WebSite to Manipulate Tyler Durden Data

[Andreea&Kevin 38]

_{Can the site administration just say how many levels of separation they need between this site and the data? Are they ok with a link that goes to another link or do we need 3 steps? If we need 8 steps, just say it. This discussion has gotten ridiculous and is only hurting those people waiting over 5 months and wanting to contact their representative or the ombudsman with hard evidence that is current.}

[jamie_nluv 6]

It’s a relatively simple thing. Without getting into too much technical detail.

We wrote a program that our team uses that browses to the USCIS website and enters in the receipt numbers, then collects all the information and stores it in a database.

Others here have done the same thing on a smaller scale. Some people check a few hundred or even a thousand receipt numbers near their number. Some here have even wrote scripts for doing this, but because it is only 1 person they ended up making too many requests too fast they USCIS site would block the IP for a duration.

Our advantage is we have lots of individuals in many countries all doing this hundreds of thousands of times, 24 hours a day, every day.

The data is synchronized to a central database. That database also tracks what receipt numbers team members request, how many times they request, and at what rate they request. This sync makes sure that at each number is only collected as needed. It also makes sure the level of traffic is low enough not to put any stress of the USCIS website. Additionally we make sure the numbers checked stays below the level and speed limit allowed by the USCIS website.

At first we did not want to post details of how we collect the data. That was before we knew that others here have done the same thing on a small scale. We were not giving details for the protection of the USCIS website. As we have made clear, we will only collect in a legal manner and we not threaten or damage USCIS in any way. We have made this statement many times in our posts and video message to USCIS. Any damage to USCIS would only work against our goals.

We did not want post our methods because we did not want anti-immigration groups to know. We did a lot of research before we started collecting the data. Surprisingly, anti-immigration groups have a lot of knowledge of the inner workings of the immigration process. You may not be aware of it, but there are a significant number of racial hate groups and anti-immigration groups who also know about this site. YES, EVEN IN THIS DAY AND AGE. Those groups DO want to do harm if they can. They see those of us in interracial relationships as ‘race traitors’. They have a greater focus against non-whites, especially people from African, Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latin countries.

Also...

We are OBVIOUSLY pro-immigration. While we do see a correlation in the data between DACA and the slowdown, we are not against DACA. We simply believe the USCIS should have increased resources to meet the demand, and that USCIS should not hide the delays from congressional representatives.

We are also NOT against immigration reform. However, we are deeply worried because if congress is not aware of the stress on the system as is (because USCIS says there is no stress of the system) then congress cannot include proper preparation into new legislation.

You did not answer my question. I asked if you could provide documentation from a authoritative source that states that your data collection method was above water and that the data you have and collect in no way contains personal information. An authoritative source would be USCIS, a federal agency such as the FBI or US Attorney's office, etc..

You make a statement but in essence state that because it seems ok to you (and your logic) then it is above water. I think the concern however is that the government may disagree.

You may want to read:

http://www.law.corne...de/text/18/1030

(a)(2)intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—

(a)(2)(B)information from any department or agency of the United States; or

(a)(2)©information from any protected computer;

The term “protected computer” is defined in the CFAA as either a computer in use by a financial institution or the United States

Section 1030(a)(2) makes it illegal to intentionally access a computer without

authorization or in excess of authorization in order to obtain records of a financial

institution, or to obtain personal records of consumers from a consumer reporting

agency. This section also makes it illegal to obtain information from any

department or agency of the United States or any protected computer that is

involved in interstate or foreign communication. Section 1030(a)(2) is a very

broad section that covers a vast swath of computers, it criminalizes unauthorized

access to any federal computer or any computer belonging to a financial

organization. The section about the protection of computers that take part in

interstate or foreign communication is the broadest of all, it can potentially cover

things like email servers, routers, and even personal computers if it can be

convincingly proven that they are used in interstate communication. The primary

purpose of Section 1030(a)(2) is to protect the confidentiality of computer data,

as was noted in 1986 by the Senate Judiciary Committee, they consider that

even merely viewing data that is protected by the Section 1030(a)(2) equates to

obtaining it.

Section 1030(a)(3) covers unauthorized access to any federal government

computer, making it illegal to access any government computer without

authorization. While this section seemingly overlaps with section 1030(a)(2), the

reasoning behind the two sections is different, section 1030(a)(2) covers the

access of federal government computers with the intent of obtaining protected

information. Section 1030(a)(3) covers all unauthorized access to federal

computers regardless if any information was obtained or not.

If you can show documented proof that this is above water from an authoritative source then my guess is the site will happily allow you to post. Getting a formal opinion will probably take less then a day -- just go in person to an agency and ask in person and in writing. Post their reply. Until then you are asking others to take a risk that you seem unwilling to take (which is to not anonymously handle and distribute this data).

[Robb&Ann 101]

i don't think there is a need to post the data here... i would rather go to Tyler's own page and see the data than posting it here where not all people appreciates the data. There is also no need to get any documented proof just to prove that his data is obtained in a legal way. and just to please the people here??? smh. there is no need to please VJ and other people here who don't really appreciate the data and for him to be able to post his data here..because i'm sure Tyler can make his own site. I would rather thank Tyler for giving us an update about what is going on with the January filers. hahahaha

[TylerDurden 45]

You did not answer my question. I asked if you could provide documentation from a authoritative source that states that your data collection method was above water and that the data you have and collect in no way contains personal information. An authoritative source would be USCIS, a federal agency such as the FBI or US Attorney's office, etc..

You make a statement but in essence state that because it seems ok to you (and your logic) then it is above water. I think the concern however is that the government may disagree.

You may want to read:

If you can show documented proof that this is above water from an authoritative source then my guess is the site will happily allow you to post. Getting a formal opinion will probably take less then a day -- just go in person to an agency and ask in person and in writing. Post their reply. Until then you are asking others to take a risk that you seem unwilling to take (which is to not anonymously handle and distribute this data).

It is now time to point out the insanity of all these arguments against the data and all the BS people are attributing to it.

This data is on the USCIS website, its public, it’s not secured in any way shape or form. You do not need to enter ANY identifying information, no username or password, no captcha, nothing to access it. It reveals no personal information everyone knows that, it’s why the website will tell you that you have an RFE but not what the RFE is about.

Only a certifiable idiot wouldn’t realize that.

It’s literally the equivalent of the mints sitting in a bowl at restaurant. EVEN if you empty the bowl no one cares and it’s defiantly not a crime to take the free mints.

You said “Heck, with your permission I would be happy to stop by the Federal building locally with USCIS and ask an immigration officer in person for a formal statement on the matter. It seems like a quick and easy way to get an official response.”

In return we gave you details so you could.

We have provided all the details and the raw data.

A random government employee is not going to provide documentation in writing that it IS or IS NOT legal.

We counter.

Now, since this has now been elevated to the level of needing certified legal documentation. We have given you the information and you volunteered to go check. Without legal certified, signed documentation, showing that this information is NOT legal to be collected in the prescribed manner, it remains a clear issue of censorship.

Good luck. We look forward to seeing documentation either way from an authoritative source.

[TylerDurden 45]

Good news, maybe.

Members of our branch have been scheduled to meet with 3 senators and congress members in just a few days from now. Petitioners pestered event coordinators, provided data and graphs, and worked very hard for those meetings. Another 2 petitioners were also still in the process of getting meetings scheduled with 2 other senators and congress members.

Recently CSC updated their processing times. Those times now within the USCIS goal periods. While there are still pending petitions older than 5 months, this published date allows petitioners to receive more assistance within the standard USCIS framework.

It is unlikely that the USCIS processing goal can be changed, and now that CSC is within that timeframe. VSC filers have specifically asked not to have their data used and we will comply and have agreed to delete the data and not present it.

As a result we are asking that these meetings be canceled or postponed until CSC is once again not within its timeframe.

We wish to thank those petitioners for all their hard work in getting these meetings arranged. We wish to thank Senators John McCain, and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Congressmen Steve King of Iowa, Louie Gohmert of Texas, and John Fleming of Louisiana.

For the time being this project will now go dormant while CSC is processing normally.