Re: Privacy/Security: How to change my IP address daily or weekly on DSL

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:33:59 -0800, Dana wrote:
>> Changing the MAC address is totally pointless.
>
> While I see where you are coming from, I would not say it is pointless.
> There are valid and invalid reasons for wanting to change a MAC address.

Hi Dana,
I'll give you a real life, albeit embarrassing, reason for changing a MAC
address.

When I was in high school, a student made a lot of fun of my body. Said I
was a "twiggy" (those old enough out there will know what that means).

Well, recently I was back home, and I saw her, and she looked positively
huge. She must have doubled in weight. I wanted to get her back. So, I
logged into NetZero from a blocked phone line, and I sent her a message
calling her all sorts of names to get her back. I even said I was a
"friend" of hers way back when but I thought she looked like a pig now.

Point is, I figured the only way they could track that email I sent her was
through my MAC address since the IP address would have been registered to
NetZero and the phone number I called from would have been blocked.

Isn't that a case where the MAC address change afforded me some privacy?
Or did I give myself away even then?

"Aluxe" <aluxelocochon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6xpsis0n7z26$.1bpm30hw360sr$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:33:59 -0800, Dana wrote:
> >> Changing the MAC address is totally pointless.
> >
> > While I see where you are coming from, I would not say it is pointless.
> > There are valid and invalid reasons for wanting to change a MAC address.
>
> Hi Dana,
> I'll give you a real life, albeit embarrassing, reason for changing a MAC
> address.
>
> When I was in high school, a student made a lot of fun of my body. Said I
> was a "twiggy" (those old enough out there will know what that means).
>
> Well, recently I was back home, and I saw her, and she looked positively
> huge. She must have doubled in weight. I wanted to get her back. So, I
> logged into NetZero from a blocked phone line, and I sent her a message
> calling her all sorts of names to get her back. I even said I was a
> "friend" of hers way back when but I thought she looked like a pig now.
>
> Point is, I figured the only way they could track that email I sent her
was
> through my MAC address since the IP address would have been registered to
> NetZero and the phone number I called from would have been blocked.
>
> Isn't that a case where the MAC address change afforded me some privacy?
> Or did I give myself away even then?

The person would have never seen your MAC address, unless they got a court
order for your ISP to show it to them.
The only mac address a station will see, is the next station upstream.

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:51:59 -0800, Dana wrote:
>> Isn't that a case where the MAC address change afforded me some privacy?
>> Or did I give myself away even then?
>
> The person would have never seen your MAC address, unless they got a court
> order for your ISP to show it to them.
> The only mac address a station will see, is the next station upstream.

Hi Dana,
Sorry to keep hammering on this but the question I asked was "didn't
changing the MAC address add a modicum of privacy to my email"?

For example, if she had a packet sniffer or if she got a court order to
track the email, wouldn't the MAC address have been a key component of the
traceback?

And, if it was, wouldn't the bogus MAC address I provided have added an
extra level of privacy to that traceback?

Yes or no is what I'd expect the answer to be.

"Aluxe" <aluxelocochon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6reykj1cl80a$.svm6xifnvsrq.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:51:59 -0800, Dana wrote:
> >> Isn't that a case where the MAC address change afforded me some
privacy?
> >> Or did I give myself away even then?
> >
> > The person would have never seen your MAC address, unless they got a
court
> > order for your ISP to show it to them.
> > The only mac address a station will see, is the next station upstream.
>
> Hi Dana,
> Sorry to keep hammering on this but the question I asked was "didn't
> changing the MAC address add a modicum of privacy to my email"?

No.

>
> For example, if she had a packet sniffer or if she got a court order to
> track the email, wouldn't the MAC address have been a key component of the
> traceback?

Your ISP will always have whatever MAC address you use, hence if they were
given a court order, they would have to give it up.


>
> And, if it was, wouldn't the bogus MAC address I provided have added an
> extra level of privacy to that traceback?

No, because your isp would know it is associated with your account, hence
they would have to give that info out if there was a court order.

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:34:50 -0800, Dana wrote:
>> And, if it was, wouldn't the bogus MAC address I provided have added an
>> extra level of privacy to that traceback?
>
> No, because your isp would know it is associated with your account, hence
> they would have to give that info out if there was a court order.

Hi Dana,
I do appreciate your taking the time to explain this to me.
Let me see if I have it correct this time:

CASE 1 (home ISP):
In the case of a home ISP, where I have to log in with a user name and a
password from a dedicated account, changing the MAC address provides
absolutely no additional privacy since the ISP knows the MAC address used,
even if it is 00-00-00-00-00-00.

CASE 2 (NetZero dialup):
Even in the case of NetZero dialup, there may not be an additional level of
privacy gained by changing the MAC address because you have to first
establish an account with NetZero which requires a previous account which
will have your original MAC address associated with it - which can always
be traced back to you by your ISP.

CASE 3 (hotel free hotspot):
However, in the case of a hotel freebie hotspot, changing the MAC address
to 00-00-00-00-00-00 DOES PROVIDE AN EXTRA LEVEL OF PRIVACY because in this
case, the MAC address is the only factor they have in tracing the
connection back to you.

Did I summarize the implications of changing the MAC address correctly?

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:15:38 GMT, Aluxe <aluxelocochon@yahoo.com> wrote
in <6reykj1cl80a$.svm6xifnvsrq.dlg@40tude.net>:

>On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:51:59 -0800, Dana wrote:
>>> Isn't that a case where the MAC address change afforded me some privacy?
>>> Or did I give myself away even then?
>>
>> The person would have never seen your MAC address, unless they got a court
>> order for your ISP to show it to them.
>> The only mac address a station will see, is the next station upstream.
>
>Hi Dana,
>Sorry to keep hammering on this but the question I asked was "didn't
>changing the MAC address add a modicum of privacy to my email"?

Nope. Nada. Zilch.

>For example, if she had a packet sniffer or if she got a court order to
>track the email, wouldn't the MAC address have been a key component of the
>traceback?
>
>And, if it was, wouldn't the bogus MAC address I provided have added an
>extra level of privacy to that traceback?
>
>Yes or no is what I'd expect the answer to be.

Nope. Nada. Zilch.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

"Aluxe" <aluxelocochon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:el08vggrgg3b$.34blm2k3v78j$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:34:50 -0800, Dana wrote:
> >> And, if it was, wouldn't the bogus MAC address I provided have added an
> >> extra level of privacy to that traceback?
> >
> > No, because your isp would know it is associated with your account,
hence
> > they would have to give that info out if there was a court order.
>
> Hi Dana,
> I do appreciate your taking the time to explain this to me.
> Let me see if I have it correct this time:
>
> CASE 1 (home ISP):
> In the case of a home ISP, where I have to log in with a user name and a
> password from a dedicated account, changing the MAC address provides
> absolutely no additional privacy since the ISP knows the MAC address used,
> even if it is 00-00-00-00-00-00.

Yes, that is how the protocol works. The next upstream device (your ISP has
to know what mac address to send the replies to.
>
> CASE 2 (NetZero dialup):
> Even in the case of NetZero dialup, there may not be an additional level
of
> privacy gained by changing the MAC address because you have to first
> establish an account with NetZero which requires a previous account which
> will have your original MAC address associated with it - which can always
> be traced back to you by your ISP.

They may have your original MAC, but they will now use whatever MAC address
you are using now, as that identifies the machine you are using.
So if you log on using your friends lap top, netzero will associate you to
that lap top once you sign in.
>
> CASE 3 (hotel free hotspot):
> However, in the case of a hotel freebie hotspot, changing the MAC address
> to 00-00-00-00-00-00 DOES PROVIDE AN EXTRA LEVEL OF PRIVACY because in
this
> case, the MAC address is the only factor they have in tracing the
> connection back to you.

I am thinking this is a yes. When you change your MAC, that is a software
mac, yet your NIC has a burned in address. I am not sure if your first
connection to the hotspot will use the burned in address, or the software
changed MAC.
I will have to look into this one. For now I will say yes it works like you
are saying.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:15:50 -0400, Warren Oates wrote:
> I'm not even sure how a [PC] MAC address is relevant.
> My ISP only sees the MAC address of my router.

Hmmm... I am learning of the subtlties of privacy.

CASE 1 (ISP from a home network):
Is it true that the ISP never sees the spoofed PC MAC address; the ISP only
sees the ROUTER MAC address?

CASE 2 (modem dialup to NetZero from a blocked phone):
NetZero only sees your spoofed MAC address assuming you obtained the
NetZero software separately (e.g., from a library computer). However, the
initial establishment of an account may provide identifying information
since it requires an email address and a valid ISP just to download the
NetZero software. Even if you saved the NetZero software on a flash card,
you still would have needed to establish an initial connection to NetZero
to obtain the software even if that were years ago - which is the weak
link (as far as we can tell).

CASE 3 (free hotspot):
It seems that changing the MAC address prior to connection is additive to
privacy. I think there is a "change bit" which indicates the MAC address
were changed but I am unsure of that.

"Warren Oates" <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45360c9f$0$5543$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> In article <12jbf5ifjqmhr9e@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Your ISP will always have whatever MAC address you use, hence if they
were
> > given a court order, they would have to give it up.
>
> I'm not even sure how a MAC address is relevant. My ISP only sees the
> MAC address of my router. So what? And my router will let me change
> that, if I want.
>
> This is a nutbar.

More akin to how they busted foley.
Just by using your internet account. For a lot of us, that is our always on
connection to the internet.
You logged on to the internet from somewhere.
> --
> W. Oates
> Teal'c: He is concealing something.
> O'Neil: Like what?
> Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:32:58 GMT, id1 wrote:
> may want to have a look at what they say ?
> http://www.onion-router.net/

Hi idl,
Yes. Very interesting http://tor.freehaven.net

I just realized from reading that web page that my IP address is also saved
by every web site I visit so (if they wanted to), folks would build a
database of my actions even though I delete my cookies automatically using
appropriate browser settings.

So, if web sites can track my IP address (and I believe they can), this is
yet another reason that changing the IP address is additive to privacy.

Or, did I read that TOR web site wrong?

"Aluxe" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1xfvkk11z7kow$.1a202xkkits8b.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:32:58 GMT, id1 wrote:
> > may want to have a look at what they say ?
> > http://www.onion-router.net/
>
> Hi idl,
> Yes. Very interesting http://tor.freehaven.net
>
> I just realized from reading that web page that my IP address is also
saved
> by every web site I visit so (if they wanted to), folks would build a
> database of my actions even though I delete my cookies automatically using
> appropriate browser settings.

Which is why I mentioned the proxy server
>
> So, if web sites can track my IP address (and I believe they can), this is
> yet another reason that changing the IP address is additive to privacy.

And again, since you are on a ISP type system, that IP address is registered
to your ISP not you.
For you to remain anon you would need to use a proxy server, or something
along the lines of tor or onion routing.
And they found out that there is an issue with onion routing, in when you
use an application like windows media player, once you establish a
connection to view something over the net using the media player, it
bypasses the onion routing and makes a direct connection.
>
> Or, did I read that TOR web site wrong?

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:03:29 -0800, Dana wrote:
>> So, if web sites can track my IP address (and I believe they can), this is
>> yet another reason that changing the IP address is additive to privacy.
>
> And again, since you are on a ISP type system, that IP address is registered
> to your ISP not you.

Hi Dana,
Yes, in this case, it's a good point to reiterate that the ISP is the
registered "owner" of the IP address temporarily "assigned" to me. The
longer that temporary period is, the more the web sites can associate the
IP address specifically to me (and vice versa). But, even if I held the IP
address for two years, I agree, it still would be hard for web sites to
ascertain much useful information about me from that analysis.

It is more important that my posts to one newsgroup not be associated with
my posts to another newsgroup (or even within a single newsgroup on
occasion).

Thanks for the reminder. In this circumstance, it was warranted in order to
prevent me from going off on a tangent in the wrong direction, privacy
wise.

> And they found out that there is an issue with onion routing, in when you
> use an application like windows media player, once you establish a
> connection to view something over the net using the media player, it
> bypasses the onion routing and makes a direct connection.

Ah, interesting. I had read the posted tor web site page you guys referred
to in this thread but I didn't understand it at all. Now I see that some
programs, like Adobe Acrobat (not the free reader but the thing that writes
PDFs creating a single PDF from an entire web site) & Real Player, bypass
the tor onions once they establish a connection to the server.

Oh my. The amount one has to know in order to have privacy on the Internet
is astounding. I guess "privacy on the Internet" is an oxymoron as someone
posited in this thread!