«

In message <eabbbb54-4cf4-4153-b522->,
GreenXenon wrote:
> On Jun 22, 4:08 am, "Ato_Zee" <ato_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > >> >> > 3. Access the internet via a publicly-available wireless access
> > > >> >> > point
> >
>
>
> > Packet sniffers can be set to trigger on
> > practically anything of interest, even
> > onion servers that give you a succession of
> > IP addresses won't help.
>
>
> Is there a defense against packet-sniffers while accessing the net?
>

Proxies and TOR?

> Are there any coded IDs that allow the packet-sniffers to figure me
> out? If so, while continuously changing those IDs help me?
>
> Those operating the packet-sniffers will detect where the victim's
> information is from via some type of ID. Using this ID they monitor
> what the victim is doing. Right?
>
Most computers now have a ID chip on the mobo.
IIRC pc's built *before* 2002 dont have this chip.
THe pIII had a similar CPU ID chip that could be disabled in the BIOS.


>
> > If you want to just communicate (not surf)
> > using the internet then there are better ways of
> > going about it.
>
>
> Like what?

Face to face in a noisy enviroment. Written notes in a place you know is
secure. Eet teh notes after!!!1111!!!!

^_^

--
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison

On Jun 22, 2:14 pm, §ñühw¤£f <snuhw...@netscape.net> wrote:


> In message <eabbbb54-4cf4-4153-b522-dd31de10f...@g15g2000pra.googlegroups..com>,


>
>
>
> GreenXenon wrote:


> > On Jun 22, 4:08 am, "Ato_Zee" <ato_...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>
> > > > >> >> > 3. Access the internet via a publicly-available wireless access
> > > > >> >> > point


>
> > > Packet sniffers can be set to trigger on
> > > practically anything of interest, even
> > > onion servers that give you a succession of
> > > IP addresses won't help.
>


> > Is there a defense against packet-sniffers while accessing the net?
>


> Proxies and TOR?
>


Are the effective against the evil, cold-hearted, POS Central Security
Service?


> > Are there any coded IDs that allow the packet-sniffers to figure me
> > out? If so, while continuously changing those IDs help me?
>
> > Those operating the packet-sniffers will detect where the victim's
> > information is from via some type of ID. Using this ID they monitor
> > what the victim is doing. Right?


>
> Most computers now have a ID chip on the mobo.
> IIRC pc's built *before* 2002 dont have this chip.


Can I pay someone to custom-build me a PC without that creepy chip?
Will they agree to build it?

Will the PC work without that chip? Will it be able to access the
internet w/out that chip? If not, can the ID be made dynamic so that
it's very difficult for the Central Security Service to victimize me?


>
>
>
> > > If you want to just communicate (not surf)
> > > using the internet then there are better ways of
> > > going about it.


>
> > Like what?


>
> Face to face in a noisy enviroment. Written notes in a place you know is
> secure. Eet teh notes after!!!1111!!!!


That's not the internet.

"GreenXenon" <> wrote in message
news:eabbbb54-4cf4-4153-b522-...
> On Jun 22, 4:08 am, "Ato_Zee" <ato_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > >> >> > 3. Access the internet via a publicly-available wireless access
>> > >> >> > point
>>
>
>
>> Packet sniffers can be set to trigger on
>> practically anything of interest, even
>> onion servers that give you a succession of
>> IP addresses won't help.
>
>
> Is there a defense against packet-sniffers while accessing the net?

Nope.
Remember even if the contents are encoded the address bits will identify it.
And the fact the packet data is encrypted makes it stand out.
(Profile aka Signature 'allways encrypts data')

Note also that the instant you sent the a packet via a WiFi link you have
lost control of who recieves it
And once the packet is on the 'wire' it will eventually pass through a node
that is under the control of the Authorities.



>
> Are there any coded IDs that allow the packet-sniffers to figure me
> out? If so, while continuously changing those IDs help me?
>
> Those operating the packet-sniffers will detect where the victim's
> information is from via some type of ID. Using this ID they monitor
> what the victim is doing. Right?
>
>
>> If you want to just communicate (not surf)
>> using the internet then there are better ways of
>> going about it.
>
>
> Like what?

You could set up a private line between you and your communicatee.
But then that excludes you from the Internet doesn't it.

P.

"GreenXenon" <> wrote in message
news:164074f8-d703-46af-b174-...
On Jun 22, 2:14 pm, §ñühw¤£f <snuhw...@netscape.net> wrote:


> In message
> <eabbbb54-4cf4-4153-b522-dd31de10f...@g15g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,


>
>
>
> GreenXenon wrote:


> > On Jun 22, 4:08 am, "Ato_Zee" <ato_...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>
> > > > >> >> > 3. Access the internet via a publicly-available wireless
> > > > >> >> > access
> > > > >> >> > point


>
> > > Packet sniffers can be set to trigger on
> > > practically anything of interest, even
> > > onion servers that give you a succession of
> > > IP addresses won't help.
>


> > Is there a defense against packet-sniffers while accessing the net?
>


> Proxies and TOR?
>


Are the effective against the evil, cold-hearted, POS Central Security
Service?


> > Are there any coded IDs that allow the packet-sniffers to figure me
> > out? If so, while continuously changing those IDs help me?
>
> > Those operating the packet-sniffers will detect where the victim's
> > information is from via some type of ID. Using this ID they monitor
> > what the victim is doing. Right?


>
> Most computers now have a ID chip on the mobo.
> IIRC pc's built *before* 2002 dont have this chip.


Can I pay someone to custom-build me a PC without that creepy chip?
Will they agree to build it?

Will the PC work without that chip? Will it be able to access the
internet w/out that chip? If not, can the ID be made dynamic so that
it's very difficult for the Central Security Service to victimize me?



snip

No that 'unidentifiable' computer would not work over the Internet.

So lets imagine there is someone out there that will build you the PC you
want and 'tell' you it's not identifiable.
How do 'you' know that 's true?
You won't, so to be sure you build one yourself.
Could you do that? (methinks not)

For arguments sake lets say you somehow get an 'unidentifiable' computer
So here you are with your perfectly unidentifiable computer and you connect
it to the Internet.
You send a packet of data to a site you want to 'communicate' with.
So who does the site respond to ?
It can't respond to your unidentifiable computer can it?

So once again in order to 'communicate' over the Internet you 'have' to be
identifiable.
Ergo you cannot have a unidentifiable computer communicate over the
Internet.
QED

"GreenXenon" <> wrote in message
news:26370d95-fcea-4629-8cb1-...
> On Jun 22, 9:17 am, "Ato_Zee" <ato_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > What technical stuff [as in coded IDs] other than the MAC address and
>> > IP address can reveal my who, how, what, when, where, why?
>>
>> > How would people know that it's me searching for stuff or visiting
>> > websites/newsgroups?
>
>
>> So you need to build a machine that stores nothing
>> about itself, no bootstrap ROM, as pointed out toggle
>> in the bootstrap code, then get the OS off some media.
>> But then of course you possess the incriminating OS
>> media.
>
>
> What the legal alternative to the incriminating OS media?
>
>
>> Building such a machine, including its OS and
>> network drivers is not a trivial task.
>
>
> What if I'm rich enough to pay someone to build me a customized
> machine which has all of the above except the illegal media?
>
> All I want is for my identity as opaque as possible while on the net.
> So I can say what I want on the internet w/out worrying about the
> Central Security Service filing defamation charges against me.
>
> I want to expose the Central Security Service for their lies. I want
> to reveal to the American public how the Central Security Service are
> the most evil, cold-hearted, pro-muslim, anti-American traitors to
> ever exist.
>
> I was watching the History channel a couple of weeks ago. The Central
> Security Service knew that 9/11 would happen. However, they chose not
> to care. They knew of the signs of the impending attack but they chose
> to keep it secret. They wouldn't even let the FBI, CIA, and police
> know about it.
>
> The Central Security Service abuse our soldiers just for fun. They
> poison our soldiers with toxins such as Agent Orange and the BZ
> hallucinogen. They do this just for the cruel pleasure of causing
> harm.
>
> The FBI, CIA, and police are usually good people. Its the Central
> Security Service who are sick bastards.



One lesson I learned many years ago is 'never' believe what the media
print/broadcast.
Most of that stuff is produced for those with short attention spans and
little knowledge of the subject.
ie they are 'entertaining' you
In other words if you believe that chapter & verse then you're a mug.

Next thing youll be a Holocaust denier, or saying that Pol Pot was actually
a nice guy.

Time to get a life.

P.

PeeCee <> pinched out a steaming pile
of<h1p67s$hip$>:

>"GreenXenon" <> wrote in message
>news:164074f8-d703-46af-b174-
...
>On Jun 22, 2:14 pm, §ñühw¤£f <snuhw...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>> In message
>> <eabbbb54-4cf4-4153-b522-dd31de10f...@g15g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> GreenXenon wrote:
>
>
>> > On Jun 22, 4:08 am, "Ato_Zee" <ato_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> > > > >> >> > 3. Access the internet via a publicly-available
wireless
>> > > > >> >> > access
>> > > > >> >> > point
>
>
>>
>> > > Packet sniffers can be set to trigger on
>> > > practically anything of interest, even
>> > > onion servers that give you a succession of
>> > > IP addresses won't help.
>>
>
>
>> > Is there a defense against packet-sniffers while accessing the
net?
>>
>
>
>> Proxies and TOR?
>>
>
>
>Are the effective against the evil, cold-hearted, POS Central Security
>Service?
>
>
>> > Are there any coded IDs that allow the packet-sniffers to figure
me
>> > out? If so, while continuously changing those IDs help me?
>>
>> > Those operating the packet-sniffers will detect where the victim's
>> > information is from via some type of ID. Using this ID they
monitor
>> > what the victim is doing. Right?
>
>
>>
>> Most computers now have a ID chip on the mobo.
>> IIRC pc's built *before* 2002 dont have this chip.
>
>
>Can I pay someone to custom-build me a PC without that creepy chip?
>Will they agree to build it?
>
>Will the PC work without that chip? Will it be able to access the
>internet w/out that chip? If not, can the ID be made dynamic so that
>it's very difficult for the Central Security Service to victimize me?
>
>
>
>snip
>
>No that 'unidentifiable' computer would not work over the Internet.

Yer just mesin with him. This old pII has no unique ID chip.
None of the other ones I have have them enabled since I turn it off in
the BIOS.

>
>So lets imagine there is someone out there that will build you the PC
you
>want and 'tell' you it's not identifiable.

comp.sys.pc.homebuilt could help him build his own.

>How do 'you' know that 's true?
>You won't, so to be sure you build one yourself.

Easy peasy. Get old mobo off ebay or somthing and put it together.

>Could you do that? (methinks not)
>
I've built systems and I'm no einstein...

>For arguments sake lets say you somehow get an 'unidentifiable'
computer
>So here you are with your perfectly unidentifiable computer and you
connect
>it to the Internet.
>You send a packet of data to a site you want to 'communicate' with.
>So who does the site respond to ?
>It can't respond to your unidentifiable computer can it?
>

IP's are the same as the chipset now?
Yer messin with him mate.
Heh...


>So once again in order to 'communicate' over the Internet you 'have'
to be
>identifiable.

No you dont


>Ergo you cannot have a unidentifiable computer communicate over the
>Internet.
>QED
>
>
LULZ!

On Jun 22, 5:34 pm, "PeeCee" <ab...@local.host> wrote:


> "GreenXenon" <glucege...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:26370d95-fcea-4629-8cb1-...


>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 9:17 am, "Ato_Zee" <ato_...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>
> >> > What technical stuff [as in coded IDs] other than the MAC address and
> >> > IP address can reveal my who, how, what, when, where, why?
>
> >> > How would people know that it's me searching for stuff or visiting
> >> > websites/newsgroups?
>


> >> So you need to build a machine that stores nothing
> >> about itself, no bootstrap ROM, as pointed out toggle
> >> in the bootstrap code, then get the OS off some media.
> >> But then of course you possess the incriminating OS
> >> media.


>
> > What the legal alternative to the incriminating OS media?
>


> >> Building such a machine, including its OS and
> >> network drivers is not a trivial task.
>


> > What if I'm rich enough to pay someone to build me a customized
> > machine which has all of the above except the illegal media?
>
> > All I want is for my identity as opaque as possible while on the net.
> > So I can say what I want on the internet w/out worrying about the
> > Central Security Service filing defamation charges against me.
>
> > I want to expose the Central Security Service for their lies. I want
> > to reveal to the American public how the Central Security Service are
> > the most evil, cold-hearted, pro-muslim, anti-American traitors to
> > ever exist.
>
> > I was watching the History channel a couple of weeks ago. The Central
> > Security Service knew that 9/11 would happen. However, they chose not
> > to care. They knew of the signs of the impending attack but they chose
> > to keep it secret. They wouldn't even let the FBI, CIA, and police
> > know about it.
>
> > The Central Security Service abuse our soldiers just for fun. They
> > poison our soldiers with toxins such as Agent Orange and the BZ
> > hallucinogen. They do this just for the cruel pleasure of causing
> > harm.
>
> > The FBI, CIA, and police are usually good people. Its the Central
> > Security Service who are sick bastards.
>


> One lesson I learned many years ago is 'never' believe what the media
> print/broadcast.
> Most of that stuff is produced for those with short attention spans and
> little knowledge of the subject.
> ie they are 'entertaining' you
> In other words if you believe that chapter & verse then you're a mug.
>


So the History channel is lying?


> Next thing youll be a Holocaust denier, or saying that Pol Pot was actually
> a nice guy.


Absolutely not. I support Jewish culture to the extreme. The Holocaust
did occur and I think those responsible -- if found today -- should be
burnt alive. Believe it or not, the holocaust is the fault of a muslim
named "The Grand Mufa"

The Grand Mufa brainwashed Hitler and the rest of Germany into hating
Jews.

Muslims are also -- at root -- responsible for African American
slavery. The muslims in Africa sold native Africans as slaves to white
colonists.

Since the Central Security Service supports muslims, it is no better
than muslims. Those who advocate an evil are just as guilty as that
evil.

On Jun 22, 4:48 pm, "PeeCee" <ab...@local.host> wrote:


> "GreenXenon" <glucege...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:eabbbb54-4cf4-4153-b522-...


>
> > On Jun 22, 4:08 am, "Ato_Zee" <ato_...@hotmail.com> wrote:


>
> >> > >> >> > 3. Access the internet via a publicly-available wireless access
> >> > >> >> > point
>


> >> Packet sniffers can be set to trigger on
> >> practically anything of interest, even
> >> onion servers that give you a succession of
> >> IP addresses won't help.
>


> > Is there a defense against packet-sniffers while accessing the net?
>


> Nope.
> Remember even if the contents are encoded the address bits will identify it.


What are "address bits"?

"GreenXenon" <> wrote in message
news:3bd269e8-4076-42bd-bf34-...
snip
>
> What are "address bits"?


From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_packet
<quote>
IP packets are composed of a header and payload. The IPv4 packet header
consists of:

1 4 bits that contain the version, that specifies if it's an IPv4 or IPv6
packet,
2 4 bits that contain the Internet Header Length which is the length of
the header in multiples of 4 bytes. Ex. 5 is equal to 20 bytes.
3 8 bits that contain the Type of Service, also referred to as Quality of
Service (QoS), which describes what priority the packet should have,
4 16 bits that contain the length of the packet in bytes,
5 16 bits that contain an identification tag to help reconstruct the
packet from several fragments,
6 3 bits that contain a zero, a flag that says whether the packet is
allowed to be fragmented or not (DF: Don't fragment), and a flag to state
whether more fragments of a packet follow (MF: More Fragments)
7 13 bits that contain the fragment offset, a field to identify which
fragment this packet is attached to,
8 8 bits that contain the Time to live (TTL) which is the number of hops
(router, computer or device along a network) the packet is allowed to pass
before it dies (for example, a packet with a TTL of 16 will be allowed to go
across 16 routers to get to its destination before it is discarded),
9 8 bits that contain the protocol (TCP, UDP, ICMP, etc...)
10 16 bits that contain the Header Checksum, a number used in error
detection,
11 32 bits that contain the source IP address,
12 32 bits that contain the destination address.

After those, optional flags can be added of varied length, which can change
based on the protocol used, then the data that packet carries is added.
</quote>


Items 11 & 12, these are the 'address bits'.

P.

On Jun 23, 5:41 pm, GreenXenon <glucege...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 5:34 pm, "PeeCee" <ab...@local.host> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "GreenXenon" <glucege...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:26370d95-fcea-4629-8cb1-...
>
> > > On Jun 22, 9:17 am, "Ato_Zee" <ato_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > What technical stuff [as in coded IDs] other than the MAC address and
> > >> > IP address can reveal my who, how, what, when, where, why?
>
> > >> > How would people know that it's me searching for stuff or visiting
> > >> > websites/newsgroups?
>
> > >> So you need to build a machine that stores nothing
> > >> about itself, no bootstrap ROM, as pointed out toggle
> > >> in the bootstrap code, then get the OS off some media.
> > >> But then of course you possess the incriminating OS
> > >> media.
>
> > > What the legal alternative to the incriminating OS media?
>
> > >> Building such a machine, including its OS and
> > >> network drivers is not a trivial task.
>
> > > What if I'm rich enough to pay someone to build me a customized
> > > machine which has all of the above except the illegal media?
>
> > > All I want is for my identity as opaque as possible while on the net.
> > > So I can say what I want on the internet w/out worrying about the
> > > Central Security Service filing defamation charges against me.
>
> > > I want to expose the Central Security Service for their lies. I want
> > > to reveal to the American public how the Central Security Service are
> > > the most evil, cold-hearted, pro-muslim, anti-American traitors to
> > > ever exist.
>
> > > I was watching the History channel a couple of weeks ago. The Central
> > > Security Service knew that 9/11 would happen. However, they chose not
> > > to care. They knew of the signs of the impending attack but they chose
> > > to keep it secret. They wouldn't even let the FBI, CIA, and police
> > > know about it.
>
> > > The Central Security Service abuse our soldiers just for fun. They
> > > poison our soldiers with toxins such as Agent Orange and the BZ
> > > hallucinogen. They do this just for the cruel pleasure of causing
> > > harm.
>
> > > The FBI, CIA, and police are usually good people. Its the Central
> > > Security Service who are sick bastards.
>
> > One lesson I learned many years ago is 'never' believe what the media
> > print/broadcast.
> > Most of that stuff is produced for those with short attention spans and
> > little knowledge of the subject.
> > ie they are 'entertaining' you
> > In other words if you believe that chapter & verse then you're a mug.
>
> So the History channel is lying?
>
> > Next thing youll be a Holocaust denier, or saying that Pol Pot was actually
> > a nice guy.
>
> Absolutely not. I support Jewish culture to the extreme. The Holocaust
> did occur and I think those responsible -- if found today -- should be
> burnt alive. Believe it or not, the holocaust is the fault of a muslim
> named "The Grand Mufa"
>
> The Grand Mufa brainwashed Hitler and the rest of Germany into hating
> Jews.
>
> Muslims are also -- at root -- responsible for African American
> slavery. The muslims in Africa sold native Africans as slaves to white
> colonists.
>
> Since the Central Security Service supports muslims, it is no better
> than muslims. Those who advocate an evil are just as guilty as that
> evil.

Sorry, it's the "Grand Mufti", not "Mufa"