Jonathan Gennick wrote after Jerry Fochtman wrote after Jonathan Gennick wrote:


>>>There are some specific reasons why we can't go
>>>back to the site that generated the tape.
>>
>>This last statement, coupled with the lack of any knowledge
>>internally set off some caution alarms....
>>
>>Given that Peat Marwick provides consulting/outsourcing services
>>its not clear from this posting whether or not the data belongs
>>to KPMG or a former client, as msg indicated there were reasons
>>why they couldn't go back to the originating site.  As such, I
>>would recommend caution in terms of providing help in this situation
>>as there may be more to this than is stated.=20
>
>I wanted to reply to this because Jerry's concern is valid,
>especially in light of the recent ComputerWorld article on
>computer forensics. Please understand though that I can't
>blast the details behind this accross the 'net. We
>certainly wouldn't do anything unethical or that would
>compromise a client's data. Nor would we do anything to put
>a consultant at risk. And certainly whoever we end up
>working with will know more than what I posted in my
>original query.=20

To me, this has "trolling" written all over it (so I guess I've been hooked).  I
agree with Jerry that KPMG certainly has the internal resources to handle this
seemingly innocent request - KPMG says they have over 54,000 professionals on
staff (as of 1996-09-30)...

Kelly Sevilla