Talk:InfraGard

Whistleblower: InfraGard members given permission to shoot to kill

To add to article: [1]. Badagnani (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The "shoot to kill" permission claim is nonsense. See http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/02/tinfoil-hat-brigade-generates-fear.html Lippard (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

jim - AFAIK, in principle you should get your reply published in a WP:RS or find some other "reliable source" to support your claim that the shoot to kill policy for InfraGard members is false. Sooner or later a wikipedian may decide that your blog reply is not reliable enough. It's not my policy, it's community policy. For the moment, the reference to your blog will probably survive until someone decides that s/he is unhappy with it. Boud (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who put it into the article, I just put it here for discussion. Ah, I see you did. I expect there will be some other media attention as a result of the Progressive article, and a followup with the sources cited in that article. Lippard (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

This whole article, especially the last several paragraphs, reads like an ad for the program. Aaronlib (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. How can this be appropriate for a Wikipedia article? No references at all, it sounds like it was concocted by FBI employees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.148.103.128 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly as nefarious as 'concocted by FBI employees' - it's a case of some Wiki editor being stupid enough to directly copy and paste the 'About' section on the InfraGard page. --Joffeloff (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I was talking about content, not who did it. Your theory is that the content WAS written by the FBI, which clearly violates policy on bias. If a Wiki editor cut and paste it, they ought to lose their editing privileges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.40.128 (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So if we don't do some proper work on the page, we'll all get shot as dangerous lazy good-for-nothings when martial law is declared :P. Boud (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The FBI has posted a response. I'm not wiki format educated, so someone may want to look this over and cite. http://www.infragard.net/press/2008/progressive_article_response_v2.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.151.191 (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

reliable source

quoting: "Blogger Jim Lippard stated in his blog that he has been a "member of the Phoenix InfraGard Members Alliance for years" and denied the "shoot to kill" authorisation, stating that 'InfraGard members get no special "shoot to kill" or law enforcement powers of any kind'.[2]" This reference is self-published. And doesn't seem to satisfy WP:RS. What is needed is a reliable third party source quoting Lippard, not Lippard quoting himself. I move we remove this sentence. de Bivort 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

9 days since I brought this up - I'll remove that soon, unless someone provides an objection. de Bivort 20:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that's appropriate. You can now refer directly to the FBI's statement of response (available on the InfraGard website) as well as the UPI story that's now listed in the article. Lippard (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Some other media coverage:

• Village Voice (blog): http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/02/hunter_students.php
• New York Post:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02212008/news/regionalnews/cuny_left_hook_98613.htm

• PeaceReporter (Italy):

http://www.peacereporter.net/dettaglio_articolo.php?idc=0&idart=10137

• Gary D. Barnett, Future of Freedom Foundation (blog):

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0802g.asp

• My response to Barnett:

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-infragard-fud-and-misinformation.html

• UPI:

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Briefing/2008/02/20/fbi_denies_claims_about_infragard/1004/

Iran seems to have liked The Progressive story: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=42407&sectionid=3510203 Lippard (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: reliable source

Lippard's blog does not even come close to meeting Wikipedia guidelines. I'm removing it, unless the editor can explain why their non-notable blog should be added to this article. I've left the FBI's response, since it is clearly relevant and notable. Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there is no need for me to offer an explanation to support my blog being referenced in this article. I not only didn't add it, I endorsed its removal over a year and a half before you wrote this, just above. Lippard (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory Sections

I am removing the "Claims of The Progressive magazine" section since, "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources," as noted in WP:REDFLAG.

A good example of a debate about including fringe conspiracy theories in articles can be found at the FEMA discussion page. What was the verdict for a conspiracy theory that was much more known? It was determined that it had no place in the article. Additionally, the citation "FBI denies claims about InfraGard" does not exist and redirects to a completely different article. Additionally, there are no other sources citing the claim. This is a obvious failure of WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY.

The following wikipedia policies have rules/explanations why sections like are not included. They are listed:

• WP:FRNG
• WP:NOTABILITY
  • WP:NRVE
  • WP:NTEMP
• WP:NOT
• WP:VERIFY
  • WP:REDFLAG

Once again, exceptional claims require high-quality sources. Until enough notable and verifiable sources emerge, this section should not be re-included. Xe7al (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Lulzsec

No mention that they were hacked by lulzsec via sql? 98.24.154.187 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The national InfraGard site was not hacked. It was a local chapter, of which there are over a hundred. Each chapter sets up their own site, which is created by one of the members. So, I'd say it's probably WP:UNDUE. Morphh ^(talk) 22:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What, private affiliation of the FBI? WTF?

I believe since the 30s the FBI is forbidden explicitly to maintain any private affiliations by law. This law was introduced to maintain the independence of the FBI in view of the involvement of the mob with various private enterprises and unions and to prevent corruption. Insofar I cannot see how a private affiliation of the FBI with a non-government body of non-government people would not be such a forbidden entanglement of the FBI with private bodies, be it for terrorism hunt or whatever purpose. Sounds like terrorism is a cause to drop all laws? 70.137.152.34 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, in any case.. it's not a private affiliation, it's a public partnership. Morphh ^(talk) 13:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A public partnership with private parties is a private affiliation. Exactly what the FBI is forbidden to do. This is not a forum, but I doubt the factual accuracy of any information in this article, for the reason that it is simply legally not possible as described. 70.137.150.74 (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I may also ask for reliable sources for most of the content. The article is already full of fact tags, but the few cited sources are doubtful as WP:RS. Self published sources do not count. (Apart from sounding delusional.) 70.137.150.74 (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess to say it is a private organization may be misleading and could be reworded. It's not private parties. It's a public organization - anyone can join, but it is private in the sense that it's not government (public sector). It has an independent board elected by its members, which is assisted by an FBI employee as a coordinator of the program. I'm not sure how the article is incorrect. The organization does exist and it is affiliated with the FBI. Here is an article from the FBI.gov website from 2010 - A Partnership That Works. Morphh ^(talk) 01:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The main site for an organization is acceptable as a reliable source about itself. I only see two requests for sources.. sorry, that's not "full of fact tags". I'll try to fill it some. Morphh ^(talk) 01:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course by private parties I did not talk about parties, where they drink a lot and dance *(and...and...and...)insert your favorite vices here* behind closed curtains. I meant *not government* and *not sworn* and *involved in business other than for the state* and consequently entangled with other *non government* interests and possibly conflicts of interest and therefore not without doubt solely acting for the state and for the law. This are private parties. And this kind of entanglement is typical for the fascist society as approached by Mussolini or Franco or even Hitler, as exemplified by the state influence over the whole industry. e.g. Factories with attached concentration camp for forced labor etc. and private industry acting on 5-year plans of the government with blurred separations between private business and state by design of the system. - In particular pronounced in the military-industrial complex. So does something dawn to you here? 70.137.142.157 (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In my country we had that too! It was called Stasi, look at section Infiltration. Swell. I could have taken a bet that this is forbidden in the US. 70.137.144.212 (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And for almost 50 years nobody ever claimed or dared to claim that it did not work! Yes! Stasi, a partnership that works! Look, how trusting the workers cooperate with the Stasi officer and show their loyalty, in this partnership that works: (I guess they are just reporting their neighbor for watching West TV and listening to degenerate music as well as for critical remarks about the comrade secretary of the party.)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Stasi-statue.jpg

Congratulations! (to the new version of the American dream.) But now I have to close or I will be reported by the block warden. 70.137.142.157 (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, WP:NOTFORUM.. not sure what to tell you. I'm not aware of the law that you mention, so can't speak to your interpretation. Apparently, the DOJ believes otherwise. I've been a member for over 10 years and it is nothing like you describe. In any case, it has no bearing on the article at this point. Morphh ^(talk) 11:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I forgot the name of this act (I believe from the 30s). Regarding my interpretation, please take a look at the ACLU link as ref in the article, this comes close and is likely an interpretation by a trustworthy independent source. I feel that the criticism of the construct should be part of the article. There are people who feel uneasy with such partnership between e.g. industry and police, in principle. It may well be that young Americans partly are lacking the instincts warning against such construct. But then they have not been listening to the commie propaganda from the Stasi comrades for 40 years. It is not a forum, sure, but I feel the critical analysis lacking from the article. Besides, they require citizenship for membership. So not "everybody" can join. This is also lacking from the article. 70.137.151.236 (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding DOJ and Infraguard itself, they may well have a positively biased view of their own policies, as evidenced e.g. by numerous judicial decisions against DOJ. So their self described self-image may not be the whole truth. This is why we have checks and balances in the system. The article does not reflect this by including appropriate criticism. It is lacking citations from neutral or scholarly sources. 70.137.150.5 (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide the neutral and scholarly sources and we can consider adding them. Morphh ^(talk) 19:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Madsen, W. (1999). "Details emerge of NSA and FBI involvement in domestic US computer security". Computer Fraud & Security. 1999 (1): 10–11. doi:10.1016/S1361-3723(00)86979-1.
• Joh, E. E. (2006). "The Forgotten Threat: Private Policing and the State". Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 13 (2): 357–389. doi:10.2979/GLS.2006.13.2.357.
• Balkin, J. M. (2008). "The Constitution in the National Surveillance State" (pdf). Minnesota Law Review. 93 (1)."Abstract".
• Stanley, J. (2004). "The Surveillance - Industrial Complex" (pdf). ACLU.

I think the refs 2, 3, 4 reflect the concerns well, e.g. read abstract of legal opinion Balkin, J. M. which is a scholarly article by a constitutional law professor.

quote: The question is not whether we will have a surveillance state in the years to come, but what sort of surveillance state we will have. The National Surveillance State poses three major dangers for our freedom. The first danger is that government will create a parallel track of preventative law enforcement that routes around the traditional guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The second danger is that traditional law enforcement and social services will increasingly resemble the parallel track. Once governments have access to powerful surveillance and data mining technologies, there will be enormous political pressure to use them in everyday law enforcement and for delivery of government services. Private power and public-private cooperation pose a third danger. Because the Constitution in general does not reach private parties, government has increasing incentives to rely on private enterprise to collect and generate information for it, thus circumventing constitutional guarantees. Corporate business models, in turn, lead companies to amass and analyze more and more information about individuals in order to target new customers and reject undesirable ones. end quote.

Any thoughts?

70.137.152.7 (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We can only use the source if they mention Infragard and we can only use what is placed in context regarding that organization. Anything else would be WP:OR and WP:SYN. I have access to the last three. We already include the ACLU publication and include criticism from it. I can look at what else we can reference from the publication. The Balkin paper only makes brief mention of the InfraGard with regard to "Moreover, the architecture of the Internet—and the many possible methods of attack— requires governments, corporations, and private parties to work together to protect network security and head off threats before they occur." The Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies paper makes no mention of Infragard. I don't have access to the Computer Fraud & Security article. Morphh ^(talk) 00:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

True, the Balkin paper is too unspecific about Infragard, it only analyzes the general public/private cooperation. (which Infragard is too) It comes however to the same concerns as the ACLU article, which at least has a section about Infragard. The Indiana paper only talks about private police. The first paper is probably too old and gives just historical insight how Infragard developed. So at least from the ACLU paper and more general the Balkin paper you see that kind of Stasiland-feeling is not completely delusional. 70.137.152.7 (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to believe that such preventive activities attract all kind of tin-foil hats in the corporate world, and that after their meetings they are sifting through their IT records, searching for Chinese spies and Al-Quaida infiltration, hackers and contacts to foreigners, corporate espionage and "unamerican activities", much like at the time of McCarthyism. Unfortunately they are lacking the reqd technical background and replace it by eagerness and unchecked ad-hoc thinking of their doggie-brains. To make it short: In contrast to true government action there is a danger of all kind of actions occuring without any checks and balances and without the reqd due process and constitutional protections and civil rights. etc. And this is like in all systems which rely on lay informants, like in McCarthyism or the Stasi. As a foreigner I feel it is a bit like a new red scare, except now you have to have an accent and maybe a long beard or have to look brownish and be caught praying etc. or look Chinese and show interest in dual use technology etc. or maybe you have a hard accent and look like a Nazi... The article does not reflect any such concerns. 70.137.153.255 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Now imagine what they do to "foreigners" with a "hard accent" who "look like a Nazi" and "show interest for technology" and "have been caught praying". Lynchburg is everywhere! 70.137.153.255 (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears your pushing your preconceived thoughts of Stasi and McCarthyism on an organization you know little about. The reason that such information is minimal is that there is little basis for it. Any such source, like the ACLU, talks in the abstract regarding a "what if", with no evidence to back up the charge. Reality is the FBI briefs members on emerging threats and the board leadership brings in industry experts to discuss security issues affecting the different industries. Industry members get to talk to each other about the threats they're seeing, such as the Banks discussing phishing attacks. There is no citizen spy conspiracy. You don't need to be a member or a citizen to go to a meeting and see what it's about. The membership, which includes a background check, is for sending out law enforcement sensitive information on direct threats to an industry in the United States. What the FBI is doing is trying to get out information regarding the threats and create some trust so that businesses will report federal crimes. Look, I'm libertarian minded myself. I get it, but you're starting to sound like a tin foil hat yourself and pushing into WP:FRINGE with an association fallacy. The FBI does not task membership with any investigative interests. The government has made a broad request to everyone that if they see something overly suspicious that could be a threat to national security to report it. This is not limited to a select group or membership. Morphh ^(talk) 19:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact I am not a tin foil hat but an engineer with previous work in the security field. The request "If you see something, say something", namely suspicious observations, is a slippery slope. Having the industry sensitized against e.g. "corporate espionage" or "deemed export" or "prospective hackers" leads to an increasing number of false positives with the typical "CYA" knee jerk reflexes, namely "cover your ass". This is even more the case with such unlikely targets like "terror suspects", where practically every hit is a false positive. The problem is that there is absolutely no legal remedy against being let go for such reasons, nor will such reasons be ever disclosed, as long as there is an "employment at will" doctrine. Such actions would be arbitrary, based on suspicions, practically unprovable and without any legal defense or rights of the suspect, as corporate policies are not reqd to follow due process. From experience I may tell you that since 2002 the US has become difficult for foreigners.

So this is one point - sensitizing against threats leads to false positives without legal remedy, you are just ruined. Just what I have cited above - the corporate world does not follow due process.

Another thing is that the "preventive" nature of such activities, if it is acted on, leads to intrusions even if nothing has yet happened, because they lower the threshold or perceived threshold for the "reasonable supicion". In the corporate world, perceived "reasonable suspicion" means you are ruined, even if nothing comes out of it finally. They do not even owe you an explanation. So the "preventive" nature in itself generates violations of due process.

It is much like in the movie where kind of idiots (precogs)foresee where crimes will happen, the differences are only gradual.Minority Report (film)

If the discussion with industry would center itself on "security operating system kernels" and the like issues of security system design on a technical and scientific level I would feel better about it. But the average sportsmen in Infragard or FBI are not OS designers or cryptographers or security researchers. 70.137.131.149 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You say: Any such source, like the ACLU, talks in the abstract regarding a "what if", with no evidence to back up the charge. What the ACLU complains about is not an abstract "what if" but the lack of legal protection available in case such activities go wrong. You cannot base policies and activities on good trust instead of constitutional protections, bill of rights and due process i.e. replace protections with a honor based system. So the question is indeed abstract: namely where are the constitutional rights and legal protections in case you have a disadvantage from a false positive? Who pays you the damned damages? Who protects you from actions of the private industry, leading to destruction of your career? You cannot well call the ACLU standpoint a fringe opinion. The ACLU has defended constitutional rights in other cases, exactly based on such abstract considerations. Of course the constitution and the civil liberties and due process are all completely abstract, so who needs them, as long a there is no evidence of misuse of power - was this your question? 70.137.131.149 (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It is much the same issue with all kind of private neighborhood watches. Only in industry, the "neighborhood watch" is in power. So how to solve accountability for such a construct?

They will certainly not come: Oh, sorry our doggie-brained paranoid security manager thought you are up to something so we hit you first. Here is a million in damages for your career.

It are indeed abstract concerns, which have to be taken care of, like in general in policy-making. This would even be the case if the entire construct would be a total dud and nobody would join. How can we wean people off their practical thinking?

Generally, with an involvement in crime prevention and domestic intelligence the FBI leaves the domain of accountable police work and enters the domain of the intelligence agency and secret police. Then if you are a false positive it is just tough luck. Reaching out to corporate with these methods makes it worse. 70.137.131.149 (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your knowledge about the organization and its membership is incorrect. You stated: "If the discussion with industry would center itself on "security operating system kernels" and the like issues of security system design on a technical and scientific level I would feel better about it. But the average sportsmen in Infragard or FBI are not OS designers or cryptographers or security researchers." I live in North Carolina, where there are two Chapters. The Charlotte chapter is hosted at Microsoft and often includes such technical discussions. The organization started in computer security - last year's VP of the Chapter was the Dean of Computing and Informatics at UNCC. The Raleigh Chapter is hosted at Cisco. Jack Wiles, former board member, is at most meetings. First hit on Google news shows a board member of the Northern Ohio InfraGard is a committee member for the Information Security Summit. Most of the members are managers and top engineers at local Fortune 500 companies and include security researchers from the university - the board is picked form the top of those in their industry. The FBI often brings in subject mater experts for a field, particularly in computer security. I'd list my expansive pedigree but rather not for privacy reasons. So I'm putting it kindly by saying you don't know what your talking about. In any case, we will not be including WP:OR or WP:SYN in the article. Morphh ^(talk) 03:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So would your examples prove that it is "centered around issues of security system design" ? Would they disprove that "the average sportsmen... are not security researchers or OS designers"? I cannot see that. Do you understand the phrase "centered around"? What about the concerns phrased by ACLU, which I mentioned above? Do they also not know what they are talking about? The NC chapters with the research triangle are not typical. I did not claim "no security researchers...etc. are involved", which you disproved. 70.137.138.155 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It's one of the most technical organizations in the area that center around security. What you claimed was that you know the membership makeup, which you don't. Obviously, the organization covers a wide range of security areas, so membership reflects many areas of security. Last month the head of the DNC security team talked about securing the upcoming event and what businesses should expect. Not security system design from a technology perspective, but something timely and important for the local businesses for physical security. I'm not sure what makes one more acceptable than any number of security issues the organization presents or "centers around", so I'm not entirely sure of your point - in any case, it's moot. As for the ACLU, their concerns are included in the lead, which is probably more WP:WEIGHT then it deserves given that it's a primary source presenting a viewpoint held by a tiny minority. Morphh ^(talk) 05:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, even if we did not resolve the issue. It may also be a cultural and generational problem. I am not an American and I am old. I would really like to know where you got the opinion that the ACLU represents a tiny minority opinion. Do you also believe the supreme court represents a tiny minority opinion? 70.137.132.31 (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a source stating the opinion of the Supreme Court on Infragard. In Wikipedia, the opinion is based on its prominence and coverage in reliable sources. The ACLU statements on Infragard have received little to no coverage in secondary reliable sources. If you search for Infragard & ACLU in Google, Wikipedia is the first hit - not a good sign. Searching Google News returns 0 hits. Even in the ACLU paper itself, the coverage was minor. So, the opinion presented by the ACLU about Infragard represents a very small minority in the overall coverage and content reported by reliable sources. Morphh ^(talk) 12:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It is along the lines that independent secondary sources about Infragard are sparse. The club has not received much academic attention. It is almost as if the Infragard is non-existent or a non-issue. Local contact with Infragard did not get me any insight wrt. my technical interests. (hard to forge documents, passports, electronic identification, embedded security processors.) 70.137.144.26 (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Secret Service's "Electronic Crimes Task Force" might be a better group for providing information on those topics. Morphh ^(talk) 14:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I created a "Human Rights" section, which includes all the sources you provided. We can't include specific criticism from some of them, so I used it as a brief transition to the ACLU concerns. I added an additional sentence regard the ACLU, but also included the response from the Chairwoman of Infragard. I also separated the section and expanded the LulzSec info. In doing this, I summarized the lead to the general concern and the hacking attacks. Morphh ^(talk) 16:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You see even with the best intent "open to every US citizen" works to the exclusion of non citizens / foreigners and may have repercussions to the role of foreigners in R&D. In this security field anyway there is a problem of "deemed export", which is export control of disclosure of certain technology to non-citizens, and frequently clearance requirements which are open only to US citizens. It leads to the paradoxical results that eventually I may theoretically not even read my own work, if it is determined to touch such technical field. And of course an open question is the accountability for private / corporate action based on such dissemination of security concerns to corporate members. "who watches the watchers?" - again, even with the best intent. But in reality things are not perfect, there is a tendency that everything that can go wrong will finally go wrong. 70.137.153.187 (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on InfraGard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606132545/http://gawker.com/5808517/lulzsec-hackers-go-after-fbi-affiliates to http://gawker.com/5808517/lulzsec-hackers-go-after-fbi-affiliates
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613111733/http://www.fbi.gov/page2/oct2006/infragard100406.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/page2/oct2006/infragard100406.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on InfraGard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617004540/http://www.infragard.net/media/files/dir_med.mov to http://www.infragard.net/media/files/dir_med.mov
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518063131/http://www.infragard.net/about.php to http://www.infragard.net/about.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on InfraGard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100108161523/http://www.infragardmembers.org/modules/content/index.php?id=5 to http://www.infragardmembers.org/modules/content/index.php?id=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717024915/http://www.infragard.net/member.php to https://www.infragard.net/member.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214072609/http://www.thiemeworks.com/write/archives/centerofattention.htm to http://www.thiemeworks.com/write/archives/centerofattention.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214022458/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/04/28/infragard/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/04/28/infragard/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)