January 2013 filers

[Meg and Danny 25]

It seems like that would be Anon's risk to assume. Not ours?

I just think no information for anyone is never better than information for some, and just for the record, my opinion would be the same even if the shoe was on the other foot. (CSC vs VSC)

Even if he could post it on a website, it doesnt seem to be very useful when the vast majority of average people looking for the information would be on this site. Where it would benefit the most.

Anyways, everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion, and basically mine boils down to, more information is always better than none.

[TylerDurden 45]

It's not about my complaint. That's what you don't understand. My personal opinion is that I don't think any info should be posted. A lot of other people do want the info posted. So, my personal opinion aside, I think that to be fair to everyone, if you have access to all data, all data should be posted; particularly as Vermont is beginning to seriously lag and a lot of people are getting very frustrated and upset.

To re-iterate for a third (I think?) time - I did NOT say do not post CSC info unless VSC has it.

We want to post VSC we have made that clear.

We need to post links to put it in the hands of others who can help join us in analyzing it.

Currently we are forbidden from doing that and you know that. VJ admin and moderators are listening to the few who do not want it posted over the majority of those who do.

We agreed not to post links, charts, graphs, etc. we only post the same kind of info that they have allowed.

If you want VSC data then stop opposing our efforts and join us and support us. We are not your enemy. Tell the admins and moderators to allow us to continue our work.

[QueenOfBlades 224]

It seems like that would be Anon's risk to assume. Not ours?

I just think no information for anyone is never better than information for some, and just for the record, my opinion would be the same even if the shoe was on the other foot. (CSC vs VSC)

Even if he could post it on a website, it doesnt seem to be very useful when the vast majority of average people looking for the information would be on this site. Where it would benefit the most.

Anyways, everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion, and basically mine boils down to, more information is always better than none.

Not really. It'd be VJ's risk most likely if they allowed the information to be posted here, which is, I imagine, the reason they banned it. Also, as I stated in my earlier post, you've gotta be careful posting about wanting the information that we can't verify how it was obtained from the Anonymous group, as consulates are known to visit here and could make them question "good moral character". Especially if they go looking through our posts.

[QueenOfBlades 224]

We want to post VSC we have made that clear.

We need to post links to put it in the hands of others who can help join us in analyzing it.

Currently we are forbidden from doing that and you know that. VJ admin and moderators are listening to the few who do not want it posted over the majority of those who do.

We agreed not to post links, charts, graphs, etc. we only post the same kind of info that they have allowed.

If you want VSC data then stop opposing our efforts and join us and support us. We are not your enemy. Tell the admins and moderators to allow us to continue our work.

That's fair enough, and I appreciate your response. I just wish you would have posted this to begin with. I think VJ admin and moderators are simply covering themselves/their website as opposed to trying to censor you.

[TylerDurden 45]

Anonymous is a free-speech organization that has hacked PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, and various government agencies worldwide. A lot of the top hackers get arrested and sent to prison. I'm positive not all are terrorists (and that's not my wording anyway), but I do think USCIS may be concerned about how this information was obtained and it could lead to issues. I never wanted it to stop simply because he was posting one service center. It was more about the aforementioned issues/potential problems. Google "Anonymous arrested" and see all the results.

I would also like to point out that I have nothing against Anonymous as a group, just its activities. I respect the ideals behind it.

You are right and wrong at the same time.

Anon goes back to the days of 4chan, originally focused mostly on online pranks like the rick-roll, the pool is closed, etc.

Anon jokes ended up being a target of scientology censorship efforts. 4chans and activists joined and Anon was born to oppose the censorship and unfair practices.

It expanded to all causes, even causes other Anons oppose. Over all the UDoHR is the only guiding principle held by most but not all branches.

Anons operate in a network not a hierarchy. We propose an operation, and those who agree join that branch and provide resources needed. No donations solicited or accepted.

Anonymous has no leadership. No official membership or requirements. No infrastructure. We are the network. Each branch self-succulent and responsible only to its own actions. There is no OFFICIAL Anonymous. No mission statement. No single voice.

[Meg and Danny 25]

Not really. It'd be VJ's risk most likely if they allowed the information to be posted here, which is, I imagine, the reason they banned it. Also, as I stated in my earlier post, you've gotta be careful posting about wanting the information that we can't verify how it was obtained from the Anonymous group, as consulates are known to visit here and could make them question "good moral character". Especially if they go looking through our posts.

Thats why i can somewhat see the point from VJ. In terms of limiting what is posted, but not allowing it at all? Besides which, I think if someone were to read posts(even mine for instance) "good moral character" wouldnt be called into question as I fundamentally stand for freedom and not belittling or muzzling others. if the person does something by nefarious means, that is their problem to deal with, and their problem alone. Legally, though obviously as already stated, I'm not a lawyer. You cannot call into question someones character because they are simply LOOKING for the information or even commenting about it. You can call into question their character for many things. But not for looking at freely posted material that they didn't gather themselves.

It would be like saying.....

You looked up the recipe for Coke-Cola online, maybe because you wondered what was in it for your own health. Sure enough, someone posted what they "think" is in it. Maybe it is the exact recipe. Maybe it's not. If they got it through legal means and are not hurting anyone who cares? and if they got it irresponsibly, and through illegal means, its not your fault for simply looking for the information for your own purposes.

BTW Again, not a lawyer, and i can understand how they wouldnt WANT to be associated with something potentially illegal. But I know of a very similar situation, in which a forum was created and held steady for years and visited by many people important to the topic(of the forum). Sometimes the forum owner got heat for it, but there is LITERALLY nothing they could charge them with. Or even ask to have it disbanded. Not legally possible. Of course, thats just one state out of many. Im just saying, legal precedent would be few and far between. (PS. I looked it up! )

[TylerDurden 45]

That's fair enough, and I appreciate your response. I just wish you would have posted this to begin with. I think VJ admin and moderators are simply covering themselves/their website as opposed to trying to censor you.

We have said the same before.

VJ is not worried about being held responsible for the content of posts. They are well aware that they are protected from that under federal law and the TOS makes that clear that they are aware.

VJ appears more over to simply wish to avoid the complaints and controversies, and understandably they don’t have the resources to bother with a vocal minority opposed to the data.

It is the vocal minority that keeps the data censored.

[TylerDurden 45]

That's fair enough, and I appreciate your response. I just wish you would have posted this to begin with. I think VJ admin and moderators are simply covering themselves/their website as opposed to trying to censor you.

2 links to help…

Don’t worry not to do anything related to our data.

• This is the EFF explanation of section 230 protection.

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230

• This is a fair explanation of Anonymous by a 3^rd party.

[batallion9 50]

Lets quit the bickering. Most important, this site " VJ " is owned by someone and they alone make the rules of usage for this site. It is not up to the users. The owner has every right to block or censor any and all posts here.. Now as far as gathering information. USCIS information pertaining to an individual using USCIS services is private information between the two said identities. so lets say a person petitions for K1 visa. They send application and fee to USCIS. USCIS accepts money and then assigns a case number to case. This case number is sent to applicant by private email and USPS. This case number is property of USCIS. Unless you have signed consent by the petitioner for whom the case number was assigned, then you have no right to look up anything pertaining to said case. Making up numbers to gain access is fraud, plain and simple. People can make any claim they want, as " USCIS site is public". Well it actually owned by the government. By typing in some ones WAC or EAC number into USCIS, it is no different than typing in a persons SS# into IRS to gain confidential information , which is illegal!

[batallion9 50]

BTY, NO, I am NOT a lawyer, I'm one of those who help enforce such said laws.

Edited May 19, 2013 by batallion9

[TylerDurden 45]

Lets quit the bickering. Most important, this site " VJ " is owned by someone and they alone make the rules of usage for this site. It is not up to the users. The owner has every right to block or censor any and all posts here.. Now as far as gathering information. USCIS information pertaining to an individual using USCIS services is private information between the two said identities. so lets say a person petitions for K1 visa. They send application and fee to USCIS. USCIS accepts money and then assigns a case number to case. This case number is sent to applicant by private email and USPS. This case number is property of USCIS. Unless you have signed consent by the petitioner for whom the case number was assigned, then you have no right to look up anything pertaining to said case. Making up numbers to gain access is fraud, plain and simple. People can make any claim they want, as " USCIS site is public". Well it actually owned by the government. By typing in some ones WAC or EAC number into USCIS, it is no different than typing in a persons SS# into IRS to gain confidential information , which is illegal!

Your wrong in SOOOOO many ways and we have documented it many times.

We are sick of providing the case law, referring to the federal law governing the USCIS data. Pointing out protections of the VJ site under federal law.

We are now officially sick of helping people who do not want help. Apparently there are people who prefer to guess what’s going on and rely on myths and rumors.

We saw everyone complaining about not knowing what USCIS does. We saw people complaining to congressional representatives in vain and being lied to. We acted when no one would do anything to help you.

As a result of our efforts you attack us rather than those who cause your problems.

We are done helping.

You had your chance for help and repeatedly bit the hand that reached out to you.

Go back to your myths and rumors and guessing. DO NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT USCIS OR DELAYS.

Good luck

[Rachel_Keleigh 2]

Got my hard copy RFE today! They were unclear in the original I-129F about meetings so I explained each meeting for the previous 2 years. They wanted an explaination of how we met in the first place and how we bagan the relationship. Easy-Peasy!

The next thing they needed was more on proof of meeting. We supplied pictures, itineraries and flight receipts the first time. We are adding a complete log of copies of his passport stamps, credit card statements with highlighting of dates/places his card was used where I live and ATM withdrawl receipts sent from his bank. I think we'll have all we need now and I'm glad we have more to give them! I panic-posted for help You guys are AWESOME! Glad to have this site for sure!

EDIT: Just in case anyone is panicked over an RFE like we were

Edited May 19, 2013 by Rachel_Keleigh

[TylerDurden 45]

BTY, NO, I am NOT a lawyer, I'm one of those who help enforce such said laws.

For a Non-lawyer law-enforcer you don’t seem to be aware that USCIS is not allowed by federal law to keep or provide ANY confidential or private information on the public USCIS web server. It’s a separate set of data considered by federal law as non-confidential.

Read the immigration laws and the privacy laws and it even prescribes where the private information can and cannot be stored.

Your receipt number is like the number the DMV gives you when you get in line.

Edited May 19, 2013 by TylerDurden

[Abomb 0]

I guess for people who don't like what they see or read here in VJ, by all means, they are all free to unsubscribe. Easy.

[QueenOfBlades 224]

It's not just federal law though, the receipt numbers involve two people from X number of countries; and I know for a fact that something like that would be covered under the UK's data protection act. Even reference numbers to appointments are considered private information under Data Protection here, as I work with it and have had to study that as we're regulated with the Financial Services Authority. When you write to a congressional representative/Senator, a lot send a reply back asking for written permission from both parties to access information about your case, or at the bare minimum, the written/signed permission of the USC. Both of ours did. Because it -is- confidential.

Also, aj - I don't really care either way, Tyler's data doesn't effect me. I just want fairness and the same information available for Vermont filers if they want it, which I stated in my original post; despite the fact I have said before that I don't believe any data should be published on here. VJ staff have said they don't want this stuff published, so no, the solution isn't to unsubscribe. Anyone who wants to be on VJ for the support and help it provides should be able to, and if anyone doesn't like how VJ staff run it or the rules they make for their own website, perhaps they should consider going elsewhere.

To Durden - Looking at those links you sent, it does seem VJ would not be responsible if anything got out; though I imagine they would not want the controversy or drama that may come from it if it did.