Update: InsiderSurveillance has now switched to a private registration, hiding their PR agency domain ownership. They also posted an attack against us, ignoring the registration evidence and speculating that we are connected to Russians because some wildly inaccurate online web stats tool claimed we had 30% Russian traffic. According to our directly measured stats, we had 120,000 visits last months, 1,239 of them from Russia.
Sad when a PR firm goes on the offensive, ignores the evidence against them and leverages a McCarthyism against us.
So what's the idea here? Companies buy membership, write their own articles, back-link to them in guest-blog posts? Although the unlimited posting is tempting, I have a serious problem with any site where the yearly subscription is offered at a negative discount to the 6-month.
John, in case they are right though about the Kremlin, maybe you could write an article and tell Vlad to cut the crap in the Ukraine, pronto... or else you're canceling his membership. Now that's pressure!
Btw, a member emailed me about this claim from that article. It's false on 2 levels, just as an fyi:
Infinova has experienced its ups and downs during this period and lumbered along at roughly the same market cap. But they’re sufficiently strong to have purchased Vicon, a US-based HD videocam maker with revenue of $US 70 million earlier this year. (emphasis added)
IPVM does not issue 'awards'. We do have the 'Favorite' and 'Worst' series but those are strictly based on integrator member votes. Also, unlike any other publications / sites / organizations, we have a strict no promotional use of our results.
After reading that entire article, I am left wondering why it was even written. It's a narrative attack on IPVM with ill-supported claims and conclusions.
According to the author, their reason for writing this piece was the 5 year old IPVM Verint post - however, the author clearly shows that this can't be the only reason... by the last line before the FINAL NOTE:
"Why take a lone website such as IPVM to task for sins committed five years past? Because they haven’t changed."
This statement indicates a continued, long-standing familiarity with IPVM, does it not?
But what I find the most bizarre is the very last thing the author posts:
"FINAL NOTE: Reviewing SIGINT/COMINT/ELINT solutions used for the monitoring and apprehension of criminals and terrorists is a dangerous business. Hence the need for maintaining anonymity and retaining outsiders as a public face. All differences aside, we wish to convey our sincerest appreciation to IPVM for their admirable record of cooperation in this matter."
WTF does this mean? What was the intention of the author in making this statement the way they did?
It begins as a serious statement, then segues into a supporting statement for the first line - then weirdly seems to be making an indirect threat against IPVM for previously revealing the PR firm in the WhoIs data from a few years ago in this string.
imo, the bold part can be read only as a threat. i.e. these are important people doing important things and they do not appreciate IPVM revealing 'ownership' by the PR firm of the domain in the original post.
Am I reading more into this than there is? How do you read that FINAL NOTE?
This is just pure entertainment. My favorite part is the CNET thing. Apparently they are super serious security people who can't reveal their names because protecting people is a "dangerous business," and yet they prefer a consumer-focused review site that covers Nest and Foscam to a truly useful, all-encompassing industry resource. Woof.