[SpamCop-List] Re: Web_Police, interGOV response; might be OT & IS long!

[B.G.]

Tom ...

After many years in law enforcement, this organization screams of 'wannabe'
and 'phoney.'  Mr. President has no law enforcement or investigative
background, and his whole smokescreen job appears to be nothing more than
duping innocent, naive people into believing he actually *can* do something.

All he's doing is interfering and causing perhaps valuable information to be
misdirected.  The one that bothers me the most is his reference to missing
kids.  For a valid organization, there is the NCMEC, National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children (http://www.ncmec.org/), which maintains a
cybertip line and works in close conjunction with the FBI and other
national/international law enforcement agencies.  I hate to think of parents
of a missing kid wasting time with this scam artist.

I'd be inclined to drop the IRS a brief note, too.  If he's so scared of
having them know about their doings, then perhaps their 'doings' need to be
looked into.

There are a number of these wannabe sites on the web .. and unfortunately,
they draw the kind of people as 'helpers' that are similarly ignorant of law
enforcement and investigations.  But they're more than happy to be a
'for-real deputy' and 'fighting crime on the internet.'

Keep us posted.

B.G.

"RazzleFrapping" <Xdilbert84> wrote in message
news:aa5308$sbj$1
> Some of you may recall I inquired about *web police* and
> *intergov* and what anyone might know of them and requested
> your experiences, if any.  Of the three inquiries I made to
> them back
> on 13 and 15 April, I still have not had any type of response.
> I
> just rechecked all my logs to be certain that statement is
> correct; it is.
>
> One person here suggested I contact the "president" which at
> first I wasn't inclined to do, but since I had "problems" with
> my prior inquiries, I took him up on his suggestion.  I did
> receive a response from the "president" and will show it
> below; however,
> it wasn't very satisfactory as you will see.  In my opinion,
> they are a pretty much benign organization and whatever their
> real purpose is I cannot fathom it; I will let you form your
> own opinions while I think about what to do about the
> situation I have uncovered.
>
> The response starts out:
>
> "Dear Fighter,
> Thank you for your inquiry, (quoted below.) I am unsure why
> your friend is questioning the legitimacy of our organization,
> but I have provided replies to each of his remarks below. He
> is free to accept or reject any or all of this information as
> he chooses. Respectfully,
> Peter Hampton
> President - InterGOV International
> <mailto:President>
> [ lots of phone numbers, e-mail addresses & web site URLs. ]
>
> The pleasantries out of the way, I present for your
> information, the text of his response to me with his answers
> interspersed within my own message.  My further comments are
> in [ ... ] brackets.  He preceded all his responses with
> "[Peter Hampton] ".
>
> Sequence:
> My comment
> [ name ] his comment
> [ my further comment to his ]
>
>
> ... about contacint the president';s address:
>
> That is a route I would only take after I have had with
> improper, unprofessional, or incompetent results from working
> with someone/someplace.
>
> [Peter Hampton] Our email system is set up to filter all
> incoming messages in order of "urgency". Life threatening and
> child endangerment messages are always addressed immediately,
> the remaining 2,000 + emails we receive each day are sent to
> the appropriate staff officer for reply. While response times
> may vary from 1 minute up to many days, EVERY email we receive
> is responded to. My apologies if you have not yet received a
> reply, you will sir.
>
> [ That's pretty great filtering; SpamCop could use that
> effieient a system!  Must be a great AI programmer there
> somewhere!  ]
>
>
>
> 2. My original questions from my original post still stand
> unanswered except for the information you have provided in
> your message here, which I admit are enough to cause me to
> look further.
> [Peter Hampton] What was the original question sir?
>
> [ not worth repeating in view of his other comments below ]
>
> 3. Yes, I DO understant the concept of " all-volunteer" org;
> in fact, I am a member of one myself with a different set of
> goals not related to this one under discussion in any way.
> If it is all-volunteer, why are there no credentials or bio's
> or indications of the abilities of the group? There is only
> general hype on the site, aimed at encouraging you to contact
> them.
>
> [Peter Hampton] It would appear that Tom did not take the time
> to research the information posted on the 2,700 pages of our 8
> urls. I am unsure what credentials Tom could possibly be
> looking for, but my personal bio is located at:
> <http://www.intergov.org/operations_center/staff_profiles/pete
> s_profile.html> . While it would be nice to be able to post
> bio's on each of our 3,000+ staff and officers, we have
> neither the server space or personnel to undertake such a
> project. Again, had Tom taken time to research this
> information, Tom would have understood the obvious need for
> maintaining the confidentiality of many members of our staff.
>
> [ Well, I would think the credentials I am looking for would
> be rather obvious.  Apparently he wants me to believe that he
> has 2,700 pages and 3,000 "staff and officers" and, since he
> cannot credential every single one, he won't/can't credential
> anything else about the organization.  I saw a lot of
> self-serving "stuff" on their pages - but nothing to add any
> unbiased redibility to them.  ]
>
> My observations to date are:
> -- A few cookies, but no system probes or attempts to read
> anything from my machine - at least in the pages I was able to
> visit. That is good.
>
> [Peter Hampton] Thank you sir
>
>
>
> -- Black-hole response to three separate inquiries to three
> onsite e-mail addresses offered for use.
>
> [Peter Hampton] I would be very interested in learning of the
> "3" addresses that Tom received no response from, I can assure
> you this will be corrected sir.
>
> [  If his organization is that great and that efficient and
> their filters are that good, then I would say that, given the
> 3 addresses were gleaned from the web police web site, he
> should have an easy way to know the answer to this - if he
> wanted to.  Apparently the
>  ** ": > : >  You can tell them 02530 sent you." **
>  from the quoted e-mail, and still quoted in his e-mail back
> to me,  that sent me to him, was NOT useful to him.  He cannot
> even use his own organization's abilities ]
>
>
>
> -- No visible or searchable references to successes, agencies
> worked with, manner of contact, methodology, or even
> references that may lead to such things.
>
> [Peter Hampton] We are here to serve and protect the citizens
> of this community, while publicly posting all the above would
> be a nice gesture, it would serve no useful purpose and use up
> valuable resources best used elsewhere. Most of Tom's
> questions can be answered only with questions, i.e., who is
> going to do all this, who is going to pay for all this,
> etc.....
>
> [  Again, since he can't list ALL of them, he lists none?
> None are more important, more effective, more well known than
> others?  Something smells here, methinks.  Doesn't wash.  This
> sort of thing could be written, vetted, and posted in less
> than two hours if it were a task I had to do   ]
>
>
>
> -- A search of site with links TO or ABOUT the org turned up a
> very slim and mostly irrelevant links EXCEPT for the few sites
> also listed on the web pages.
>
> [Peter Hampton] My apologies sir, we will work to correct
> this.
>
> [  CORRECT it?  THAT is nothing HE has any control over!  How
> can he correct the records of sites which have links TO or
> ABOUT him?  Doesn't wash.  He must mean his biased
> affilliates.  ]
>
>
>
> -- Multiple instances of requesting monetary support on too
> many pages rather than stating why they need support, and
> providing a link to a related page.
>
> [Peter Hampton] Again, my apologies sir, we will work to
> correct this.
>
> [ Correct what?  How?  In what manner?  This is a non-answer.
> It's SO easy to remedy this one.    ]
>
>
>
>
> -- In contrast to having been around since 1986, the web
> site/s registrar information does not bear that out. Most of
> the registrars indicate very recent registrations.
>
> [Peter Hampton] We have been registered with InterNIC (network
> solutions) since 1995 sir. Had you researched more carefully,
> you would have understood why we had no need for web sites
> prior to 1995.
>
> [  I wonder if he would like to receive an e-mail containing
> the logs of my research showing registrations much, much later
> than 1995.  Possibly, buried somewhere in that mound of 2,700
> pages, there is a registration dating back to '95, but it's
> not easily found.  If you doubt me, try it - just pick out
> what appear to be the most obvious ones for checking and see
> what you get.  That's all I did.    ]
>
>
>
> -- No reference to a non-profit or anything related
> certificate, or even intent to do so.
>
> [Peter Hampton] We are an international organization and
> registering with the U.S. Government as a non-profit would
> place us under the direct jurisdiction of the internal revenue
> service. They would then have full access to records and
> information on our staff and officers in 61 countries. This
> will not happen. Should our staff in many of these countries
> feel there is a remote possibility of US intervention in our
> activities, we would lose thousands of dedicated and vitally
> needed staff and contacts.
>
> [ Umm, is he implying here that they avoid law enforcement
> relationships?  I didn't ask for his registration number/s, I
> was looking for statements and/or references that they aren't
> getting rich off the poor, they're doing this for the "public"
> as they claim to be doing.  Interesting how some people andwer
> the questions they want to hear rather than the ones they know
> are being posed.  ]
>
>
>
>
> No references in my research to anything more than a year or
> so old. One would think and organization around since 1986
> would have left a trail of some sort.
>
> [Peter Hampton] I don't believe Tom has done any research at
> all, there are articles written about our efforts by the New
> York Times, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and hundreds of other News Papers,
> T.V. Shows, etc. These date back to 1994 and earlier. Awards
> and commendations have been presented to us from around the
> world.
>
> [ A repeat - already covered.  Well, except that hundreds of
> people I know apparently never saw any of those "articles"; I
> know I never did, whether I was here in the states, in Canada,
> or overseas.  ]
>
>
>
> -- No legitimate local, national, or international law
> enforcement agency seem to have any information about this
> agency and at least 11 of those one would expect to know of
> the name have claimed total ignorance of the org. Perhaps that
> is because the orb of influence is too local to find easily -
> possible, but contrary to the hype presented on the pages.
>
> [Peter Hampton] Again, I don't believe Tom has done any
> research at all or he would never have made such a ludicrous
> statement.
>
> [  Hmm, ludicrous?  That none of the 11 most active law
> enforcement agencies I can contact, which includes the US
> Federal level, JATE and a couple of other Pac-rim countries,
> in addition to some checks with stae agencies never heard of
> them?  Oh, that's right; if you don't/can't answer a question,
> add some haze and maybe it'll go away.  A simple statement
> here that could be verified would have settled this whole
> discussion.  ]
>
>
>
> I know that all sounds like a put-down, but it really isn't; y
> et. Online research is admittedly frought with problems; names
> change, locations change, mission statements change, etc. etc.
> etc.. Therefore, rather than jump to any knee-jerk reactions,
> I have taken it upon myself to prove or disprove the validity
> of the org. So far the only justification I have found is from
> direct affiliates of the org itself.
>
> [Peter Hampton] I invite Tom's "investigation" in to our
> organization. We have been investigated by the FBI and Law
> Enforcement agencies from around the world. Perhaps Tom's
> investigation techniques are superior to theirs, we shall see.
> I would be quite interested in learning if Tom proves us
> "valid" or "invalid". Actually, it is of no consequence what
> his investigation reveals, we will continue to serve the
> community with, or without his approval, consent, or
> validation.
>
> Hmm, E-commerce Times said:
> > "Online prostitution has proven to be a highly
> > profitable venture," said Peter Hampton, the founder
> > and president of Web Police, an international crime
> > fighting organization that serves as a clearing house
> > for complaints about Internet-based crimes. "It is
> > growing at a rate equal to or exceeding pornography."
>
> to which someone in the negative web police thread responded:
>
> [  .somehow he just sounds like he should know. ]
> [  His comment that he's been "investigated by the FBI "
> appears to be made up and without basis, unless he meant the
> FBI that makes the fire alarm equipment maybe.  He continues
> to opine disbelief in my opinions and the research I have
> done - that's all well, good, and his right.  However, it does
> not offer any credibility or worthiness to his purported
> purpose.
>
> "Perhaps Tom's investigation techniques are superior to
> theirs, we shall see":  Is that a challenge?  Sure sounds like
> it.  Finally, he said a lot in one para.
>
>
>
> Having wrapped up my "investigation", I have come to the
> conclusion, and am of the firm opinion that, web police,
> intergov, and at least the several URLs they posted which I
> checked, are:
>
> --  not recognized by any law enforcement agency that I can
> find,
> --  not actually interested at the higher echelons in their
> stated purpose of protection of the public,
> --  dangerous if an inexperienced and incompetent person
> should depend on them,
> --  simply relay a report here and there to someone if they're
> lucky enough to find one,
> --  probably in the business of collecting and selling e-mail
> addresses and spam lists,
> --  fooling even those within their own organization who are
> legitimately hoping to to do good,
> --  taking "donations" and moneys in general with no control,
> accountability, or other checks and balances to show what they
> do with it,
> --  and all the other hints and suspicions of those who have
> particiapted in this thread.  If they're a "clearing house",
> which seems a generous admission, I wonder if they have a
> sweepstakes offer?  Maybe I've already won a million, who
> knows?
>
> ---------------- end these opinions ------------------
>
> [  I am not going to bother to respond to this "president",
> though I have no objection if "02530" (I forget his nick)
> wishes to advise him of my sentiments and forward this to
> im.  ]
>
>
>
> I will be continuing with different research this week. I
> would still like to hear from others with any information
> about this org and its referenced affiliates. Due to time
> constraints, I will have to wrap up my research efforts by
> early next week.
> Regards,
> Tom
>
>
> [  I have completed my research as far as it is going to go
> for the moment.  In fact, if it comes from respected newsgroup
> pariticpants here that they do now wish to see further posts
> about this here, I will discontinue posting this type of
> information immediately upon their input.  I think you know
> who you are; I do not wish to name you outright.
>
> From this point forward, unless something happens to change my
> mind (as in legitimate information coming to light, which I
> seriously doubt can happen now), I will now turn my efforts to
> exposing this "organization", located here in the US, for what
> it actually may be.  I have had some very fortunate luck in
> that I was contacted by a disgruntled person who had several
> seemingly good contacts concerning what I need to know in
> order to prove my suspicions.  That one contact led to three
> others and if they are as disconnected to each other as they
> appear to be, it will give me a great start.
>
> I have no animosity toward anyone, no hard feelings against
> anyone.  I simply want this organization to either live up to
> its claims, admit who/what they are, or to go away, for good.
> As I orginally stated in more detail, my only purpose is to
> assist people and it would appear at this time, that one good
> way to do that will be to steer them away from this group and
> toward other legitimate groups with power to actually
> accomplish something.  They try to look like a big
> organization, but I cannot find the size they intimate.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Tom
> --------------
> Just a user who likes the service
> This message has been scanned for viruses
> and worms as it was Sent.
> BTW, I do not answer e-mails.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>
>