Got a Very Weird Email Last Night

[Fairplay]

My daughter received an email tonight which was sent from my gmail account that is associated with ESMB.
The e-mail had a header which said that the email was from Fairplay. The email went to her university email account.
I do not know her university email address and I did not send any email to her.
I hadn't used this gmail account over the previous 5 days.
So I checked my gmail account in the 'sent items' and there I found the said email with Fairplay as the header and supposedly I sent it to my daughter.
As I said, I dont know her uni email address and Fairplay is my user name on this board only. OSA causing strife or relatives in the computer business trying to cause strife. It didnt work......whoever you are

 

[MrNobody]

If you were familiar with the iiNet Court Case, you would realize that they don't!

What has the iinet case to do with this? That one was about filesharing and copyright violations and had nothing to do with storing IPs. At least not according to the short summary I just read.

 

[MrNobody]

My daughter received an email tonight which was sent from my gmail account that is associated with ESMB.
The e-mail had a header which said that the email was from Fairplay. The email went to her university email account.
I do not know her university email address and I did not send any email to her.
I hadn't used this gmail account over the previous 5 days.
So I checked my gmail account in the 'sent items' and there I found the said email with Fairplay as the header and supposedly I sent it to my daughter.
As I said, I dont know her uni email address and Fairplay is my user name on this board only. OSA causing strife or relatives in the computer business trying to cause strife. It didnt work......whoever you are

Change your passwords. ALL of them. Now.

EDIT
Here's something to read: http://www.usewisdom.com/computer/passwords.html

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

What has the iinet case to do with this? That one was about filesharing and copyright violations and had nothing to do with storing IPs. At least not according to the short summary I just read.

The so-called agrieved parties (who rip the money off the artists) were flooding multiple IAPs with violation notices on IP addresses, and none of them were even looking up which user was attached to which IP address, let alone bothering to advise the users of the so-called "infringements". The Court ruled in iiNet's favor, that such data warehousing was unnecessary and not incumbent on the IAP for "civil" matters.

 

[MrNobody]

The so-called agrieved parties (who rip the money off the artists) were flooding multiple IAPs with violation notices on IP addresses, and none of them were even looking up which user was attached to which IP address, let alone bothering to advise the users of the so-called "infringements". The Court ruled in iiNet's favor, that such data warehousing was unnecessary and not incumbent on the IAP for "civil" matters.

Yes, iinet didn't have to use their stored data, because the court ruled in their favor in this case. This doesn't say anything about whether they store IPs or not.

Back to my question: How can a abuse department work when they don't have the connection between the IP and the one who used that IP at the time in question? Route all complaints to /dev/NULL or what?

 

[themadhair]

It is actually bog easy to do a forged screenshot. Register a free Wordpress.com account and make a comment. Then open up the admin panel. Some web browsers allow you to edit the source (I use Opera which uses the shortcut ctrl+U) which can be used to edit the text as needed. The result is the following:

Obviously change your settings to match the blog you are spoofing and be less lazy than I was.

Imo the screen was done to make it seem like the blog had been hacked. Where the IPs were sourced from is an interesting question, but I do find it interesting that the faked post was dated at one of the rare times that TD’s IP was easily obtainable (she was staying in a hotel). If anyone ever mentions that I defended Marty (i.e. by claiming his blog wasn’t hacked) I’ll deny it.

To me it seems that the intent was to make the blog seem like it had been hacked as well as to stir up some drama and infighting (as if anons ever stop infighting anyways).

Only one question – where were the IPs harvested from?

 

[Zinjifar]

Note however that at least *some* of the faked postings maintained *real* person, time/date etc. Which would mean that somebody *did* have access to the 'moderator' page in order to even know that.

Zinj

 

[MrNobody]

Note however that at least *some* of the faked postings maintained *real* person, time/date etc. Which would mean that somebody *did* have access to the 'moderator' page in order to even know that.

Zinj

True, Zinj, if this has really been confirmed (has it?), then "someone" must have had access to that page. Given Martys computer knowledge or alleged lack thereof, combined with his desire to "see" everything and have absolute control on his board, anybody could have sent him a trojan who could have gathered the password to his page. So we still end up where we started: Anybody could have done it, and we still don't know where the data came from.. Or am I missing something here?

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Yes, iinet didn't have to use their stored data, because the court ruled in their favor in this case. This doesn't say anything about whether they store IPs or not.

Back to my question: How can a abuse department work when they don't have the connection between the IP and the one who used that IP at the time in question? Route all complaints to /dev/NULL or what?

My point is that they keep the minimum data required and, like Google, once data is deleted it is really deleted.

 

[Nicole]

It is actually bog easy to do a forged screenshot. Register a free Wordpress.com account and make a comment. Then open up the admin panel. Some web browsers allow you to edit the source (I use Opera which uses the shortcut ctrl+U) which can be used to edit the text as needed. The result is the following:

Obviously change your settings to match the blog you are spoofing and be less lazy than I was.

Imo the screen was done to make it seem like the blog had been hacked. Where the IPs were sourced from is an interesting question, but I do find it interesting that the faked post was dated at one of the rare times that TD’s IP was easily obtainable (she was staying in a hotel). If anyone ever mentions that I defended Marty (i.e. by claiming his blog wasn’t hacked) I’ll deny it.

To me it seems that the intent was to make the blog seem like it had been hacked as well as to stir up some drama and infighting (as if anons ever stop infighting anyways).

Only one question – where were the IPs harvested from?

That does work really! You can change everything!

It exists different ways that the screenshots could get manipulated, that do we know now.

IMO the reason why it was made is to create a atmosphere of fear and doubts!

BUT we don't know WHO made this and WHERE the IPs are coming from!

 

[Cherished]

What does Marty gain out of this?

If anything, the event calls into question his motivations (as well as mine) and the security of his blog. I can't see a win in this for him.

Anyway, the op has been pretty much a universal fail. The boards didn't attack each other and I have been humbled by the number of people who've expressed their trust in me.

 

[TG1]

IMO the reason why it was made is to create a atmosphere of fear and doubts!

BUT we don't know WHO made this!

An Occam's Razor analysis yields one quite obvious answer.

 

[Dulloldfart]

An Occam's Razor analysis yields one quite obvious answer.

Ah yes, the Razor approach . . .

There once was a man from Nebraska
Took an asthmatic dwarf as his mascot
Who was shaving his hole
For its next speaking role
But he slipped when he sneezed — got his ass cut

Paul

 

[Nicole]

What does Marty gain out of this?

If anything, the event calls into question his motivations (as well as mine) and the security of his blog. I can't see a win in this for him.

Anyway, the op has been pretty much a universal fail. The boards didn't attack each other and I have been humbled by the number of people who've expressed their trust in me.

It is difficult to trust persons at the internet. You can be proud of it, that so many persons trust you.

I think the same about Marty, there is no win for him, but it is difficult to decide if he lies or not. Maybe we aren't able to see a win there.

It exist in Germany a adage:
"Wer einmal lügt, dem glaubt man nicht, auch wenn er stets die Wahrheit spricht."

I found this in English:
"A liar is not believed even when he speaks the truth!"

An Occam's Razor analysis yields one quite obvious answer.

If we only look at the easiest answer, we would sit around a fire and eat raw meat.

Also I think about Leibniz and Kant, they had other theories.

 

[MrNobody]

My point is that they keep the minimum data required

And a beautiful point it is, a veritable cutie, just lovely! I thank you SO much for this wonderful point. It still avoids my question though, so I repeat again:

How can the abuse departments do their jobs without this information about which user had a certain IP at a certain time?

and, like Google, once data is deleted it is really deleted.

Do you believe in Santa too?

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

And a beautiful point it is, a veritable cutie, just lovely! I thank you SO much for this wonderful point. It still avoids my question though, so I repeat again:

How can the abuse departments do their jobs without this information about which user had a certain IP at a certain time?

My point is that most Australian IAPs are actually quite small operations (compared to other countries) and they only keep the data that they absolutely must for the minimum period of time. If you wanted my current IP, my IAP could provide it. If you wanted the IP I had prior to my Father's deceasement and change of account name, it is unavailable.

Do you believe in Santa too?

Re Google, it makes no profit from retaining any data of yours. It's entire profit is derived from the advertising that is targeted at your data. If you decide to delete your account, Google has no advertising target and therefore no reason to keep your data--the space is better allocated to a new user account.

 

[TheSneakster]

An Occam's Razor analysis yields one quite obvious answer.

(sigh)Occam's Razor never yields answers.

That heuristic is for determining which, amongst multiple hypotheses, ought to be investigated first. It is the investigation process that yields answers, not Occam's Razor.

Sometimes, a more complex and unlikely hypothesis turns out to be closer to the truth than the simpler ones which should be investigated first, according to Occam's Razor.

 

[MrNobody]

Re Google, it makes no profit from retaining any data of yours. It's entire profit is derived from the advertising that is targeted at your data. If you decide to delete your account, Google has no advertising target and therefore no reason to keep your data--the space is better allocated to a new user account.

And again you didn't answer my question. Try again.

 

[TG1]

(sigh)Occam's Razor never yields answers.

That heuristic is for determining which, amongst multiple hypotheses, ought to be investigated first. It is the investigation process that yields answers, not Occam's Razor.

Sometimes, a more complex and unlikely hypothesis turns out to be closer to the truth than the simpler ones which should be investigated first, according to Occam's Razor.

Mike, I agree - you're right. I mis-thought and then misspoke.

TG1

 

[Zinjifar]

Occam's Razor is a good rule of thumb, not a conclusion. In this case 'investigation' isn't really an option, since it's unlikely Marty is going to say anything more credible or complete than what he's already said and 'we' don't have access to anything but the 'available' information, including history.

Zinj