The end of anonymity...

[GZBILL]

Hmmm ... the URL you cite is blocked by the firewall at my office ...

 

I can read the link fine from here, which surprises me.

 

As the world changes, the more chance offered for anyone to remain anonymous, gets less and less; and it should. By offering the public at large in any country the chance to be anonymous, invites those who would perpetrate crime to that same location. There is already more information in US databases about each and every American than ever before in history. Anonymity is not a legal right. It's just that technology is now progressing to the point that the chances of having it are greatly reduced. To me, that's a good thing.

This will not stop people from being anonymous, it will be done even if they put into effect the things they wrote about. The people that don't want to be seen and have the know how or the people with the know how won't be seen. What I'm saying is if one person can write a software program to trace the packets and what not, another can create a program or find holes in the first program to be anonymous. This is just the facts of life...... in computer programing and use......

 

Anyone, anywhere, at any time that uses the internet to convey a message, can be traced. That too is a fact of life.

 

Wrong.

 

If we lived in a perfect world where 100% of the people cooperated in tracing Internet messages, you could possibly be right. But at least for now it is impossible to get 100% compliance and it only takes 1 or 2 to break the chain of compliance.

 

And when all eslse fails, there is encryption.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Hmmm ... the URL you cite is blocked by the firewall at my office ...

 

I can read the link fine from here, which surprises me.

 

As the world changes, the more chance offered for anyone to remain anonymous, gets less and less; and it should. By offering the public at large in any country the chance to be anonymous, invites those who would perpetrate crime to that same location. There is already more information in US databases about each and every American than ever before in history. Anonymity is not a legal right. It's just that technology is now progressing to the point that the chances of having it are greatly reduced. To me, that's a good thing.

This will not stop people from being anonymous, it will be done even if they put into effect the things they wrote about. The people that don't want to be seen and have the know how or the people with the know how won't be seen. What I'm saying is if one person can write a software program to trace the packets and what not, another can create a program or find holes in the first program to be anonymous. This is just the facts of life...... in computer programing and use......

 

Anyone, anywhere, at any time that uses the internet to convey a message, can be traced. That too is a fact of life.

 

Wrong.

 

If we lived in a perfect world where 100% of the people cooperated in tracing Internet messages, you could possibly be right. But at least for now it is impossible to get 100% compliance and it only takes 1 or 2 to break the chain of compliance.

 

And when all eslse fails, there is encryption.

 

Hello Mr. Bill. Remember that one from SNL?

 

In fact, it's NOT wrong, but quite correct indeed, and correct as I stated. Everyone, everywhere that posts on the internet can be traced. That has nothing whatsoever to do with encryption, which by the way can be decoded through very creative means dependent upon the level of sophistication.

 

Now, to be sure, one can make that tracing more difficult via the use of various proxies, but in the end, the originator of that message can indeed be found out.

[rogerluli]

I'm posting this because I found it BUT I know nothing about this stuff...You tech folks might or might not find this interesting...

I'm doing good just to get online at all but this sounds like it could end the use of proxies to access "sensitive" internet info from within China...

 

http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com/

 

 

I can read the link here but company IT guy call me right after and warn me, you can't read Rogie's website. it is dirty and will destory our server

 

I tried to warn you little sister that you are hanging around with a bad crowd here...

[Guest forrestg]

10th Amendment to the US Constitution assures us the government cannot take away the right of privacy. We can give it up, but it cannot be taken from us. Of course, this applies only when in the US.

[Guest Mike and Lily]

10th Amendment to the US Constitution assures us the government cannot take away the right of privacy. We can give it up, but it cannot be taken from us. Of course, this applies only when in the US.

 

Actually, the 10th amendment applies to states' rights. There are certain rights that the states have that cannot be usurped by the federal government. However, the federal government has essentially bypassed that amendment by withholding federal funding to states that don't comply with the standards set by the federal government.

Edited September 18, 2008 by Mike and Lily (see edit history)

[rogerluli]

10th Amendment to the US Constitution assures us the government cannot take away the right of privacy. We can give it up, but it cannot be taken from us. Of course, this applies only when in the US.

 

Ah yes and we used to think we had a right to private property but the Supreme Court decided otherwise...

 

But actually this is not the forum to debate these issues...

[Guest forrestg]

The 10th Amendment applies not only for the states, but to "the people."

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Also, we have the 9th Amendment.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Finally, the 4th Amendment.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

 

Historically, when the justices of the Supreme Court wrote about the right to privacy, they referred to the 4th Amendment in their opinions, but they could also refer to the 9th or 10th Amendments.

[Corbin]

Hmmm ... the URL you cite is blocked by the firewall at my office ...

 

I can read the link fine from here, which surprises me.

 

As the world changes, the more chance offered for anyone to remain anonymous, gets less and less; and it should. By offering the public at large in any country the chance to be anonymous, invites those who would perpetrate crime to that same location. There is already more information in US databases about each and every American than ever before in history. Anonymity is not a legal right. It's just that technology is now progressing to the point that the chances of having it are greatly reduced. To me, that's a good thing.

This will not stop people from being anonymous, it will be done even if they put into effect the things they wrote about. The people that don't want to be seen and have the know how or the people with the know how won't be seen. What I'm saying is if one person can write a software program to trace the packets and what not, another can create a program or find holes in the first program to be anonymous. This is just the facts of life...... in computer programing and use......

 

Anyone, anywhere, at any time that uses the internet to convey a message, can be traced. That too is a fact of life.

 

Wrong.

 

If we lived in a perfect world where 100% of the people cooperated in tracing Internet messages, you could possibly be right. But at least for now it is impossible to get 100% compliance and it only takes 1 or 2 to break the chain of compliance.

 

And when all eslse fails, there is encryption.

 

Hello Mr. Bill. Remember that one from SNL?

 

In fact, it's NOT wrong, but quite correct indeed, and correct as I stated. Everyone, everywhere that posts on the internet can be traced. That has nothing whatsoever to do with encryption, which by the way can be decoded through very creative means dependent upon the level of sophistication.

 

Now, to be sure, one can make that tracing more difficult via the use of various proxies, but in the end, the originator of that message can indeed be found out.

True they can be found out only as long as the originating header info has the correct info and is not a a spoof (email) or the email came from he original sender. Also if you go to an open internet hot spot and the info is posted from there the trace will die there also. Computer type and operating system info can be setup to lie (ie false info). Cracking an encrypted message is not as easy as it seems. Just a 128bit encryption takes some major horse power to crack and I know there are some more sophisticated encryption methods out there that we as normal citizens are not suppose to have.

 

If all of this was easy they would have been able to stop many terrorist activities long ago or at least put a real crimp on their use of the internet.

 

Though to tell you the truth if they want to read my boring posts I could care less. More powers to them.......

[GZBILL]

Hmmm ... the URL you cite is blocked by the firewall at my office ...

 

I can read the link fine from here, which surprises me.

 

As the world changes, the more chance offered for anyone to remain anonymous, gets less and less; and it should. By offering the public at large in any country the chance to be anonymous, invites those who would perpetrate crime to that same location. There is already more information in US databases about each and every American than ever before in history. Anonymity is not a legal right. It's just that technology is now progressing to the point that the chances of having it are greatly reduced. To me, that's a good thing.

This will not stop people from being anonymous, it will be done even if they put into effect the things they wrote about. The people that don't want to be seen and have the know how or the people with the know how won't be seen. What I'm saying is if one person can write a software program to trace the packets and what not, another can create a program or find holes in the first program to be anonymous. This is just the facts of life...... in computer programing and use......

 

Anyone, anywhere, at any time that uses the internet to convey a message, can be traced. That too is a fact of life.

 

Wrong.

 

If we lived in a perfect world where 100% of the people cooperated in tracing Internet messages, you could possibly be right. But at least for now it is impossible to get 100% compliance and it only takes 1 or 2 to break the chain of compliance.

 

And when all eslse fails, there is encryption.

 

Hello Mr. Bill. Remember that one from SNL?

 

In fact, it's NOT wrong, but quite correct indeed, and correct as I stated. Everyone, everywhere that posts on the internet can be traced. That has nothing whatsoever to do with encryption, which by the way can be decoded through very creative means dependent upon the level of sophistication.

 

Now, to be sure, one can make that tracing more difficult via the use of various proxies, but in the end, the originator of that message can indeed be found out.

 

As Corbin so aptly posted, there are indeed ways that make it virtually impossible to trace the complete path that an Internet packet or an e-mail message has taken thus assuring anonymity to the originator.

 

As for encryption, probably only the NSA has the resources to break 128 bit encryption. Military grade (256 , which is commercially available, takes much, much more than major horsepower to crack. I have heard estimates that it can take even the NSA several months worth of computing power to hack 256 bit encryption.

 

Again, in theory it is possible to crack everything and trace everybody. But from a practical point of view, it is extremely difficult -- bordering on the impossible.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

 

As Corbin so aptly posted, there are indeed ways that make it virtually impossible to trace the complete path that an Internet packet or an e-mail message has taken thus assuring anonymity to the originator.

 

As for encryption, probably only the NSA has the resources to break 128 bit encryption. Military grade (256 , which is commercially available, takes much, much more than major horsepower to crack. I have heard estimates that it can take even the NSA several months worth of computing power to hack 256 bit encryption.

 

Again, in theory it is possible to crack everything and trace everybody. But from a practical point of view, it is extremely difficult -- bordering on the impossible.

 

Bill,

 

You're mistaking the use of encryption with the source from where it's sent. Every source can be traced on the internet, as the ability to communicate leaves the source open to be traced. Again, some use very creative means to disguise their origination, but in the end, all can be discovered.

 

The content (data) within a communication can be encrypted, which is done at varying levels. The more sophisticated the encryption, the less likely that anyone will be able to decrypt it.

 

Please do not confuse encryption with the sending of data via the internet. Again, every source can be traced, though in some cases it can be quite challenging. Because there are literally millions that use the internet and send messages daily, it would be virtually impossible to trace everyone. However, should there be a suspicion or a need, anyone at any time can be traced to the original ISP, where the message originated. There have been many that thought themselves invisible, who now live behind bars, or who have paid heavy fines after receiving a knock at their door accompanied by a search warrant in hand.

Edited September 22, 2008 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[C4Racer]

The 10th Amendment applies not only for the states, but to "the people."

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Also, we have the 9th Amendment.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Finally, the 4th Amendment.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

 

Historically, when the justices of the Supreme Court wrote about the right to privacy, they referred to the 4th Amendment in their opinions, but they could also refer to the 9th or 10th Amendments.

 

The right to privacy secures your home. It can also be extended to your phone as it is a closed secure network. It has been argued sucessfully in court by the FBI that once you put something into public domain (ie.. catching cordless phone signals from the public domain airwaves is not considered wiretapping) you lose your right to these protections afforded by the constitution. The internet is considered a public domain. Therefore your arguement about right to privacy no longer holds any water.

Edited September 22, 2008 by C4Racer (see edit history)

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

The 10th Amendment applies not only for the states, but to "the people."

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Also, we have the 9th Amendment.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Finally, the 4th Amendment.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

 

Historically, when the justices of the Supreme Court wrote about the right to privacy, they referred to the 4th Amendment in their opinions, but they could also refer to the 9th or 10th Amendments.

 

The right to privacy secures your home. It can also be extended to your phone as it is a closed secure network. It has been argued sucessfully in court by the FBI that once you put something into public domain (ie.. catching cordless phone signals from the public domain airwaves is not considered wiretapping) you lose your right to these protections afforded by the constitution. The internet is considered a public domain. Therefore your arguement about right to privacy no longer holds any water.

 

I'm a little confused as to what point you're trying to make. As you quoted from the "US Constitution", a US citizen must be secure against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

 

This amendment applies to the US citizen and the government sponsored police; be it local or federal.

 

And just what is "reasonable" when it comes to privacy, government and public records. Then, there is the private enterprise, and companies like ChoicePoint and other background checking agencies. The heart of these businesses is all about collecting data about you and me. And how much of that data is private? And just what would you consider to be private? Your shopping habits perhaps? How much you paid for your home? Where you last worked and where you work now, and how much you make? Your arrest and legal records. Your father, your mother, your birthday, your SSN? The only thing that seems to make anyone shudder these days are medical records, and their handling.

 

If US citizens have a right to privacy, then exactly what is considered to be private? Read the Constitution carefully, and perhaps some third party analysis about it. Unreasonable is a VERY broad term, that has been argued in courts for years. Do police need a warrant to enter your home? Many think so, but many times it's just not needed. All they need is a statement that they believe a crime is taking place there. They do it every single day.

 

Maybe our thoughts are private; but, I'm not sure as my wife seems to know them even before I do. The only way to be private it to quit your job, and take your cash out of the bank. Pay cash for all transactions. But, who's going to do that?

Edited September 22, 2008 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[GZBILL]

 

As Corbin so aptly posted, there are indeed ways that make it virtually impossible to trace the complete path that an Internet packet or an e-mail message has taken thus assuring anonymity to the originator.

 

As for encryption, probably only the NSA has the resources to break 128 bit encryption. Military grade (256 , which is commercially available, takes much, much more than major horsepower to crack. I have heard estimates that it can take even the NSA several months worth of computing power to hack 256 bit encryption.

 

Again, in theory it is possible to crack everything and trace everybody. But from a practical point of view, it is extremely difficult -- bordering on the impossible.

 

Bill,

 

You're mistaking the use of encryption with the source from where it's sent. Every source can be traced on the internet, as the ability to communicate leaves the source open to be traced. Again, some use very creative means to disguise their origination, but in the end, all can be discovered.

 

The content (data) within a communication can be encrypted, which is done at varying levels. The more sophisticated the encryption, the less likely that anyone will be able to decrypt it.

 

Please do not confuse encryption with the sending of data via the internet. Again, every source can be traced, though in some cases it can be quite challenging. Because there are literally millions that use the internet and send messages daily, it would be virtually impossible to trace everyone. However, should there be a suspicion or a need, anyone at any time can be traced to the original ISP, where the message originated. There have been many that thought themselves invisible, who now live behind bars, or who have paid heavy fines after receiving a knock at their door accompanied by a search warrant in hand.

 

Wrong.

 

A prime example is an e-mail server using older versions of Sendmail in its default configuration which acts as an open relay. When no log is kept and the sender's IP is spoofed, it is totally impossible to show from where the initial mail came from. Totally impossible.

[rogerluli]

The 10th Amendment applies not only for the states, but to "the people."

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Also, we have the 9th Amendment.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Finally, the 4th Amendment.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

 

Historically, when the justices of the Supreme Court wrote about the right to privacy, they referred to the 4th Amendment in their opinions, but they could also refer to the 9th or 10th Amendments.

 

The right to privacy secures your home. It can also be extended to your phone as it is a closed secure network. It has been argued sucessfully in court by the FBI that once you put something into public domain (ie.. catching cordless phone signals from the public domain airwaves is not considered wiretapping) you lose your right to these protections afforded by the constitution. The internet is considered a public domain. Therefore your arguement about right to privacy no longer holds any water.

 

I'm a little confused as to what point you're trying to make. As you quoted from the "US Constitution", a US citizen must be secure against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

 

This amendment applies to the US citizen and the government sponsored police; be it local or federal.

 

And just what is "reasonable" when it comes to privacy, government and public records. Then, there is the private enterprise, and companies like ChoicePoint and other background checking agencies. The heart of these businesses is all about collecting data about you and me. And how much of that data is private? And just what would you consider to be private? Your shopping habits perhaps? How much you paid for your home? Where you last worked and where you work now, and how much you make? Your arrest and legal records. Your father, your mother, your birthday, your SSN? The only thing that seems to make anyone shudder these days are medical records, and their handling.

 

If US citizens have a right to privacy, then exactly what is considered to be private? Read the Constitution carefully, and perhaps some third party analysis about it. Unreasonable is a VERY broad term, that has been argued in courts for years. Do police need a warrant to enter your home? Many think so, but many times it's just not needed. All they need is a statement that they believe a crime is taking place there. They do it every single day.

 

Maybe our thoughts are private; but, I'm not sure as my wife seems to know them even before I do. The only way to be private it to quit your job, and take your cash out of the bank. Pay cash for all transactions. But, who's going to do that?

 

I hope this is the last post arguing the US Constitution here...

[Corbin]

 

As Corbin so aptly posted, there are indeed ways that make it virtually impossible to trace the complete path that an Internet packet or an e-mail message has taken thus assuring anonymity to the originator.

 

As for encryption, probably only the NSA has the resources to break 128 bit encryption. Military grade (256 , which is commercially available, takes much, much more than major horsepower to crack. I have heard estimates that it can take even the NSA several months worth of computing power to hack 256 bit encryption.

 

Again, in theory it is possible to crack everything and trace everybody. But from a practical point of view, it is extremely difficult -- bordering on the impossible.

 

Bill,

 

You're mistaking the use of encryption with the source from where it's sent. Every source can be traced on the internet, as the ability to communicate leaves the source open to be traced. Again, some use very creative means to disguise their origination, but in the end, all can be discovered.

 

The content (data) within a communication can be encrypted, which is done at varying levels. The more sophisticated the encryption, the less likely that anyone will be able to decrypt it.

 

Please do not confuse encryption with the sending of data via the internet. Again, every source can be traced, though in some cases it can be quite challenging. Because there are literally millions that use the internet and send messages daily, it would be virtually impossible to trace everyone. However, should there be a suspicion or a need, anyone at any time can be traced to the original ISP, where the message originated. There have been many that thought themselves invisible, who now live behind bars, or who have paid heavy fines after receiving a knock at their door accompanied by a search warrant in hand.

Ah, but my point isn't that the encryption makes it hard to trace. The point I brought up is you can spoof the headers on emails. Also if you send your stuff from a hot spot with a PC that lies about the OS and user info it is near impossible to track the original sender. Then on top of this all you can use encryption..... If you are stupid enough to do this all from your home then you would get caught sooner or later.