Q and A Interview with new AHP head coach Mike Smith

[Severino]

I noticed when GSB posted my IP address on the other site he seemed to be triggered by my post in another thread here that showed a copy of a certain check.

Now, if you check the URL of image you'll notice it is from usatodaynetwork.com, hardly any sort of private information especially since it was given to the reporter by Leroy Johnson Jr. himself for an article on COF Academy.  My point is that GSB "LOL'ed" the fact that the check is dated three years prior to COF.  So, what I'm wondering is if GSB and Amy Dash would like to opine on the significance of this check as it relates to COF/BS.

[res ipsa loquitur]

5 hours ago, golfaddict1 said:

@res ipsa loquitur thoughts?   Thx.  @Testadurais an attorney I believe 

Sorry I haven't been following this thread. What is the gist of the legal questions?

[Cossacks]

4 hours ago, OldTerrapin said:

 

2 hours ago, golfaddict1 said:

Flashback:   Dad driving his Buick Century '76 with a long antenna.   He had a phase      I was the nerd doing the breaker 19 for a 10-36 every time we'd leave a LL practice, pizza joint, etc.   There's always one lol.  

Just threw on Spotify Daily Mix 2 and what just popped up…

 

[World Citizen]

8 hours ago, FreeBird said:

Damn you like a genius or some sort

Yes he is compared to you.  Why are you even here anymore?  Not that I expect a answer, or an honest one but like attracts like and you should go there to stay.  IMHO

[golfaddict1]

2 hours ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

Sorry I haven't been following this thread. What is the gist of the legal questions?

@HawgGoneIt?    

[FreeBird]

4 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

Yes he is compared to you.  Why are you even here anymore?  Not that I expect a answer, or an honest one but like attracts like and you should go there to stay.  IMHO

Lay off the Mad Dog 

[HawgGoneIt]

11 hours ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

Sorry I haven't been following this thread. What is the gist of the legal questions?

There are several potential legal issues at question here. 

For one, the podcasts that have been posted on this site came from another site. For instance the podcast from the other thread has an interview between a couple of posters/staff from another site, and is supposed to be a Q&A between members on that site and a coach. They announce for instance, first question is from Jeff-Hawgoneit. However Hawgoneit isn't a member of that site and never asked a question for the coach. He also never told the guy or publicly posted his name is Jeff, however, it's used in combination with a screenname. 

Just taking that one alone, because it includes myself... They then bring the podcast over here and post it with the line... listen and learn. 

What is Hawgoneit supposed to take from that? He learned that they claimed he asked a question on a website he isnt a member of and he learned that they know what his name is apparently. 

Feels like intimidation, stalking and harassment to me. It may not cross any legal thresholds to violate any laws, but, feels like there was some intent there to show Hawgoneit they maybe know something about him and either coerce him to join and say something or be fearful or something. 

Then, there is a question about guests lurking on that site that haven't joined there, having their IP addresses announced, and also combined with their screen name from this site. I know people from the members group on this site can't see IP addresses of other members or people in the online list who aren't logged in or aren't members. The latter two show up in the online list as "guests" along with their IP. Only staff on this site has access to that information. 

Point being, there isn't a good explanation as to how he knows a "guest" in his online list is a person from this site without having access to their IP and screen name here somehow. As far as I know, three people have access to that information, and none of these three are the guy putting screen name with IP on that other site. Businesses track IPs legally in aggregate, with no other identifying information connected. It's not legal to track someone's movement on the internet outside of that aggregate type of tracking. Person to person tracking is illegal. Tracking a persons movement from this site to that site for instance seems a lot like stalking and as best as I can tell is definitely illegal. Then posting that information publicly in an attempt to coerce or intimidate that person also seems like it's crossing some legal lines as well. Almost certainly is, although proving intent could be difficult, until you start combining it with a lot of the other stuff going on for instance. Also history between those people and the ones having their info posted is archived here. 

IPs in general are a grey area. They are considered public information as they are available to any computer your computer connects to. However, once you start combining these addresses with more information it becomes closely akin to doxxing, or an invitation for others to do so by posting it for public consumption. 

I think people are wondering if what has been going on as far as this activity I just somewhat explained is actually illegal. Me personally have mostly made up my mind some laws have been broken. Person to person IP tracking being one. Harassment, intimidation and cyberstalking potentially as well with the crossing from one site to the other with these information tidbits on podcasts

From my standpoint as staff on this website, I now have legitimate concerns about the safety of our personal information, and have my interest peaked into what I should do in order to stop potentially illegal activity from occurring due to information that seems like it had to have been gathered illegally from here. 

My kneejerk reaction is to just take what I know so far to the proper authorities. I feel like if laws have been broken then they'll let me know at that time. I won't be embarrassed to take this all to them even if no laws have been broken. I certainly feel like something screwy has went on with people's personal info and am leaning toward that is the proper course of action. 

What say you?

 

[RedZone]

11 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

There are several potential legal issues at question here. 

For one, the podcasts that have been posted on this site came from another site. For instance the podcast from the other thread has an interview between a couple of posters/staff from another site, and is supposed to be a Q&A between members on that site and a coach. They announce for instance, first question is from Jeff-Hawgoneit. However Hawgoneit isn't a member of that site and never asked a question for the coach. He also never told the guy or publicly posted his name is Jeff, however, it's used in combination with a screenname. 

Just taking that one alone, because it includes myself... They then bring the podcast over here and post it with the line... listen and learn. 

What is Hawgoneit supposed to take from that? He learned that they claimed he asked a question on a website he isnt a member of and he learned that they know what his name is apparently. 

Feels like intimidation, stalking and harassment to me. It may not cross any legal thresholds to violate any laws, but, feels like there was some intent there to show Hawgoneit they maybe know something about him and either coerce him to join and say something or be fearful or something. 

Then, there is a question about guests lurking on that site that haven't joined there, having their IP addresses announced, and also combined with their screen name from this site. I know people from the members group on this site can't see IP addresses of other members or people in the online list who aren't logged in or aren't members. The latter two show up in the online list as "guests" along with their IP. Only staff on this site has access to that information. 

Point being, there isn't a good explanation as to how he knows a "guest" in his online list is a person from this site without having access to their IP and screen name here somehow. As far as I know, three people have access to that information, and none of these three are the guy putting screen name with IP on that other site. Businesses track IPs legally in aggregate, with no other identifying information connected. It's not legal to track someone's movement on the internet outside of that aggregate type of tracking. Person to person tracking is illegal. Tracking a persons movement from this site to that site for instance seems a lot like stalking and as best as I can tell is definitely illegal. Then posting that information publicly in an attempt to coerce or intimidate that person also seems like it's crossing some legal lines as well. Almost certainly is, although proving intent could be difficult, until you start combining it with a lot of the other stuff going on for instance. Also history between those people and the ones having their info posted is archived here. 

IPs in general are a grey area. They are considered public information as they are available to any computer your computer connects to. However, once you start combining these addresses with more information it becomes closely akin to doxxing, or an invitation for others to do so by posting it for public consumption. 

I think people are wondering if what has been going on as far as this activity I just somewhat explained is actually illegal. Me personally have mostly made up my mind some laws have been broken. Person to person IP tracking being one. Harassment, intimidation and cyberstalking potentially as well with the crossing from one site to the other with these information tidbits on podcasts

From my standpoint as staff on this website, I now have legitimate concerns about the safety of our personal information, and have my interest peaked into what I should do in order to stop potentially illegal activity from occurring due to information that seems like it had to have been gathered illegally from here. 

My kneejerk reaction is to just take what I know so far to the proper authorities. I feel like if laws have been broken then they'll let me know at that time. I won't be embarrassed to take this all to them even if no laws have been broken. I certainly feel like something screwy has went on with people's personal info and am leaning toward that is the proper course of action. 

What say you?

 

What do we really know about this dntn31 guy?

 

 

[HawgGoneIt]

1 hour ago, RedZone said:

What do we really know about this dntn31 guy?

 

 

I know he no longer has access at this point. I know I didn't give out info. I know that Prep didn't. 

He usually goes on sabbatical during the off season. I hate to suggest or think he did any info transfers, but, the problem has become, we don't know how it happened. 

There's some things we can do, that I think are being done as far as checking logs as to when these profiles have logged in, and if its usually the same device logging in to them. We've been checking to make sure no subgroups accidentally had any special permissions, IE the coach profiles that a certain someone has been known to log into and operate. 

[HawgGoneIt]

Only staff has special permissions. You can go to the staff page and see everyone on that subgroup. During the last few years, only three of us have had special permissions. A couple I think briefly had it and lost it. 

We discussed ECHS05 profile occasionally logging in and having a shield by his name, but, not appearing on the staff subgroup yesterday. There are no special permissions attached to that profile, so, maybe a glitch left the shield when tools were given and then removed. That's being looked into as well. 

Just a little bit about what's being done behind the scenes. 

I try not to take a lot of stuff very seriously on here at all, but, personal information and site security have to be taken very seriously. For instance, seriously enough to turn over this activity to the authorities if need be. We're potentially talking about federal crimes here. 

 

 

[HawgGoneIt]

I take that back. That profile is still in the staff directory, so, unsure if it still has special permissions. I was under the impression those were going to be removed, and they may or may not have yet. 

[golfaddict1]

19 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I take that back. That profile is still in the staff directory, so, unsure if it still has special permissions. I was under the impression those were going to be removed, and they may or may not have yet. 

@ECHS05was totally into HSFB and focusing intensely on the GA performances vs. CalPreps predictions and shared the data.   Then Freeman boosts GA and he's MIA...  You can't make this stuff up.  

I forgot my Animal House quotes... but what was it, double top secret probation?     That's his status now.   

[HawgGoneIt]

5 minutes ago, golfaddict1 said:

@ECHS05was totally into HSFB and focusing intensely on the GA performances vs. CalPreps predictions and shared the data.   Then Freeman boosts GA and he's MIA...  You can't make this stuff up.  

I forgot my Animal House quotes... but what was it, double top secret probation?     That's his status now.   

Well, most people here are here about hsfb. Apparently not all of us have the best intentions in mind for the others of us even though we hold the same passions for sports. 

We've seen some crap activity over the past couple of years, and, of course a lot of it in the past few days. 

It ain't pretty for sure. It's stressful worrying about whether people that shouldn't be, are accessing our personal information, and for what reason they're doing so. How they are doing it and etc.

 

[OldTerrapin]

11 minutes ago, golfaddict1 said:

@ECHS05was totally into HSFB and focusing intensely on the GA performances vs. CalPreps predictions and shared the data.   Then Freeman boosts GA and he's MIA...  You can't make this stuff up.  

I forgot my Animal House quotes... but what was it, double top secret probation?     That's his status now.   

 

[HawgGoneIt]

ECHS just kind of faded after his apparent big win over Cal Preps. I think he proved out his purpose and left on top. I always liked the guy even if his arguments became pretty monotonous at times. 

He does occasionally check in though, which is how I noticed the shield with his screen name. My first move having seen that was to the staff directory to see if he was listed, which he wasn't. 

It doesn't make sense to have a profile that never or rarely logs in to have tools that can access personal info. If we aren't seeing them often, being active, it's easy for a profile like that to get opened, go straight into the tool kit, and it all happen stealthily and unnoticed. Then suddenly you start seeing info leaks and drops, perhaps not different than these that we've seen recently. Not saying that's what happened here, but, realizing that it certainly could. 

[maxchoboian]

15 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

ECHS just kind of faded after his apparent big win over Cal Preps. I think he proved out his purpose and left on top. I always liked the guy even if his arguments became pretty monotonous at times. 

He does occasionally check in though, which is how I noticed the shield with his screen name. My first move having seen that was to the staff directory to see if he was listed, which he wasn't. 

It doesn't make sense to have a profile that never or rarely logs in to have tools that can access personal info. If we aren't seeing them often, being active, it's easy for a profile like that to get opened, go straight into the tool kit, and it all happen stealthily and unnoticed. Then suddenly you start seeing info leaks and drops, perhaps not different than these that we've seen recently. Not saying that's what happened here, but, realizing that it certainly could. 

I think ECHS had a child about 4 years ago. In Benjamin Button fashion, that young boy matriculated to the band at Georgia Tech and North Gwinnett HS.

Haven't heard much from his son lately much either.

[OldTerrapin]

1 minute ago, maxchoboian said:

I think ECHS had a child about 4 years ago. In Benjamin Button fashion, that young boy matriculated to the band at Georgia Tech and North Gwinnett HS.

Haven't heard much from his son lately much either.

 

oh yeah the band kid from NG.. He was funny

[res ipsa loquitur]

13 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said:

There are several potential legal issues at question here. 

For one, the podcasts that have been posted on this site came from another site. For instance the podcast from the other thread has an interview between a couple of posters/staff from another site, and is supposed to be a Q&A between members on that site and a coach. They announce for instance, first question is from Jeff-Hawgoneit. However Hawgoneit isn't a member of that site and never asked a question for the coach. He also never told the guy or publicly posted his name is Jeff, however, it's used in combination with a screenname. 

Just taking that one alone, because it includes myself... They then bring the podcast over here and post it with the line... listen and learn. 

What is Hawgoneit supposed to take from that? He learned that they claimed he asked a question on a website he isnt a member of and he learned that they know what his name is apparently. 

Feels like intimidation, stalking and harassment to me. It may not cross any legal thresholds to violate any laws, but, feels like there was some intent there to show Hawgoneit they maybe know something about him and either coerce him to join and say something or be fearful or something. 

Then, there is a question about guests lurking on that site that haven't joined there, having their IP addresses announced, and also combined with their screen name from this site. I know people from the members group on this site can't see IP addresses of other members or people in the online list who aren't logged in or aren't members. The latter two show up in the online list as "guests" along with their IP. Only staff on this site has access to that information. 

Point being, there isn't a good explanation as to how he knows a "guest" in his online list is a person from this site without having access to their IP and screen name here somehow. As far as I know, three people have access to that information, and none of these three are the guy putting screen name with IP on that other site. Businesses track IPs legally in aggregate, with no other identifying information connected. It's not legal to track someone's movement on the internet outside of that aggregate type of tracking. Person to person tracking is illegal. Tracking a persons movement from this site to that site for instance seems a lot like stalking and as best as I can tell is definitely illegal. Then posting that information publicly in an attempt to coerce or intimidate that person also seems like it's crossing some legal lines as well. Almost certainly is, although proving intent could be difficult, until you start combining it with a lot of the other stuff going on for instance. Also history between those people and the ones having their info posted is archived here. 

IPs in general are a grey area. They are considered public information as they are available to any computer your computer connects to. However, once you start combining these addresses with more information it becomes closely akin to doxxing, or an invitation for others to do so by posting it for public consumption. 

I think people are wondering if what has been going on as far as this activity I just somewhat explained is actually illegal. Me personally have mostly made up my mind some laws have been broken. Person to person IP tracking being one. Harassment, intimidation and cyberstalking potentially as well with the crossing from one site to the other with these information tidbits on podcasts

From my standpoint as staff on this website, I now have legitimate concerns about the safety of our personal information, and have my interest peaked into what I should do in order to stop potentially illegal activity from occurring due to information that seems like it had to have been gathered illegally from here. 

My kneejerk reaction is to just take what I know so far to the proper authorities. I feel like if laws have been broken then they'll let me know at that time. I won't be embarrassed to take this all to them even if no laws have been broken. I certainly feel like something screwy has went on with people's personal info and am leaning toward that is the proper course of action. 

What say you?

 

At least on a federal level and under CA law (where I'm licensed), I don't think any legal threshold has been crossed re "intimidation, stalking and harassment." There may be lower thresholds under other states' statutes. But, the first amendment is very powerful and protects a lot of very shitty behavior (even if a state law purports to ban such behavior) unless (1) money is being taken or (2) there is an imminent threat of violence. Not even all forms of doxxing qualify as illegal. 

The issue of tracking people is more of a gray area because the law generally has not caught up to technology. Heck, the main federal law that is still relied upon--the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)--was passed in 1986. That said, you have a more plausible (if still argument) that there has been some illegality regarding the tracking issue et al.

Re all of the above, you are free to forward anything to the relevant authorities. However, even if laws have been broken, there is still prosecutorial discretion--meaning, there are no consequences for even clearly illegal acts unless an authority is willing to pursue charges.

[RedZone]

9 minutes ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

Re all of the above, you are free to forward anything to the relevant authorities. However, even if laws have been broken, there is still prosecutorial discretion--meaning, there are no consequences for even clearly illegal acts unless an authority is willing to pursue charges.

They could still make his life a living hell by digging up "his life".......the guy has already been a part of the worst scandal in high school football history and another one that probably ranks second.......it's there for everyone to read. 

You really don't want these people on your ass, but then again this guy isn't the brightest bulb.

 

[RedZone]

I found this. I haven't followed up on it though or know the entire story yet.

fatjoe uses his website as a business tool to sell FloStream memberships....anyone can see that. Anyways, I'm still digging and learning.

https://medium.com/golden-data/new-jersey-privacy-hindsight-is-2021-7aa1d29af258

 

1. NJ AB 1181: Requires commercial Internet website and online service operators to conspicuously post their privacy policy.
2. NJ AB 2188: Requires commercial Internet websites and online services to notify customers of the collection and disclosure of personally identifiable information and allow customers to opt out.
3. NJ AB 2340: Prohibits commercial mobile service providers from disclosing customer’s geolocation data to third parties.
4. NJ AB 2489: Prohibits commercial mobile service providers and mobile application developers from disclosing customer’s location data to third parties.
5. NJ AB 3072 : The The “Consumer Electronic Voice Recognition Information Act” concerns the Consumer Electronic Voice Recognition Information Act, prohibits operation of voice recognition feature on connected device before informing user of voice recognition feature during initial setup or installation of connected device.
6. NJ AB 3255: Requires certain businesses to notify customers of certain information concerning the collection and sale of personally identifiable information and to allow customers to opt-in to collection and sale.
7. NJ AB 3283: Relates to state Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (DATA), establishes certain requirements for disclosure and processing of personally identifiable information, establishes Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use in Division of Consumer Affairs.
8. NJ AB 3525: Requires consumer reporting agencies to increase protection of consumers’ personal information.
9. NJ SB 269: Requires certain businesses to notify data subjects of collection of personally identifiable information, establishes certain security standards.
10. NJ SB 1223: Prohibits retail sales establishment from storing certain magnetic-stripe data, requires reimbursement for costs incurred by financial institution due to breach of security.
11. NJ SB 1257: Requires commercial Internet websites and online services to notify consumers of collection and disclosure of personally identifiable information, allows consumers to opt out.
12. NJ SB 1317: Requires consumer reporting agencies to increase protection of consumers’ personal information.

 

[RedZone]

12 minutes ago, RedZone said:

I found this. I haven't followed up on it though or know the entire story yet.

fatjoe uses his website as a business tool to sell FloStream memberships....anyone can see that. Anyways, I'm still digging and learning.

https://medium.com/golden-data/new-jersey-privacy-hindsight-is-2021-7aa1d29af258

 

1. NJ AB 1181: Requires commercial Internet website and online service operators to conspicuously post their privacy policy.
2. NJ AB 2188: Requires commercial Internet websites and online services to notify customers of the collection and disclosure of personally identifiable information and allow customers to opt out.
3. NJ AB 2340: Prohibits commercial mobile service providers from disclosing customer’s geolocation data to third parties.
4. NJ AB 2489: Prohibits commercial mobile service providers and mobile application developers from disclosing customer’s location data to third parties.
5. NJ AB 3072 : The The “Consumer Electronic Voice Recognition Information Act” concerns the Consumer Electronic Voice Recognition Information Act, prohibits operation of voice recognition feature on connected device before informing user of voice recognition feature during initial setup or installation of connected device.
6. NJ AB 3255: Requires certain businesses to notify customers of certain information concerning the collection and sale of personally identifiable information and to allow customers to opt-in to collection and sale.
7. NJ AB 3283: Relates to state Disclosure and Accountability Transparency Act (DATA), establishes certain requirements for disclosure and processing of personally identifiable information, establishes Office of Data Protection and Responsible Use in Division of Consumer Affairs.
8. NJ AB 3525: Requires consumer reporting agencies to increase protection of consumers’ personal information.
9. NJ SB 269: Requires certain businesses to notify data subjects of collection of personally identifiable information, establishes certain security standards.
10. NJ SB 1223: Prohibits retail sales establishment from storing certain magnetic-stripe data, requires reimbursement for costs incurred by financial institution due to breach of security.
11. NJ SB 1257: Requires commercial Internet websites and online services to notify consumers of collection and disclosure of personally identifiable information, allows consumers to opt out.
12. NJ SB 1317: Requires consumer reporting agencies to increase protection of consumers’ personal information.

 

Does fatjoe have to specifically say "Jeff from Moultrie, GA, we see you. Buy that FLO Membership. Don't be a pretender. LFG!!"

fatjoe uses "LFG" for Lets Fucking Go

[RedZone]

11 minutes ago, RedZone said:

Does fatjoe have to specifically say "Jeff from Moultrie, GA, we see you. Buy that FLO Membership. Don't be a pretender. LFG!!"

fatjoe uses "LFG" for Lets Fucking Go

One of the very first threads at that site.

https://www.nationalhsfb.com/topic/12-pgl-flofootball-in-second-of-four-year-contact/

To me, and I'm not a lawyer.......it's right there.

Pressuring people to join a website by stealing/saving/filing IPs from another location (YTBD) and disclosing names/locations of IPs for the sole purpose of selling FLO/PGL subscriptions.

What am I missing here, man?

[HawgGoneIt]

1 hour ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

At least on a federal level and under CA law (where I'm licensed), I don't think any legal threshold has been crossed re "intimidation, stalking and harassment." There may be lower thresholds under other states' statutes. But, the first amendment is very powerful and protects a lot of very shitty behavior (even if a state law purports to ban such behavior) unless (1) money is being taken or (2) there is an imminent threat of violence. Not even all forms of doxxing qualify as illegal. 

The issue of tracking people is more of a gray area because the law generally has not caught up to technology. Heck, the main federal law that is still relied upon--the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)--was passed in 1986. That said, you have a more plausible (if still argument) that there has been some illegality regarding the tracking issue et al.

Re all of the above, you are free to forward anything to the relevant authorities. However, even if laws have been broken, there is still prosecutorial discretion--meaning, there are no consequences for even clearly illegal acts unless an authority is willing to pursue charges.

Of course there would be prosecutorial discretion in any case. 

I also understand that just because a person feels threatened or intimidated doesn't necessarily mean a legal threshold got crossed, at rhe same time, I see where people shoot other people and get off on stand your ground because they felt threatened.  Basically there is grey areas in almost everything. 

Thats how some people like to operate. Moving around in the shadows and grey areas of the law. Thats not generally the types of people I try to rub elbows with, hence the reason for all this hooplah as it is. 

[HawgGoneIt]

21 minutes ago, RedZone said:

One of the very first threads at that site.

https://www.nationalhsfb.com/topic/12-pgl-flofootball-in-second-of-four-year-contact/

To me, and I'm not a lawyer.......it's right there.

Pressuring people to join a website by stealing/saving/filing IPs from another location (YTBD) and disclosing names/locations of IPs for the sole purpose of selling FLO/PGL subscriptions.

What am I missing here, man?

Here is the privacy policy for this site 

https://www.prepgridiron.com/privacy/

 

You should be able to find a similar policy on his main page. 

[FreeBird]

10 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Of course there would be prosecutorial discretion in any case. 

I also understand that just because a person feels threatened or intimidated doesn't necessarily mean a legal threshold got crossed, at rhe same time, I see where people shoot other people and get off on stand your ground because they felt threatened.  Basically there is grey areas in almost everything. 

Thats how some people like to operate. Moving around in the shadows and grey areas of the law. Thats not generally the types of people I try to rub elbows with, hence the reason for all this hooplah as it is. 

So what your saying is you and @BUFORDGAWOLVES won’t be having a steak dinner with GSB anytime soon?