Talk:InfraGard

message: To add to article: . Badagnani (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: jim - AFAIK, in principle you should get your reply published in a WP:RS or find some other "reliable source" to support your claim that the shoot to kill policy for InfraGard members is false. Sooner or later a wikipedian may decide that your blog reply is not reliable enough. It's not my policy, it's community policy. For the moment, the reference to your blog will probably survive until someone decides that s/he is unhappy with it. Boud (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who put it into the article, I just put it here for discussion. Ah, I see you did.  I expect there will be some other media attention as a result of the Progressive article, and a followup with the sources cited in that article. Lippard (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Whistleblower: InfraGard members given permission to [[shoot to kill]]

message: This whole article, especially the last several paragraphs, reads like an ad for the program. Aaronlib (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: quoting: "Blogger Jim Lippard stated in his blog that he has been a "member of the Phoenix InfraGard Members Alliance for years" and denied the "shoot to kill" authorisation, stating that 'InfraGard members get no special "shoot to kill" or law enforcement powers of any kind'.[2]"
This reference is self-published. And doesn't seem to satisfy WP:RS. What is needed is a reliable third party source quoting Lippard, not Lippard quoting himself. I move we remove this sentence. de Bivort 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 9 days since I brought this up - I'll remove that soon, unless someone provides an objection. de Bivort 20:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that's appropriate.  You can now refer directly to the FBI's statement of response (available on the InfraGard website) as well as the UPI story that's now listed in the article. Lippard (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: FYI, there is no need for me to offer an explanation to support my blog being referenced in this article. I not only didn't add it, I endorsed its removal over a year and a half before you wrote this, just above. Lippard (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  reliable source 

message: Lippard's blog does not even come close to meeting Wikipedia guidelines. I'm removing it, unless the editor can explain why their non-notable blog should be added to this article. I've left the FBI's response, since it is clearly relevant and notable. Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, there is no need for me to offer an explanation to support my blog being referenced in this article. I not only didn't add it, I endorsed its removal over a year and a half before you wrote this, just above. Lippard (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: reliable source

message: I am removing the "Claims of The Progressive magazine" section since, "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources," as noted in WP:REDFLAG.
A good example of a debate about including  fringe conspiracy theories in articles can be found at the  FEMA discussion page. What was the verdict for a conspiracy theory that was much more known? It was determined that it had no place in the article. Additionally, the citation "FBI denies claims about InfraGard" does not exist and redirects to a completely different article. Additionally, there are no other sources citing the claim. This is a obvious failure of WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY.
The following wikipedia policies have rules/explanations why sections like are not included. They are listed:
* WP:FRNG
* WP:NOTABILITY
** WP:NRVE
** WP:NTEMP
* WP:NOT
* WP:VERIFY
** WP:REDFLAG
Once again, exceptional claims require high-quality sources. Until enough notable and verifiable sources emerge, this section should not be re-included. Xe7al (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theory Sections 

message: No mention that they were hacked by lulzsec via sql? 98.24.154.187 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The national InfraGard site was not hacked. It was a local chapter, of which there are over a hundred.  Each chapter sets up their own site, which is created by one of the members.  So, I'd say it's probably WP:UNDUE.  Morphh  (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lulzsec 

message: I believe since the 30s the FBI is forbidden explicitly to maintain any private affiliations by law. This law was introduced to maintain the independence of the FBI in view of the involvement of the mob with various private enterprises and unions and to prevent corruption.
Insofar I cannot see how a private affiliation of the FBI with a non-government body of non-government people would not be such a forbidden entanglement of the FBI with private bodies, be it for terrorism hunt or whatever purpose. Sounds like terrorism is a cause to drop all laws?
70.137.152.34 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTFORUM, in any case.. it's not a private affiliation, it's a public partnership.  Morphh  (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I guess to say it is a private organization may be misleading and could be reworded. It's not private parties. It's a public organization - anyone can join, but it is private in the sense that it's not government (public sector). It has an independent board elected by its members, which is assisted by an FBI employee as a coordinator of the program. I'm not sure how the article is incorrect. The organization does exist and it is affiliated with the FBI. Here is an article from the FBI.gov website from 2010 - A Partnership That Works. Morphh  (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The main site for an organization is acceptable as a reliable source about itself.  I only see two requests for sources.. sorry, that's not "full of fact tags".  I'll try to fill it some.   Morphh  (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Again, WP:NOTFORUM.. not sure what to tell you.  I'm not aware of the law that you mention, so can't speak to your interpretation.  Apparently, the DOJ believes otherwise.  I've been a member for over 10 years and it is nothing like you describe.  In any case, it has no bearing on the article at this point.  Morphh  (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Please provide the neutral and scholarly sources and we can consider adding them. Morphh  (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

text: We can only use the source if they mention Infragard and we can only use what is placed in context regarding that organization.  Anything else would be WP:OR and WP:SYN.  I have access to the last three.  We already include the ACLU publication and include criticism from it.  I can look at what else we can reference from the publication.  The Balkin paper only makes brief mention of the InfraGard with regard to "Moreover, the architecture of the Internet—and the many possible methods of attack— requires governments, corporations, and private parties to work together to protect network security and head off threats before they occur."  The Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies paper makes no mention of Infragard.  I don't have access to the Computer Fraud & Security article. Morphh  (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

text: It appears your pushing your preconceived thoughts of Stasi and McCarthyism on an organization you know little about.  The reason that such information is minimal is that there is little basis for it.  Any such source, like the ACLU, talks in the abstract regarding a "what if", with no evidence to back up the charge.  Reality is the FBI briefs members on emerging threats and the board leadership brings in industry experts to discuss security issues affecting the different industries.  Industry members get to talk to each other about the threats they're seeing, such as the Banks discussing phishing attacks.  There is no citizen spy conspiracy.  You don't need to be a member or a citizen to go to a meeting and see what it's about.  The membership, which includes a background check, is for sending out law enforcement sensitive information on direct threats to an industry in the United States.  What the FBI is doing is trying to get out information regarding the threats and create some trust so that businesses will report federal crimes.  Look, I'm libertarian minded myself. I get it, but you're starting to sound like a tin foil hat yourself and pushing into WP:FRINGE with an association fallacy.  The FBI does not task membership with any investigative interests.  The government has made a broad request to everyone that if they see something overly suspicious that could be a threat to national security to report it.  This is not limited to a select group or membership.  Morphh  (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Your knowledge about the organization and its membership is incorrect.  You stated: "If the discussion with industry would center itself on "security operating system kernels" and the like issues of security system design on a technical and scientific level I would feel better about it.  But the average sportsmen in Infragard or FBI are not OS designers or cryptographers or security researchers."  I live in North Carolina, where there are two Chapters.  The Charlotte chapter is hosted at Microsoft and often includes such technical discussions.  The organization started in computer security - last year's VP of the Chapter was the Dean of Computing and Informatics at UNCC.  The Raleigh Chapter is hosted at Cisco.  Jack Wiles, former board member, is at most meetings.  First hit on Google news shows a board member of the Northern Ohio InfraGard is a committee member for the Information Security Summit.  Most of the members are managers and top engineers at local Fortune 500 companies and include security researchers from the university - the board is picked form the top of those in their industry.  The FBI often brings in subject mater experts for a field, particularly in computer security.  I'd list my expansive pedigree but rather not for privacy reasons.  So I'm putting it kindly by saying you don't know what your talking about.  In any case, we will not be including WP:OR or WP:SYN in the article. Morphh  (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

text: It's one of the most technical organizations in the area that center around security.  What you claimed was that you know the membership makeup, which you don't. Obviously, the organization covers a wide range of security areas, so membership reflects many areas of security.  Last month the head of the DNC security team talked about securing the upcoming event and what businesses should expect.  Not security system design from a technology perspective, but something timely and important for the local businesses for physical security.  I'm not sure what makes one more acceptable than any number of security issues the organization presents or "centers around", so I'm not entirely sure of your point - in any case, it's moot.  As for the ACLU, their concerns are included in the lead, which is probably more WP:WEIGHT then it deserves given that it's a primary source presenting a viewpoint held by a tiny minority. Morphh  (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I don't have a source stating the opinion of the Supreme Court on Infragard.  In Wikipedia, the  opinion is based on its prominence and coverage in reliable sources.  The ACLU statements on Infragard have received little to no coverage in secondary reliable sources.  If you search for Infragard & ACLU in Google, Wikipedia is the first hit - not a good sign.  Searching Google News returns 0 hits.  Even in the ACLU paper itself, the coverage was minor.  So, the opinion presented by the ACLU about Infragard represents a very small minority in the overall coverage and content reported by reliable sources.  Morphh  (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

text: The Secret Service's "Electronic Crimes Task Force" might be a better group for providing information on those topics.  Morphh  (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a "Human Rights" section, which includes all the sources you provided.  We can't include specific criticism from some of them, so I used it as a brief transition to the ACLU concerns.  I added an additional sentence regard the ACLU, but also included the response from the Chairwoman of Infragard.  I also separated the section and expanded the LulzSec info.  In doing this, I summarized the lead to the general concern and the hacking attacks. Morphh  (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What, private affiliation of the FBI? WTF?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on InfraGard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606132545/http://gawker.com/5808517/lulzsec-hackers-go-after-fbi-affiliates to http://gawker.com/5808517/lulzsec-hackers-go-after-fbi-affiliates
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613111733/http://www.fbi.gov/page2/oct2006/infragard100406.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/page2/oct2006/infragard100406.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on InfraGard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617004540/http://www.infragard.net/media/files/dir_med.mov to http://www.infragard.net/media/files/dir_med.mov
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518063131/http://www.infragard.net/about.php to http://www.infragard.net/about.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on InfraGard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108161523/http://www.infragardmembers.org/modules/content/index.php?id=5 to http://www.infragardmembers.org/modules/content/index.php?id=5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717024915/http://www.infragard.net/member.php to https://www.infragard.net/member.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214072609/http://www.thiemeworks.com/write/archives/centerofattention.htm to http://www.thiemeworks.com/write/archives/centerofattention.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214022458/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/04/28/infragard/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/04/28/infragard/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified