dennis did assisting the FBI in catching Alan Fillion.
I suspect the end is near for Jackie anyway. An uncomfortable idea I personally believe in is that the feds can track and view nearly all online activity, and during official investigations frequently (and illegally) figure out the “who” first and then work their way backwards to find a legal explanation for how they cracked the case / obtained evidence. And it isn’t very hard, nobody is a ghost online.
Let’s do a thought exercise together. For a moment, suspend your disbelief and assume Jackie is not running the new Torswats Return Telegram account. I know it’s hard, but for the time being assume it really is some other weirdo out there on the internet. And even though you may not have a clue as to what it takes to be a cybersecurity professional, for now imagine that’s your job title.
You ready? Pop quiz, hot shot:
QUESTION 1
You’re a cybersecurity professional. The FBI recently arrested and revealed that some greasy teenager named Alan Fillion is Torswats, the swatting menace plaguing American phone lines across the nation. You’re a cybersecurity professional, so obviously you’ve heard this good news. The FBI even praised a cybersecurity professional named Brad "cafrozed" Dennis for helping them crack the case, and simultaneously discredited the findings of a “self-described” cybersecurity professional named Jackie Singh:
But what’s this? You’ve just stumbled upon a NEW Torswats account on Telegram! How can this be? As you click on the account and your eyes take in the details, your heart sinks: for some explanation-defying reason, this new Torswats account has an image of YOU as the profile picture! And even more bewilderingly, their first post states that swats to YOU are FREE. You’re familiar with swattings; they’re incredibly dangerous, people have been killed as a result. And now anyone in the world can come across the same account you just found, send a message like “um yeah can you swat so-and-so” – and you could die.
Your mind is racing; do you:
(A) Immediately notify the police and the FBI; notify your friends and family; notify your employer (if applicable); consider moving out of your home (even temporarily).
(B) Post the details for this new swatting service to your Twitter account that has more than 35,000 followers (many of whom surely don’t like you); antagonize this unhinged swatter by including an insulting message aimed toward him or her; possibly also do A.
(C) Do nothing.
The correct answer is A; a less-correct answer would be C. Jackie’s answer:
QUESTION 2
You’re a cybersecurity professional. You’ve undoubtedly notified law enforcement about this new swatting service; they almost certainly would’ve told you to keep it quiet while they conduct their investigation. But an idea springs to mind: what if YOU talk to the swatter and see if they let slip some incriminating details, or even just their motivations? You are a cybersecurity professional after all, and with this strange focus on you, they’ll almost certainly want to talk to you.
You visit the swatter’s Telegram account and your heart sinks again: they’ve now changed their account heading to “MURDER (YOUR NAME) TOR SWATS IS BACK” and they’re still offering to swat you for free. Do you:
(A) Attempt to “lightheartedly” converse with them; ask probing questions; forward your conversation to law enforcement.
(B) Call them a little bitch; threaten to kill them if they show up to your home in person (an admittedly strange thing to say to someone in the business of sending others to peoples’ homes); ask no questions to ascertain motivation or expose other identifying information; directly antagonize the crazy person trying to murder you by posting the conversation to social media; possibly notify law enforcement.
(C) Do nothing.
Again, the correct answer is A and the less-correct answer is C. Jackie’s answer:
QUESTION 3
This isn’t a multi-choice question like the others; this is just something to reflect on. You believe this Torswats Returns account is being run by Petter, the person Jackie Singh originally accused of being Torswats that was all but cleared by the FBI. You have a private conversation with Petter; why would you then forward this screenshot to Torswats Returns? Does this make any sense to do so, especially if you believe they’re the same person? And if it’s not Petter, couldn’t Torswats Returns use this screenshot to frame you and muddy the waters of what is almost certainly a federal investigation now?
CONCLUSION
Jackie Singh is not a cybersecurity professional. A cybersecurity professional, or any logical person, would not behave in the manner in which she’s behaving. She’s either a completely irrational, incompetent MORON, or she doesn’t actually believe the threat being presented by this Torswats Returns account is real -- which logically, leads one to the conclusion that she’s running the Torswats Return account. Why? For attention? For fear of being exposed as a fraud again after being fired from her volunteer position on the Biden campaign? Who knows.
But if we pretend for a moment that she’s NOT actually Torswats Returns – and we can safely assume, thanks to the FBI, that it is in fact NOT Petter like Jackie seems to believe – then I can only draw the conclusion it’s someone framing Jackie as being Torswats Returns. And they wouldn’t even be doing most of the work; Jackie is doing the vast majority of the work herself in making herself appear guilty.
Because Jackie Singh is an idiot.
And Jackie Singh is not a cybersecurity professional.
POST-CONCLUSION NOTE
After seemingly giving her the idea that she could have sent Torswats Returns a screenshot of her conversation with Petter (which seems potentially legally actionable, but I have no idea and blood from a stone and all that), I’m a bit reluctant to post this and maybe give her other “ideas.” But I haven’t seen discussion about just how incongruent her actions have been to how a real “cybersecurity professional” would behave; she’s acting like how a child might after watching “Hackers” and “The Matrix” back to back. If you want an example of how a real cybersecurity pro conducts an investigation, look at the work Brad “cafrozed” Dennis did assisting the FBI in catching Alan Fillion.
I suspect the end is near for Jackie anyway. An uncomfortable idea I personally believe in is that the feds can track and view nearly all online activity, and during official investigations frequently (and illegally) figure out the “who” first and then work their way backwards to find a legal explanation for how they cracked the case / obtained evidence. And it isn’t very hard, nobody is a ghost online.
