Text 22244, 71 rader
Skriven 2006-01-13 12:36:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 22215 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: Editor's censorship
===========================
Hello Matt,

 >>> You have not been charged with a crime.

 MvdV>> I (and others) have been accused ..

 > An acusation is not equivalent to a charge.

Point taken. I nevertheless feel that it is only fair that the accused get to
see the evidence against them that the accusers claim exists.

 MvdV>> .. attempting to hack Shannon's system.

 > I do not doubt that one or more of you were port scanning his machine.

well, it wasn't me. And I am a bit puzzled by the "one or more of you". That
suggests some kind of conspiracy. If there was one, I was not part of it.

 > Though in my opinion, that is not hacking.

Same here. Shannon however seems to think so and banned access to his system
for the suspects because of it. This mildly annoying, but what I find more
serious it that after the incident I also found myself locked out of several US
government and government related sites. I have obviously landed on some
blacklist and I suspect Shannon had something to do with that.

In your considered opinion is it possible to perform a port scan using a faked
IP address for the originator?

 > Several of us were conducting portscans against each other for
 > about a week.  I did not scan anyone's system without their
 > permission and did not care who scanned me. Though, all things
 > considered, it could be considered annoying behavior.  (note:
 > not EAB)

I probably was port scanned as well, but as I have no way of even knowing it, I
fail to see how I could ever construe it as annoying. A simple port scan merely
bounces off the firewall in my dsl router. I never know about it. And no that
is not a 20.000 Dollar device, these home routers go for 30 Euro or so.

 MvdV>> That is a serious accusation.

 > Yes.  It is.

So we agree on that. Over here computer hacking is a criminal offence. An
unjust accusation of an attempt to hack is ground for a slander charge.

That is if Shannon were ever to come here and repeat his accusations in the
presence of witnesses....

 MvdV>> It is the equivalent of a crime in the FidoNet world.

 > Nobody has yet to be jailed.  There have been no policy
 > complaints.

There have been threats of complaints though.

 MvdV>> .. if you are serious in your offer to judge the case ..

 > Hey, I'm not looking to judge anyone, simply offer an
 > interpretation of the data.  In fairness, any conclusions I
 > were to make could be totally wrong.

Then what is the point? Do you really believe that if you came to the
conclusion that the evidence was insufficient, Shannon would apologize, remove
the lockouts and back off?

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)