> There is no POSSIBLE way that I could monitor was is being sent, if
> if I WANTED to.

That is wrong.

>
>These use 256-bit encryption,

Meaningless metric without naming the algorithm..

> becuase of the 256-bit proprietary encryption,

proprietary encryption is stupid and usually much worse
then an amateurs implementation of a well known algorithm.

In article <43d4b364-298d-4ce6-a9db-0602168fb3a5
@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Well, there is no way, wiht the particular proxy application I use, I
> can completely turn off logs. The firewall software creates logs
> whether I want them or not. So, I eradicate them, every few days, with
> Evidence Eliminator.

And there you go, you have and can see and can be doing anything with
the logs you want - you do not offer anonymous connections that are not
tracked. You are tracking your visitors.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.22442815e8b8758c989689@adfree.usenet.com. ..
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Even though SHE was in Canada, my SERVERS, at
>> the time, were in GERMANY. As a result, I, as the server admin,
>> was NOT SUBJECT to prosecution in Canada, for allowing her
>> to use MY proxy to access Figure Skating Universe, and Golden
>> Skate, becuase NONE of my servers are in Canada, nor have they
>> ever BEEN in Canada, so that made her access to FSU,. via
>> MY proxy, NOT SUBJECT to ANY Canadian laws.
>
> And she was in violation of her company policy and could be fired for
> it, and your bad advice about how she could not be detected would make
> you liable - so you really need to stay out of the countries that you
> scam that on people.


IN this case, she came to me BEGGING for access to my proxy.
I was doing a broadcast, at the time, and I got a telephone call
from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy. It was
HER idea to find a way around the company firewall, and
I was more than happy to do this for a fellow figure skating fan
in this situation. This skater was also one of her relatives, though
I will not say WHICH relation she was. When something
happens like that, in your FAMILY, I feel the boss has
NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to keep such information
from you, so I was perfectly WILLING to grant her the
access to my proxy, so I had quickly created an account
for her on my proxy, and then sent all the information on
how to connect, in a private message, or "PM", in the lingo
of users of phpBB and vBulletin.

When something like that happens to someone in your FAMILY,
the boss has NO BUSINESS keeping information from you
on what is happening to said relative, so I was more than EAGER
to grant her the access to allow her to circumvent the firewall of her
Canadian employer, and be able to log on to Figure Skating Universe
and GoldenSkate. With the proxy application I was using at the time,
All she had to do was download a small EXE of about 630K, start
that program, enter the IP for my server, enter her login and password,
and then just change the proxy settings in her browser, and she was
on Figure Skating Universe and Golden Skate, in less than 5 minutes.

In short, it was HER asked for the access, and I GAVE it
to her, and it was HER idea to circumvent the company filters,
to get to Figure Skating Universe and Golden Skate, and NOT
mine. I just merly gave her the tools to do it. While SHE might
have been liable, *I* would NOT have been liable, becuase my
server is NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN in Canada, so I am
NOT SUBJECT to prosecution on ANY Canadian laws, for
conent coming off my server. Since my server, at the time, was
in GERMANY, and my business is in AUSTRALIA, I was
ONLY subject to AUSTRALIAN and GERMAN laws.
Since my server was NOT in Canada, at that time, *I* was
NOT SUBJECT to ANY Canadian laws.

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> I got a telephone call
> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.

There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her country
and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com. ..
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> I got a telephone call
>> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
>> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
>> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
>> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
>
> There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her country
> and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.

Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,
since my radio station is how I make my living. And she was NOT
committing ANY criminal act, under either Canadian, Australian,
German, or United States laws (I was broadcasting a figure skating event
in Colorado at that time). Laws in these countries regarding
unauthorised access to a computer ONLY apply if you BREAK
someone's PASSWORD. In short, the filters/firewalls on her
office network FAILED to block access to MY network, she
was NOT subject to ANY criminal prosecution.

In short, I was NOT facilitating ANY crime, becuase she was NOT
COMMITTING any crime. The firewalls failed to block my network,
hence the laws regarding unauthorised access DID NOT APPLY
in this case, because she was NOT breaking any PASSWORDS,
and second, becuase I had given her PERMISSION, in the form
of a login and password to my machine.

Chilly8 wrote:


> In short, I was NOT facilitating ANY crime, becuase she was NOT
> COMMITTING any crime.


Mind you, it's still a civil offense.

> The firewalls failed to block my network,

> hence the laws regarding unauthorised access DID NOT APPLY
> in this case,


Wrong. Just because a technical measure fails doesn't make the legal
measures fail.

> because she was NOT breaking any PASSWORDS,
> and second, becuase I had given her PERMISSION, in the form
> of a login and password to my machine.


However she had not been given permission by the administrator of her
company's network.

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com. ..
> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> I got a telephone call
> >> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
> >> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
> >> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
> >> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
> >
> > There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her country
> > and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.
>
> Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
> and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,

That means you enabled the crime and were a willing participant. Now you
claim you were even paid to help her break company policy and maybe even
laws of that country, and you have fully admitted it.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2246ae83f7aa853098968d@adfree.usenet.com. ..
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> "Leythos" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com. ..
>> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> >> I got a telephone call
>> >> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
>> >> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
>> >> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
>> >> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
>> >
>> > There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her country
>> > and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.
>>
>> Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
>> and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,
>
> That means you enabled the crime and were a willing participant. Now you
> claim you were even paid to help her break company policy and maybe even
> laws of that country, and you have fully admitted it.

She was NOT committing ANY *CRIMINAL* act. The laws in Canada, just
like in Australia and America, regarding unauthorised access to a computer
ONLY apply if you BREAK someone's PASSWORD. If there is NO
password or authentication system that says "Keep Out!", then the laws
regarding unauthorised access to a computer DO NOT APPLY. If its
not protected by a password, or some other kind of authentication system,
then it is LEGAL to access, so NO crime was committed on her part.

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2246ae83f7aa853098968d@adfree.usenet.com. ..
> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> "Leythos" wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com. ..
> >> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> >> I got a telephone call
> >> >> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
> >> >> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
> >> >> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
> >> >> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
> >> >
> >> > There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her country
> >> > and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.
> >>
> >> Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
> >> and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,
> >
> > That means you enabled the crime and were a willing participant. Now you
> > claim you were even paid to help her break company policy and maybe even
> > laws of that country, and you have fully admitted it.
>
> She was NOT committing ANY *CRIMINAL* act. The laws in Canada, just
> like in Australia and America, regarding unauthorised access to a computer
> ONLY apply if you BREAK someone's PASSWORD. If there is NO
> password or authentication system that says "Keep Out!", then the laws
> regarding unauthorised access to a computer DO NOT APPLY. If its
> not protected by a password, or some other kind of authentication system,
> then it is LEGAL to access, so NO crime was committed on her part.

You keep saying that it's not illegal, but when she gets fired for
breaking company policy, because you enabled her, you are liable for her
being fired, since it can be shown that you knew it was wrong at the
time she asked.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.224744c591bc834698968e@adfree.usenet.com. ..
> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>
>> "Leythos" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2246ae83f7aa853098968d@adfree.usenet.com. ..
>> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> >> "Leythos" wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com. ..
>> >> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> >> >> I got a telephone call
>> >> >> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
>> >> >> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
>> >> >> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
>> >> >> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
>> >> >
>> >> > There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her
>> >> > country
>> >> > and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.
>> >>
>> >> Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
>> >> and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,
>> >
>> > That means you enabled the crime and were a willing participant. Now
>> > you
>> > claim you were even paid to help her break company policy and maybe
>> > even
>> > laws of that country, and you have fully admitted it.
>>
>> She was NOT committing ANY *CRIMINAL* act. The laws in Canada, just
>> like in Australia and America, regarding unauthorised access to a
>> computer
>> ONLY apply if you BREAK someone's PASSWORD. If there is NO
>> password or authentication system that says "Keep Out!", then the laws
>> regarding unauthorised access to a computer DO NOT APPLY. If its
>> not protected by a password, or some other kind of authentication system,
>> then it is LEGAL to access, so NO crime was committed on her part.
>
> You keep saying that it's not illegal, but when she gets fired for
> breaking company policy, because you enabled her, you are liable for her

If the filters FAIL to block it, then she could have been accused
of violating company policy, had anybody known what was going
on.

That is why my figure skating message boards are picking up a following
among people surfing from work. Becuase my board is NOT in any
filtering lists, it can be accessed from most workplaces, and as long
as the filters do not block them, then said employess CANNOT be
accused of violating company policy. It is the same as with
unauthorised computer access, if t here is nothing coming on the
screen saying they are attempting to access a site that violates
company policy, then it is NOT a violation of company policy.

Chilly8 wrote:

> and as long
> as the filters do not block them, then said employess CANNOT be
> accused of violating company policy.


Will you idiot finally recognize that a normal policy looks like "No
surfing, except for work duties" and even when the filter does not block it
(or no filter is in place at all), you can still violate this policy and be
hold responsible? Get a ****ing clue before starting to talk about things
you don't understand!

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> as long
> as the filters do not block them, then said employess CANNOT be
> accused of violating company policy. It is the same as with
> unauthorised computer access, if t here is nothing coming on the
> screen saying they are attempting to access a site that violates
> company policy, then it is NOT a violation of company policy.

Wrong, the company Policy does not require ANY blocking to be in place
for it to be in effect. Violating the company policy is factual without
or with filtering in place.

You are still an unethical hack and you are liable in many countries for
your bad advice that can get people fired.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Chilly8" wrote in message
news:frl08e$a67$1@aioe.org...
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.224744c591bc834698968e@adfree.usenet.com. ..
>> In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>>
>>>
>>> "Leythos" wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.2246ae83f7aa853098968d@adfree.usenet.com. ..
>>> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>> >> "Leythos" wrote in message
>>> >> news:MPG.22460d77cc8769c998968b@adfree.usenet.com. ..
>>> >> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>>> >> >> I got a telephone call
>>> >> >> from this one woman BEGGING me for some way to circumvent
>>> >> >> her company firewall. This skater that got injured apparently is
>>> >> >> a good friend of hers, and she was in tears, so I was NOT going
>>> >> >> to turn her down, so I granted her access to my proxy.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > There you go, you facilitated her crime. You are liable in her
>>> >> > country
>>> >> > and she could sue you in court if she lost her job.
>>> >>
>>> >> Not if SHE called ME up and asked for access. She called ME up,
>>> >> and offered to pay me a fee, which I was more than happy to accept,
>>> >
>>> > That means you enabled the crime and were a willing participant. Now
>>> > you
>>> > claim you were even paid to help her break company policy and maybe
>>> > even
>>> > laws of that country, and you have fully admitted it.
>>>
>>> She was NOT committing ANY *CRIMINAL* act. The laws in Canada, just
>>> like in Australia and America, regarding unauthorised access to a
>>> computer
>>> ONLY apply if you BREAK someone's PASSWORD. If there is NO
>>> password or authentication system that says "Keep Out!", then the laws
>>> regarding unauthorised access to a computer DO NOT APPLY. If its
>>> not protected by a password, or some other kind of authentication
>>> system,
>>> then it is LEGAL to access, so NO crime was committed on her part.
>>
>> You keep saying that it's not illegal, but when she gets fired for
>> breaking company policy, because you enabled her, you are liable for her
>
> If the filters FAIL to block it, then she could have been accused
> of violating company policy, had anybody known what was going
> on.
>
> That is why my figure skating message boards are picking up a following
> among people surfing from work. Becuase my board is NOT in any
> filtering lists, it can be accessed from most workplaces, and as long
> as the filters do not block them, then said employess CANNOT be
> accused of violating company policy. It is the same as with
> unauthorised computer access, if t here is nothing coming on the
> screen saying they are attempting to access a site that violates
> company policy, then it is NOT a violation of company policy.
>
>
>

I know that becuase we now have a Shoutcast feed for talk and sports
programming, there is more a lot more workplace listening. There has
been someoene, in Leeds, England, listening to our figure skating
coverage from work, with connections of 2 hours or more at a time.
Becuase my Shoutcast server is not in any filter lists, people have
NO trouble tuning in from work.

In fact, since implementing a Shoutcast feed, I have been getting a lot
more traffic from office networks all over Europe, because my server
is not in any filtering lists.

X-No-Archive: Yes

"Leythos" wrote in message
news:MPG.2244f0cbc14e7cf098968a@adfree.usenet.com. ..
> In article <43d4b364-298d-4ce6-a9db-0602168fb3a5
> @i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>> Well, there is no way, wiht the particular proxy application I use, I
>> can completely turn off logs. The firewall software creates logs
>> whether I want them or not. So, I eradicate them, every few days, with
>> Evidence Eliminator.
>
> And there you go, you have and can see and can be doing anything with
> the logs you want - you do not offer anonymous connections that are not
> tracked. You are tracking your visitors.

Here is an article that saying that Evidence Eliminator actually works, and
says that "even someone with a microsocope" will not be able to recover
the data.


http://www.pr-inside.com/now-that-sp...ed-r503869.htm

Chilly8 wrote:


> Here is an article that saying that Evidence Eliminator actually works, and
> says that "even someone with a microsocope" will not be able to recover
> the data.
>
>
> http://www.pr-inside.com/now-that-sp...ed-r503869.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And they even claim that they're a website for free PR.


Aside from this, there're still three major problems:

- Deleting logfiles from disk doesn't do anything about stopping the
operator from logging data in RAM.

- You're using Outlook Express, so you have obviously no clue about security.

- You're a well known idiot here.

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Sebastian G." wrote in message
news:64vm00F2d3066U1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>> Here is an article that saying that Evidence Eliminator actually works,
>> and
>> says that "even someone with a microsocope" will not be able to recover
>> the data.
>>
>>
>> http://www.pr-inside.com/now-that-sp...ed-r503869.htm
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> And they even claim that they're a website for free PR.
>
>
> Aside from this, there're still three major problems:
>
> - Deleting logfiles from disk doesn't do anything about stopping the
> operator from logging data in RAM.
>
> - You're using Outlook Express, so you have obviously no clue about
> security.

Outlook express it the standard for Windows Newsreaders. When I was
at university in America, the professors drummed it into us that Bill Gates
is God, when it comes to computing.

>
> - You're a well known idiot here.

I just switched my radio station to a streaming service that is more
proxy-friendly, and does not require Winamp, Sonique, or other
extra MP3 players to be installed, it works with IE. So all one has
to do is change thier proxy settings, and just plug into the feed.
And it works on Windows Media Player, so its just a matter
of changing the proxy settings and then connecting to the radio
stream.

I also changed to it becuase it is more Firefox friendly. I have been
catching HELL, ever since Live 365 change their setup to where
Firefox users can no longer listen to my Live 365 feed. Why, oh WHY
do these people have such VITRIOL and HATRED towards Internet
Explorer? Listeners were NOT very happy at ALL, about having
to use Internet Explorer to listen. And this just does not many ANY
sense to me.

Chilly8 wrote:


>> - You're using Outlook Express, so you have obviously no clue about
>> security.
>
> Outlook express it the standard for Windows Newsreaders.


I wouldn't even call it a newsreader... but that doesn't stop people from
abusing it as such.

> I just switched my radio station to a streaming service that is more
> proxy-friendly, and does not require Winamp, Sonique, or other
> extra MP3 players to be installed, it works with IE. So all one has
> to do is change thier proxy settings, and just plug into the feed.
> And it works on Windows Media Player, so its just a matter
> of changing the proxy settings and then connecting to the radio
> stream.


Any sane user has disabled the execution of IE and WMP, for obvious reasons.

> Why, oh WHY do these people have such VITRIOL and HATRED towards Internet
> Explorer?


Because it doesn't even understand simple HTML? Because it is trivially
insecure, but heavily advertises the contrary?

> Listeners were NOT very happy at ALL, about having
> to use Internet Explorer to listen. And this just does not many ANY
> sense to me.

Because a standard conforming implementation of the website would trivially
work on almost every webbrowser? So someone must have deliberately broken
something?

Chilly8 wrote:
> Outlook express it the standard for Windows Newsreaders.

Fortunately not.

Yours,
VB.
--
The file name of an indirect node file is the string "iNode" immediately
followed by the link reference converted to decimal text, with no leading
zeroes. For example, an indirect node file with link reference 123 would
have the name "iNode123". - HFS Plus Volume Format, MacOS X

X-No-Archive: Yes


"Sebastian G." wrote in message
news:650kgaF2e2t8jU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>
>>> - You're using Outlook Express, so you have obviously no clue about
>>> security.
>>
>> Outlook express it the standard for Windows Newsreaders.
>
>
> I wouldn't even call it a newsreader... but that doesn't stop people from
> abusing it as such.
>
>> I just switched my radio station to a streaming service that is more
>> proxy-friendly, and does not require Winamp, Sonique, or other
>> extra MP3 players to be installed, it works with IE. So all one has
>> to do is change thier proxy settings, and just plug into the feed.
>> And it works on Windows Media Player, so its just a matter
>> of changing the proxy settings and then connecting to the radio
>> stream.
>
>
> Any sane user has disabled the execution of IE and WMP, for obvious
> reasons.


Actually, there is one option where WMP does not even have to be
opened. It can be played directly from the web page, itself.. Just change
the proxy settings in whatever browser you are going, connect to the
stream, and enjoy. The web browser itself acts as a player, using
certain resources from WMP, without actually executing WMP, so
disabling WMP is one the silver bullet you think it is, so stop streaming
of radio stations.