Sheriff Slams EFF As 'Not Credible,' Insists ComputerCOP Isn't Malware & Would Have Stopped Columbine

from the say-what? dept

Thu, Oct 2nd 2014 1:10pm — Mike Masnick

Okay, so we thought the response from San Diego's District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis was pretty bad to the revelations about ComputerCOP. After all, she was responding to the news that she had purchased and distributed dangerous spyware masquerading as software to "protect the children" -- and the best she could come up with was that her "security" people still thought it would protect kids? But apparently Damanis has nothing on Sheriff Mike Blakely of Limestone County, Alabama.

Blakely, in a bit of unfortunate timing, just announced that his department had purchased 5,000 copies of the spyware earlier this week, so perhaps it's understandable that this "perfect election and fundraising tool" might actually turn into something of a liability. But Blakely's not going down without a fight. When presented with the news that he's proudly handing out tools that are making the children he's supposed to be protecting less safe, Blakely went with an ad hom the messenger approach, attacking EFF's credibility, and calling them "liberals."

Blakely referred to the EFF criticism politics as an "Ultra-liberal organization that is not in any way credible on this. They're more interested in protecting predators and pedophiles than in protecting our children."

Anyone even remotely familiar with EFF recognizes that basically every word in that statement is ridiculous, but what are you going to do? The idea that EFF isn't credible on security issues is laugh out loud funny (and, indeed, despite attending a conference and being in a room full of people, I literally laughed out loud upon reading it). However, Blakely insists his IT people are sure the software's fine:

"We have had the key logger checked out with our IT people. They have run it on our computer system." He said. "There is no malware."

Reread that a few times. "We had the key logger checked out... there is no malware." Dude. A keylogger is malware. That's what it does. From the description here, it sounds like his "IT people" ran some anti-malware software on the computer they installed ComputerCOP on, and because it didn't flag it, they insist it's not malware. But a keylogger is malware by definition. And the fact that this malware happens to pass unencrypted text, including passwords and credit card numbers, over the internet makes it really, really bad.

But don't tell that to Sheriff Blakely. He insists that ComputerCOP might have stopped Columbine. I'm not joking.

On the phone Wednesday he added "There are some parents out in Columbine Colorado, if they had this kind of software, things would have turned out differently."

That comment is so off it defies a coherent response.

Meanwhile, I'm sure that Sheriff Blakely's "IT People" are trustworthy, given that his website looks like it was designed in 1997 and hasn't been touched since. It even has a visitor counter and a "this site best viewed in Internet Explorer" badge. I'm not joking. And a scroll. The only thing it's missing is an under construction gif and the blink tag:

And, uh, note that text there:

You are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way, the content of these web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the site webmaster.

And there's a copyright notice below it. Of course, anyone who views the website has copied, downloaded, stored and transmitted the webpage in some manner -- so, I'm not quite sure what to do other than to say, that most of those demands are completely bogus and not based on any actual law. As for the copyright -- well, while technically only federal government works are exempt from copyright, and state and local governments can get a copyright in some fashion, it's generally not considered the appropriate role of government officials to be copyrighting official government works. Furthermore, in such cases, there would likely be a very strong presumption of fair use for a whole host of reasons.

Oh, but it gets worse. Not only are you not supposed to copy any of the text on Sheriff Blakely's website, the terms of service on his website say he might put you in jail if you do:

The unauthorized use, copy, or reproduction of any content of this site inclusive, may be punishable by both fine and imprisonment.

Under what legal theory is that happening? As a sheriff, aren't you supposed to, you know, actually know what the law is? Maybe work on that before slamming the good folks at EFF while distributing dangerous spyware that makes kids less safe. And find someone who's built a website in the last decade.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: computercop, keylogger, limestone county, malware, mike blakely
Companies: computercop, eff

84 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

Sorry, but...

The bashing on the web site's style, build, or organization detract from your point.

I do not see that a web site that " looks like it was designed in 1997 and hasn't been touched since" is a security issue, or a legal threats issue, or a Loudmouth Conservative Who Lashes Out issue. Really, I couldn't give two shakes about whether the site uses CSS, or AJAX, or what. It could be written in COBOL for all I care.

It isn't the website style that is important, it's what you do with the website.

—Anonymous Coward

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Peter (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:19pm

Wow...
That's just laugh-out-loud funny -- what more can be said?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mcinsand, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:54pm
  
  Re: Wow...
  In so many situations, the choice is whether to laugh or cry. I'm glad that you can manage the intelligence and wisdom to laugh, but I am still aghast.
  
  We are now beyond the crisis of having a police state; we now have an incompetent police state.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - New Mexico Mark, 3 Oct 2014 @ 6:18am
    
    Re: Re: Wow...
    Are you saying you'd prefer a competent police state?
    
    People bemoan how gridlock is preventing the federal government from getting anything done. Given the proclivities of those in power, that is the best we can hope for right now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:20pm

"Things would be different with columbine"
"On the phone Wednesday he added "There are some parents out in Columbine Colorado, if they had this kind of software, things would have turned out differently."

He's absolutely right. People would be assuming that this actually does something, and the result would have zero effect on whether their kids were safe. So yeah, the difference would be perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:13pm
  
  Re: "Things would be different with columbine"
  i'll just parasitize off of your post to remind kampers of this factoid: after columbine and the sheeple went apeshit (can sheep even *do* that?) at the behest of the propaganda masters stirring the pot to have us accept our handcuffs and barred rooms, there was ONE school district which did NOT follow lockstep and introduce metal detectors in their schools...
  do you know which school system?
  columbine...
  
  that's right, THE VERY VICTIMS were smart enough to know that installing metal detectors and going full swat on the schools was NOT the right approach and only fed fuel to the fire... AFTER suffering that tragedy, they STILL had the balls to REFUSE to turn THEIR school into a prison, because they understood the ramifications of such extreme -and useless- actions...
  
  good on you, columbinians, the only ones to show restraint and uncommon sense in the face of real horror...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uriel-238 (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 11:40pm
    
    Sheep going apeshit
    Sheep panicking because they found ape shit, indicating the presence of nearby apes?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:20pm

Sheriff Mike Blakely of Limestone County, Alabama
This isn't surprising. The systemic, persistent mediocrity (if I can dignify it by using that overly optimistic term) of the Alabama education system is bound to turn out ignorant hillbillies like this on a regular basis.

Let me predict that at some point in the next month we'll hear the same thing from Texas, the other southern bastion of ignorance and stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:28pm

As a sheriff, aren't you supposed to, you know, actually know what the law is?

Wouldn't that be nice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:32pm

ComputerCOP isn't the only malware they recommend. They also link to Adobe Reader on the bottom of their home page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:35pm

Huh, I thought for a minute I was visiting TheOnion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:38pm

Thanks for the nice write-up. we have some stoo pids in our backwards county.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:39pm

"Unauthorized modification of this site in any way may result in criminal prosecution."

F12, the gateway drug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:42pm

I gave it to my nephew who is good with all that computer stuff and he said it was okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:42pm

All though this stumbling and bumbling about supporting this terrible software, I am yet to hear anything coming from it's supporters about who reviews what lands on a 3ʳᵈ party server. The real question in my mind is who has access to this data coming in? It's not encrypted so anyone can read it.

Given the mentality of a government that absolutely must spy on it's own citizens and then turn around and claim everything is legal, I have to question if the sheriff, the San Diego District Attorney, or anyone else in law enforcement can also access that data?

Is the reason they are supporting it because otherwise they will look bad or is it this is a new method not to have to get a warrant to obtain info they shouldn't have access to otherwise?

Either way makes them not only look terrible in the eyes of the public just before voting time but the other way makes it look like there is no respect for the law at all, even though both these supporters have a job on the public dime to do so.

Add to this ignorance of what spyware does and is and you have to back up and question are these the right people to hold the jobs they are presently in? No wonder we have so many people in jails from the general population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:32pm
  
  Re:
  I can answer your first paragraph -- as it's sent in the clear, it doesn't really matter which server it lands on; every routing point it touches en-route also has full access to the data. So in answer to your question: the following people have access to the data:
  The owners of the software and their employees
  Anyone these people decide to share the data with
  LEOs and other government employees, sometimes without a warrant
  Anyone who breaks into the server
  Anyone who gets a copy of the backups
  Anyone who touches the data's route, including people working at ISPs, people who have compromised the routers, etc.
  
  Beyond that, this software is also an attack point for malware, so you can add "anyone who is infected by OTHER malware" to that list, even though this isn't really an issue, as they can always install their own keylogger if this one's not already in place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:44pm

best line from the local news coverage:
The EFF has fought against phone companies helping investigators track terrorists and against laws to stop online piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ottermaton (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re: best line from the local news coverage:
  Wow. They're not even pretending to try to appear impartial.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re: best line from the local news coverage:
  What a disgrace to journalism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- steell (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re: best line from the local news coverage:
  18 words, and you say nothing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:48pm

"If we don't understand or agree with something, it caused Columbine. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:50pm

ultra-liberal?
I really think Sheriffs & Attorney Generals shouldn't vocalize their disdain for those of different political persuasions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re: ultra-liberal?
  I assume that he was using the political extremists codebook. If you're a conservative extremist, anyone you don't agree with is an "ultra-liberal", and if you're a liberal extremist, anyone you don't agree with is an "ultra-conservative".
  
  When I see those terms used, I just mentally replace them with "asshole", since that's what's really meant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:38pm
    
    Re: Re: ultra-liberal?
    Mentally labeling the speaker of such terms as an asshole is more appropriate in this case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 5:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: ultra-liberal?
      True enough. I was just translating the message the speaker was intending. Personally, this is one of those red flags that causes me to immediately dismiss the speaker as not credible.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 1:53pm

lakely went with an ad hom the messenger approach, attacking EFF's credibility, and calling them "liberals."

Wait, I thought "liberals" were the interfering nanny types. Oh well, just another example showing "liberal" means "something I don't like because reasons".

"We have had the key logger checked out with our IT people. They have run it on our computer system." He said. "There is no malware."

Guess who else's IT security types are teh suck.

Although I would argue that a keylogger in itself is not malware, but this package as designed and as it is intended to be deployed certainly is. If nothing else, it is very badly designed software that is unsafe at any speed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:50pm
  
  Re:
  EFF actually is ultra-liberal in the words real sense. Liberalism = freedom from interference particularly from governments and rigid societal structures, if you go back to Locke. One of the most liberal things you can get is the constitution since it supplies basic freedoms from legislation...
  
  "Real conservatives" are against change in values and economy. If a change is needed it has to happen slowly or to preserve the existing.
  
  Reactionaries are for change towards how things were in the "good old days", both in terms of values and in terms of legislation.
  
  Socialists are for change towards more equality in society.
  
  Now, in a time of internationalism the words get twisted and turned to serve as a negative or positive thing, but in reality neither actually holds true if you go to the core ideological reasoning.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re:
  The IT guys checked it out. They said it was OK. And to prove it, I just did my banking on that machine.
  
  By the way, where's that IT guy? And why is my bank account empty...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:32pm
  
  Re:
  The sheriff must be one of those people who extols the virtues of 'small gubbermen' but has a massive hard-on for the War on Drugs and militarization of police.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:00pm

The pedophile and terrorist cards are getting played an awful lot this week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 11:37pm
  
  Pedophile and terrorist cards...
  There's something of a joke within the TOR crown that TOR is used by pedophiles and terrorists ("so which one are you?").
  
  Remember that the USENET alt.* heirarchy was named not after alternative but as an acronym for Anarchists, Lunatics, and Terrorists, the folks in most need of free speech, recognizing that if a place was free enough for them to talk, that the rest of us could do so.
  
  Thanks to 9/11, and thanks to the 1990s pedo scare (really a media bonanza after the 70s Satanic Ritual Abuse panic), the joke has earned something of a too soon status, so you can't endorse TOR or any other popular crypto the way alt.* was endorsed, but the idea is the same: If a tool is used by persecuted sexual fetishists and unpopular policitial ideological activists to discuss their trades, it's probably safe enough to keep your companys ledgers safe from the prying eyes of rival companies... or from government agencies who would give your data to them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just Another Anonymous Troll, 3 Oct 2014 @ 6:30am
  
  Re:
  Perhaps they will play both at the same time. "Give up your civil liberties or else pedophile terrorists will simultaneously abuse and kill your children!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:14pm

Law abiding Sheriff
I am so glad that Sheriff Blakeley adheres to the the law when he bought the software (copyright you know) with taxpayers dollars yet is willing to put keyloggers on 5000 peoples er taxpayers computers. Does this not violate the CFAA, or some other law?

Sheriff Blakeley (I presume elected) has chosen to electively enforce laws. What other laws does he enforce, or elect not to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 3 Oct 2014 @ 6:34am
  
  Re: Law abiding Sheriff
  I am so glad that Sheriff Blakeley adheres to the the law when he bought the software (copyright you know) with taxpayers dollars yet is willing to put keyloggers on 5000 peoples er taxpayers computers.
  
  He's giving it to people to put on their own computers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
owain, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:16pm

Let's look at the source code...
meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re: Let's look at the source code...
  That's hilarious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BentFranklin (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 5:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Let's look at the source code...
    Actually, I think we should stop making fun of naive peoples' websites. It comes across the wrong way, like "Hey, you're ugly!" It might be ok in comments, but I feel a little uncomfortable reading that in the main article.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 3 Oct 2014 @ 2:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Let's look at the source code...
      It's a comment on how 'backward' their IT skills are. If this was just another hillbilly militarised police force article, that would be one thing, but this article specifically is about the sheriff's technical ineptitude and that of his 'IT guys'. So yes, having a web page that looks nearly 20 years out of date doesn't exactly fill one with confidence about his IT staff, nor on the sheriff's technical 'savvy'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 3 Oct 2014 @ 3:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Let's look at the source code...
      "It comes across the wrong way, like "Hey, you're ugly!" It might be ok in comments"
      
      No, it says "these guys are trying to tell us how technology works, but their public face bears no relationship to modern technology". Given that this is all the direct access most people would have with them outside of their direct jurisdiction, it's not a good sign.
      
      It would be like someone telling you how to use typography, or how you should be taking care of your front lawn. It wouldn't be out or order to point out that their latest ad campaign was hideous or that their frontage looks like it was transported straight from the Amazon.
      
      If that was the *only* argument, then fair enough. But, there's plenty of other things to address at the same time - the website just gives us a quick view as to how serious about technology they really are.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Oct 2014 @ 5:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Let's look at the source code...
      Actually, I think we should stop making fun of naive peoples' websites. It comes across the wrong way, like "Hey, you're ugly!" It might be ok in comments, but I feel a little uncomfortable reading that in the main article.
      
      Considering part of the article was concerning the technical competence of his IT people, I think it was entirely appropriate and I stand by it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BentFranklin (profile), 3 Oct 2014 @ 6:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's look at the source code...
        Okay, but there was also another article recently with the same tack and I stand by my opinion that, all else equal, it comes across as piling on.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - art guerrilla (profile), 3 Oct 2014 @ 6:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Let's look at the source code...
      @ bent-
      even though i am first in line to mercilessly mock my adversaries (and my allies, too, actually, hhh), i *kind of* agree with you here...
      there is enough to not like about the situation that getting snarky about the web site design is kind of piling on...
      
      on the other paw, i see the point of the situation, where THEY are claiming technological expertise, and then have crap web sites...
      
      so, perhaps there is a moral reason to excoriate them for that, but i think to non-techies it could seem petty and/or besides the point (even if it isn't)...
      rhetorically: justified; tactically: perhaps offputting
      
      just sayin'...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JP Jones (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 4:09pm
  
  Re: Let's look at the source code...
  Let's look at the source code...
  
  IT Guys: Wait, you can do that!? I thought I compiled that website! You must have violated the CFAA for unauthorized access to a computer system!
  
  Rest of Internet: /facepalm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jahnitu, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:23pm

You all seem to have missed the best part
They stated: "They have run it on our computer system." - that is, they installed a keylogger on the computer system of the sheriff department and had everything they typed transferred in the clear over the open internet on to a third party server.

Or do I get this wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:37pm
  
  Re: You all seem to have missed the best part
  That's the part that made ME laugh.
  
  I bet this is done by most police departments who try this out, too. That's got to be one treasure trove ComputerCOP's sitting on. I wonder how many departments forget to remove the software after testing it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:41pm
    
    Re: Re: You all seem to have missed the best part
    Given the nature of that software, I would not trust it to remove itself, so a re-install would be in order to make sure that it is gone.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lord_Unseen (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:48pm
  
  Re: You all seem to have missed the best part
  Sounds about right to me. Limestone County Sheriff's Office, prepare for a security audit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:58pm
  
  Re: You all seem to have missed the best part
  Where did the pension fund go???
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 4:53pm
  
  Re: You all seem to have missed the best part
  Clearly this sheriff's office is very transparent and not filled with encryption using pedofiles.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patrick, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:23pm

Well you can certainly tell who's side the local news is on, they are not even subtle about it. Also, watching the WAFF video, aside from the monitors the news room and the reporter seem to be trapped in the 80's. I guess the whole county is stuck in a time warp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 10:30pm
  
  Re:
  I live here. Yes, they are stuck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
lord binky, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:32pm

What they're saying is 'please indoctrinate your children to government monitoring of their every activity for us', because if you as a parent accept it then the child will believe it's just normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:39pm
  
  Re:
  Oh no... it's not government monitoring: it's a private company that's mishandling private data this time. The government is just encouraging it.
  
  I wonder if the local government gets a kickback from the company for all installs done in their remit?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - art guerrilla (profile), 3 Oct 2014 @ 7:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    you don't think the NSA is plucking ALL this crap out of the aether ? ? ?
    besides, as you mention, MERELY the 'private' korporations who collect this shit, are -in some ways- MORE worrisome than gummint entities since they are not (THEORETICALLY) restrained in some of their usage and dissemination as (THEORETICALLY) gummint agencies would be...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
K. Guinn, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:37pm

Well...
...it was authored with FrontPage 6.0. Not only does it use FRAMES (gasp!), but look at the source for one of them, and you will see:

So, that would fall into the Office 2003 range...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:42pm

Sorry, but...
The bashing on the web site's style, build, or organization detract from your point.

I do not see that a web site that " looks like it was designed in 1997 and hasn't been touched since" is a security issue, or a legal threats issue, or a Loudmouth Conservative Who Lashes Out issue. Really, I couldn't give two shakes about whether the site uses CSS, or AJAX, or what. It could be written in COBOL for all I care.

It isn't the website style that is important, it's what you do with the website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re: Sorry, but...
  I do not see that a web site that " looks like it was designed in 1997 and hasn't been touched since" is a security issue
  
  It is if the same era operating system is powering it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 5:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Sorry, but...
    Extended support Windows 2003 worth notoriously insecure front page extensions.
    
    http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.limestonesheriff.com/
    
    They have less than a year before support on their is OS is dropped.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:06pm
  
  Re: Sorry, but...
  It speaks to the technical ability of his office, himself included, to discredit the statements made from their "position of authority."
  
  Meanwhile, I'm sure that Sheriff Blakely's "IT People" are trustworthy
  
  Thats how that section is prefaced. To me, as a citizen, that website shows a lack of *current* technical skills. Since we're talking about security, anything but current is anything but secure.
  
  It doesn't distract, it makes the point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JP Jones (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 4:59pm
  
  Re: Sorry, but...
  The website was designed using software that was discontinued prior to 2003. Anyone who understands even the basics of computer security knows that the older software is the more exploits and flaws have been discovered in the interim. Sure, new software can (and does) have security issues, sometimes more than old software, but in general any older link in an update chain (like Microsoft Office) is going to be weaker than a new link.
  
  So if you're releasing a product that has security implications, like one with a freaking keylogger built-in, it had better be up-to-date with the latest security protocols. The fact that the company either hasn't updated or is still using tools from before 2003 does not bode well for the actual software they're creating.
  
  Web design is easy compared to software development, and they put zero effort into it. Let me ask you something...if you were to bring your valuables into a bank, and they didn't have an ATM, they told you they couldn't accept debit cards because they didn't have any readers, they were using typewriters behind the counter, and they locked the front door with a chain, would you keep your money there? Or would you argue that the bank's lack of modernization doesn't detract from their security, it's what they do with it that's important?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 5:28pm
  
  Re: Sorry, but...
  Actually no, it's very relevant.
  
  It's like saying you have a degree in mathematics, then as proof of you knowing what you're talking about you bring out a counting exercise from your days in kindergarten, drawn in crayon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Elagna, 2 Oct 2014 @ 9:51pm
  
  Re: Sorry, but...
  I disagree. The shambling state of their website shows just how technically inept their "IT" department is when it comes to reviewing software of ANY kind.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 3 Oct 2014 @ 8:42am
  
  Re: Sorry, but...
  "I do not see that a web site that " looks like it was designed in 1997 and hasn't been touched since" is a security issue"
  
  It indicates a strong probability that there are major security issues. If the page hasn't changed since '97, that means that their IT department is not terribly interested in maintaining their stuff. Unmaintained stuff is a major security problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 2:49pm

Caught!
Look, these cops are obviously way out of their league here.

Now, there's 2 things they can do. Either get angry that they were misled (which is an admission they are gullible), or keep insisting that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong (which is an admission they are thick).

But neither is going to remedy that they look stupid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:05pm

Next they will want to require by law that everyone installs this software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nathanael McDaniel (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:08pm

*clears figurative throat*
"This site is best viewed with"

Sheriff Blakely, I have violated your so-called "Terms of Use" by using the preceding text, your name, and the words, "Terms of Use". I live outside of your jurisdiction. Happy hunting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ottermaton (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:09pm

I do not see that a web site that " looks like it was designed in 1997 and hasn't been touched since" is a security issue ..."

That's because you don't understand securi...wait! Is that you Sheriff Blakely? Or one of your "IT specialists?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:12pm

I think Sherriff Blakely thinks he is a limestone cowboy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re:
  http://www.limestonesheriff.com/images/AMLA%20Peak%20Award%20small.jpg
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DocGerbil100 (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:31pm

0_o
I wouldn't normally comment on an article like this, but I clicked on the link and sweet living Jesus, that's the most agonisingly-antiquated website I have ever fucking seen! A-ha ha ha! It's like the Plan 9 From Outer-Space of online government services. Even my country's Employment Service has better web design than this. :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jim, 3 Oct 2014 @ 4:59am
  
  Re: 0_o
  I think everyone is missing the obvious. For this website to be up, they have a currently employed it person...do I hear " badda boom". Don't blame the sherrif for keeping the mayors son, or the local tech head off the streets.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zonker, 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:33pm

Why, just last week the Sheriff's IT people checked out this so called "Melissa" e-mail from one of their friends. They opened the attachment using the department standard Office 97 software and concluded there is no malware. They did want to spend more time checking out the attached list of passwords in their office though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
connermac725 (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:40pm

Sherriff Barney Fife
O crap sorry Barney you might be smarter than this fool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
connermac725 (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:42pm

On second Thought
Maybe if we had this on his, and his deputies devices we could prevent another Ferguson?
Hey sheriff how about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 3:58pm

EFF should sue.
EFF should sue the crap out of this guy. IANAL, but those statments seam libelous as can be. Makes me f'ing cringe. I donate to EFF- even have them as a major benefactor in my will. How many ignorant fools out there are in positions of power who would think me a pedo & terrorist supporter?! F pedo's and terrorists, and F this guy. EFF is one of the most truly American entities of I know of- it embodies the spirit of independent freedom, genuine civil rights, and functional democracy, not to mention common sense and decency; the sort of thing this country used to be all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kronomex, 2 Oct 2014 @ 4:08pm

He's not related to Sheriff Buford T. Justice by any chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 4:30pm
  
  Re:
  More likely related to Sheriff Justice's son.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 4:19pm

How I imagine the Sheriff's statement.
"Well they told me some higidibob about it sending all your information out for everyone with those modern computer things to see. I took it as it worked perfectly since parents are included in everyone... and I use a typewriter myself"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 5:02pm

That site's a real blast from the past. All it needs is a guestbook and a webring and it'd be perfect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 6:49pm

License to Kill
And this guy's got a gun a license to kill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 10:33pm
  
  Re: License to Kill
  It's worse than that. In Alabama the sheriff is the person you get your concealed carry permit from.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2014 @ 7:47pm

WTF
"They're more interested in protecting predators and pedophiles than in protecting our children"

Defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 2 Oct 2014 @ 11:19pm

They had top men on the job.
Top. Men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2014 @ 3:44am

I did have a good laugh reading this article. I found the Sheriff's remarks to be absurd. All credibility was lost once I saw that ugly yellow webpage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mrhuh (profile), 3 Oct 2014 @ 9:05am

Let's just cut to the core; Gov. monitored cameras in all house's
"Good Morning Jim, did you hear about Bob?". Jim looks up from his cup of coffee; "No, what happened"? "Well, seems that Bob and his wife covered the Gov. hall camera last night and with the kids and all "Think of the Children, Praise the Children", it took 15 minutes for the SWAT team to get to the house and break in the door, seems they didn't see Bobby Jr. having a snack, he was shot 52 times when he looked at them." "Once they blew through the bedroom door, they had a hard time dragging the bleeding wife out by her hair, she was resisting of course, so they had to beat her into not resisting" "Of course" Jim commented. "Bob is in the hospital, they think he should be out of his coma in a few days so they can charge him and he should probably be able to talk in a few months, with the broken jaw and all. His other 2 kids were put into immediate foster homes, "Praise the Children, It's all about the Children". They seized the house and everything they owned" "Of course, Of course" Jim said. "Well, thats the 4th incident this week, at this rate we won't be able to keep up with the next batch." The boys take old flags and copies of the constitution and make toilet paper paper out of it, might as well do physically what 's being done metaphorically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]