Negative comments about PTers

[spaceman]

It is and it isn't

It can be that easy if you know what you are doing.

A bit harder for an amateur.... but even so a keen beginer only needs to go to a torrent site and download a few hacking tools and start poking around.

What stops most people is the sheer volume of data.... but IP traffic buy it's very nature is very trackable.

Cheers
Spaceman

[Wayne]

Restart your broadband and you get a new IP (unless you are silly enough to have a static IP). Someone else will get what you had at some stage. IP addresses are assigned with a geographical scope but it is getting bigger at the assignment gets more regional or national.

The tricky bit is attaching the IP, if you know it (and emails have that address in the headers), to a physical address or person. For that you need some access to the ISPs radius or DHCP lease records.

As a test you tell me (by PM if you wish) where this post came from.

[Cadmium]

Yes Andrew and Barry, I will contribute to a fund to support PT.

[spaceman]

LOL ... a slight misunderstanding

I said it could be done ... I didn't say I could do it.

I have some friends that do that kind of thing for a living and as the saying goes ..... you can run but you can't hide.

There are valid reasons for wanting to have a static IP address.

ISP's have a relatively small pool of addresses .... if the law are involved it is a pretty simple process.

Amateurs as I said have a harder time ..... harder but not impossible for somebody who wants to take the time and effort.... I have at times played around with a bit of cybermischief and while fun in short bursts the giggles I get don't warrant the time and effort required to get really proficient.

Cheers
Spaceman

[Wayne]

Since we were talking in context of individuals or companies wanting to know who posted a message it would take them time to get the law enforcement people involved hence my argument that it would have to be a big issue. For an amateur it would be next to impossible! It is my business to know these things.

It may be a simple process but there is a process that law enforcement has to go through to get access to the records. Unless you are into kiddy porn or something equally nasty you can hide quite well if you want to.

[SuperDad]

Not just ISP roll back. There are other ways too…

For example:
Keys, are you or are you not, the individual who owns “Key Property Management” in Wellington?

What an EPIC FAIL!!!

[Keys]

Keys, are you or are you not, the individual who owns “Key Property Management” in Wellington?

There ya go young fella.

Just changed my profile to "Wellington"

That means it's true. (must do - surely)

[Andrew]

PT legal defence fund

Thanks to everyone who has expressed their concern over the legal threats against PT and especially those who have contacted me privately to pledge funds for a legal defence fund.

Over $7,000 has been pledged so far and I hope that this continues to grow.

Discussions are also underway with a prominent NZ legal firm to provide legal assistance at a reduced rate so our funds will go even further.

I hope Marc and Donna feel encouraged by the support and the willingness to protect free speech on PT.

[fatfishandchipman]

Sometimes I feel like I’m trying to explain quantum physics to a troupe of monkeys. Sheesh!

The law is subjective not absolute. It will be up to a judge to make the final decision on the merits of the claimant’s case. Also it is not criminal court it is civil court – there is no law enforcement involvement whatsoever. Nor is there any need for specialized computer skills. With a court order in hand PT will have no choice but to hand over the data. That same court order is then presented to the Internet provider (Telecom, Xtra, etc.) who has your actual names and addresses – and now it’s a simple matter of matching ISP’s. Also, as pointed out – the claimant is only interested in certain posts from certain people at certain times. And as pointed out – this is not hard to do. What is hard is matching post and poster to the claimant’s damage – and then tying that damage directly to that poster during that time frame. It can be done as long as you are prepared to spend the money and the time needed to see it through -- but also -- the claim needs to be true.

My point about discovering real truths behind our pseudonyms might be found from reading our posts or in the pseudonym we keep. Mine, fatfishandchipman, might refer to my love of good fish and chip’s, or even that I might be fat, or even that I might own a fish and chip shop; perhaps a combination of all three. So, by using “Keys” as an example I chose the only property related company I could think of that has the word “key” in it. Though, by “Keys” silence over the tax depreciation threads we could suppose that “Keys” is actual John Key, 38th Prime Minister of New Zealand, and is (of course) in favor of the tax depreciation scheme. It’s possible but not likely.

Anyway, let’s see what happens.

But as to the fate of PT I like to think of it this way:
Do you remember the classic episode of the TV show “Twilight Zone,” where everyone in town is afraid of the little kid? Then one day someone says something the little kid doesn’t like, and then -- BOING! Your head’s on a spring!

So, goes the way of PT. Good luck and Good Bye!

[Xav]

Actually there are absolutes in the law but your point is still valid.

Even if it appears you can tell who someone is from their posts, legally I would expect a trace of the IP would be required to confirm that it is actually them rather than an imposter (eg. IRD ).

[Jumpin]

Thanks to everyone who has expressed their concern over the legal threats against PT and especially those who have contacted me privately to pledge funds for a legal defence fund.

Over $7,000 has been pledged so far and I hope that this continues to grow.

Discussions are also underway with a prominent NZ legal firm to provide legal assistance at a reduced rate so our funds will go even further.

I hope Marc and Donna feel encouraged by the support and the willingness to protect free speech on PT.

You gotta be kidding me. Surely Mark and Donna don't want their names and PT dragged through the courts in the name of protecting some small minded mud slingers. I'm sure they would prefer, like most sane individuals, to avoid the problem altogether. The monetary cost iwould be small change compared to the mental anguish etc.

I suggest if people want their 'free speech' they set up their own website.

[k1w1]

Why is 'free speech' within inverted commas, Jumpin? That's not a dig at grammar or punctuation usage, either.

[Andrew]

Jumpin

It appears to me that the aim of the legal threats is to have unwanted posts removed, effectively controlling free speech on PT.

As Marc and Donna are personally exposed to these threats, they have quite reasonably taken the offending posts down. Why should they be responsible for the cost?

Whether Marc and Donna choose to defend PT against legal threats is up to them. The key point is that they are no longer alone in being financially exposed by these legal threats. This should reduce the threat of hollow legal threats against PT as the bullies will know that the matter will be taken further.

Fund is now over $8,000.

[WBuffett]

You gotta be kidding me. Surely Mark and Donna don't want their names and PT dragged through the courts in the name of protecting some small minded mud slingers. I'm sure they would prefer, like most sane individuals, to avoid the problem altogether. The monetary cost iwould be small change compared to the mental anguish etc.

I suggest if people want their 'free speech' they set up their own website.

But all of those who want their own sanitised version of free speech on this website and will use legal threats to do so already have their own websites.

Although do believe unmoderated free speech is a mistake
It lets the capitalist fat cat type sprout out their evil phlegm of free market anti-worker propaganda.
And no reasonable person wants that kind of behaviour.
So its a fine line to walk re moderation.

[Perry]

Surely Mark and Donna don't want their names and PT dragged through the courts in the name of protecting certain mud slingers. I'm sure they would prefer, like most sane individuals, to avoid the problem altogether. The monetary cost I think would be small change compared to the mental anguish, etc.

It does not have to involve court proceedings.
If a threatening letter is received from one
lawyer, a reply from the lawyer acting for the
entity so threatened can cost many hundreds
of dollars. Even thousands.

Last I knew, if a party lodged a claim at any
NZ Court office, it costs $50 just to file (get
a court clerk to accept, over-the-counter)
a piece of paper - a statement of defence.

Any one / entity who is 'accused' of some-
thing (shady?) via the PT Forums has the
obvious option to fully and completely rebut
any such insinuations - in the very same place.

It perplexes me that it doesn't happen as it
perhaps should. Why would maligned people
not avail themselves of that option? Or is it
more a matter of being left to ponder:
"methinks they dost protest too much?"
.