|
Posted by hummingbird on October 30, 2007, 12:32 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:29:40 +0000 (UTC) 'Anonymous Sender'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:11:50 +0100 (CET) 'Anonymous'
>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>
>> >Only by the most narrow, cherry picked definition of "fact".
>> >
>> >To an attacker it's as good as a fingerprint. To law enforcement it
>> >is.
>>
>> I should have added that recent sporge/floods on some groups often
>> contain IP addresses that are valid the IPs but don't to belong to
>> the sporgers. There are recent posts on Usenet by Radium claiming
>
>And proxied connections are relevant.... how?
Not proxied connections but fake usage of IP addresses.
It's relevant to make my previous point that an IP address
is *not definitive* as to who the user is.
>> that other people are forging his IP address. Then I see identical
>> spam posts from Google which contain different IPs, so they're
>> possibly from the same person. The whole thing is very fuzzy.
>
>Only if you're fuzzy headed to begin with.
la la la.
>> All I'm saying is that an IP add does not necessarily identify an
>> individual and may not ID a specific computer connection. It is
>> merely one piece of relevant evidence.
>>
>
>It most ofetn does ID and individual, and *always* ID's specific
>computer connection. The latter is what it's specifically designed for.
Ah! you've now gone from: "it's as good as a fingerprint" to:
"It most ofetn does". hhmmm.
You are quietly moving the goalposts. An IP address ID's a specific
computer connection and I never disputed that. What is does *not*
do is necessarily ID a *person*, which was where our debate started
when you wrote:
"To an attacker it's as good as a fingerprint.
To law enforcement it is."
Nice to have cleared that up ... HAND.
--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run
| 
XML site map