«

Our glorious self proclaimed master of the "Jam" has recently been
taken aback by one simple misleading story with no facts to back it up
with.

I have read more than 2 dozen web pages on this subject of an alleged
college student being arrested in his home early one morning on the
mere suspicion of having attempted to download child pornography,
which, by the way, did not exist.

"Scotty" is scared shitless in thinking that if you simply click on a
link, you will be busted by the FBI.

BULL ****ING ****!

Scotty posted a link to www.da.ru/closed
which he claims will get you busted. Dumbass. It's a frickin joke.
The parent site is a well known haven of adult pornography while the
home page appears to be a rather muldane site and mentions nothing of
the pornography. Scotty dear boy, "DA" in Russia, means "yes"
The "ru" says it's hosted in Russia or at least has that country code.


Every site that I read all point back to the original story on
cnet.com. I believe this stoy to be fictional. It never happened.

There are a couple of variations to this story. In the original
cnet.com version they post a couple of pictures allegedly claiming
actual links that were posted to a certain BBS. I tried one of the
links and found it was connected to no-ip.com. Which means that
someone is using the service because they're running a home based
system.

In the second picture are several IP's claiming that these belonged to
the student who was living in Deleware at the time. However, the IP's
actually belong to Cox Communications in Las Vegas, Nv. Dialup?
Doubtful. Not with a fairly static IP.

Then why would anyone try a link more than 2 or 3 times? Unlike the
hundreds of times the story reports.

Which brings us to the IP's. The story claims the FBI tracked the guy
simply by the IP. Maybe. The IP alone is not your home. That gives the
server location and who owns the server and IP. Not YOU. The FBI would
then have to obtain a warrant for the information to be released from
the owning service. To make things a tad more difficult, there is
something known as IP share. Oh look, we have 300 people usinng the
same IP at the same time. Whatcha gonna do now jerk?
NCIS will crack the case in a matter of minutes for sure.
Don't these guys watch tv?

Now comes the legal stuff. First, allegedly Vosburgh was convicted of
"Attempting to download". Can someone please point out exactly what
this law is? First I ever heard of it. Oh yeah. Kind of like that one
law Clinton and Bush signed into law for annoying people online.

One version says he was convicted of having destroying evidence on HIS
computer and interfering with an inveastigation. Oh please.

Most reported that the warrant was served at between 6am and 7am.
One report stated the agents simply knocked on his door, saying
something about his car, and when he steps out, knocks him to the
ground and handcuffs him.


Yeppers boys and girls. This story was so full of holes it's pathetic.
A true excercise in Freedom to Create the news.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:50:18 -0500, richard <>
wrote:

>Our glorious self proclaimed master of the "Jam" has recently been
>taken aback by one simple misleading story with no facts to back it up
>with.

Only one??? All of his stories are crack.

>In the second picture are several IP's claiming that these belonged to
>the student who was living in Deleware at the time. However, the IP's
>actually belong to Cox Communications in Las Vegas, Nv.

Just because they belong to Cox Communications in Las Vegas doesn't
mean the IP addresses terminate in Las Vegas. Cox could register
everything to their Nevada address for all their IP's worldwide if
they wanted.

>Dialup? Doubtful. Not with a fairly static IP.

Fairly static? Is that like... Umm... Not static?

>Which brings us to the IP's. The story claims the FBI tracked the guy
>simply by the IP. Maybe.

Why not?

>The IP alone is not your home. That gives the server location and who owns the server and IP. Not YOU.

True so far.

>The FBI would then have to obtain a warrant for the information to be released from
>the owning service.

Uhhh not unless the ISP decides to cooperate without a warrant.

>To make things a tad more difficult, there is something known as IP share. Oh look, we have 300 people usinng the
>same IP at the same time. Whatcha gonna do now jerk?

Holy crap.

Explain to me how this works.

Please.

Really.

Because Google, and Wikipedia has no information on this.

Seriously.

I'd like to know how my server then gets a request from 1.2.3.4, how
it would know WHICH 1.2.3.4 to send it to.

I don't expect an answer. As usual, when you're proven wrong, you
simply don't reply.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.

richard <> wrote in message
news::

> Our glorious self proclaimed master of the "Jam" has recently been
> taken aback by one simple misleading story with no facts to back it up
> with.
>
> I have read more than 2 dozen web pages on this subject of an alleged
> college student being arrested in his home early one morning on the
> mere suspicion of having attempted to download child pornography,
> which, by the way, did not exist.
>
> "Scotty" is scared shitless in thinking that if you simply click on a
> link, you will be busted by the FBI.
>
> BULL ****ING ****!
>
> Scotty posted a link to www.da.ru/closed
> which he claims will get you busted. Dumbass. It's a frickin joke.
> The parent site is a well known haven of adult pornography while the
> home page appears to be a rather muldane site and mentions nothing of
> the pornography. Scotty dear boy, "DA" in Russia, means "yes"
> The "ru" says it's hosted in Russia or at least has that country code.
>
>
> Every site that I read all point back to the original story on
> cnet.com. I believe this stoy to be fictional. It never happened.
>
> There are a couple of variations to this story. In the original
> cnet.com version they post a couple of pictures allegedly claiming
> actual links that were posted to a certain BBS. I tried one of the
> links and found it was connected to no-ip.com. Which means that
> someone is using the service because they're running a home based
> system.
>
> In the second picture are several IP's claiming that these belonged to
> the student who was living in Deleware at the time. However, the IP's
> actually belong to Cox Communications in Las Vegas, Nv. Dialup?
> Doubtful. Not with a fairly static IP.
>
> Then why would anyone try a link more than 2 or 3 times? Unlike the
> hundreds of times the story reports.
>
> Which brings us to the IP's. The story claims the FBI tracked the guy
> simply by the IP. Maybe. The IP alone is not your home. That gives the
> server location and who owns the server and IP. Not YOU. The FBI would
> then have to obtain a warrant for the information to be released from
> the owning service. To make things a tad more difficult, there is
> something known as IP share. Oh look, we have 300 people usinng the
> same IP at the same time. Whatcha gonna do now jerk?
> NCIS will crack the case in a matter of minutes for sure.
> Don't these guys watch tv?
>
> Now comes the legal stuff. First, allegedly Vosburgh was convicted of
> "Attempting to download". Can someone please point out exactly what
> this law is? First I ever heard of it. Oh yeah. Kind of like that one
> law Clinton and Bush signed into law for annoying people online.
>
> One version says he was convicted of having destroying evidence on HIS
> computer and interfering with an inveastigation. Oh please.
>
> Most reported that the warrant was served at between 6am and 7am.
> One report stated the agents simply knocked on his door, saying
> something about his car, and when he steps out, knocks him to the
> ground and handcuffs him.
>
>
> Yeppers boys and girls. This story was so full of holes it's pathetic.
> A true excercise in Freedom to Create the news.

You don't suppose it's a simple exercise in FUD, no?

--
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties,
nations, and epochs it is the rule. Nietzsche

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:15:41 -0500, richard <>
wrote:

>Nope. ICANN among others worldwide, assign the IP's to a country, then
>the IP's are split among the various parties within.
>Being Cox is a cable company it is possible that the system could work
>nationwide.

Huh?

>Are you really that frickin brain dead?

I asked you first.

>e.g. I have a server upon which 100 domains reside.
>Does each domain have it's own IP?

I don't know. It's possible it does.

>No.

Ok, so in your case, no. But in some cases, yes, each domain may have
its own IP.

>There is a lot more to the system than just an IP.

No ****?

>No hits? You didn't look to hard.

"too", idiot.

Results 1 - 10 of about 174,000,000 for IP share. (0.15 seconds)

None of them (well, none for the first few pages) have ANYTHING to do
with more than one person sharing the same IP.

So once again, prove your point.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.

Evan Platt wrote:

>
>None of them (well, none for the first few pages) have ANYTHING to do
>with more than one person sharing the same IP.

You and RtS are talking about 2 different things. I think you are saying that
each 'node' on the 'net gets a unique IP, and that is true. RtS is saying
that multiple websites can be 'hosted' on the same 'node', which is also true.

Go here:
http://www.ip-domain.com.cn/

Type in "gates2010.com" as the search term. It will display all of the
domains hosted at the IP (19 found with the IP 75.119.207.1).

richard wrote:

>My other main domain is hosted at hostgator.com and for that IP your
>site lists 865 domains for the same IP.
>
>Now just how is that possible?
>I mean with something over 10 million websites and maybe more, I don't
>think there are that many IP's for the entire world to have 1 IP per
>domain name.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_hosting

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:40:35 +0000 (UTC), G. Morgan <>
wrote:

>You and RtS are talking about 2 different things. I think you are saying that
>each 'node' on the 'net gets a unique IP, and that is true. RtS is saying
>that multiple websites can be 'hosted' on the same 'node', which is also true.
>
>Go here:
>http://www.ip-domain.com.cn/
>
>Type in "gates2010.com" as the search term. It will display all of the
>domains hosted at the IP (19 found with the IP 75.119.207.1).

I know about that. That's not what RtS said. RtS said more than one
person can have the same IP.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:57:19 -0500, richard <>
wrote:

>Thank you for pointing that out.
>I have a server on which I have 2 domains. The same IP is used for
>both domains.

That's quite common.

>If you plug that IP you give into your browser, you get nothing.

That depends on how the webserver is configured.

>In my case, you get a page saying no website is available.

And the webserver could just as easily be configured to do any of a
dozen different things.

>The servers can display all types of informational pages should the
>direct IP be entered. That doesn't mean the IP ain't in use.

Uhhh WHAT??

>My other main domain is hosted at hostgator.com and for that IP your
>site lists 865 domains for the same IP.
>
>Now just how is that possible?
>I mean with something over 10 million websites and maybe more, I don't
>think there are that many IP's for the entire world to have 1 IP per
>domain name.
>
>Considering that many IP's are reserved for special purposes.
>
>or is it 100 million?

When you send a HTTP request, it includes the URL you requested.

So when you go to www.RichardTheStupidsDomain.com, your web browser
says "hey, get me www.RichardTheStupidsDomain.com .

Now, back to your original misquote, you said more than one PERSON, ie
end user, can have the same IP.

You still haven't proved this.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.

Evan Platt wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:40:35 +0000 (UTC), G. Morgan <>
>wrote:
>
>>You and RtS are talking about 2 different things. I think you are saying that
>>each 'node' on the 'net gets a unique IP, and that is true. RtS is saying
>>that multiple websites can be 'hosted' on the same 'node', which is also true.
>>
>>Go here:
>>http://www.ip-domain.com.cn/
>>
>>Type in "gates2010.com" as the search term. It will display all of the
>>domains hosted at the IP (19 found with the IP 75.119.207.1).
>
>I know about that. That's not what RtS said. RtS said more than one
>person can have the same IP.

Gotcha. I didn't read the OP first part of the rant, specifically:

"To make things a tad more difficult, there is something known as IP share. Oh
look, we have 300 people using the same IP at the same time."

So yeah, if he's talking about individual web-surfers he would be wrong
(again).

Then there are web-based proxies which theoretically could deliver 300 unique
visitors to a site, all coming from the same apparent IP.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:30:07 -0800, Evan Platt
<evan@*******************************> wrote:

>>To make things a tad more difficult, there is something known as IP share. Oh look, we have 300 people usinng the
>>same IP at the same time. Whatcha gonna do now jerk?
>
>Holy crap.
>
>Explain to me how this works.
>
>Please.
>
>Really.

Yeah. Didn't expect an answer from you.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.