Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

End of Online Anonymity in Canada? 249

Posted by CmdrTaco from the impossible-or-inevitable dept.
boochy writes "Are we close to losing our anonymity online in Canada? As Angela Pacienza writes in a National Post article; "The record industry's attempts to sue people who share music online threaten to change the widely held expectation that everyone's anonymous when surfing the Internet, lawyers representing the public interest argued Monday." This is a very interesting article that shows how much the lawyers representing the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic are trying their best to protect our privacy online."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

End of Online Anonymity in Canada? More

End of Online Anonymity in Canada?

Comments Filter:

  • Ha ha! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:20AM (#8578226)
    You filthy Americans lose more freedoms every day and you wi....er....wait.....

    • Re:Ha ha! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Directrix1 ( 157787 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:33AM (#8578375)
      The big misconception in this, is that people believed they were anonymous in the first place.

      • Re:Ha ha! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:51AM (#8578550)
        The big misconception in this, is that people believed they were anonymous in the first place.

        But it is possible to be totally anonymous, isn't it? If I use the internet through a computer in an internet cafe (and pay by cash), or use one at a public library, then that is untraceable as far as I can see.

        • Re:Ha ha! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dwarfgoat ( 472356 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @12:36PM (#8579058) Homepage
          Untraceable to a degree.

          As far as network logs go, the buck stops there. However, from that point is where a suitably motivated investigator begins collecting other intelligence. Be it it tapes from CCTV cameras, or just asking questions of employees and other patrons. You'd be amazed at how much information casual observers in such a situation will remember, and be able to provide an investigator.

          Human intelligence is often the critical piece of info needed to pinch someone who has otherwise covered their tracks well.

          For truly anonymous internet, find yourself a hotspot and a nice dark corner in which to hide (or alley to park in while wardriving). Oh, and spoof your MAC address as well, just to make it that much harder to pin it to your machine.

          Cheers
        • Maybe that's how it used to be. Check out the Patriot Act's section on libraries. Most internet cafe's either have you show an ID or have security cameras. I wouldn't take for granted that either of those places offers you protection. I think the only annonymous connection to find now days involves wardriving. /I'm assuming you live in the US, but that may not be the case :)

          -
      • The big misconception in this, is that people believed they were anonymous in the first place.

        No, they real mistake was that in many cases they actually were, and are. Despite it never actually said anywhere that you had any right to, eventually people start to feel they have that right.

        In some cases you might actually gain rights both to property and right of use in that way. However, I don't think you can make that claim against a law, or that some specific area (like e.g. NW Quebec or "cyberspace") is

  • Non-story. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The record industry's attempts to sue people

    Key word is "attempts." Each time they've tried the ISPs have told them to hit the bricks. YAWN. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

    • It's a mistake to characterize this prying as record-industry-only. Note that the EFF's soultion to compensate atrists for p2p *also* wants to compromise privacy and anonymity.

      In order to pay out a collected 'tax' they'll need to know how to divide it up, and to do that, they'll need to know who has what...

      • Re:Non-non-story. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Frymaster ( 171343 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @12:38PM (#8579088) Homepage Journal
        In order to pay out a collected 'tax' they'll need to know how to divide it up, and to do that, they'll need to know who has what...

        well, let's look at the blank cd levy in canada shall we? the tax is distributed to artists and labels by socan (society of canadian artists, musicians and producers... how they got "socan" out of that i don't know). it's distributed based on sales. ie big selling artists get a bigger chunk of the taxes.

        now, i'm in a band. we're producing a record that will be released by a local label [catch-and-release.org]. it's almost certain that we're going to lose money on this whole venture but, hey, it's a labour of love. the cd's that we're using are subject to the levy.

        what does this mean? it means my band will lose money making our cd but avril levigne will make a profit from it through the levy.

        whew.

        • Exactly!

          You'll often hear groups like EFF talk about how their solution will help the less popular artists, but that's hogwash. Your band isn't ever going to see a cut of that socan tax, is it? It's all just going to go to the majors, right?

          • It's not all based on sales. It's also based on radio play and a couple other factors. If the band in the grandparent post registered their songs with SOCAN, they'll probably receive a cheque for about 50 cents or so.

    • Head in the sand. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @12:04PM (#8578691)
      Key word is "attempts." Each time they've tried the ISPs have told them to hit the bricks. YAWN. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

      "Hey buddy. Better move - there's a truck coming."

      "Trucks? Trucks never come down this road."

      "Nevertheless, here comes the truck."

      "I doubt it. Nothing to see here."

      "But..."

      "Lalalalalalalalalalalalalala-" *WHAM*

    • What the Hell? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by still_sick ( 585332 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @12:31PM (#8579004)
      I don't even get why the Recording Industry is trying to sue us Canucks.

      Did everyone just forget about the Hub-Bub where all blank media got a special tax added on to the price because naughty people were using it to pirate music?

      I've been paying this god-damn "pirate" tax for YEARS now. Doesn't *PAYING*FOR*IT* make these claims of IP Theft kind of moot?

      • Re:What the Hell? (Score:3, Informative)

        by spuke4000 ( 587845 )
        I think this is an attempt to split hairs to get as much as they can. As I understand it, it's legal for me (I live in Canada) to lend my friend a CD and for them to copy it, but it's not legal for me to make a copy of a CD I own and give it to a friend (replace 'not legal' with 'copyright infringement' as appropriate). The interpretation with P2P is that if you are downloading then you are 'borrowing' the song from the uploader and so you can legally make the copy, but if you are the uploader you are cop
      • I've been paying this god-damn "pirate" tax for YEARS now. Doesn't *PAYING*FOR*IT* make these claims of IP Theft kind of moot?

        Welcome to socialism, my friend, where the main service the state provides you with is lightening your wallet.

      • Re:What the Hell? (Score:3, Informative)

        by sapbasisnerd ( 729448 )
        The Candian media levy is possibly the most widely misunderstood concept in a long time. At least from the way people talk about it.

        The idea is that the blank media "tax" legalizes making multiple copies of recordings you have legally licensed. Before the tax, you got what you bought with very limited right to copy (basically nothing outside of fair use) so mixed tapes for example, where technically illegal, as was making MP3 rips for a portable player, now they aren't.

        Not that the law was in any way enfor

        • "...(basically nothing outside of fair use)...You've been paying for the right to make mixed CD's and use a portable MP3 player..;"

          Hmm....I kinda thought making mixed tapes/CD's of music you had purchased WAS fair use....why pay extra for that?

          • Hmm....I kinda thought making mixed tapes/CD's of music you had purchased WAS fair use....why pay extra for that?

            Assuming we're talking about computer software, while licenses my varry but according to the SPA now known at the SIIA while licenses my vary the law is clear, one disk = one license for one machine, one backup by be used.

            A *mix* tape opens up the door to piracy in this way... let's say you bought an album and only enjoy one track. Fair use would be to copy that track you like onto media with

  • Uh.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by hookedup ( 630460 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:22AM (#8578251)
    What? End of my anonymity? But I just paid $199 for my computer to stop broadcasting an ip address!

  • Loosing? (Score:4, Funny)

    by PhotoGuy ( 189467 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:23AM (#8578255) Homepage
    Don't no about hour anonymity, but we shore seem to be loosing hour ability to use the write words when we right.

  • I think... (Score:3, Funny)

    by wtlssndlssfthlss ( 747938 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:23AM (#8578256)
    If someone believes they are completely anonymous while simply surfing around, they should be dense enough to think a lawsuit is just some legally mandated article of clothing.

  • Anonymity (Score:3, Informative)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:23AM (#8578267)

    Do ordinary Joe Public people really believe they are anonymous when browsing the web? I would have thought that most people would have the sense to realise that when they are browsing the web from home, they will be tracable through their contract with thier ISP.

    • Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:31AM (#8578357)
      Do ordinary Joe Public people really believe they are anonymous when browsing the web?

      Yes they do. Just looks at how many people have used the "I didn't know it was illegal!" defense when accused by the RIAA/MPAA of being file-sharers...
    • I guess so, that's why I see these damned bouncing web adverts everywhere telling me my computer is spying on me and that I need 'Internet Protection System 5.0' for only $29.99....
    • I agree with this. When using your telephone, nobody makes crank calls from home anymore or calls for bomb threats using their land line. We all know that our phone number is tracable back to us (this may seem obvious to many).

      Then why would the internet be any different? You still use your phone line to access it. You may have a different IP address everytime you log on, but this IP is linked to your phone line in a log kept by the ISP. Even though non-techies may not be aware of the details, why do

  • ObJoke (Score:5, Funny)

    by grahamlee ( 522375 ) <graham@iamlUUUeeg.com minus threevowels> on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:24AM (#8578272) Homepage Journal
    Are we close to loosing our anonymity online in Canada?

    They're letting anonymous Canadians loose? RUN TO THE HILLS!! "But they're coming from the hills" Run AWAY from the hills! If you see a hill, run in the other direction!

  • Aha! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:26AM (#8578289) Homepage Journal
    Loosing?! Oh..."losing"...

    No. We're not losing our anonymity. We never had it. Your email shows up on mail servers everywhere. Your IP is logged. You can be found.

    There's a big difference between actual anonymity and perceived anonymity. The public thinks they're anonymous. The realization that they are not (through education or through lawsuits of these sorts) will lead to increased awareness and eventually smarter users.

    Maybe I'm just optimistic.

    • Re:Aha! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Killswitch1968 ( 735908 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:32AM (#8578370)
      There's a big difference between actual anonymity and perceived anonymity

      Agreed. So long as 2 computers are exchanging files their IP addresses must be known to each other. ISPs know exactly which IP address belongs to who. They just have no reason to sue you for copyright infringement, they'd just been driving away their customers.
      Hiding one's IP address is a fundamental barrier of anonymous TCP/IP file transfer. However progress is being made here [sf.net].

    • Re:Aha! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DR SoB ( 749180 )
      Since when does it have my email address on my identification? Since when is my IP address branded into my head? This is bullshit, pure and simple. If you want to be anonymous, follow these simple steps:

      1. Steal laptop (or buy used if your rich).

      2. Walk downtown to the corner of anywhere and anywhere in Toronto.

      3. Use wireless network card.

      4. Jump on first available network.

      5. Can you say "Anonymous" cuz that's what you are.

      Or follow these steps:

      1. Go to airport, library, public internet cafe.
      • A. You're relying on stealing a laptop to gain anonymity? Not relevant to this discussion.

        B. You're still easily traced back to the computer, and if you're in a public place then you're almost certainly on a surveillance camera (airport, every Internet cafe I've been in).

        C. Wow, a proxy. That certainly can't be traced. Proxy server still knows your IP.

        D. Friend's computer? How is that anonymity?

        E. Neighbor's wireless network - shouldn't let you on in the first place, but it still logs your MAC address a

        • Re:Aha! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by rjelks ( 635588 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @01:46PM (#8579977) Homepage
          I agree with most of your points, but not on the wifi. You can get a good connection with a directional yagi (read pringles can) over a mile or two away from the open network. For instance, I can set at a wide open park and see about 150 open networks in a business district about a mile away. Now to stay legal, you should use one that is meant to be open, but still pretty annonymous.

          -
        • A. Okay, the stealing part was a joke.. You missed the point there..

          B. Most camera's are in a "loop" mode. If they don't check soon enough, poof, erased. It's easy to change your facial features.

          C. If you hop enough proxies it makes it real hard to trace back. If those proxies are located in countries such as China, getting them to agree to turn there records over can be hard to say the least..

          D. It's anonymous if enough people use that computer.

          E. Your assuming the MAC can be traced back to you. Yo
          • I didn't realize you were joking for some of those... I deal with too many people that seriously believe in their anonymity online - even through Hotmail or AOL.

            For most of the time, you can consider yourself anonymous. I mean, unless your tracker has a lot of money, cracking ability or legal means, you've got almost nothing to worry about.

            So yeah, in all practicality, you have anonymity. But put the RIAA (with their financial backing) on your trail, and they can almost certainly find you.

            I try not to ta
    • ...will lead to increased awareness and eventually smarter users.

      I don't know. When a dog gets hit by a car, you might think that because he can't reproduce, the future generations of survivors would be smarter and avoid cars. But dogs keep on getting hit by cars in roughly (ruff-ly?) the same numbers. Now, apply that to your average AOL user :-)

  • New law? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:27AM (#8578303) Homepage Journal

    How does this fit in with Canada's new privacy law [privcom.gc.ca] that came into effect January 1st? Is this a legitimate business purpose?
    • If I remember correctly, the federal privacy law protects you from the government collecting information on you. It does not preclude the private practice of collecting, storing, using and selling personal information.

      It is a start, though.

      • Re:New law? (Score:4, Informative)

        by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:46AM (#8578508) Journal
        No, it effects all private corporations too.

        But I'm not sure if it applies here because its not personal information the evil forces of evil would like to capture, just which IP address did what "bunny killing" act.

        They can then go to the ISP to trace it back to you.

      • Re:New law? (Score:5, Informative)

        by farbles ( 672915 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:57AM (#8578609)
        I run an ISP in Canada and PIPEDA, the Cdn govt privacy act, applies to private concerns as of January 1, 2004. Our legal advice, from a major law firm partner specializing in PIPEDA law, was that user IP addresses are considered to be personal information and logs containing them should be deleted every month. All companies needed to appoint a Privacy Officer to deal with PIPEDA complaints. Any user can come to us, request everything we have on them and their usage and they can correct any wrong information or ask us to delete it. According to PIPEDA, an individual's personal information is their property.

        In Canada, this is the law.

      • Re:New law? (Score:3, Funny)

        by uberdave ( 526529 )
        Gee, my former employer had to lay off 20 people (including me) because the privacy law meant that they could no longer sell access to the data they collected. They wound up shutting down the entire department.

  • Releated Story from the Globe and Mail (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Clicky Clicky!! [globetechnology.com]

  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chess_the_cat ( 653159 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:27AM (#8578308) Homepage
    How can it be "the end of online anonymity" if we've never had it in the first place?
    • Yes, but now they're blowing away the illusion of anonymity. That might not be a good idea. If a person thinks that he/she is anonymous, they probably won't check to see if they are really anonymous. They keep on surfing merrily(?) away, handing out all sorts of info to everybody and be none the wiser. Now, you take away that illusion, people may actually try to become anonymous. Of course, as long as we are tied to a wire, that will be impossible. If true wireless internet ever comes about, then we have a

  • It has not been decided yet. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (reggoh.gip)> on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:27AM (#8578313) Journal
    The National post is jumping the gun. It's owners, for sure, would like to see the end of anonymity (for unrich people, of course), but the Courts haven't decided yet that the ISPs should hand on a silver platter the information about the file sharers.

    The canadian privacy laws have been passed to protect the citizens who, actually, vote for the government, so the government better listen to the people.

    But again, the National Post is just a wet-dream from those rich people who are trying to eliminate the State so they can profit off the unrich people unhindered.

    • The National Post is trying to be a real newspaper, but they keep accidentally turning into the National Examiner (;-))

      --dave

    • (There are definitely too much yankee moderators around here; well, you can't win against me, you've go so many moderator points but I have unlimited postings. Reposted account some asshole right-wing yankee moderating this as a troll).

      The National post is jumping the gun. It's owners, for sure, would like to see the end of anonymity (for unrich people, of course), but the Courts haven't decided yet that the ISPs should hand on a silver platter the information about the file sharers.

      The canadian privacy la

  • THE INTERNET IS NOT SECURE (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:31AM (#8578352) Journal

    Who ever told you that you were "anonymous" on the Internet?

  • 2 issues (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:31AM (#8578356)
    I actually see 2 different issues here. First, should a person's activities online be traceable? Yes - after due process. We all would love to see spammers caught, etc. However, the other issue is the record company's suit. Should they be suing? Well, the fact that I think they are greedy, stupid, outdated fools doesn't change the fact that they currently have a legal right to do so, I suppose. But here's to hoping they get some reasonable limits set on them soon (say real due process, reasonable limits to how much they can sue for, etc).

  • Erm... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mirko ( 198274 )
    What if I do not care about not being anonymousness ?
    I just don't want people to abuse my privacy, it's not the same thing :
    I agree to be known when I visit a "public" (insert definition here) web site provided it doesn't exchange data about me with other "public" web sites.

  • we are anonymous! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:32AM (#8578371)
    The author of this post proves it

  • Trawling for infringement with minimum effort (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bushcat ( 615449 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:32AM (#8578372)
    Perhaps one problem is that automated system tools that masquerade as supernodes or similar on P2P networks distort the cost/benefit ratio of enforcement, in that it's becoming feasible to go after small-time infringers just as easily as the large-scale infringers. If one regards this as making it easy to prosecute the vulnerable, then it's a problem in that, traditionally, one would go after the targets causing the most harm, because it takes time and effort. Now, one can go after anyone simply because it has good media value, or because one knows the target can't defend itself in any meaningful manner.

    Rule by corporate law(yer) is quite a scary concept. The reward for a successful prosecution becomes to easy to attain.

  • Old news for /.ers (Score:4, Funny)

    by aelfric35 ( 711236 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:34AM (#8578392)
    We've all known, especially those of us with static IPs, that the Internet isn't so anonymous. Anyone who cares badly enough could probably find out who was hiding behind that IP address to download Britney's latest single (ooh! the scandal!). But the article isn't talking about /.ers; it's about Average Joe Canadian. Hey, since it's frickin' cold in Canada, does anybody want to go into business selling tinfoil-lined ski hats?

  • hope CRIA loses so they cant hassle the innocent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by onebitcpu ( 682182 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:36AM (#8578416)
    Over 90% of blocked activity at my firewall is probes from kazaa, gnutella etc looking for the last computer with that IP, who was filesharing. Last thing I want is to get hassled for running software I dont have installed because I got some other guy's IP. (the other 10% was mostly nimda and code red - yay microsuck)

  • yeah, but... (Score:3, Funny)

    by inkedmn ( 462994 ) <inkedmn&inkedmn,com> on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:39AM (#8578444) Homepage
    Having anonyimity in Canada is like wearing a ski mask to an adult theater; It's great that nobody knows who you are, but nobody's really looking at you because they're all staring at the guys on horses...
  • that looked to the topic and read:
    "End of Online anomalies in Canada?"

    so sad, I though they just unpluged the cable over there and then realized we were talking about losing (whatever this means) Anonymity .

  • The KEY factor is WHO is behind the keyboard? (Score:5, Informative)

    by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:50AM (#8578534)
    This is the exact defense one individual I know used when he was accused of breaking into a rural school's computer system about ten years ago. Though this was a criminal charge (and the burden of proof substantially higher), he was easily acquitted because the prosecutor couldn't show that it was him specifically who was breaking into the computer systems.

    In like manner, however, I suspect that the house of cards of the recording industry will just as easily fall apart with these civil suits in Canada. If I stupidly misconfigured my wireless or wired router to allow people to essentially walk in, they could easily breach computer security and use my computer to download all manner of goodies. Given what the AVERAGE computer user is (and you all know what the average user is like...), this is more than a plausible defense.
  • The record industry's attempts to sue people who share music online threaten to change the widely held expectation that everyone's anonymous when surfing the Internet

    Everyone was anonymous while they were on the internet, until now? Jeez, Canada must have a waaaay better internet than this hunk of junk we got in the states.

    /sarcasm
  • If your subscribed to one of Western Canada's largest Internet service subscribers (Telus), you've already lost your 'anonymous' status. Telus sells your info to marketing companies - you got to opt out manually by calling thier privacy line.

    Don't worry, it's just your mailing address, name, and your phone number. Telus swears they're not selling your email address but I wonder how much longer before they start to use that as a cashable asset?

    At issue here is whether or not the music industry is allowed to snoop on your home PC's. Where's the search warrant I ask?

    Point 1. Canada's law on privacy (FOIP) may protect us from RIAA anyways. New rules and guidelines came in effect on January 1st. It basically allows us to operate with business without reprocussions of invasion of privacy.

    Point 2. Canada is already collecting a tarrif on CD's sold in Canada to go towards musicians from sales lost from online music sharing(even though most have never seen a red cent). If I'm already paying tarrifs on CD's to protect the music industry, do I not have a legal right to copy and download music I want?

    Point 3. CD's were suppose to promise cheaper albums when first introducts in the 80's. Cost of production of an LP vs a CD is around 95% less. Where's my savings RIAA? Most albums still go for $15-20 dollars. Where's my promised $7 new albums?

    Last Point. The last time the music industry shut down Napster, music sales plumeted 10%. Does file and music sharing spawn interest in CD's? What about albums or CD's I can no longer buy but the music is available P2P? Doesn't RIAA realise that they should be embracing this as an opportunity to change how music is sold? I mean, it's not like artists make money on albums anyways. Who's really behind this push?
    • "Don't worry, it's just your mailing address, name, and your phone number. Telus swears they're not selling your email address but I wonder how much longer before they start to use that as a cashable asset?"

      Why would Telus do that? I doubt the amount Telus could get for those addresses would be enough to compensate for the extra load on the Telus mail servers and pipes.


    • Point 2. Canada is already collecting a tarrif on CD's sold in Canada to go towards musicians from sales lost from online music sharing(even though most have never seen a red cent). If I'm already paying tarrifs on CD's to protect the music industry, do I not have a legal right to copy and download music I want?

      The tariff collected in canada is to compensate artists for the LEGAL music distribution in canada. Ive said it before and ill say it again. Copying your friend's CD's and downloading songs

  • anon (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If there's no anonymity, then who am I? How true is it that there is no anonymity?

    The bigger point is that the public does believe that when they are using P2P they are anonymous. That's why they pick pseudonyms and that's why they may do things online that they wouldn't do in the real world - ie. engaging in free speech regarding politics, religion, sex etc. They feel "safe" doing so because it appears to be anonymous. As ISP's hold more information about us, we should be worried about how easily the reco

  • Freenet (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VoidEngineer ( 633446 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @11:59AM (#8578639)
    Lawyers and government types just don't get it. The technological Pandora's Box has been opened, and legislation isn't going to help. Anonymity on the Internet? Try looking into the FreeNet [sourceforge.net] project. It's so anonymous that lawmakers practically don't know it exists. And if they did, they still couldn't do anything about it.
    • can't do anything (?)... but come into your home and arrest you. Which is what is happening because the Net is now (more or less and getting less each day) a commercial market place - not an exchange of minds.

      I think the lawyers do get it and they want a piece.

  • No one is truly anonymous... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Punk Walrus ( 582794 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @12:20PM (#8578890) Journal
    ... given time and persistence. I do network node testing for my company, and even phone calls can be traced if you know what switches are in use, and even so, you can go back through logs these days and make a connection. Data's even easier. The only way to truly protect yourself is make things harder than it's worth it to trace.

    What people often forget is that social networking can corroborate what IP tracing already has shown.

    For example, you post some comment on a web board. Your IP is logged. The Board moderator does a simple trace, and finds out within seconds what kind of connection you have, even if you signed off. Is it from an AOL modem pool? A DSL account? Those sorts of things are easy to find out.

    So some hacker-wannabe uses some online modem pool with DHCP, so he's truly anonymous, no? No. See, the most COMMON mistake is that people who do these sorts of things are people you already know. Ex-boyfriend, some guy you pissed off at an anime con, and so on. If you work backwards by assuming that, ("Hmmm... call traced from DSL connection in Camden, NJ... we have a guy who we booted off the board last year from Camden...") and then compare it to other connections he makes, Usenet postings, referral logs, and so on ... you can stack up a HUGE amount of evidence, even if it all might be declared "amazingly circumstantial" in court. Now it's up to the people who he's pissed off how much time and effort they want to put into getting back at the jerk.

    I have also found that people who are jerks online are REALLY easy to trace, because if they were truly paranoid and intelligent, they'd keep a low profile and say nothing, never start flame wars, etc... Those who are good at computing, for instance, rarely get involved in computer flame wars because they know they don't have anything to prove. "Let this guy say Macs suck," they'll say. "Their loss!" A guy who is insecure about how little he knows about his FreeBSD box will often try and cover this up with being an ass, patronzining newbies, and so on. That's when the people in the IRC chat room trace his IP, hack his FreeBSD "firewall," find out he hasn't logged in since last year and wouldn't know a hacked box looks like if he saw one, and do whatever they think is appropriate. :)

    Of course, I have always felt that the really good hackers are like black holes: we know scientifically they exist, and we see evidence of them, but due to their very nature, you can't actually SEE one in action.

    • Kind of like the fact it took me all of 30 seconds to figure out your a BSD fan/administrator from NY? Hmmm, wonder how I guessed..

      • Re:No one is truly anonymous... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Punk Walrus ( 582794 ) on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @01:20PM (#8579634) Journal
        Hmmm... well, an A for effort. A quick search around the web would show I live in Virginia, but based on that post, that is a good start. :) You have the right idea. I do like OpenBSD, for instance.

        As an example, I believe, based on a short search, there's a good chance that you're a Canadian, living and working in Toronto. You also work with a hotel company, probably in management or accounting. You have visited the US more than twice, but you don't like us very much (and, really, based on what you post about, I can't disagree). I could find out more, but I have no reason to violate your privacy, and anyway, I'm lazy. :)

        I have also done a rough psychological profile on you, but the results indicate that posting such a profile might cause you to react defensively, so I won't (Don't worry, most people react that way, it's hard not to). But it's interesting how much detail people give about themselves when the post a lot on public boards (myself included).

        For a (fake) example, suppose someone said on a board, "Treated differently? Your telling me! When I was in Washington State, my stuipd older sister has AGIAN fooled my parents into giving her more money." I could tell from that sentence that the person's relationship with their parents is strained, probably has authority distrust issues, probably has a negative opinion of women (especially in authority), and is insecure about money (most likely not having enough). I can also guess that they are a "hunt-n-peck"-typer, and while very well educated, probably did better in math/science than they did in English.

        Of course, none of that is certain, and I'd have to collect various posts over a year or so to get a better picture. I have also found people online are VERY different in real life. Usually the biggest jerks online are quiet and shy in person. Arrogant people are usually ignorant, and so on.

        Why collect this info? It's very easy to trace "double logins" this way, like users on a board who have two logins, and use them to start trouble, like "drumming up support" among their aliases. It's also easy to compare people across boards or various interactions, like, "That guy posting in your comments section of your journal sounds a LOT like the jerk we have been getting in IRC lately. What's his IP? Yeah. It's him." Moderators in various venues compare notes a lot.

        • Thanks, I think that's the first A I've ever got! haha..

          Seriously, I just guessed you were from NY because of your reference to NJ and people tend to talk about what's close to them.. I really didn't do any real detective work..

          Now for me, yes I am in Toronto, and I proudly admit it, and I also travel to the states at least twice a month so your over 2 guess was definitely correct.

          I _LOVE_ the USA. Perticularly Nevada, California, Florida, New York, PA, the Virgina's (I like the south more.

  • It used to be (around 10 years ago) that there was something called the "internet" that was a wild frontier where something called the "world wide web" lived and individuals and businesses could meet with each other freely and anonymously.

    We need to understand that the future has changed. There may indeed still be a free internet and free, standards based protocols like HTML and HTTP, but the captive experience delivered by proprietary browsers, ISPs, and asymmetric bandwidth is not that experience. It i
  • There is no true way to surf the net anon. That is why ssh and PGP encription is still the best way to communicate semi privately. It is a good thing that regular net traffic is wide open. Eventually we will need two net systems, a secure one and one that is open. It is just a shame that Microsoft is setting the standards with their take on secure computing. This is why computer security needs to be open source. Essentially security software binaries are easy to reverse, there is no security in obscurity. I

  • They need to get a clue... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt.nerdflat@com> on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @01:51PM (#8580053) Journal
    You can't match nicknames, or even email addresses to individual people. This is technologically impossible, given a circumstance in which you can't possibly know whether or not the information that is presented to you is genuine (which is 95 times out of a hundred online).

    About the most you can do is match a particular IP address at a particular time to one particular ISP, and in turn a subscriber of that ISP. To take action against that subscriber requires the cooperation of the ISP, of course, but if the person on that IP was doing something that violated the ISP's terms of service (and running publically accessable services such as a web server or file sharing software which might cause your upstream traffic to be notably larger than it otherwise would are often such a violation for domestic accounts, at least), then the ISP's gonna be interested in cooperating anyways.

    Actually, even IP addresses can be forged under certain circumstances, but most of the people that might otherwise want to fileshare almost certainly don't know what's all involved in making that happen.

  • Canadain Laws (Score:3, Informative)

    by andrewm ( 9862 ) <andrewm@netwinder.org> on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @02:18PM (#8580355) Homepage
    Some info on the Canadian laws:
    http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml [neil.eton.ca]

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close