Family Holloway

The scammer, here known as FakeRose, wanted me to send $1000 to a London branch of Western Union because she said she was robbed at gunpoint. Here’s part of the chatlog….

FakeRose: hmmmm

Matthew: ok bron is here

FakeRose: ok
go now

Matthew: I haven’t seen her in ages
you’ll be glad to know she still has that damn fine ass

FakeRose: Can you go now?

Matthew: She’s getting my wheel chair ready
what a kind woman

FakeRose: ok

Matthew: and really, she’s got some child-bearing hips that can’t be beat
what do you think about bron?
honestly?

FakeRose: okay
Can you leave for the western union now?

Matthew: she’s okay?
I think she’s great
bron is wonderful
well what do you think of bron?

FakeRose: she is okay

Matthew: is that all?

FakeRose: aren’t going to the western union again?

Matthew: well I’m a bit worried that you just think that bron is okay
I thought you two were best of friends
what went wrong in your friendship?

FakeRose: Nothing

Matthew: then why do you think she’s okay?

FakeRose: Leave for the WU now

Matthew: I want to talk about you and Bron
you clearly have some issues
did Bron say something rude?

FakeRose: am freaked out here
not this day

Matthew: no. we must discuss this now

FakeRose: can you leave for the WU?

Matthew: we need to talk about you and bron first
what went wrong?
Are you ok?
ROSEANNA SKELETOR MCCOLL ARE YOU THERE?
(cruel parents to give you that middle name)

FakeRose: am here
am freaked out

Matthew: me too
what do you think of Bron though?

FakeRose: she is caring and kind
am getting frustrated here

Matthew: I agree. She is caring and kind.
thank for you saying that
…
and she has a slammin’ booty

[FakeRose has defriended you]

Over at PublicActa.org.nz Jon Penney has written an excellent article about how artistic remix rights (what under New Zealand law calls Fair Dealing defenses) are eroded by DRM. Digital Restrictions/Rights Management is like a brick wall in front of legally purchased content that attempts to block legal or illegal use of material. Penney writes,“ACTA may create substantive a new civil and criminal offence— and indirectly conferring new “access control” rights on copyright holders they do not current possess— despite its pretensions as an “enforcement only” treaty.  Indeed, even putting aside current New Zealand law, ACTA is supposedly limited to enforcing copyright and intellectual property, not technology measures or access control.”

UPDATE We have just returned from a MFAT/MED briefing on ACTA. CFF Director Bronwyn Holloway-Smith asked about the stakeholder meeting and whether it was about international or domestic stakeholders. It apparently is the case that certain NZ stakeholders will be invited to meet international delegates and other domestic stakeholders. This is the first time this has happened in ACTA negotiations. They hoped that it would set some precedent for stakeholder involvement in other countries.