Talk:Prosecutor's Management Information System

Questionable content
"Both news reports also stated that Osama bin Laden later bought copies of these software systems on the Russian black market for $2 million and that al Qaeda used the software to penetrate U.S. intelligence database systems so that it could move its funds through the banking system and so that it could evade detection and monitoring by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies."

- quoted within the 1990s conclusion of the main article

As far as I can tell from reading the wired article and some other accounts of the history behind this software, it's nothing more than a tool for storing information which you must input or be supplied with, analogous to a customized microsoft access database.

It seems as if people infer that it has some magical property of materialising valuable information. If the software is as described, simply used for tracking and reporting on information, what property of that would allow you to leverage an attack of the US government's computer systems? Jeffz1 (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Many details surrounding the questionable content of this article may be resolved by different articles. Your evaluation is premature on one level but poignant on another.  The story of Inslaw (and its conspiracies) begins with the Wikipedia article on Danny Casolaro.  From there, an avid researcher will begin to unravel a fascinating tale  encompassing two decades of hightech, international espionage, money laundering, and organized crime.  Whether or not, the truth is  fact or fiction depends upon the researcher's ability to extrapolate one from the other.  Good luck: follow the researched footnotes, pay attention to the details, and always look for your answers to reliability, verification, and credibility.  Lastly, whatever you find, please use it to help rewrite this article into a much deeper one from the proper perspective.  It needs it.  This second level of detail is the level which you have addressed in your comment.  This article (as is written) truly does little to explain what PROMIS is and how it works. Hag2 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of what I've seen written about what PROMIS is or how it works looks like nonsense to me. This real system has taken on the aspect of urban legend but has never been discussed with any depth of analysis, as far as I have seen. I have some background in information systems, so I am always left with more questions about PROMIS than answers. If it lived up to the hype of its capabilities over 25 years ago, the PROMIS concept would be in widespread use today in several industries. Integrating data from disparate systems is a common challenge. - 74.61.47.163 (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

other
This page has been vandalized by recently banned sockpuppets of Anne Teedham, most current content in this article is written by this person. The sockpuppets have been used to vandalize all of the articles listed by Hag2 under "Article needs great rewrite" Winksatfriend (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend

Can you elaborate on this? Jeffz1 (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Article needs great rewrite
This article should NOT be about Inslaw Inc. nor the history surrounding Inslaw's court battles with the Department of Justice. This article should be factual details about the software called PROMIS: what it is and how it works. Keeping that in mind, I believe the article needs to be rewritten from a point of view by hightech software designers who can try to explain how PROMIS'S secret "trojan back door" actually works... etcetera. (I certainly am not qualified to offer spit upon the subject.) The history of Inslaw, and the surrounding conspiracies which are tangential to the complete story of Inslaw Inc. v Department of Justice are covered by INSLAW, October Surprise Conspiracy, Danny Casolaro, and Michael Riconosciuto. Hag2 (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a pretty bad article. It should be rewritten to describe PROMIS, with MAYBE some minor comment on copyright controversies. The INSLAW stuff belongs in separate articles. Lou Sander (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * notice: To everyone concerned, I have deleted 99% of the original material written from 2005 to September 2008. That material was then inserted into the INSLAW article along with all relevant citations, external links, and so on.  Hag2 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)