|
Posted by hummingbird on October 30, 2007, 8:03 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:16:36 +0100 (CET) 'Anonymous'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>How do you "fake the usage of an IP address"?
You ensure that an IP address gets used which is not the one you
are posting from. Don't ask me how that is done in detail because
a) I wouldn't tell you on this forum and b) I dunno - hey - I'm
not a sporger doncha know. lol.
If you look at the recent sporge on many newsgroups, they contain
IP's from all over the place but are not those of the posters.
Something to do with where the sporge is posted through or injected
into the stream I believe. Since you're familiar with the anon
network, you probably already know some of this. Maybe.
>This should be good... watching you try and wriggle your way around the
>problems of packet sequence prediction and return routing.
>
><chuckle>
While you're chuckling anonymous, I'm rotfl in stitches.
>> It's relevant to make my previous point that an IP address
>> is *not definitive* as to who the user is.
>
>The only thing it's relevant for is to show what a clueless rube you
>are. I'll be more than happy to help you out with that if you want.
Your absence of any relevant input is noted.
>> >> 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.
>
>No, I haven't. I started out quite plainly saying "as good as", and
>noting that for LE purposes it does denote an ID.
Not in the UK it doesn't and I doubt it's the case in the US either,
although I'm no expert on US law, such that it is. Like I said it is
*one* piece of evidence and probably scores more points than some
other pieces.
Here it is again: An IP address is not definitive evidence of a
person's ID (from a legal standpoint). I explained why earlier.
Get used to it. Live with it. Have a party with it.
> If you were even a
>quarter as clever as you think you are you mighe have figured out why I
>specifically worded it that way by nore, but here you are, not even up
>to speed with the actual statements themselves.
If you were even a quarter as clever as you think you are you might
have figured out why I posted my previous comments. You might also
have figured out that the law varies from one country to another and
surprise surprise the world doesn't all follow the same law.
>How do you manage to type and maintain autonomic functions at the same
>time?
la la la.
>> You are quietly moving the goalposts. An IP address ID's a specific
>
>Dream on sonny. I've moved nothing.
Pah! Sure you have. One minute you claim it's a slam dunk, now
you back peddle because I've explained why you are wrong.
Get used to it. Live with it.
>You simply don't have the ability
>to think up to my level so you don't even grasp the meaning of what
>I've said.
I understand exactly what you said and I explained why you are
wrong. Get used to it. Live with it. Learn not to describe your
*opinions* as fact and learn about the rule of law.
HTH - HAND.
--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run
| 
XML site map