Re: I
From: bob (jwx1.deleteThis@bellsouthnet)
Date: 03/01/03
- Next message: Wurf: ""process 976""
- Previous message: Mimic: "Re: THESE ARE SIGNS TO LOOK FOR TO TELL YOU YOUR COMPUTER IS HACKED/OWNED:"
- In reply to: Adie: "Re: I"
- Next in thread: Adie: "Re: I"
- Reply: Adie: "Re: I"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: bob <jwx1.deleteThis@bellsouthnet> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 18:49:18 GMT
Adie <a_usenetizen@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:07s16v0hjlldhi360qgacjm2ng0pblsgh6@4ax.com:
> [bob, usenet posts aren't supposed to be anonymous - please leave
> attributes in for whom you're replying to. It's also considered
I must have gotten a little overzealous with my snipping. Sorry.
> appropriate to place [snip] where have edited the original article.]
When I edit, I put [...]. Cutting large blocks of unrelated text isn't
really editing -- check your dictionary. If anyone is following a thread,
they will see that large blocks have been deleted. If they're not, then
they won't see any of it in the first place. I've been posting in all sorts
of groups for going on a decade now, and you're the first to complain.
> bob wrote:
>>Adie wrote:
>
>>> Sure but on a network you have remote access, and machines logging
>>> information delivered by and produced by other machines. For
>>> instance it's more than feasible to build a packet with spoofed
>>> headers which will be logged as normal, in which case how do you
>>> track who put the
>>
>>Sometimes that's the case.
>
> Well fer crying out load, you've nothing left to argue about - I win.
Yes, you have successfully proved the point that it is possible for
evidence to be faked. Congradulations.
> Fine. I'm sure there are numerous methods of isolating, all of which
> take the kind of proactive stance which is rare in a small business -
> many large organisations too.
No one argued any differently. Rare |= unheard of.
>>> Furthermore, the costs to the business of going to court to fire
>>> someone over looking at a pair of tits will no doubt be prohibitive,
>>
>>You notice that in the cases cited, the network was used in such a way
>>as to catch the guilty party in the act.
>
> So someone has to be siting around waiting for the user to offend.
> Like I said - very few can afford to take such measures.
No one argued any differently. Few |= 0.
>>> All those "expert witnesses" don't come cheap.
>>
>>They aren't necessary when the rent-a-cops catch the guilty party
>>doing his thing. There's not much point in the guilty even taking that
>>one to trial.
>
> Bit of an extreme example wasn t it? I suspect the offence is "lewd
> conduct in a public place" or some such, illegal with or without a
> computer.
The "offence" was misuse of the company's computer network. The man was
fired, not arrested.
Bob
- Next message: Wurf: ""process 976""
- Previous message: Mimic: "Re: THESE ARE SIGNS TO LOOK FOR TO TELL YOU YOUR COMPUTER IS HACKED/OWNED:"
- In reply to: Adie: "Re: I"
- Next in thread: Adie: "Re: I"
- Reply: Adie: "Re: I"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
