The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday March 4, 2015 @04:03AM from the undesirable-career-paths dept.

sarahnaomi writes: It could have been any other morning. Felipe del Jesús Peréz García got dressed, said goodbye to his wife and kids, and drove off to work. It would be a two hour commute from their home in Monterrey, in Northeastern Mexico's Nuevo León state, to Reynosa, in neighboring Tamaulipas state, where Felipe, an architect, would scout possible installation sites for cell phone towers for a telecommunications company before returning that evening. That was the last time anyone saw him.

What happened to Felipe García? One theory suggests he was abducted by a sophisticated organized crime syndicate, and then forced into a hacker brigade that builds and services the cartel's hidden, backcountry communications infrastructure. They're the Geek Squads to some of the biggest mafia-style organizations in the world.

128 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Nah by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 04:07 · Score: -1

Probably shot and killed by the US Border Patrol. Nother notch, you know. Well, no, you never will know anything. And that's the way they like it, uh-huh!
1. Re:Nah by gl4ss · 2015-03-04 04:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  like, the headline reads like they know. but they don't.
  more likely killed for snooping around. that was his job anyways.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
2. Re:Nah by Penguinisto · 2015-03-04 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Thinking that's the most likely outcome from my POV as well.
  After all, if you're pressed into service as a "hacker", it wouldn't take much to discreetly slip information to the authorities, considering that most cartel types don't strike me as being technically uber-literate. Sure it would be a massive risk, but totally doable depending on the environment.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
3. Re:Nah by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2015-03-04 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  and then they skin you and your family alive. Unless you destroy the organization on the way out, their famous for snitches get stitches.
4. Re:Nah by chronoglass · 2015-03-04 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  more likely scenarios include, stumbling across any cartel operation and getting killed, or being told, hey we're going to make you this offer, you'll get paid a ton, but you have to disappear, say no, and yer dead. or as a poster below says.. aliens
5. Re:Nah by jeffmeden · 2015-03-04 07:57 · Score: 2
  
  Thinking that's the most likely outcome from my POV as well.
  After all, if you're pressed into service as a "hacker", it wouldn't take much to discreetly slip information to the authorities, considering that most cartel types don't strike me as being technically uber-literate. Sure it would be a massive risk, but totally doable depending on the environment.
  There are enough other hackers under duress willing to snitch on you for trying to send a mayday, plus they are probably operating under the stance of "do what we say and we will kill you, don't do what we say and we will kill your family". On top of that your mayday is likely to end up in the hands of police or military on the narcos payroll.
  Part of the Radio Narco objective is to monitor communications of crime fighting orgs. If you did get a mayday sent to the right people, you and the rest of the captives are as good as dead as soon as they start planning the rescue team, and if they do find out it was you who sent the mayday your family is probably going to disappear too. It's a supremely shitty situation all around.
Or maybe it was aliens by wonkey_monkey · 2015-03-04 04:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Mexican Drug Cartels' Involuntary IT Guy, maybe, just guessing really
FTFY.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:Or maybe it was aliens by fustakrakich · 2015-03-04 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, c'mon. If the story draws a crowd, mission accomplished.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
2. Re:Or maybe it was aliens by GameboyRMH · 2015-03-04 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'd guess he was captured by a bigfoot to work on their hidden communication infrastructure that helps them avoid groups of credible humans.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
3. Re:Or maybe it was aliens by s.petry · 2015-03-04 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Draws a crowd? Part of the message only. Stories like these generally cover much more than a singular issue like popularity. I see also the article demonizing certain cartels as part of the message. I'm not claiming the drug cartels are good guys by that statement. I'm claiming that the cartel pushing for prohibition of certain narcotics creates the black markets. Meanwhile the guys making some drugs illegal approves and sells their own drugs, which more often than not get used for the same purpose as what they prohibit.
  I didn't read the full article because the headline describes itself as "one possible theory". I'm sure I could find other hidden gems in the full article, but today I lack the time to dissect and absorb a new conspiracy theory (not intended as derogatory).
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
4. Re:Or maybe it was aliens by sumdumass · 2015-03-04 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  You do not know if he was even captured at all. Let alone speculating about big foot, drug cartels, the NSA, or Chinese military. Its just wishful thinking and hoping that he is still alive and alright at this point. For all we know, he could have ran off with some chick that wasn't his wife or interrupted something illegal and is face down in a shallow grave somewhere.
Gotta remember this excuse by dheltzel · 2015-03-04 04:13 · Score: 0

Next time I have to stay late at the office, I can just tell my spouse I was kidnapped by the drug cartel to work on their IT infrastructure. I wonder how close one must be to the border to make that look legit?

It would be a good excuse if you want to leave it all behind and start up somewhere new - "the drug cartel made me do it!"
1. Re:Gotta remember this excuse by dale.furno · 2015-03-04 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  100 miles according to DHS
Same guy? by ScentCone · 2015-03-04 04:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I wonder if that's the same guy who worked under a fictitious name, for cash, to set up the private e-mail server and domain that Hillary Clinton used for HER back-channel communications, in lieu of an official mailbox, throughout her entire tenure as Secretary of State. It has to be odd to be an IT consultant with a high profile customer like that and be unable to mention the gig on your CV. We've all worked under NDAs, but I guess working for a well-funded person or group that insists you actually use a fake name with the registrars and take cash (if you're lucky!) for the job would certainly take on a different flavor.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
1. Re:Same guy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's not unusual for techy people to maintain themselves off the grid. Just because you can't find him by Google doesn't mean he doesn't exist -- that's apparently Fox News' level of investigation (i.e., "Internet background searches"), and I know I am very difficult to find through Google. Not everyone is on Facebook or even LinkedIn.
2. Re:Same guy? by OzPeter · 2015-03-04 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if that's the same guy who worked under a fictitious name, for cash, to set up the private e-mail server and domain that Hillary Clinton used for HER back-channel communications
  It could be, but from what I heard Sarah Palin recommended that guy to Hillary.
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
3. Re:Same guy? by fustakrakich · 2015-03-04 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever Hillary did/does is SOP throughout the entire system, which really is a series of cartels. If you want to flog the dead horse, knock yourself out. It will make no difference at election time.
  What was the name of that movie where the doctor is kidnapped to deal with gunshot wounds?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
4. Re:Same guy? by quantaman · 2015-03-04 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if that's the same guy who worked under a fictitious name, for cash, to set up the private e-mail server and domain that Hillary Clinton used for HER back-channel communications, in lieu of an official mailbox, throughout her entire tenure as Secretary of State. It has to be odd to be an IT consultant with a high profile customer like that and be unable to mention the gig on your CV. We've all worked under NDAs, but I guess working for a well-funded person or group that insists you actually use a fake name with the registrars and take cash (if you're lucky!) for the job would certainly take on a different flavor.
  Wow, you were really straining to make that unrelated political rant seem on topic.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
5. Re:Same guy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  If you want to flog the dead horse, knock yourself out. It will make no difference at election time.
  
  And that's what's wrong with "the system."
  
  Just as long as "the other guy" does it... well, why not? This way we can ensure the slippery slope all the way to common state slavery just by simply claiming that we're no worse than the last administration... at least until you find out that we really are but you'll be ok with it as long as the team you cheer for is winning the game.
6. Re:Same guy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  It's not unusual for techy people to maintain themselves off the grid. Just because you can't find him by Google doesn't mean he doesn't exist ..
  I've had hours of fun over the years trying to explain just this point to recruitment drones...
  RD: 'But you've 20+ years experience with computers...'
  Me: 'Yes'
  RD: 'Why you no Linkedin?, Why you no Facebook?, why ? just why?'
  Me: 'Because.'
7. Re:Same guy? by Falos · 2015-03-04 05:28 · Score: 2
  
  Because I have years of experience with computers.
8. Re:Same guy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  I guess working for a well-funded person or group that insists you actually use a fake name with the registrars and take cash (if you're lucky!) for the job would certainly take on a different flavor.
  If the Clintons asked you to do that, make sure you don't do that. Keep meticulous logs and let a lot of people know. The Clintons don't like witnesses or loose ends. It'd be a shame if you got so sad that you committed suicide in a public DC park.
  captcha: inhuman
9. Re:Same guy? by Dins · 2015-03-04 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  RD: 'But you've 20+ years experience with computers...' Me: 'Yes' RD: 'Why you no Linkedin?, Why you no Facebook?, why ? just why?' Me: 'Because.'
  ...Because you have 20+ years experience with computers...
10. Re:Same guy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  Shut the partisan tool up with this:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
11. Re:Same guy? by ScentCone · 2015-03-04 05:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Wow, you were really straining to make that unrelated political rant seem on topic.
  Not at all. I think it's humorous (or would be, if it didn't contribute to a large body of evidence about the Clinton way of doing things) to think that one of Obama's would-be (at the time) cabinet secretaries, the moment she was named for the job, ran out and paid cash to have a personal mail server set up under a false registrant's name, specifically so that nobody could ever know which or her emails was, or wasn't part of her official legacy in that job - despite the law requiring her to make all such communication part of her ongoing records at State. That she did this under the table, and never even set up an official mailbox at State, and was magically able, for years, to avoid FOIA requests for her official communications, is just fantastically corrupt. The parallels with some IT guy in Mexico being asked to set up a shadow communications platform for a corrupt cartel there aren't imaginary, they're actually interesting.
  
  It's topical because new of Clinton's furtive behavior along these lines is breaking right now, and it's a related topic. The main point of interest for this audience is the notion of being asked (or forced, in the example of TFA) to set up systems under dubious conditions (legality-wise), and keeping mum to avoid the sort of heat that can come down on them from the people who want the work done.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
12. Re:Same guy? by Coren22 · 2015-03-04 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  ...and know how very terrible those companies are...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
13. Re:Same guy? by ScentCone · 2015-03-04 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I get it. You hate Bush and think people in his administration did something wrong, and so that makes it cool when Hillary does it. That's some awesome moral compass you have there.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
14. Re:Same guy? by Coren22 · 2015-03-04 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  So, broken backup system/email system crash is now equivalent to intentionally breaking records management laws?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
15. Re:Same guy? by Penguinisto · 2015-03-04 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever Hillary did/does is SOP throughout the entire system, which really is a series of cartels. If you want to flog the dead horse, knock yourself out. It will make no difference at election time.
  ...might make a difference in this case, considering that it was set up on the down-low (as opposed to a Hotmail/Yahoo freemail account). Also, you misspelled "primaries" up there, where it would make a pretty sizable difference. In elections, its impact would be in the timing of a big event surrounding it's disclosure or prosecution. ;)
  
  What was the name of that movie where the doctor is kidnapped to deal with gunshot wounds?
  Dr. Zhivago had that in the latter part of its storyline.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
16. Re:Same guy? by barbariccow · 2015-03-04 06:16 · Score: 2
  
  Because all those sources will sell every image, message, and status you've ever had for a nominal fee. Lots of hiring companies require you "Friend" them nowadays anyway, so they don't even have to pay. Considering some doufas could just post something stupid on my account and I'd lose the ability for employment... why?
17. Re:Same guy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  That's right, it's only wrong when the other side does it. When the Obama administration instructs the IRS to go after their political enemies, it's OK because he's on our side.
18. Re:Same guy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  It's not unusual for techy people to maintain themselves off the grid. Just because you can't find him by Google doesn't mean he doesn't exist ..
  I've had hours of fun over the years trying to explain just this point to recruitment drones...
  RD: 'But you've 20+ years experience with computers...'
  Me: 'Yes'
  RD: 'Why you no Linkedin?, Why you no Facebook?, why ? just why?'
  Me: 'Because.'
  Them: OK we will be in touch
  Me: fuck that, I am anonymous coward, you will never see me again!
  Them: great, thanks for coming to the interview
19. Re:Same guy? by jeffmeden · 2015-03-04 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Whatever Hillary did/does is SOP throughout the entire system, which really is a series of cartels. If you want to flog the dead horse, knock yourself out. It will make no difference at election time.
  What was the name of that movie where the doctor is kidnapped to deal with gunshot wounds?
  Doc Hollywood, right?
20. Re:Same guy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  Let's be realistic... Most high level government officials don't use email at all--they are too busy to use email and have other people handle their communications. The most anyone that high does is make phone calls.
21. Re:Same guy? by ScentCone · 2015-03-04 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Let's be realistic... Most high level government officials don't use email at all
  That's just factually incorrect. Take for example Obama's special hot-rodded Blackberry, which he apparently uses for all sorts of direct personal e-communication. And of course there's the issue at hand (Hillary's email) which numbered in the tens of thousands ... but those are just the ones that her staff, after the fact, had laundered and decided under her direction were OK to pass along to the systems at State so there'd be copies. Thousands and thousands of emails is the opposite of "don't use email at all."
  
  The newer law about such officials having to forward ALL such correspondence to their official mailboxes within 20 days is a direct result of it being apparent just how much government officials DO use email, all day, every day. It's why it's so fascinating to see tens of thousands of them being brought back to life from the abyss after the new director of the IRS swore there were no backups of Lois Lerner's comms during her supervision of the politicized treatment of non-profit applications. People in the bureaucratic food chain AND those at the tops of agencies and branches use email constantly, since they can do that asynchronously (compared to elaborately timed phone calls).
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
22. Re:Same guy? by david_thornley · 2015-03-04 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  At a quick read, the difference I saw was that Clinton handed over relevant emails (we have no way of knowing whether they're all the relevant ones, but this problem was solved by a law passed the year after she left the office), while the White House staffers apparently didn't. The Presidential Records Act requires that certain communications be delivered to the archives, and apparently that wasn't done in the Bush case.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
23. Re:Same guy? by quantaman · 2015-03-04 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, you were really straining to make that unrelated political rant seem on topic.
  Not at all. I think it's humorous (or would be, if it didn't contribute to a large body of evidence about the Clinton way of doing things)
  It could be humorous if you didn't turn it into a political rant. People rarely laugh when you make endorsing your political views a prerequisite.
  
  to think that one of Obama's would-be (at the time) cabinet secretaries, the moment she was named for the job, ran out and paid cash to have a personal mail server set up under a false registrant's name, specifically so that nobody could ever know which or her emails was, or wasn't part of her official legacy in that job - despite the law requiring her to make all such communication part of her ongoing records at State. That she did this under the table, and never even set up an official mailbox at State, and was magically able, for years, to avoid FOIA requests for her official communications, is just fantastically corrupt.
  Sure it's corrupt, and sadly business as usual since Bush II.
  
  The parallels with some IT guy in Mexico being asked to set up a shadow communications platform for a corrupt cartel there aren't imaginary, they're actually interesting.
  Very, very tenuous parallels.
  
  It's topical because new of Clinton's furtive behavior along these lines is breaking right now, and it's a related topic. The main point of interest for this audience is the notion of being asked (or forced, in the example of TFA) to set up systems under dubious conditions (legality-wise), and keeping mum to avoid the sort of heat that can come down on them from the people who want the work done.
  Yes, it was completely top-secret, known only to the select few of anyone with whom she exchanged email.
  This wasn't some quiet conspiracy, this was a dodgy practice that is sadly typical in government. And it didn't just come out now because some insider leaked, it came out because for whatever reason this fact that must have been fairly common knowledge finally got around to a reporter who understood it was wrong and actually decided to write about it.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
24. Re:Same guy? by ScentCone · 2015-03-04 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  known only to the select few of anyone with whom she exchanged email.
  You really think that everyone swapping email with her knew that their communications were being stored on a poorly configured server kept in her house? So far, the general level of panic being displayed by her many party confidants and lots of people in the business suggests that yes, indeed, the completely absurd circumstances were indeed a secret.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
25. Re:Same guy? by quantaman · 2015-03-04 17:43 · Score: 1
  
  known only to the select few of anyone with whom she exchanged email.
  You really think that everyone swapping email with her knew that their communications were being stored on a poorly configured server kept in her house? So far, the general level of panic being displayed by her many party confidants and lots of people in the business suggests that yes, indeed, the completely absurd circumstances were indeed a secret.
  They likely didn't know the storage circumstances but that's just carelessness, that's not the legal issue.
  The legal issue is the fact that she was using a personal email to evade record keeping requirements. That much would be obvious to someone by the fact she was using a personal email address.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
26. Re:Same guy? by fustakrakich · 2015-03-04 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  No, it wasn't that good. More like some cheap TV movie.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
27. Re: Same guy? by BlueTrin · 2015-03-04 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  More like you will see again and again ... And again until the end of SlashdotTimes
  
  --
  Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
28. Re: Same guy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 20:17 · Score: 0
  
  Sure because Nixon and both Bush were paragon of humanity and Palin is a genius. Your candidates are just dim witted people catering to idiot voters.
29. Re:Same guy? by ScentCone · 2015-03-04 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  The legal issue is the fact that she was using a personal email to evade record keeping requirements. That much would be obvious to someone by the fact she was using a personal email address.
  But what couldn't be obvious to everyone else was that despite perhaps being in an e-mail swap with her and assuming whatever they might about that, she didn't even have (and thus use, even for forwarding/mirroring) an official government mailbox to use as the legally required dumping ground. A reasonable person might assume that she was keeping up with the 2009 regulation to store her correspondence on a government system by more indirect means - but she was carefully avoiding compliance with that reg.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
30. Re:Same guy? by quantaman · 2015-03-05 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  Only someone so naive as to not have heard about multiple instances of government officials using personal email addresses to evade record keeping requirements.
  A significant portion of people looked at her address and understood exactly what she was doing form the start.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
31. Re:Same guy? by ScentCone · 2015-03-05 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  A significant portion of people looked at her address and understood exactly what she was doing form the start.
  Just not her boss, the guy who promised the "most transparent administration in history?" He's what ... just too obtuse? Or perhaps just too disingenuous? No doubt a lot of people DID infer that her obvious motive for running her shadow State Department comms system was her interest in doing things like peddling her influence in exchange for huge donations to her family business from foreign governments, and were quite pleased to have those sorts of interactions off the record.
  
  But that doesn't mean that her routine back and forth with other US government email correspondents was making those other people think she was deliberately avoiding passing copies along to the State systems as the 2009 regulation required. I suppose people who know her personally know how evasive and dishonest she can be, and they just saw Hillary being Hillary, but with the blessings of Obama.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
simplest explanation by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 04:14 · Score: 0

Ran out on his wife
Supplemental reading by ShaunC · 2015-03-04 04:20 · Score: 3, Informative

If you find the topic interesting, there was a very thorough and interesting feature in Popular Science last year, Radio Tecnico: How the Zetas Cartel Took Over Mexico with Walkie-Talkies.

--
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
1. Re:Supplemental reading by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  Here in Honduras Central America 2 ham radio VHF Repeators were taken from remote sites in the past 3 years in the Tegucigalpa area
Midlife crisis by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 04:21 · Score: 0

Wife and kids? Ain't nobody got time for that! He probably drove to a marina and sailed away.
Sounds like a difficult choice... by davidwr · 2015-03-04 04:28 · Score: 1

... for the mafioso:
* Kill your prospective IT guy before you let him touch your computers, or
* Kill him after you discovered he used his skills to undermine your operation.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
1. Re:Sounds like a difficult choice... by PRMan · 2015-03-04 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  If I was their IT guy, I would make absolutely sure that if anything happened to me their whole system was encrypted.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
2. Re:Sounds like a difficult choice... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 05:07 · Score: 0
  
  Except that if they find out that you have a dead man switch, they start cutting off your toes until you disable it. Then they find another IT guy and kill you as an example for him.
3. Re:Sounds like a difficult choice... by ranton · 2015-03-04 05:20 · Score: 2
  
  If I was their IT guy, I would make absolutely sure that if anything happened to me their whole system was encrypted.
  Oh yeah ... you have thought this through.
  First off, the cartel needs to know about the dead man's switch for it to be of any use to you. As someone already pointed out, it will be a simple matter to torture you and threaten your family until you give up control. They will be pretty confident you removed all of it when they tell you what they will do to your wife and children if it ever comes up again, and then they kill you after getting a replacement.
  Sounds like a great idea you got there.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
4. Re:Sounds like a difficult choice... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  As someone already pointed out, it will be a simple matter to torture you and threaten your family until you give up control. They will be pretty confident you removed all of it when they tell you what they will do to your wife and children if it ever comes up again, and then they kill you after getting a replacement.
  If you are forced to work for the cartel, you (and your extended family) are already dead. It's just a matter of when.
  Whether you do your best, or the absolute minimum, at some point you are a liability.
  No matter what they promise, you are (as good as) dead.
5. Re:Sounds like a difficult choice... by rahvin112 · 2015-03-04 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's why you don't tell them and they are up shit creek when they do kill you. It's called revenge from the grave.
6. Re: Sounds like a difficult choice... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 12:50 · Score: 0
  
  I am definitely going to buy the movie rights!
  Or at least get some popcorn, I'd watch that movie.
plot by cstacy · 2015-03-04 04:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Story seems to be the setup for an episode of either Mission Impossible (original series), or maybe The A-Team (if you can find them).
1. Re:plot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Been following this topic for a little over 7 years.
  There are several stories of confirmed kidnapings of ommunications engineers from top carriers like ATT, Alestra, Axtel, telmex, maxcom, etc... for building regional comms networks. Some cartels like Sinaloa`s drop top money for high quality tech and other lesser cartels mostly building DIY towers.
  The news here is that this poor guy got to tell his story, others were not so lucky and never came back to their homes.
  2008 - https://elblogdelnarco.wordpress.com/tag/radio/
  2011 - http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=683631#.VPdBMvnZR1A
  2013 - http://puentelibre.mx/_notas/1251590
2. Re:plot by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  You ever had to crack AES 2048-bit encryption in under 60 seconds with a gun to your head while also getting a BJ? If so, welcome to project Swordfish.
3. Re:plot by mjwx · 2015-03-04 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  Story seems to be the setup for an episode of either Mission Impossible (original series), or maybe The A-Team (if you can find them).
  Or the ideal excuse for a sick day.
  
  "Uh, yeah, Boss, so I wont be coming into work today because I've been kidnapped and forced to work for a Mexican drug cartel as a sysadmin. Might be in on Tuesday if the hangov... Erm they decide to release me. Peace out."
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Keep telling yourself that, Mrs. García. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 04:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

Once upon a time one of the tester guys at my workplace found out his wife was cheating so took off to Las Vegas for a couple of weeks, blew the joint savings, and never returned. I lol'd. Some people knew what happened - but to a few others, I imagine he'd "just disappeared".
Never underestimate the ability of the media to give you one unlikely and incomplete angle to every story.
1. Re:Keep telling yourself that, Mrs. García. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  CONSPIRACY THeORIST!!!11!!!1!!!!111111111
Geek Squad?? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 04:35 · Score: 0, Funny

They're the Geek Squads to some of the biggest mafia-style organizations in the world.
So they break the mafia computers while scavenging through them for nudes to upload to /b/, all while working under the pretense of "fixing the computer"? Then they try to sell worthless extended warranties?
Sounds like a dangerous and ill advised hobby, as I imagine most of those cartel guys do not want their wedding tackle showing up on /b/.
That makes little sense. by cdu13a · 2015-03-04 04:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why abduct a guy and force him to do IT work. It's not like there is a lack of skilled people, that can't be bothered with moral/legal questions about who their employer is or what they are doing. If there was banks, mpaa/riaa, phone/cable companies, etc... would all having to abduct IT staff too.
1. Re:That makes little sense. by idontgno · 2015-03-04 05:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Is it really that easy?
  I imagine initial contact is risky for all involved. If the IT guy volunteers, he could be a mole for the Federales. If the Cartel finds a likely candidate on its own head-hunt, what's to keep the guy from narcing them out?
  This way, the bad guys control all aspects of the recruitment and there's absolutely no risk other than they guy turning on them while "in service"... and you have his family for leverage against that.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
2. Re:That makes little sense. by dpidcoe · 2015-03-04 06:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why abduct a guy and force him to do IT work.
  Who says he was really abducted? If I was going to go work for a drug cartel, staging an abduction could give me some plausible deniability if the cartel gets busted or I need to go back to normal life for some reason.
3. Re:That makes little sense. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  Absolutely right. It's not that they can't find IT people who don't care where the revenue comes from. It's the fact that once you have done any work, it's very hard to leave your job without getting your vital organs dissolved in a barrel of acid.
  At a bank, they can make you sign an NDA, change system passwords when you leave (haha, yeah, I know, never happens), and prosecute you if you steal any data. At a cartel, just knowing the address of the data center makes you unsuitable for release into the general public ever again.
4. Re:That makes little sense. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  That's what I was thinking in the back of my mind. If I didn't have issues with working for a drug cartel, I would request them to make it look like an abduction and never reveal anything about how much we do or don't know each other. Can't exactly go against someone forcing you to work weather you want to or not but if your going to be forced to work might as well try to set up an escape clause before they set up the default escape clause for you.
5. Re:That makes little sense. by swb · 2015-03-04 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  If the Cartel finds a likely candidate on its own head-hunt, what's to keep the guy from narcing them out?
  Oh, I don't know, maybe something about how THEY TAKE CHAINSAWS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ALIVE.
  But think of all the possible benefits, like all the coke and heroin you can handle.
6. Re:That makes little sense. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  > Why abduct a guy and force him to do IT work.
  Why not? At the time of the abduction, the cartels were pretty much running the show in the northern part of Mexico. They had the local police (both municipal and state) well under their control and their power was uncontested. Many of the then governors, are now being pursued of money laundering and drug smuggling. It was basically a failed state... and many think it still is.
  If you were running such an operation, who would you rely your tech ops? Would you hire someone knowing fully well that he could rat you out to the other cartel/police? Wouldn't it be just better to enslave him and make sure he takes to the grave all of your secrets? The issue of his paycheck is really irrelevant, it is the know how and know where of your IT setup.
7. Re:That makes little sense. by painandgreed · 2015-03-04 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Why abduct a guy and force him to do IT work. It's not like there is a lack of skilled people, that can't be bothered with moral/legal questions about who their employer is or what they are doing. If there was banks, mpaa/riaa, phone/cable companies, etc... would all having to abduct IT staff too.
  There is a lack of skilled people that will work for free, require no benefits, who you can make sure will not carry your secrets to their next employer. It was suggested that they could have actually sent gang members through school to learn the same thing, and while that would take a pitiful amount of money for a loyal employee, it would also take years. If the cartels started sending people through school when they had started setting up their own networks, those people might just be graduating by now, which would be too long to wait in the cut throat business of Mexican cartels.
8. Re:That makes little sense. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  HI. 45 years in Colombia. Lived through the bad days.
  Kidnappings are for ransom. No ransom? He's dead.
  Or he ran off with a girl. (In all seriousness - we Latinos do that kind of shit in reality.)
  Don't believe any of what you've learned neither Hollywood nor via the "news" - a westerner wouldn't have a fucking clue about this stuff.
  Get a copy of THE BOOK "El Cartel De Los Sapos" ("The Cartel of Snitches" in English???), written by an insider. Read it, freak out, vomit, and learn a bit deeper.
  Or if you can understand Spanish dialogue: "Perro Come Perro" ("Dog Eat Dog"). It's by local people - we watch and laugh, cos it's just so true! Mind the violence...not for kids.
  CA
9. Re:That makes little sense. by Gavagai80 · 2015-03-04 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Cartels have no shortage of money and no hesitation about using it. They buy officials all over the place. I'm sure they pay well over the market rate for IT professionals.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
What its like..... by Lumpy · 2015-03-04 04:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Cartel leader: "My phone is broken, fix it!"
IT Guy: "Ok what is wrong with it?"
Cartel Leader: "IT IS BROKEN ESE! YOU GET ME BACK MY FLAPPY BIRDS OR YOU DIE!"
IT Guy: " I cant, they removed it from the App market"
Cartel Leader, pulls gun and points it at the IT guy..
Cartel Leader: " GET ME BACK FLAPPY BIRD OR WE PLAY ANGRY BIRD WITH YOUR HEAD!"

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
1. Re:What its like..... by phantomflanflinger · 2015-03-04 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  This would explain why his head is now slowly heading back to New Mexico on the back of a giant turtle...
  
  --
  shin phantomflanflinger
2. Re:What its like..... by mjwx · 2015-03-04 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  However when you're not being held at gun point, the ready access to coke and Mexican hookers seems like quite a perk.
  
  Better than the bruised fruit and instant coffee my cheapskate boss puts out.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I'm jealous by fustakrakich · 2015-03-04 04:51 · Score: 1

Here we have people setting up independent, robust, secure channels of communication. Why aren't we doing the same for our internet so we can bypass the ISP and government censors?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:I'm jealous by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  We dont have millions of dollars to build cell towers and buy the equipment to do so?
2. Re:I'm jealous by fustakrakich · 2015-03-04 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, capitalism is a wonderful thing. We can do the same, finance the operation with the sale of contraband, any contraband. Jobs are created. It is good for the economy. Competition (from the cartels and their government puppets) can be a bit rough, but business is business.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That does not make sense by Anon-Admin · 2015-03-04 04:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Seems to me they could simply find and hire the right IT guy.
Hell, for the right amount of money I would do what ever they wanted. Drop me a couple of million and Ill give them a network and services that are close to untraceable and allow for the management of their business with little worry of the DEA figuring it out. I'd even include classes to teach there guys how to maintain security.
1. Re:That does not make sense by Anon-Admin · 2015-03-04 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Ill add that my skills go to the highest bidder. Wonder what the government would pay for me not to help them. lol
2. Re:That does not make sense by Jason+Levine · 2015-03-04 04:59 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not sure I'd want to work for them no matter how much they offer. Sure, they give you a million dollars and you set up their network. Then, when your work for them is done, you become a liability. After all, you know how their systems work so you can undermine them or turn them in to the police. So you are forced to give them back their money and then you "disappear."
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
3. Re:That does not make sense by rsierpe · 2015-03-04 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  ok, why? they can simply kidnap you and you'll do it for free. After they kill you, they'll get another IT guy to do it again, should need arise.
4. Re:That does not make sense by Sir_Eptishous · 2015-03-04 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  You need to watch "Breaking Bad" and then re-asses your position.
  
  --
  We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
5. Re:That does not make sense by ThatsDrDangerToYou · 2015-03-04 06:09 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Seems to me they could simply find and hire the right IT guy.
  Hell, for the right amount of money I would do what ever they wanted. Drop me a couple of million and Ill give them a network and services that are close to untraceable and allow for the management of their business with little worry of the DEA figuring it out. I'd even include classes to teach there guys how to maintain security.
  Will you throw in grammar classes as a package deal?
6. Re:That does not make sense by johncandale · 2015-03-04 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  you would never get a couple million. hell you wouldn't need it 100,000 would make you rich in the quiet parts of mexico
7. Re:That does not make sense by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Not only that. Even if you get off, you never know when they will freak out and decide it's time to clean shop.
8. Re:That does not make sense by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  And after the classes you can go on top of the most recent mass grave. Dumb f#!k...
9. Re:That does not make sense by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  This is really not so much a question of money, but a question of knowing. Remember, you are handling the cartel's know how and know where. Let's say the police picks you up, and threatens to throw you in the slammer for 40 years, unless you spill your guts. What good would those millions be if you are behind bars? Now, I just exemplified the best case scenario a more realistic case would be the following: Imagine a rival cartel picks you up and asks you to spill your guts. These guys will not threaten you with prison, this guys will "get medieval on your ass".
  Whoever picked this man made sure neither of the above scenarios could happen to him. They kept him until he finished the job, and eventually disposed of him.
10. Re:That does not make sense by david_thornley · 2015-03-04 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Their severance package, as I understand it, involves chainsaws. I prefer payments for back PTO and maybe some weeks based on years of service.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
11. Re:That does not make sense by painandgreed · 2015-03-04 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure I'd want to work for them no matter how much they offer. Sure, they give you a million dollars and you set up their network. Then, when your work for them is done, you become a liability.
  Ha! Like IT work is ever "done".
God Republicans are Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 04:55 · Score: -1

This is a non-story to anyone with more than two neurons to rub together for a brain:
President Barack Obama signed a bill last year that bans the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they retain copies of messages in their official account or forward copies to their government accounts within 20 days. The bill did not become law until more than one year after Clinton left the State Department.
She didn't break the law, she didn't do anything nefarious, in fact, she didn't do a single thing wrong. Other than be female, and not Rebublican.
source: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b78ba433af3a45209668f745158d994c/clinton-ran-homebrew-computer-system-official-emails
1. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  She didn't break the law, she didn't do anything nefarious, in fact, she didn't do a single thing wrong.
  
  Well, she didn't break the law. Nefariousness and wrongness are different.
2. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by ScentCone · 2015-03-04 05:46 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Nonsense, Mr/s Clinton apologist. Well before that law was passed, there was already a requirement to retain all official communications, including emails. She set this up specifically to get around such scrutiny, and did it the moment that she was named as the nominee for the job. Her use of a false name on the registration and cash payment to the consultant just contributes to the atmosphere (and reality) of deliberate avoidance of the legal requirements.
  
  A law the speaks directly to the matter of forwarding along private messages from private mailboxes that get occasionally used in connection with official duties doesn't mean that the already existing laws about retaining all official communication didn't already exist. They did. She chose not to establish an official mailbox at State. Her personal mail account on her phony-name-registered domain WAS BY DEFAULT her official email channel. And she did not in any way comply with the existing laws that required ongoing official storage of her communications within government systems and available for things like FOIA requests. Countless FOIA requests for her correspondence were in fact completely ignored because of this deliberate loophole that she established (look! no official records of my communication exist because there are no records!).
  
  And because it's her own private email sandbox, SHE gets to decide which messages she should or shouldn't pass along for official archiving per the law. We as her employers have no recourse to see if her judgement on the matter is or was sound, or even legally correct. This was a deliberate act on her part to avoid legally mandated scrutiny of her communications as a government official. Combine that with her panhandling for donations from foreign governments (WHILE she was Secretary of State!) to fund the foundations from which her family drew income and which did things like fly them around the world in luxury accommodations, and you can see why she might indeed want to dodge the law and hide her communications.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
3. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by Coren22 · 2015-03-04 05:47 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Yeah, um, no.
  The federal records management laws have been in place for much longer than Obama has been in office. Just because he updated them somewhat, just a bit, doesn't mean they didn't exist before then.
  http://www.archives.gov/about/...
  But you are welcome to try to ignore all the laws on the books about how very illegal what Hillary did is.
  For the inevitable, "but Palin did it!", Palin has not held federal office, therefore she did not fall under the federal records management laws. As I am unfamiliar with the Alaska laws that the Governor falls under, I cannot comment on if Palin broke the law.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
4. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by ScentCone · 2015-03-04 05:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Well, she didn't break the law.
  Actually, she did. The law requires all official communication to be archived by the government. She deliberate set up mechanism to avoid that. That legal requirement was in place long before it was further enhanced by a later bill that spoke directly to the issue of personal email accounts and the timeliness of forwarding personal mail to offical mailboxes. She HAD NO OFFICIAL MAILBOX, because she didn't want that record keeping to even happen in the first place. She set up a personal platform so that she, and only she, could decide what content, if any, might eventually be passed along to a platform subject to FOIA requests, etc.
  
  She was both nefarious AND wrong, and in every way that matters here, acting deliberately outside the law for her own purposes. And she paid cash to someone operating under a false name to set it up, just to make sure we'd all eventually realize just how sleazy she was really being about it.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
5. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by Sarius64 · 2015-03-04 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  Because everyone designated Secretary of State should be able to misplace $6 billion or so.
  from the citation:
  
  Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account — hdr22@clintonemail.com, which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym — for official State Department business.
  So you're saying it's proper for the third ranking member of the U.S. Government to conduct their office via private e-mail servers?
  more:
  
  The New York Times reported Monday that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account it did not specify to conduct State Department business. The disclosure raised questions about whether she took actions to preserve copies of her old work-related emails, as required by the Federal Records Act. A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them.
  So, not only can you not read, you allow the "Clinton advisers" to now be the arbiters of Federal law.
6. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  what about Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice?
7. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2015-03-04 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Well, at least someone picked up some decent ideas from the CIA.
8. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by rahvin112 · 2015-03-04 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I think what she did was wrong. But it's not like there isn't precedent for it at this point. Between the Bush Admin doing the exact same thing including major staffers (I remember it being 3 key staff) using private email completely to "losing" the entire email server and all backups right before he left office including the total loss of all communication in the run up to the Iraq war. And it runs on down the chain to governors and others that violate these rules all over the country. It's actually quite common behavior.
  Yes it should be stopped and they should follow the damn law, but there is a little hypocrisy in the people railing on Hillary and making this huge attack out of it when they were defending Bush for doing the same damn thing. Pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical about your outrage being entirely partisan and engaged as propaganda.
9. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by Coren22 · 2015-03-04 07:46 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Bring them up on federal charges, bring them all up on charges.
  Why does this have to be a partisan issue? They broke federal laws, and should go to federal prison. Ever single one of them should go to prison to stop this carelessness of the law that has started in politicians. Politicians should hold themselves up to more scrutiny than the average person, not less and less.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
10. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by ScentCone · 2015-03-04 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually quite common behavior.
  But Obama campaigned on changing every aspect of such things, and said that he would guarantee the most transparent administration in history. And here we have a person that he trusts enough to put in the line of succession to his office (Secretary of State) that - on being nominated - didn't just flub her way through a crappy email backup system (a la the career IT people in the WH during Bush, which were not appointees - these are permanent staffers, which you do understand, right?), but rather she immediately went about setting up a system to prevent her communications from being part of the official record.
  
  Then she went around the world doing things like posing with giant plastic "reset" buttons to make everything wonderful with Russia and whatnot, even as she was soliciting millions in donations from foreign governments for use by her personal family foundation. But we'll never know what those emails looked like, and how such things might have been tied to or tangled up with her official duties, because she shielded all of those messages from FOIA requests by never having an official box. And when pressed, she had her own loyalists go through some of the message, and pass along those that SHE considered appropriate for the public archive.
  
  Completely pre-meditated obfuscation of her communications as a senior official. No Sarah-Palin-style cluelessness about using her Yahoo account, no career IT people in the White House having a lame backup system ... no, the completely planned in advance absence of any records except those that Clinton decided, later, should be present. Today we see reports that the IT people in the State Department warned her that her not having an official State mailbox was going to endanger compliance with record keeping laws, but that her completely casual personal mail server was a huge, huge security risk. So we have not only premeditated law breaking to avoid transparency and accountability, but we also have horrible incompetence in understanding the risks of conducting top-level international diplomacy via a mail server set up by some guy with a fictitious name, paid in cash. One really can't make this stuff up.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
11. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by david_thornley · 2015-03-04 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Which laws did she break? Apparently she did turn over the relevant emails, if a little late, and I don't know what the law says on that.
  If she was acting so nefariously, why have previous Secretaries of State done the exact same things? Have they all been nefarious? Including Colin Powell?
  I would think that one way the law matters here is whether she actually broke it. The fact that she did something that would be illegal if she did it now is irrelevant.
  If you want me to believe that Clinton was sleazy, instead of ScentCone, please give me some actual reasons why standard practices that were legal were sleazy.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
12. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by david_thornley · 2015-03-04 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Before we get out the firing squads, I'd like to know which federal laws they broke. So far, nobody has pointed out any to me.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
13. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by ScentCone · 2015-03-04 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently she did turn over the relevant emails
  No, she eventually turned over only those emails that she and her personal advisors decided to hand over. Because she chose to conduct her official government business off a badly secured server in her own house and without any IT governance from her agency, we actually have no idea whatsoever what she's decided to leave out. If she'd been actually using the system that her own underlings told her she should use in order to secure and archive her communications, FOIA requests could tell us the story. But instead, we have to trust a person who - the day she was sworn in - immediately set up a system to keep her official communication off the record.
  
  The fact that she did something that would be illegal if she did it now is irrelevant.
  It was illegal before, too. It's just illegal on more than one front, now.
  
  And of course we have congressional subpoenas looking for exactly this sort of communication now because they're now aware it exists, despite earlier investigations concluding that there was no email like this at all, and she and her staff - who knew exactly what they were looking for - didn't say a peep about the existence of tens of thousands of them.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
14. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 22:00 · Score: 0
  
  why not send her to the prison so that she can enjoy some big hungry guys doing terrible things to her? Would this qualify as wellness or just punishment?
15. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by umghhh · 2015-03-04 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose all these other foreign ministers that she was talking to, should have made a documentary donation to US congress too or else get bombed into stone age as it should be, or?
16. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by umghhh · 2015-03-04 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  shooting the bastards outright is waste of ammunition - hang them!
17. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by ScentCone · 2015-03-04 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose all these other foreign ministers that she was talking to, should have made a documentary donation to US congress too or else get bombed into stone age as it should be, or?
  What ARE you talking about?
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
18. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by ScentCone · 2015-03-04 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  why not send her to the prison so that she can enjoy some big hungry guys doing terrible things to her? Would this qualify as wellness or just punishment?
  How about her party finally just acknowledge that she's not to be trusted, and stop presuming she's the next POTUS.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
19. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by david_thornley · 2015-03-05 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Since she handed over a large number of emails, there's no reason to conclude she didn't hand over all the ones she was required to hand over. Your assumption of illegality seems to be based on your belief that Clinton was a criminal, which is similar to what judges refer to as novel legal reasoning.
  You're also invited to say what Clinton did differently from her predecessors. We know Kerry is doing things differently, due to a change in the law.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
20. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by ScentCone · 2015-03-05 15:12 · Score: 2
  
  Since she handed over a large number of emails, there's no reason to conclude she didn't hand over all the ones she was required to hand over.
  No. The fact that she set up a home-brew system to avoid the State Department's record keeping in the first place, and the fact she's been stonewalling requests for official mail for years, and is her own gatekeeper on the message she decides State should be allowed to see - combine that with her long history of obfuscation, ethics problems, and working with her husband's supporters to engage in seriously sleazy tactics - the burden is very much on you to explain why you think her private stash has been delivered in whole and intact to State when everything in her history and everything about this entire scenario screams the exact opposite.
  
  In fact, to plow through her "official" mail (you know, the stuff she couldn't be troubled to mirror in her department's archiving system the way that the 2009 regulation required her to do), she used employees of her family's business - and that operation is funded in large part by big contributions from foreign governments and other entities from which she solicited money while she was wandering the world as Secretary of State.
  
  We know Kerry is doing things differently, due to a change in the law.
  Both Kerry and Clinton were subject to 2009's regulation. But you already know that.
  
  It is hilarious, though, to play back her nagging lectures about other people using private email at all, and to know that, for example, an ambassador from her department was given the axe for using private email.
  
  The fact that you seem to anxious to write off her behavior as completely reasonable says nothing about her, but a whole lot about your very strange world view.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
21. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by Coren22 · 2015-03-06 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  If you look up the line of this very thread, you will find me linking to the federal records retention laws.
  http://www.archives.gov/about/...
  The federal archives are the ones who store these records, even classified ones. They are also the ones who release records when the classification is no longer valid, for instance the records of the Roswell crash that were recently released.
  I have no idea however what the penalty is for breaking 44 U.S.C. Chapter 31. My opinion would be a ban from elected service, but that is me.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
22. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by david_thornley · 2015-03-08 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't been following this in detail myself, so what is that 2009 regulation you refer to? I know of the Presidential Records Act and its 2014 amendments, and that she did not violate those laws.
  I also know that you're prejudiced against her, since your arguments are largely based on her personality and your suspicions.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
23. Re:God Republicans are Stupid by ScentCone · 2015-03-08 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  so what is that 2009 regulation you refer to
  National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)'s 2009 requirements include Section 1236.22: "Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."
  
  Clinton did not do this. Congressional investigations (run by Democrats) into affairs like the Benghazi mess concluded - after interviews with her office, among others - that they'd reviewed all records at State that might bear on the matter. They didn't know, and Clinton completely avoided mentioning that all of her email at the time was conducted from a private server in her own house, and that the State Department had none of those records, since she hadn't disclosed their existence, or passed them along. She didn't hand over any email until she was told do, as fallout from the congress finding out about her secret, non-archived system.
  
  And now we find that there are large date-range gaps in what she provided to State. Including, of course dates that included her travel to Libya, during which she's famously pictured hammering away on her Blackberry. Shocking, huh.
  
  I also know that you're prejudiced against her, since your arguments are largely based on her personality and your suspicions.
  No, she has earned my distrust by her well-documented conduct during years of public life. Stonewalling for years on the provision of subpoenaed records from her Rose law firm ... only to have those records mysteriously materialize in a tidy stack in the White House residence much later. Her getting fired from her job during the Watergate investigation, specifically because of her unethical behavior. Her atrocious conduct during the "travelgate" mess in her husband's administration, and her refusal to disclose who was involved, on the public dime, in her husband's empowering of her to come up with a (catastrophically foolish, and of course completely spurned) replacement for the nation's health care system. It goes on and on. She has a well-documented track record of secrecy even as she preached transparency. This is just another incredible example of her terrible judgement and duplicitous behavior in her quest for power.
  
  The question isn't whether I'm biased, the question is how on earth you're not feeling the same way? What made you such a fan that you're willing to overlook all of that - was it her incredibly shrewd "reset" program with Russia, complete with cheesy button prop? Russians are probably still laughing themselves silly over that one. Or perhaps it was some other accomplishment? Please, name a few!
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Raul? by idontgno · 2015-03-04 05:13 · Score: 1

Raul Tejada?
Is that you?

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Theory by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 05:26 · Score: 0

Another theory is that someone shot him and buried him.
Maybe he ran away to America.
Spontaneous human combustion?
Stupid reasoning... by tekrat · 2015-03-04 06:08 · Score: 2

The jobs market is so bad in Mexico that thousands cross the border daily to get into the USA. The cartels would be better off setting up a dummy company and hiring IT guys to simply do the work, no questions asked.
Why go through all the extra trouble of kidnapping people and making them work? In the end, if they are smart, they'll figure a way to get out a message or screw you some other way. Much simpler and more secure to simply hire them.
Heck, they are IT guys. Get them a couple of hot women who don't mind getting naked and blow them, and those IT guys will do whatever you want. Much easier.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
1. Re:Stupid reasoning... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  You are the stupid.
  Hiring means that they have the intent to pay for the service. An abductee has to work for his life and his family.
2. Re:Stupid reasoning... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  Why go through all the extra trouble of kidnapping people and making them work?
  Because that's what they do? They have one toolkit in their toolbox and they use it. If they can do that and it works why the fuck would they bother with anything else?
Keep your friends close and your IT closer... by chaoskitty · 2015-03-04 06:19 · Score: 1

I get it - when someone knows some of your secrets and many of your weaknesses, you "keep" that someone indefinitely.
But Geek Squad? That's the most ridiculous comparison ever - no organization would keep around a bumbling wanna-be IT person who could just barely install Windows and would be lucky to finish a new installation without also installing a Trojan. No, if this guy were like the Geek Squad for a cartel, they'd have killed him pretty quickly when they realized he was completely useless.
close call by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 06:41 · Score: 0

I had interviewed and been offered his job after he went missing.. When i found out why the position was open i just hit that big NOPE!! button..
and maybe he was texting while drivig, by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-04 06:41 · Score: 0

and didn't see the big rock on the road.
Did you turn it off and on again? by net28573 · 2015-03-04 19:08 · Score: 1

Le pagastes y prendiste?

--
RIP TRICERATOPS, YOU NEVER EXISTED
or running an email server by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-05 06:44 · Score: 0

...for Hillary Clinton?
UHf gear? by iMactheKnife · 2015-03-05 09:40 · Score: 1

The antennas look like UHF gear, not cell phone gear. Same with the handi talkies.
Take our 457 visa workers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-06 01:13 · Score: 0

Why don't they just come over to the U.S and grab some of our 457 visa workers? Most of them have 10+ years in any technology you can name and don't mind being abused or working for peanuts anyway.
Horrible butchering of the guy's name by Smurf · 2015-03-15 01:58 · Score: 1

The poor guy's full name is Felipe de Jesús Pérez García, which is usually shortened to Felipe Pérez. TFS butchered both by calling him Felipe del Jesús Peréz García and Felipe García.
There are three errors in TFS's version. First: Felipe de Jesús means Philip of Jesus. The incorrect version, Felipe del Jesús means Philip of the Jesus and sounds even more absurd in Spanish than it does in English.
Second: It's not Peréz, it's Pérez. That means that the main emphasis is on the first syllable, not on the last one (regardless of how Perez Hilton pronounces his made-up name). Again, in Spanish the wrong version sounds... horribly wrong.
Finally: The complete surname of the guy is Pérez García. He got Pérez from his dad, just like people usually do in English, and he passed it to his own kids. García is his mother's maiden name. If you are going to contract the name, you drop the maternal surname, never the paternal one.