If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boing Boing)   IP≠ID   (boingboing.net) divider line 97
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

13837 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2014 at 9:08 AM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-23 08:31:00 AM
Should be a hero tag.

/Always makes me nervous when judges are making decisions on technology they don't understand.
 
2014-01-23 09:02:06 AM
About god damned frigging time.  Now let's hope the next court in line isn't presided over by bought and paid for Hollywood actors.
 
2014-01-23 09:02:11 AM
funnycatwallpapers.com
 
2014-01-23 09:07:35 AM
Wow.  I did not expect that.  Good for them.
 
2014-01-23 09:10:44 AM
It shows your IP as 192.168.0.2, looks like we've got our child rapist.
 
2014-01-23 09:13:52 AM
Wait wait wait. How did you get the 'does not equal' sign?
 
2014-01-23 09:14:06 AM
I guess I don't need these extra proxies anymore then...
 
2014-01-23 09:14:25 AM
Don't celebrate yet. While this is a perfectly sensible and technically accurate ruling, you know damn well that if the "wrong people" keep winning too many of these engagements the industry will just buy off - sorry... "lobby" - a few extra politicians and ram legislation through that makes a subscriber financially liable for all infringement on their subscribed service regardless of who actually commits the infringement.

Never underestimate the power of entrenched wealth and legalized political corruption. These asshats have way too much to lose to let common sense and basic fairness under the law stop them. Especially since working harder and producing a better product is certainly out of the question.
 
2014-01-23 09:14:36 AM
Dynamic IP addresses, how do they work?
 
2014-01-23 09:15:09 AM
It scares me that a decision based on such an obvious fact causes me to sigh with great relief.
 
2014-01-23 09:18:23 AM

rev. dave: Dynamic IP addresses, how do they work?


Dynamic IP is the least of the problems.  With IP4 address depletion there are NATs out there with thousands of end users behind them.  You could be working at an office with hundreds of co-workers and if one idiot like the boss' nephew embezzles money or downloads kiddie pr0n the "IP=ID" means the cops can bust just about anyone they want and the trial would be just a formality.

Freedom dodged on hell of a bullet with this ruling, but unfortunately it's just one round out of a very long belt.
 
2014-01-23 09:18:35 AM
≠ = & # 8800 (delete spaces)
 
2014-01-23 09:18:42 AM
I posted this with a better IP address.
 
2014-01-23 09:18:47 AM

skozlaw: Don't celebrate yet. While this is a perfectly sensible and technically accurate ruling, you know damn well that if the "wrong people" keep winning too many of these engagements the industry will just buy off - sorry... "lobby" - a few extra politicians and ram legislation through that makes a subscriber financially liable for all infringement on their subscribed service regardless of who actually commits the infringement.

Never underestimate the power of entrenched wealth and legalized political corruption. These asshats have way too much to lose to let common sense and basic fairness under the law stop them. Especially since working harder and producing a better product is certainly out of the question.


Ruling is just and correct, but this is the most likely scenario.
 
2014-01-23 09:21:31 AM

CapeFearCadaver: Wait wait wait. How did you get the 'does not equal' sign?


alt codes ™

I just learned that this ¤ is the generic currency symbol.
 
2014-01-23 09:22:41 AM

Carn: It shows your IP as 192.168.0.2 127.0.0.1, looks like we've got our child rapist.

Fixed
 
2014-01-23 09:24:16 AM

dragonchild: You could be working at an office with hundreds of co-workers and if one idiot like the boss' nephew embezzles money or downloads kiddie pr0n the "IP=ID" means the cops can bust just about anyone they want and the trial would be just a formality.


Only if that office has a network managed by complete morons. If the cops came in today and said to me that somebody from our office was doing that and they needed to know who it would take me all of 15 minutes to provide that information because we have logs of all basic network activity going back 180 days. And that's assuming the culprit was smart enough to dodge the web filter so I couldn't just look it up in that.

That said, it's rarely the cops asking me for that type of info. It's usually HR.
 
2014-01-23 09:24:59 AM

Cortez the Killer: 127.0.0.1


There's no place like home!
 
2014-01-23 09:25:21 AM

Cortez the Killer: It shows your IP as 192.168.0.2 127.0.0.1 80.0.81.35, looks like we've got our child rapist.
Fixed


Fixed.
 
2014-01-23 09:25:29 AM
192.168.1.1.... he's back!
 
2014-01-23 09:25:34 AM

Archae hippy: ≠ = & # 8800 (delete spaces)


or & ne;

 
2014-01-23 09:26:13 AM

skozlaw: Only if that office has a network managed by complete morons. If the cops came in today and said to me that somebody from our office was doing that and they needed to know who it would take me all of 15 minutes to provide that information because we have logs of all basic network activity going back 180 days. And that's assuming the culprit was smart enough to dodge the web filter so I couldn't just look it up in that.


I think you have a very inaccurate idea of how law enforcement operates.
 
2014-01-23 09:31:09 AM

dragonchild: rev. dave: Dynamic IP addresses, how do they work?

Dynamic IP is the least of the problems.  With IP4 address depletion there are NATs out there with thousands of end users behind them.  You could be working at an office with hundreds of co-workers and if one idiot like the boss' nephew embezzles money or downloads kiddie pr0n the "IP=ID" means the cops can bust just about anyone they want and the trial would be just a formality.

Freedom dodged on hell of a bullet with this ruling, but unfortunately it's just one round out of a very long belt.


You realize there's a HUGE difference between the burdens of proof in civil and criminal litigation? For a criminal investigation you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt while civil is you just have to prove it's likely. So the nephew embezzling will have to be identified by other criteria while the the lawsuit for downloading Back Door Ladies 14 will be hit or miss.

voodoohotdog: skozlaw: Don't celebrate yet. While this is a perfectly sensible and technically accurate ruling, you know damn well that if the "wrong people" keep winning too many of these engagements the industry will just buy off - sorry... "lobby" - a few extra politicians and ram legislation through that makes a subscriber financially liable for all infringement on their subscribed service regardless of who actually commits the infringement.

Never underestimate the power of entrenched wealth and legalized political corruption. These asshats have way too much to lose to let common sense and basic fairness under the law stop them. Especially since working harder and producing a better product is certainly out of the question.

Ruling is just and correct, but this is the most likely scenario.


Yep.
 
2014-01-23 09:31:58 AM

dragonchild: I think you have a very inaccurate idea of how law enforcement operates.


So your theory is they're going to kick down the door, bust in and randomly pick some schmuck to throw in front of the DA with virtually no evidence when the alternative is to pass a bit of work off on somebody else while building a virtually airtight case?

No, I don't think I'm the one who's confused here. There's no downside, it's no extra effort for them and it pretty much seals the case. There's no way they're not going to the company first and telling them "drop what you're doing and quietly give me this info, here's a court order now do it".
 
2014-01-23 09:33:02 AM
867.5.3.09
 
2014-01-23 09:34:24 AM

Cortez the Killer: Carn: It shows your IP as 192.168.0.2 127.0.0.1, looks like we've got our child rapist.
Fixed


WTF??  That's MY IP address... I've been framed!
 
2014-01-23 09:35:30 AM
I agree with the ruling. However, isn't there someway, through discovery, to find more information about who did the downloading?
 
2014-01-23 09:35:57 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-23 09:36:39 AM
Good.  Even if you setup a password on your wifi network, with the time, inclination and proper software will be able to crack it.  And then even if you decide to go a step farther and setup MAC address filtering, someone with even more time, inclination and again the proper software will still be able to crack it.
 
2014-01-23 09:37:38 AM

skozlaw: These asshats have way too much to lose to let common sense and basic fairness under the law stop them


Actually their present course of action almost assures they will lose in the long run due to irrelevance.  They're simply destroying the country in the meantime.
 
2014-01-23 09:38:47 AM

MadMattressMack: You realize there's a HUGE difference between the burdens of proof in civil and criminal litigation? For a criminal investigation you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt while civil is you just have to prove it's likely.


skozlaw: So your theory is they're going to kick down the door, bust in and randomly pick some schmuck to throw in front of the DA with virtually no evidence when the alternative is to pass a bit of work off on somebody else while building a virtually airtight case?


Calm down and pay attention.  That's why this ruling is so important.  If IP=ID ever becomes a thing, then the prosecution gets a free slam dunk because the IP is the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  And with that kind of leverage they'll bust who they want, not who did it per se, because the objective is a successful prosecution, not actual justice.  The reason to go through the logs would be to establish a case but IP=ID eliminates all that tedious work.

The confusion here isn't what's actual proof but the legal definition of proof.  What's legal and what's just are two very different things, though I consider it very lucky that they coincide for today and IP=ID was struck down, at least for a day.
 
2014-01-23 09:39:23 AM


yay!
 
2014-01-23 09:40:28 AM

Vertdang: 867.5.3.09


Won't work; the numbers have to be less than 256. So:

86.75.30.9

Would be cool. Also:

Jenny's Constant = (7^(e-1/e)-9)*pi^2
 
2014-01-23 09:40:42 AM
Ergo:

If someone gets in an accident while driving my car, it is his insurance that covers PL&PD , not mine.
If someone drives my car through a tollbooth and does not pay, they do not send me any correspondence.
If someone driving my car acts illegally, they must find him to issue the ticket.
 
2014-01-23 09:41:58 AM
www.fullhdwpp.com
 
2014-01-23 09:42:27 AM

CapeFearCadaver:

yay!


Here's a list if you want to play with more characters (not equal is on the math page).  We need to have cooler characters like Þ and Ü and æ in english
 
2014-01-23 09:46:07 AM

Carn: CapeFearCadaver: ≠

yay!

Here's a list if you want to play with more characters (not equal is on the math page).  We need to have cooler characters like Þ and Ü and æ in english


I have to use special characters all the time at work (publishing with a global consumer/advertiser base) but I had never seen an alt code for the does not equal. I just used the & # 8800 without spaces. I tried a few other altcodes but they pulled up different characters.
 
2014-01-23 09:48:12 AM

stpauler: Should be a hero tag.

/Always makes me nervous when judges are making decisions on technology they don't understand.


Except the technology can allow you to, well it would at least tell you which residence it came from. At that point the owner of the residence doesn't have safe harbor priviledge and becomes responsible for anything happening behind the router.
 
2014-01-23 09:49:06 AM

CapeFearCadaver: I have to use special characters all the time at work (publishing with a global consumer/advertiser base) but I had never seen an alt code for the does not equal. I just used the & # 8800 without spaces. I tried a few other altcodes but they pulled up different characters.


You can enter in four digit unicode using the same method. ☼  is Alt-9999, for example.
 
2014-01-23 09:49:48 AM

dragonchild: If IP=ID ever becomes a thing, then the prosecution gets a free slam dunk because the IP is the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And with that kind of leverage they'll bust who they want, not who did it per se, because the objective is a successful prosecution, not actual justice. The reason to go through the logs would be to establish a case but IP=ID eliminates all that tedious work.


I don't think you know what you're talking about. In your example, you're talking about the IP of a device that has a default outbound route for sources and destinations without NAT rules. In a company of a thousand people, that's just a device their traffic passes through. Fundamentally no different in this example than any of the switches or cables it passes through before getting there. You could just as easily go upstream one server and say "aha! The offending traffic passed through this regional gateway so we'll pick a random person out of the 450,000 it serves and blame him!" and it would make as much sense as your example.

You can't just arbitrarily pick one person out of a thousand and throw them in front of the DA. You'd be drummed off the job and writing traffic tickets by the next morning for wasting people's time like that. Even if this ruling had gone 180 degrees in the other direction that still wouldn't make even the remotest bit of legal sense. Especially when the judge asked "well, what did you find on his computer" and the response was "a bunch of Fark links and some brony images, your honor". "No porn"? "uhh.. no".

GTFO out of my courtroom then, you idiot.
 
2014-01-23 09:53:43 AM

dragonchild: skozlaw: Only if that office has a network managed by complete morons. If the cops came in today and said to me that somebody from our office was doing that and they needed to know who it would take me all of 15 minutes to provide that information because we have logs of all basic network activity going back 180 days. And that's assuming the culprit was smart enough to dodge the web filter so I couldn't just look it up in that.

I think you have a very inaccurate idea of how law enforcement operates.


I was about to say 180 days?  He's very optimistic of the speed of the system.   I got subpoena for web traffic and emails from 3 years prior at my old job, because some dude was violating his restraining order by contacting his ex-wife using work systems.    Oh yeah let me get that for you, it's right here in /dev/null.
 
2014-01-23 09:54:33 AM
But is P=NP?
 
2014-01-23 09:58:29 AM

DoBeDoBeDo: I was about to say 180 days? He's very optimistic of the speed of the system. I got subpoena for web traffic and emails from 3 years prior at my old job, because some dude was violating his restraining order by contacting his ex-wife using work systems. Oh yeah let me get that for you, it's right here in /dev/null.


That's their problem. I don't remember exactly, but I think when we set it all up our lawyers indicated we were really only obligated to keep 30 days.
 
2014-01-23 10:05:36 AM

skozlaw: DoBeDoBeDo: I was about to say 180 days? He's very optimistic of the speed of the system. I got subpoena for web traffic and emails from 3 years prior at my old job, because some dude was violating his restraining order by contacting his ex-wife using work systems. Oh yeah let me get that for you, it's right here in /dev/null.

That's their problem. I don't remember exactly, but I think when we set it all up our lawyers indicated we were really only obligated to keep 30 days.


Oh I didn't say it wasn't their problem.  I'm just saying that your response of having 180 days doesn't really mean much in cases like this.  They won't show up on your door for probably a year after all the legal wrangling takes place.

Hell PCI-DSS requires logs for 90 days even though the typical breach takes place 200+ days prior to being discovered according to the latest Verizon Data Breach report.

So if someone goes in and out, there will be 0 logs at most organizations by the time someone realizes they were breached, IF they realize it.
 
2014-01-23 10:06:23 AM
If you disassemble malware, you tend to find unique issues.  Sometimes when you google those things, you might find one hit.  If you chase that, you end up with a page describing something about the same malware except that the page has nice javascript that will try to download illegal stuff from an eastern European web server.  Some "law enforcement" group there will notice your deviant acts and then send a fax or email to the police in your local town.  They have been known to send it to the local press "by accident" too.
 
2014-01-23 10:13:50 AM

Cortez the Killer: Carn: It shows your IP as http://192.168.0.2 /127.0.0.1, looks like we've got our child rapist.
Fixed


That's not funny; that's my IP address.
 
2014-01-23 10:14:17 AM

DoBeDoBeDo: Hell PCI-DSS requires logs for 90 days even though the typical breach takes place 200+ days prior to being discovered according to the latest Verizon Data Breach report.


That must be what the goal was, 90 and we doubled it so HR could have a trail for its own nefarious purposes.

That said, bear in mind that the cops can also get court orders while they're still investigating that obligate you to hold records indefinitely if they know they'll need something, but don't know exactly what they'll need just yet.
 
2014-01-23 10:17:23 AM

skozlaw: I don't think you know what you're talking about. In your example, you're talking about the IP of a device that has a default outbound route for sources and destinations without NAT rules. In a company of a thousand people, that's just a device their traffic passes through.


This is the same legal system that decided a company with a monopoly on the consumer OS market wasn't being anti-competitive by bundling its software on said OS.  Does it defy logic?  Sure.  Yeah, logic is such an awesome ally when you're in a courtroom, especially when you're in front of a judge who still has a secretary print out e-mails.  FFS we have a Drug War where cops can basically arrest cash and prosecutors can open cases against material objects so you really think this makes a difference in the long run?

It's not that I don't know what I'm talking about; it's that your incredulity is preventing you from anticipating the pants-on-head derpy behavior of people who really don't know what they're talking about.  A great many of whom influence rulings on court cases.  Also, you're taking this way too personally.  I'm not saying you're stupid; I'm saying you're unable to think like someone stupid.

Granted, IP=ID was struck down, yay.  But notice how few people here are relaxed about it.  Your neckbeard is really showing here in a complete inability to wrap your head around the human side of the equation in favor of embracing your own confident understanding of the technology.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you're not a lawyer.

Sooner or later IP=ID might cross the desk of a corrupt judge or, far more terrifying, a very old and stupid one.  And when that happens, yes, you really will get arguments this asinine.  I mean, yeesh, the telcos routinely make ridiculously hypocritical and irrational arguments in court hoping the judges are too stupid to understand the underlying technical concepts so I really wouldn't sit back and rest assured that logic will prevail in the long run.  They pay their lawyers a lot; they wouldn't waste their time bringing in arguments anyone with an even basic understanding of IT would instantly recognize as fundamentally flawed if they didn't like their chances that they'll eventually get a judge that's dumb enough to buy it.  As for IP=ID, a prosecutor wouldn't defend an idea so broad and dangerous if they didn't intend to abuse the hell out of it, and given their affinity for other overly broad laws it's a sucker's bet they wouldn't have fun with this one.
 
2014-01-23 10:26:28 AM

DoBeDoBeDo: Hell PCI-DSS requires logs for 90 days even though the typical breach takes place 200+ days prior to being discovered according to the latest Verizon Data Breach report.


That is closer to 7 because of odd wording that ends up poorly deferring to banking regs.  Of course the rules for 3d Secure aren't PCI compliant at all and can never be.

While IP ID, it is clear from most ISPs that IP = service which may limit who is involved.
 
2014-01-23 10:28:43 AM

dragonchild: It's not that I don't know what I'm talking about; it's that your incredulity is preventing you from anticipating the pants-on-head derpy behavior of people who really don't know what they're talking about.


There may have been a time when that was true, but at this point law enforcement and the legal system are so used to getting a court order to make somebody else dig through logs for their evidence that I find it very, very, very hard to believe that anything but the most podunk sheriff's office is going to put a case in front of a DA without performing at least that basic step in a scenario like that. You don't really need to know how default routes and NAT rules work, you just need to know that you can toss the work off on somebody else by getting an easy court order, and I seriously doubt they're not going to do that in the vast majority of cases involving computer crime inside an organization these days.

Hell, even our hick police force managed to nail a kiddie porn downloader a while back even though the guy formatted his drive. They sent it off to the state police who, naturally, immediately recovered all the evidence and handed it right back.

I don't think at this point law enforcement is as technically unsophisticated as you believe them to be. The courts are still lagging, but I think law enforcement, as a rule, has embraced technology to a great extent and most police forces staff or have access to people who know what they're doing and where to look for evidence in computer crime cases.
 
2014-01-23 10:36:31 AM
Am I the only one that read that as "IPAD" ??

Time for new glasses.
 
2014-01-23 10:36:49 AM

skozlaw: I don't think at this point law enforcement is as technically unsophisticated as you believe them to be. The courts are still lagging, but I think law enforcement, as a rule, has embraced technology to a great extent and most police forces staff or have access to people who know what they're doing and where to look for evidence in computer crime cases.


Law ENFORCEMENT? Sure, they'll always have the latest and best toys - like an APC to bust up a high school kegger or full-squad riot gear to serve a no-knock warrant on a pair of pot smokers.

LAW (as in "judges and case law")? Hell no. The law against "hacking" is an offshoot of a 1986 law (or maybe I'm thinking specifically about "hacking" e-mails?), our laws against "wiretapping" date from the 60s, and legislatures are filled with over-50s whose idea of "tech savvy" is "downloading and installing apps to their smartphones without help".
 
2014-01-23 10:38:20 AM

skozlaw: DoBeDoBeDo: Hell PCI-DSS requires logs for 90 days even though the typical breach takes place 200+ days prior to being discovered according to the latest Verizon Data Breach report.

That must be what the goal was, 90 and we doubled it so HR could have a trail for its own nefarious purposes.

That said, bear in mind that the cops can also get court orders while they're still investigating that obligate you to hold records indefinitely if they know they'll need something, but don't know exactly what they'll need just yet.


I'm totally aware of that, the problem you'll find is that ISPs take time and/or often fight the subpoena to turn over who had what IP at what time if you are running behind a dynamic IP from your ISP, which is not likely but can happen with smaller companies.   Which is really what THIS particular fight is about.

In my case it was just that the lawyers spent time debating what was and what was not "improper contact" and the judge wouldn't issue a subpoena until they got it figured out.   So by the time I got the paper I just looked at the detective and shrugged.
 
2014-01-23 10:42:28 AM
I browse from 169.254.0.1, biatches
 
2014-01-23 10:42:48 AM

Carn: CapeFearCadaver: ≠

yay!

Here's a list if you want to play with more characters (not equal is on the math page).  We need to have cooler characters like Þ and Ü and æ in english


Want So much, just don't have any use for it.   þ.com/

:þ
 
2014-01-23 10:49:22 AM

Dr Dreidel: LAW (as in "judges and case law")? Hell no. The law against "hacking" is an offshoot of a 1986 law (or maybe I'm thinking specifically about "hacking" e-mails?), our laws against "wiretapping" date from the 60s, and legislatures are filled with over-50s whose idea of "tech savvy" is "downloading and installing apps to their smartphones without help".


I blame the lawyers. Most judges and lawmakers were or are lawyers and lawyers are some of the least technically competent people on the planet. There just seems to be this prevailing attitude among them that technology is a "nerd" thing and they want nothing to do with it. Basically, an "I don't care what it is or what it does, just make it work like I want when I push a button and then go away" sort of thing. Naturally when cases involving technology come before them, then, they're at a huge disadvantage. And, of course, many of them seem to be incapable of admitting they don't know something so they too often rule from a position of complete, abject ignorance.

I certainly don't disagree with any of that, but the discussion at hand started with a claim about how law enforcement might act in a particular situation, so that's how we got where we did in my last post.

DoBeDoBeDo: In my case it was just that the lawyers spent time debating what was and what was not "improper contact" and the judge wouldn't issue a subpoena until they got it figured out. So by the time I got the paper I just looked at the detective and shrugged.


Yea, that's probably how I'd react to. "Sorry, wish I could help you... but it's your problem now."
 
2014-01-23 10:50:11 AM

Shryke: I browse from 169.254.0.1, biatches


LAN party!
 
2014-01-23 10:51:13 AM

StrangeQ: And then even if you decide to go a step farther and setup MAC address filtering, someone with even more time, inclination and again the proper software will still be able to crack it.


Hell if you just setup MAC filtering I could be inside your network in a minute.  Find out what MACs are connected to your router.  Make my MAC your MAC, disconnect your MAC and then quickly connect my device.
 
2014-01-23 10:54:55 AM

StrangeQ: Good.  Even if you setup a password on your wifi network, with the time, inclination and proper software will be able to crack it.  And then even if you decide to go a step farther and setup MAC address filtering, someone with even more time, inclination and again the proper software will still be able to crack it.


Here's what you do... make a random senseless password. at least 16 characters would suffice... For my network password, it was tested that it would take a desktop PC about 5 quintillion years to crack. Main thing, don't use words/dates/times, cause then it would be easy to crack. Mine, literally the only good method that would work would be brute force.
 
2014-01-23 10:59:18 AM

Primitive Screwhead: Cortez the Killer: 127.0.0.1

There's no place like home!


That's where my hosts file redirects all those bad poo-poo heads.
The list must be three miles long by now

127.0.0.1 a.abv.bg
127.0.0.1 adserver.abv.bg
127.0.0.1 adv.abv.bg
127.0.0.1 bimg.abv.bg
127.0.0.1 ca.abv.bg
127.0.0.1 www2.a-counter.kiev.ua
127.0.0.1 track.acclaimnetwork.com
127.0.0.1 accuserveadsystem.com
127.0.0.1 www.accuserveadsystem.com
127.0.0.1 achmedia.com
127.0.0.1 aconti.net
127.0.0.1 secure.aconti.net
127.0.0.1 www.aconti.net #[Dialer.Aconti]
127.0.0.1 am1.activemeter.com/

yada yada
 
2014-01-23 11:06:26 AM

dragonchild: rev. dave: Dynamic IP addresses, how do they work?

Dynamic IP is the least of the problems.  With IP4 address depletion there are NATs out there with thousands of end users behind them.  You could be working at an office with hundreds of co-workers and if one idiot like the boss' nephew embezzles money or downloads kiddie pr0n the "IP=ID" means the cops can bust just about anyone they want and the trial would be just a formality.

Freedom dodged on hell of a bullet with this ruling, but unfortunately it's just one round out of a very long belt.


No, because the cops that work on these cases are not entirely clueless and  know your company would more than likely have logs on the firewall that show who accesses the Federal Reserve's mainfram at 02:14:04 last tuesday, just seconds before all the funds were transfered to an overseas bank.

I have had to work with the cops on a few occasions in cases like this, and they proved to be very knowldegeable and know what the technology can and can not do, so they don't issue a warrant for the 117 people who were accessing hotmail from the office during those 3 minutes prior to an e-mail confirming a drug deal shipment was sent to an undercover operative.

Also, a large corporation will have lawyers on the case as soon as the cops call.

Which is not the case when your 14 year old neighbor uses your unprotected wifi access to download pr0n, and the lawyers suing for copyright infrigement know this, that's why they're going against individual users, and not large companies.
 
2014-01-23 11:21:19 AM

Carn: CapeFearCadaver: ≠

yay!

Here's a list if you want to play with more characters (not equal is on the math page).  We need to have cooler characters like Þ and Ü and æ in english


thorn is an (old) english character.  would be nice to have it in new english though.
 
2014-01-23 11:24:05 AM

Carn: CapeFearCadaver: ≠

yay!

Here's a list if you want to play with more characters (not equal is on the math page).  We need to have cooler characters like Þ and Ü and æ in english


You know who else used unlauts?
 
2014-01-23 11:26:10 AM

pute kisses like a man: I agree with the ruling. However, isn't there someway, through discovery, to find more information about who did the downloading?


There would have been, but under the Supreme Court's ruling in Iqbal, you have to allege sufficient facts in the complaint to have a plausible cause of action, not just a possible one. Here, they weren't able to plausibly claim that the defendants operated the torrent client, just that it was possible that they did, so they don't have sufficient facts in the complaint to even get to the discovery stage.

It's actually a pretty big Catch 22 - you need to have the incriminating information before you can get a court order to search for the incriminating information. I'd look for Iqbal to be narrowed at some point in the future, particularly because it was a 5-4 decision.
 
2014-01-23 11:47:54 AM

MadMattressMack: Carn: CapeFearCadaver: ≠

yay!

Here's a list if you want to play with more characters (not equal is on the math page).  We need to have cooler characters like Þ and Ü and æ in english

You know who else used unlauts?


Mötörhead?
 
2014-01-23 11:58:57 AM

flamark: Am I the only one that read that as "IPAD" ??

Time for new glasses.


--
I saw "iPAID" -- thought it was some kind of Apple lawsuit settlement.
 
2014-01-23 12:16:41 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Wait wait wait. How did you get the 'does not equal' sign?


www.sipree.com
 
2014-01-23 12:18:06 PM

StrangeQ: Good.  Even if you setup a password on your wifi network, with the time, inclination and proper software will be able to crack it.  And then even if you decide to go a step farther and setup MAC address filtering, someone with even more time, inclination and again the proper software will still be able to crack it.


Or a frikkin'  pineapple with antennas.
 
2014-01-23 12:42:22 PM

StrangeQ: Good.  Even if you setup a password on your wifi network, with the time, inclination and proper software will be able to crack it.  And then even if you decide to go a step farther and setup MAC address filtering, someone with even more time, inclination and again the proper software will still be able to crack it.


Dude: we must've had a class together. Right after my first networking/security teacher introduced himself (circa 1996), he states, "Computer security does not exist. The safest computer is unplugged and buried in six feet of concrete. What I mean by that is that anyone with the time, resources, and motivation will get whatever access and data they want."

So I guess the first rule of computer security...?
 
2014-01-23 12:44:00 PM

MadMattressMack: Carn: CapeFearCadaver: ≠

yay!

Here's a list if you want to play with more characters (not equal is on the math page).  We need to have cooler characters like Þ and Ü and æ in english

You know who else used unlauts?


Hanz and Franz?
 
2014-01-23 12:46:29 PM

Marcus Aurelius: About god damned frigging time.


It's actually about the hundredth time. My IP's been subpoenaed and I've written successful motions to quash the subpoena -- I've even sent copies to other Farkers before, and someone once bought me a year of TF for it. Anyway, I cited a few dozen cases where the judges ruled that IP alone was insufficient to prosecute. I could dig them up if someone really needs the cases. 

barefoot in the head: Ergo:

If someone gets in an accident while driving my car


Except if you didn't report your car stolen there's every reason to expect you'd either be in control of it or could ID who did. The same kind of thing is why piracy is not equal to theft: someone getting a free copy of a movie doesn't deprive anyone else of that movie, and someone jacking into my Wifi wouldn't deprive me of its use, nor would I know that it happened. Someone taking your car for a spin, however, means you don't get to drive your car.
 
2014-01-23 12:51:33 PM

MadMattressMack: Carn: CapeFearCadaver: ≠

yay!

Here's a list if you want to play with more characters (not equal is on the math page).  We need to have cooler characters like Þ and Ü and æ in english

You know who else used unlauts?


Tiësto
 
2014-01-23 01:24:29 PM

dragonchild: This is the same legal system that decided a company with a monopoly on the consumer OS market wasn't being anti-competitive by bundling its software on said OS.  Does it defy logic?


If you are referring to the Microsoft anti-trust suit, then no, it doesn't defy logic, it defies the fact.

Microsoft was found guilty of anti-competitive behavior.
 
2014-01-23 01:49:12 PM

Theaetetus: pute kisses like a man: I agree with the ruling. However, isn't there someway, through discovery, to find more information about who did the downloading?

There would have been, but under the Supreme Court's ruling in Iqbal, you have to allege sufficient facts in the complaint to have a plausible cause of action, not just a possible one. Here, they weren't able to plausibly claim that the defendants operated the torrent client, just that it was possible that they did, so they don't have sufficient facts in the complaint to even get to the discovery stage.

It's actually a pretty big Catch 22 - you need to have the incriminating information before you can get a court order to search for the incriminating information. I'd look for Iqbal to be narrowed at some point in the future, particularly because it was a 5-4 decision.


Farking Iqbal. Yeah, totally makes sense. I wasn't thinking like a lawyer, more like a relatively lay person interested in the works of networks, etc.

I've spent too much time dealing with state court judges that let everything and anything fly. Would that many of my cases could be removed. Farking state courts.
 
2014-01-23 01:55:42 PM

Scrotastic Method: Marcus Aurelius: About god damned frigging time.

It's actually about the hundredth time. My IP's been subpoenaed and I've written successful motions to quash the subpoena -- I've even sent copies to other Farkers before, and someone once bought me a year of TF for it. Anyway, I cited a few dozen cases where the judges ruled that IP alone was insufficient to prosecute. I could dig them up if someone really needs the cases. 

barefoot in the head: Ergo:

If someone gets in an accident while driving my car

Except if you didn't report your car stolen there's every reason to expect you'd either be in control of it or could ID who did. The same kind of thing is why piracy is not equal to theft: someone getting a free copy of a movie doesn't deprive anyone else of that movie, and someone jacking into my Wifi wouldn't deprive me of its use, nor would I know that it happened. Someone taking your car for a spin, however, means you don't get to drive your car.


It's theft without larceny.
 
2014-01-23 02:02:52 PM

CFitzDE: It's theft without larceny.


Hey look, we found Cary Sherman's Fark account.
 
2014-01-23 02:06:51 PM
 
2014-01-23 02:49:39 PM
Don't pull out the confetti just yet. The RIAA and there little friends will this till they find the "right" judge.
 
2014-01-23 02:52:35 PM

lilbordr: [www.fullhdwpp.com image 850x478]


localhost?
 
2014-01-23 02:55:08 PM
I'm sure there would have been a different outcome if the 'plaintiff' had been Disney or some other big studio.
 
2014-01-23 03:46:14 PM

flaminio: Vertdang: 867.5.3.09

Won't work; the numbers have to be less than 256. So:

86.75.30.9

Would be cool. Also:

Jenny's Constant = (7^(e-1/e)-9)*pi^2


Huh, it looks like Jenny lives in France...
 
2014-01-23 03:55:36 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: MadMattressMack: Carn: CapeFearCadaver: ≠

yay!

Here's a list if you want to play with more characters (not equal is on the math page).  We need to have cooler characters like Þ and Ü and æ in english

You know who else used unlauts?

Tiësto


Nope, Mötley Crüe
 
2014-01-23 04:03:43 PM

MadMattressMack: Uchiha_Cycliste: MadMattressMack: Carn: CapeFearCadaver: ≠

yay!

Here's a list if you want to play with more characters (not equal is on the math page).  We need to have cooler characters like Þ and Ü and æ in english

You know who else used unlauts?

Tiësto

Nope, Mötley Crüe


it doesn't mean those silly dots?
 
2014-01-23 04:05:15 PM

KyDave: StrangeQ: Good.  Even if you setup a password on your wifi network, with the time, inclination and proper software will be able to crack it.  And then even if you decide to go a step farther and setup MAC address filtering, someone with even more time, inclination and again the proper software will still be able to crack it.

Dude: we must've had a class together. Right after my first networking/security teacher introduced himself (circa 1996), he states, "Computer security does not exist. The safest computer is unplugged and buried in six feet of concrete. What I mean by that is that anyone with the time, resources, and motivation will get whatever access and data they want."

So I guess the first rule of computer security...?


He definitely has a point.  I work cyber security for DoD and the assumption is that the chinese and iranians have already breached our networks.  The goal is containment so as to limit the damage they can do.
 
2014-01-23 04:06:26 PM

The_Time_Master: lilbordr: [www.fullhdwpp.com image 850x478]

localhost?


I must have spent too much time with cisco products.  I read that as loopback.
 
2014-01-23 04:26:31 PM
The future is ::1

/Any year now
 
2014-01-23 05:18:11 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: MadMattressMack: Uchiha_Cycliste: MadMattressMack: Carn: CapeFearCadaver: ≠

yay!

Here's a list if you want to play with more characters (not equal is on the math page).  We need to have cooler characters like Þ and Ü and æ in english

You know who else used unlauts?

Tiësto

Nope, Mötley Crüe

it doesn't mean those silly dots?


Nope, those silly dots are a diacritic properly called diaresis.
 
2014-01-23 05:18:26 PM
Next you're going to tell me that my car isn't me!
 
2014-01-23 07:19:19 PM

BitwiseShift: Primitive Screwhead: Cortez the Killer: 127.0.0.1

There's no place like home!

That's where my hosts file redirects all those bad poo-poo heads.
The list must be three miles long by now

127.0.0.1 a.abv.bg
127.0.0.1 adserver.abv.bg
127.0.0.1 adv.abv.bg
127.0.0.1 bimg.abv.bg
127.0.0.1 ca.abv.bg
127.0.0.1 www2.a-counter.kiev.ua
127.0.0.1 track.acclaimnetwork.com
127.0.0.1 accuserveadsystem.com
127.0.0.1 www.accuserveadsystem.com
127.0.0.1 achmedia.com
127.0.0.1 aconti.net
127.0.0.1 secure.aconti.net
127.0.0.1 www.aconti.net #[Dialer.Aconti]
127.0.0.1 am1.activemeter.com/
yada yada


Oh, yah, mon. And I ran a local web server with the default home page of a pirate flag.

That sucker was ALL OVER the page.
 
2014-01-23 07:36:44 PM

Carn: CapeFearCadaver: ≠

yay!

Here's a list if you want to play with more characters (not equal is on the math page).  We need to have cooler characters like Þ and Ü and æ in english


Æ is great.  All my game character names and gamertags have it when it's allowed, otherwise I have to resort to AE, uck..

Æsthetically pleasing.

/I blame Æon Flux for my infatuation with it.
 
2014-01-23 07:37:53 PM
//via Liquid Television
 
2014-01-23 08:11:22 PM

dragonchild: It scares me that a decision based on such an obvious fact causes me to sigh with great relief.


Just wait....
 
2014-01-24 05:28:05 AM

Cortez the Killer: Carn: It shows your IP as 192.168.0.2 127.0.0.1, looks like we've got our child rapist.
Fixed


What? Are you all cavemen?

::1
 
2014-01-24 08:37:10 AM

People_are_Idiots: StrangeQ: Good.  Even if you setup a password on your wifi network, with the time, inclination and proper software will be able to crack it.  And then even if you decide to go a step farther and setup MAC address filtering, someone with even more time, inclination and again the proper software will still be able to crack it.

Here's what you do... make a random senseless password. at least 16 characters would suffice... For my network password, it was tested that it would take a desktop PC about 5 quintillion years to crack. Main thing, don't use words/dates/times, cause then it would be easy to crack. Mine, literally the only good method that would work would be brute force.


That's not the kind of cracking I'm talking about.  Brute forcing a password is inefficient and in most cases impossible.  But on a wifi network, all you have to do is sit and listen to over the air packets and eventually you can deduce what the network password is as well as the addresses of every device wirelessly connected to the network.
 
2014-01-24 11:15:14 AM

StrangeQ: People_are_Idiots: StrangeQ: Good.  Even if you setup a password on your wifi network, with the time, inclination and proper software will be able to crack it.  And then even if you decide to go a step farther and setup MAC address filtering, someone with even more time, inclination and again the proper software will still be able to crack it.

Here's what you do... make a random senseless password. at least 16 characters would suffice... For my network password, it was tested that it would take a desktop PC about 5 quintillion years to crack. Main thing, don't use words/dates/times, cause then it would be easy to crack. Mine, literally the only good method that would work would be brute force.

That's not the kind of cracking I'm talking about.  Brute forcing a password is inefficient and in most cases impossible.  But on a wifi network, all you have to do is sit and listen to over the air packets and eventually you can deduce what the network password is as well as the addresses of every device wirelessly connected to the network.


You would still need to have some form of software to find (A) the MAC addresses, and (B) the password.
 
2014-01-24 11:59:42 AM

People_are_Idiots: StrangeQ: People_are_Idiots: StrangeQ: Good.  Even if you setup a password on your wifi network, with the time, inclination and proper software will be able to crack it.  And then even if you decide to go a step farther and setup MAC address filtering, someone with even more time, inclination and again the proper software will still be able to crack it.

Here's what you do... make a random senseless password. at least 16 characters would suffice... For my network password, it was tested that it would take a desktop PC about 5 quintillion years to crack. Main thing, don't use words/dates/times, cause then it would be easy to crack. Mine, literally the only good method that would work would be brute force.

That's not the kind of cracking I'm talking about.  Brute forcing a password is inefficient and in most cases impossible.  But on a wifi network, all you have to do is sit and listen to over the air packets and eventually you can deduce what the network password is as well as the addresses of every device wirelessly connected to the network.

You would still need to have some form of software to find (A) the MAC addresses, and (B) the password.


Link
 
2014-01-24 01:59:52 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Wait wait wait. How did you get the 'does not equal' sign?


It's easy.  Just hold compose while typing "/=" without the quotes.  Offer not valid on operating systems stuck in the 1980s.
 
Displayed 97 of 97 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report