Re: How safe is Tor for logging into http (nont https) web sites

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:17:28 +0100, mark carter wrote:
>>> I would strongly urge you never to use Tor for login to your Bank account.
>>
>> I'm asking about my email account.
>> Given that using Tor to access http-based email accounts (eg
>> http://mail.yahoo.com) is KNOWN to be passing your password to the Tor
>> operator - the question was if using https-based email (eg
>> https://mail.google.com) provided any protection of the password from the
>> rogue Tor operator.
>> Does https protect the password from Tor - or not?

> I guess the next question, though, would be: could an exit node capture
> traffic destined for certificate authorities, and substitute its own
> fake certification?

Oh my. I don't know what this means but I guess should stop using Tor to
log into both my http://mail and my https://mail accounts. Thank you.

Is there _any_ way to log into web-based email securely without
compromising your password?

Joan Battaglia wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:17:28 +0100, mark carter wrote:
> >>> I would strongly urge you never to use Tor for login to your Bank account.
> >>
> >> I'm asking about my email account.
> >> Given that using Tor to access http-based email accounts (eg
> >> http://mail.yahoo.com) is KNOWN to be passing your password to the Tor
> >> operator - the question was if using https-based email (eg
> >> https://mail.google.com) provided any protection of the password from the
> >> rogue Tor operator.
> >> Does https protect the password from Tor - or not?
>
> > I guess the next question, though, would be: could an exit node capture
> > traffic destined for certificate authorities, and substitute its own
> > fake certification?

No. Not unless some basic systems are completely broken.

>
> Oh my. I don't know what this means but I guess should stop using Tor to
> log into both my http://mail and my https://mail accounts. Thank you.

If you need to access those accounts anonymously you shouldn't. Your
mail provider will know your identity whether you use SSL or not.

>
> Is there _any_ way to log into web-based email securely without
> compromising your password?

Yes. SSL... with or without Tor. That's it's purpose.

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 02:10:03 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
> If you need to access those accounts anonymously you shouldn't. Your
> mail provider will know your identity whether you use SSL or not.

Oh my! I learn a lot here.

How does the mail provider KNOW my identity?

Here's what I do.

1. I log into http://mail.yahoo.com
2. I create a mail address and password
3. I access that mail address and password daily.

How does THAT give away my identity to my mail provider?

Please let me know what I'm doing wrong!

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:15:40 -0700, Joan Battaglia wrote:

> How does the mail provider KNOW my identity?
>
> Here's what I do.
>
> 1. I log into http://mail.yahoo.com
> 2. I create a mail address and password
> 3. I access that mail address and password daily.
>
> How does THAT give away my identity to my mail provider?

It doesn't. Yahoo would know your IP address which does *not*
authenticate *who YOU are* no matter how many Anonymous Nomen cretins
want to say it does. It simply says that some (perhaps unknown) computer
is using a particular ISP/Internet connection (which may geo-locate you
regionally).

They do not know with any certainty that Ari Silverstein (real name) or
"Joan Battaglia" (YNMMV lol) is the User. They lack that all important
biometric identifier (which is also not foolproof).

MOF, unless Yahoo was sitting in your office, had verified/authenticated
that you are Joan Battaglia, watched you keystroke by keystroke login,
with a complete trace that someone else didn't MITM phish to a fake
Yahoo site, then check their logs/realtime access, then on and on and on
and then what would you have?

A *high probability* that Joan Battaglia is logged into Joan Battaglia's
Yahoo account.

If you're zygotic, twin sister, Jane, passes the biometric identifier,
then there is a good chance you fucked them.
--
"You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself"
Ken Thompson "Reflections on Trusting Trust"
http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/

Ari wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:15:40 -0700, Joan Battaglia wrote:
>
> > How does the mail provider KNOW my identity?
> >
> > Here's what I do.
> >
> > 1. I log into http://mail.yahoo.com
> > 2. I create a mail address and password
> > 3. I access that mail address and password daily.
> >
> > How does THAT give away my identity to my mail provider?
>
> It doesn't. Yahoo would know your IP address which does *not*
> authenticate *who YOU are* no matter how many Anonymous Nomen cretins

Ari you're a real hoot. Out one side of your face you argue that
there's no such thing as anonymity or "security" because... well...
because of whatever black helicopter conspira-loon nonsense you're
spewing on any given day.

Out the other side of your face you're argue that someone who knows
your IP address really doesn't know who you are because Wilie Wonka's
evil Oompa Loompas might have snuck in your house and used your
computer under cloak of night without your permission or knowledge.

<laugh>

"Cant avoid being tracked, but IP addresses don't count."

Do you even have a definable position here, or is your mission in life
to be disagreeable no matter what's being said?

Never mind. Rhetorical question.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:04:57 +0100 (CET) 'Anonymous'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>you're argue that someone who knows
>your IP address really doesn't know who you are

Which is a fact.

Even if you use a real-life name, that still doesn't tell anybody
who you really are. I've been doing it for years. People often use
fake real-life names to satisfy and fool stalkers.

--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run

hummingbird wrote:

>
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:04:57 +0100 (CET) 'Anonymous'
> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
> >you're argue that someone who knows
> >your IP address really doesn't know who you are
>
> Which is a fact.

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.

But please, don't let reality encroach on a perfectly good semantics
quibble.

>
> Even if you use a real-life name, that still doesn't tell anybody
> who you really are. I've been doing it for years. People often use
> fake real-life names to satisfy and fool stalkers.

You at least managed to get that much right. From headers are almost
universally arbitrary strings under total control of the sender.
They're irrelevant.

IP addresses are another matter entirely. You can't type random digits
in the "IP" field and expect them to stick.

On Mon 29 Oct 2007 02:11:50, Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:

> hummingbird wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:04:57 +0100 (CET) 'Anonymous'
>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>> >you're argue that someone who knows
>> >your IP address really doesn't know who you are
>>
>> Which is a fact.
>
> 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.
>
> But please, don't let reality encroach on a perfectly good
> semantics quibble.


Hummingbird will even qibble about quibbles if you let him! He's a
mster at that.

For example, his statement that "There is no gay beach in Patong
shown on the fleximap" means to Hummingbird "There is a gay beach but
that particular map is not showing it." To everyone else his
statement sounds like there is no gay beach in Patong.

Another example. Hummingbird will claim that his website contains no
pictures. But we have lots of pictures from there. How so? Easy.
Hummingbird means there is no html code and therefore it is not
technically a website.

And so on.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:04:57 +0100 (CET), Anonymous wrote:

> Out the other side of your face you're argue that someone who knows
> your IP address really doesn't know who you are

They don't. Wish to explain how they do? Wait....

Let me get the popcorn, this will be fun watching you make an ass out of
yourself.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:11:50 +0100 (CET), Anonymous wrote:

> hummingbird wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:04:57 +0100 (CET) 'Anonymous'
> > wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
> > >you're argue that someone who knows
> > >your IP address really doesn't know who you are
> >
> > Which is a fact.
>
> 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.
>
> But please, don't let reality encroach on a perfectly good semantics
> quibble.

Wouldn't think of it. Excuse me.

"Butter on that popcorn, no salt, thanks..."

OK, reality, lessee, IP addresses expose exact identities. Wait...

"Yes, I'll take a another bag..."

Continue..

Munch, munch, munch....

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:11:50 +0100 (CET), Anonymous wrote:

> You at least managed to get that much right. From headers are almost
> universally arbitrary strings under total control of the sender.
> They're irrelevant.
>
> IP addresses are another matter entirely. You can't type random digits
> in the "IP" field and expect them to stick.

Of, shit, I'm full of popcorn. Oh well.

"Another bag, looks like we got a running carnival show here. More butter
please"

Where were we. es, you are about to explain how an IP address identifies a
person. GO! Popcorn is delivered.

Munch, munch, munch, munch.......

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:11:50 +0100 (CET) 'Anonymous'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:

>hummingbird wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:04:57 +0100 (CET) 'Anonymous'
>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:

>> >you're argue that someone who knows
>> >your IP address really doesn't know who you are
>>
>> Which is a fact.


>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.

er... no. Like all evidence, a matching IP address is only *one*
piece of evidence. It becomes near worthless if a user demonstrates
that other users have access to the same IP address.
And for accusers to assert otherwise simply tells you the lynch-mob
mentality of many people on the Internet.

HOWEVER, I would agree that an IP address probably scores more
evidential points that some other pieces and I think that is the
validity of your earlier comment.

>But please, don't let reality encroach on a perfectly good semantics
>quibble.

No semantics intended, just a desire to make the point that there
are not two different standards of evidence: ie the Internet and the
real world.

There are people on this newsgroup - acf - who accuse others of
posting this/that merely on the basis of noticing that two posters
are using the same news client program. It's a childrens game.

>> Even if you use a real-life name, that still doesn't tell anybody
>> who you really are. I've been doing it for years. People often use
>> fake real-life names to satisfy and fool stalkers.


>You at least managed to get that much right. From headers are almost
>universally arbitrary strings under total control of the sender.
>They're irrelevant.

Totally agree.

>IP addresses are another matter entirely. You can't type random digits
>in the "IP" field and expect them to stick.

Agree but see my above comments on IP addresses.

--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run

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
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.

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.

--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run

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?

> 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.

>
> 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.

Duh.

Franklin wrote:

> On Mon 29 Oct 2007 02:11:50, Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>
> > hummingbird wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:04:57 +0100 (CET) 'Anonymous'
> >> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
> >> >you're argue that someone who knows
> >> >your IP address really doesn't know who you are
> >>
> >> Which is a fact.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > But please, don't let reality encroach on a perfectly good
> > semantics quibble.
>
>
> Hummingbird will even qibble about quibbles if you let him! He's a
> mster at that.

This being cross posted from groups I normally read I'm not yet
thoroughly acquainted with with this particular humping bird, but I
certainly know the type.

Nothing I've seen so far gives me any cause to believe you're not 100%
spot on though. ;)

Ari wrote:

> Of, shit, I'm full

We know this. *chuckle*

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

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:51:25 +0100 (CET) 'Nomen Nescio'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:

>Nothing I've seen so far gives me any cause to believe you're not 100%
>spot on though. ;)

When our resident Franklin Stalker pops up in the middle of a debate
you're having, as he does with boring regularity, and tries to steer
the debate away by posting yards of totally irrelevant cut/paste
drivel, you may have a different view of things. Stick around.....

--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run

In article <e7ffb21d3cc5e5e873bfeea7ecf4b59d@localhost.127.0. 0.1>
hummingbird <hummingbird@2die4.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nice to have cleared that up ... HAND.

Ahem.
Are you aware that your bizarre implementation of X-N-A by putting it in
your Keywords header
(Keywords: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A0=0AX-No-Archive:_yes?=) is having absolutely
no effect at google?
Not that it makes any difference.


Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:58:13 +0100 (CET) 'George Orwell'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:

>In article <e7ffb21d3cc5e5e873bfeea7ecf4b59d@localhost.127.0. 0.1>
>hummingbird <hummingbird@2die4.com> wrote:
>> Nice to have cleared that up ... HAND.


>Ahem.
>Are you aware that your bizarre implementation of X-N-A by putting it in
>your Keywords header
>(Keywords: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A0=0AX-No-Archive:_yes?=) is having absolutely
>no effect at google?

I'm certainly aware of some debate on that subject.

As to whether Google deletes posts after 6 days (like it's banner
says), or hides them or does nothing at all with XNA, I'm not sure
if there's any conclusion based on fact or evidence. My current
experience of Google archives is that it's fcuking useless - I can't
find a single MID that I search for!

>Not that it makes any difference.

ok.

--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run

On Tue 30 Oct 2007 14:58:13, George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it>
wrote:

> In article <e7ffb21d3cc5e5e873bfeea7ecf4b59d@localhost.127.0. 0.1>
> hummingbird <hummingbird@2die4.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nice to have cleared that up ... HAND.
>
> Ahem.
> Are you aware that your bizarre implementation of X-N-A by putting
> it in your Keywords header
> (Keywords: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A0=0AX-No-Archive:_yes?=) is having
> absolutely no effect at google?
> Not that it makes any difference.
>


Awwwww, don't tell him.
Hummingbird thought his posts weren't being archived.

I've no idea what he's trying to hide.

Some newsgroup archives ignore the XNA flag anyway.

On Tue 30 Oct 2007 01:51:25, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

> Franklin wrote:
>
>> On Mon 29 Oct 2007 02:11:50, Anonymous <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>>
>> > hummingbird wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:04:57 +0100 (CET) 'Anonymous' wrote
>> >> this on alt.comp.freeware:
>> >> >you're argue that someone who knows your IP address really
>> >> >doesn't know who you are
>> >>
>> >> Which is a fact.
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > But please, don't let reality encroach on a perfectly good
>> > semantics quibble.
>>
>>
>> Hummingbird will even qibble about quibbles if you let him! He's
>> a mster at that.
>
> This being cross posted from groups I normally read I'm not yet
> thoroughly acquainted with with this particular humping bird, but I
> certainly know the type.
>
> Nothing I've seen so far gives me any cause to believe you're not
> 100% spot on though. ;)
>


Hummingbird is an idiot of the first order.

Hummingbird likes fake indignation and will squeal like a piglet when
pretending to be outraged. He then threatens to call in the
international Internet Interpol or something like that just because
someone clicked the link marked "profile" in Google Groups or found
something he posted a while ago.

What a twat.

If you mention his predatory gay holidays in sex dens in Thailand and
Brazil he will 100 percent flatly deny everything ... until you show
him a link to the hotel guestbook that he signed.

We have a real net k00k in ACF. Your own group must have some wackos
like him. You wouldn't want to take our wacko back with you, would you?
Heh!

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"?

This should be good... watching you try and wriggle your way around the
problems of packet sequence prediction and return routing.

<chuckle>

>
> 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.

>
> >> 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. 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.

How do you manage to type and maintain autonomic functions at the same
time?

> You are quietly moving the goalposts. An IP address ID's a specific

Dream on sonny. I've moved nothing. 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.

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

hummingbird wrote:

<snippage>

> 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.

Those aren't forged IP addresses, they're "forged" headers. Completely
different issue. And they're usually not even forged at all, they're
the IP address of some proxy.

You're not just out in deep left center here guy, you got lost on your
way to the ballpark. :-)

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:10:15 +0100 (CET) 'Anonymous'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:

>hummingbird wrote:
>
><snippage>
>
>> 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.
>
>Those aren't forged IP addresses, they're "forged" headers. Completely
>different issue. And they're usually not even forged at all, they're
>the IP address of some proxy.

You're making this up as you go along ain't yer. Lol.

I never used the word "forged", you did.

I wrote this: "...fake usage of IP addresses" ... and I explained
several times what I meant by that. Too bad you don't understand.

Maybe that's why you post using *Anonymous* - too ashamed to use
a regular handle or name.

>You're not just out in deep left center here guy, you got lost on your
>way to the ballpark. :-)

la la la. Grow up and get a life dork.

EOT for me.

--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run

hummingbird wrote:

>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:10:15 +0100 (CET) 'Anonymous'
> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>
> >hummingbird wrote:
> >
> ><snippage>
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Those aren't forged IP addresses, they're "forged" headers.
> >Completely different issue. And they're usually not even forged at
> >all, they're the IP address of some proxy.
>
> You're making this up as you go along ain't yer. Lol.
>
> I never used the word "forged", you did.

Childish semantics quibble noted.

And discarded.

>
> I wrote this: "...fake usage of IP addresses" ... and I explained
> several times what I meant by that. Too bad you don't understand.

I do understand kid. I had to explain it to you in fact. You're talking
about proxies. Period. Learn to deal with it.

>
> Maybe that's why you post using *Anonymous* - too ashamed to use
> a regular handle or name.

So now we're reduced to taking cheap shots at anonymity are we? Last
club in your bag, isn't it you pathetic little bitch? Can't even come
up with a decent sounding reply so your hypocritical ass tries to
attack the method someone uses to post.

> >You're not just out in deep left center here guy, you got lost on
> >your way to the ballpark. :-)
>
> la la la. Grow up and get a life dork.

What's a "life dork"?

<snicker>

>
> EOT for me.

You said that in another message to you pathetic little bitch.

Now come on and squawk for me again...

>

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:44:06 +0000 (UTC) 'Anonymous Sender'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:

[snip back-peddling and obfuscation]


>Now come on and squawk for me again...

Your surrender is accepted by the sane forces on this newsgroup.

Now, run along and go to mamma. Next time you come out to play,
please use a different handle so we won't recognise you. lol.

--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run

On Thu 01 Nov 2007 15:43:14, hummingbird <hummingbird@2die4.com> wrote:

>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:44:06 +0000 (UTC) 'Anonymous Sender'
> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>
> [snip back-peddling and obfuscation]
>
>
>>Now come on and squawk for me again...
>
> Your surrender is accepted by the sane forces on this newsgroup.
>

You're definitely not a spokesman for this group, Hummingbird.


> Now, run along and go to mamma. Next time you come out to play,
> please use a different handle so we won't recognise you. lol.
>

That statement about handles is rich coming from the #1 sockpuppeteer on
ACF!

"Anonymous sender" may be anonymous but there is no evidence that he's
posting using sockpuppets with different names in order to insult
others. This is something you do a lot of.

hummingbird wrote:
....
>
> Your surrender is accepted by the sane forces on this newsgroup.
>
....

Remind me HB;

Which NG are you representing again?

tia,
-Craig