Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Bbc Name Ryan Giggs


Game_Over

Recommended Posts

All the people who named him on Twitter could indeed be sued and shouldn't take overly comfort in numbers in my opinion. If anything it should be easy as there is an irrefutable record of their words, date stamped, time stamped and IP stamped. The Recording Association Of America along with the FBI for example, took drastic action against thousands of illegal downloaders who used Torrents (remember those) to download music and films; fear took care of the rest. Now only an idiot would attempt to use these. Any Legal firm worth their salt could issue any number of doe subpoenas to find out the information if the law has been broken.

The Internet is not anonymous. Far from it. And people should stop divorcing what they do online with real life.

No the internet is not anonymous but there is a world of difference in identifying illegal file downloaders and a hit and run twitter post. Downloaders sooner or later want to get their hands on their illgotten gains. Posters on the other hand can create numerous email ids and post via chains of proxy servers. Using an open public wireless hub would make tracing an individual even harder. IP addresses are not proof of identity they merely show where access took place. Of course law enforcement agencies and intelligence services can get round these problems but the expense is huge and they are almost certainly not going to waste their time and money just to save the blushes of randy footballers or judges who have got a touch too creative in interpreting the Human Rights Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

RCIAA would not agree with you. Their Twitter account as you mention would identify, most have their photos on Twtitter for example or they send from their Blackberry. You can almost certainly get the persons home address, it's not difficult.

You can just route through a proxy server which generates a different IP address.

If you like you can then route this through a further proxy server and so on

You could also post from an internet cafe.

You could also post from another country.

If you share an IP address for example in student accommodation how can you prove who out of 4 -8 people made the post.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I'll call that bluff, like what? Please don't say proxy server.

If you think the Internet is anonymous you really are deluding yourself GO. I think it all depends how aggressive they want to be.

If you want to cover your tracks it can be done - easily.

Personally I don't bother because I am careful what I say

Anyway - what's your VI - are you some sort of lawyer or secret policeman?

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good ole blighty, its good to see whilst a fair few people are in the process of losing their pensions, their savings, their homes, their jobs and their kids futures that you can still rely on a footballer getting his nuts to be a major story

It's not about that though is it?

It's abouty the rich and powerful buying justice from lawyers and judges who would sell their souls for 30 pieces of silver.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about that though is it?

It's abouty the rich and powerful buying justice from lawyers and judges who would sell their souls for 30 pieces of silver.

:blink:

its all about that if the only time its nationally and actively noticed is not when a fair few people are in the process of losing their pensions, their savings, their homes, their jobs and their kids futures but only when its noticed via a footballer getting his nuts in

im no erranta or injin but there is clearly something fundamentally wrong with society and its values

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its all about that if the only time its nationally and actively noticed is not when a fair few people are in the process of losing their pensions, their savings, their homes, their jobs and their kids futures but only when its noticed via a footballer getting his nuts in

Not really - this case came to light because of Imogen Thomas being so badly treated by the law.

And it involves extremely important democratic principles.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really - this case came to light because of Imogen Thomas being so badly treated by the law.

And it involves extremely important democratic principles.

:blink:

whereas every uk taxpayer bailing out an insolvent banking sector and incarcerating 3 out of about 400 guilty MPs according to the green book means fck all in the scheme of things so it went through with a few ummms and ahhs, a bit of whingeing and no reversal, on the bright side at least me and mine arent paying for it, however annoyed it makes me just thinking about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whereas every uk taxpayer bailing out an insolvent banking sector and incarcerating 3 out of about 400 guilty MPs naccording to the green book means fck all in the scheme of things so it went through with a few ummms and ahhs, a bit of whingeing and no reversal

Erm............

That would all be very nice if any of it had anything remotely to do with what we were discussing.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm............

That would all be very nice if any of it had anything remotely to do with what we were discussing.

:blink:

exactly, somewhere along the road (id say about 40 years ago) the UK lost sight of anything that is actually societyally important culminating with a stasi party known as Labour that has resulted in a popn so fcked up that on the whole they are likely to walk the next election and yet feel affronted that ryan giggs is in reality a bloke as well as a great footballer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly, somewhere along the road (id say about 40 years ago) the UK lost sight of anything that is actually societyally important culminating with a stasi party known as Labour that has resulted in a popn so fcked up that on the whole they are likely to walk the next election and yet feel affronted that ryan giggs is in reality a bloke as well as a great footballer

I agree with your main point but as regards this matter, it was the politicians and media who were affronted I think.

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure that many 'ordinary ' people are really that interested in what Ryan Giggs gets up to in his spare time.

It was the censorship and rich man's justice aspects of the case that annoyed me personally.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/may/23/politics-live-blog

7.36pm: I'm wrapping this blog up now. Here is an updated summary.

• A Lib Dem MP named Ryan Giggs as the footballer at the centre of an injunction controversy on Twitter. John Hemming identified the Manchester United player in the chamber of the House of Commons, where parliamentary privilege means he is immune from prosecution. Hemming later said that he had decided to name Giggs because the footballer had initiated legal action that could lead to someone going to court for spreading "gossip" about his private life – even though there was no imminent prospect of anyone being jailed in this case.

• A judge has upheld an injunction that prevents journalists from naming a married footballer at the centre of a Twitter row over his private life. In strict legal terms, the footballer cannot be named, but as we have just said, an MP identified Ryan Giggs as the footballer at the centre of a privacy row.

.........

6.57pm: The third hearing today was held in front of Mr Justice Tugendhat. According to my colleague Josh Halliday, who was at the high court, he said: "It is obvious that if the purpose [of the injunction] was to protect a secure then it would have now failed – but as it is to do with harassment it has not failed."

Tugendhat conceded that Giggs's anonymity had been lost. But he said the injunction was about harassment, not just privacy. He said John Hemming's question in parliament today serves to "increase, not decrease, the strength of his [Giggs] case that he needs protection." The judge went on to say: "If a court can stop one person or five people [from harassing Giggs] – not 50,000 – is there not something to be achieved?"

This is just farcical so the injunction to remain in place just as long as it might stop 1 person from harassing Giggs????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested in freedom of speech this is information on the use of proxy servers.

Can you be traced-back even if you use proxies?

Not by anyone unless they are willing to spend an awful lot of money! Could -for example- the FBI do it? Yes, if they are willing to expend the resources.

Why "an awful lot of time and money" ? Consider what they would have to do: The final proxy's IP is visible to the news-server you post to; if it's an anonymous NSP then it will only appear in their posting logs (if they even keep any.) The investigator has to subpoena those logs and locate the message IDs of the "offending" messages (Not at all difficult if the NSP keeps logs that go as far back as the posts in question. Most do, but not all.) Then using IPs from the logs the investigator would have to locate the ISPs for those IPs (which ISPs might very well be in other countries,) then ask them to check their logs in order to determine the identity and address of the owner of the computer at that IP at that time. That IP could be in China, Arabia, or anywhere at all. In the Unites States identity is not privacy-protected information, so no subpoena is required; however in order to prevent abuse by over-zealous law-enforcement officers, a court-clerk may have to issue an order to the ISP. That is because it costs the ISP money to track down users from IPs and date/times, so making LEO jump through one or more hoops minimizes the frivolous inquiries and leaves a paper-trail.

Once the identity of the owner of that computer has been obtained, the investigator then has to either contact that person and request the logs (if they already knew the computer was only a proxy,) or contact the local law-enforcement authorities and ask them to seize the computer first, then query the owner about the posts. The local LEA has no stake in this, they get no convictions from it, there are no "wins" in any way for them. Therefore they aren't very well motivated, and will probably have to be "induced" to obtain the subpoena, or equivalent authorization.

The owner of that proxy, even if located and contacted, shouldn't know anything about the posts. But there may, or may-not, be logs. Since the owner of the proxy-box may not want LEA reading logs, the owner may-not be willing to voluntarily search them, or turn them over- hence the local LEA has to obtain a warrant to seize and search the computers at that location. They have to move swiftly and with no warning, as it only takes a few seconds to wipe any such "evidence", if the proxy owner has any reason or desire to protect his own privacy.

Even given this degree of co-operation by foreign Law Enforcement Agencies (which have to be reimbursed their costs) all that could be determined would be the IP of the computer that forwarded the information to that box. It could be just another proxy, and not the poster. Also, that next computer could be on yet-another continent!

Remember that the people trying to track you down have no way of knowing which IP in the chain is the origin of the post, or how many proxies you used. What that means is that they would have to try and obtain search-warrants in all these countries to seize and examine every computer they find, any one of which might not keep logs breaking the chain of evidence completely at that point. Such license is unlikely to be granted where there is so little chance of success. So unlikely, in fact, that as of this writing it has never been done for posts to UseNet.

Multiply that by three (or more) proxies on as many continents and you see that even with a three-proxy chain, locating the originating poster is a nearly-impossible proposition. It is a task with a very high cost in both money and man-power, and which has a very low probability of success. Such an undertaking would not normally even be considered unless national security were involved. A warezed copy of a $49.99 program doesn't quite qualify. <BG>

This ends the latest, shortest, and lightest version of The Proxy-Posting Guide.

Happy (safe) Posting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is she still gagged? Or is she now free to defend herself?

Giggs can still just say that she's an opportunist, looking for a blackmail opportunity and that he never touched her. It's his word against no ones.

This is the point, some shyster lawyer was hinting that the injunctions were granted to prevent blackmail

This is an absolutely disgusting excuse, because blackmail is illegal and if this was the case the blackmailer should have been prosecuted.

Instead another persons (poor) reputation is dragged through the mud in order to protect another persons (rich) reputation.

The Judiciary and lawyers in this country are interested in only one thing - how much money is in your wallet.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A footballer shagging a C-list B Big Brother contestant is hardly a public interest news story. It's sad that this has had so much attention, yet Fred Goodwin's affair with a senior work colleague while their bank was going down the toilet is getting little coverage. This despite the issue being raised in parliament and the superinjunction subsequently being partially lifted to allow media to cover the story as long as they don't name the woman involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested in freedom of speech this is information on the use of proxy servers.

Can you be traced-back even if you use proxies?

Not by anyone unless they are willing to spend an awful lot of money! Could -for example- the FBI do it? Yes, if they are willing to expend the resources.

Why "an awful lot of time and money" ? Consider what they would have to do: The final proxy's IP is visible to the news-server you post to; if it's an anonymous NSP then it will only appear in their posting logs (if they even keep any.) The investigator has to subpoena those logs and locate the message IDs of the "offending" messages (Not at all difficult if the NSP keeps logs that go as far back as the posts in question. Most do, but not all.) Then using IPs from the logs the investigator would have to locate the ISPs for those IPs (which ISPs might very well be in other countries,) then ask them to check their logs in order to determine the identity and address of the owner of the computer at that IP at that time. That IP could be in China, Arabia, or anywhere at all. In the Unites States identity is not privacy-protected information, so no subpoena is required; however in order to prevent abuse by over-zealous law-enforcement officers, a court-clerk may have to issue an order to the ISP. That is because it costs the ISP money to track down users from IPs and date/times, so making LEO jump through one or more hoops minimizes the frivolous inquiries and leaves a paper-trail.

Once the identity of the owner of that computer has been obtained, the investigator then has to either contact that person and request the logs (if they already knew the computer was only a proxy,) or contact the local law-enforcement authorities and ask them to seize the computer first, then query the owner about the posts. The local LEA has no stake in this, they get no convictions from it, there are no "wins" in any way for them. Therefore they aren't very well motivated, and will probably have to be "induced" to obtain the subpoena, or equivalent authorization.

The owner of that proxy, even if located and contacted, shouldn't know anything about the posts. But there may, or may-not, be logs. Since the owner of the proxy-box may not want LEA reading logs, the owner may-not be willing to voluntarily search them, or turn them over- hence the local LEA has to obtain a warrant to seize and search the computers at that location. They have to move swiftly and with no warning, as it only takes a few seconds to wipe any such "evidence", if the proxy owner has any reason or desire to protect his own privacy.

Even given this degree of co-operation by foreign Law Enforcement Agencies (which have to be reimbursed their costs) all that could be determined would be the IP of the computer that forwarded the information to that box. It could be just another proxy, and not the poster. Also, that next computer could be on yet-another continent!

Remember that the people trying to track you down have no way of knowing which IP in the chain is the origin of the post, or how many proxies you used. What that means is that they would have to try and obtain search-warrants in all these countries to seize and examine every computer they find, any one of which might not keep logs breaking the chain of evidence completely at that point. Such license is unlikely to be granted where there is so little chance of success. So unlikely, in fact, that as of this writing it has never been done for posts to UseNet.

Multiply that by three (or more) proxies on as many continents and you see that even with a three-proxy chain, locating the originating poster is a nearly-impossible proposition. It is a task with a very high cost in both money and man-power, and which has a very low probability of success. Such an undertaking would not normally even be considered unless national security were involved. A warezed copy of a $49.99 program doesn't quite qualify. <BG>

This ends the latest, shortest, and lightest version of The Proxy-Posting Guide.

Happy (safe) Posting!

+1

Add TOR into the mix and it would become even harder to track unless you have some serious NSA/GCHQ style resources. They are not going to deploy this stuff for the benefit of Sue,Grabbit and Run civil law suits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

Add TOR into the mix and it would become even harder to track unless you have some serious NSA/GCHQ style resources. They are not going to deploy this stuff for the benefit of Sue,Grabbit and Run civil law suits.

I only posted it because I get fed up of people telling me I don't know what I am talking about.

You can even access the internet via a laptop in McDonalds

How's that going to be traced back?

CCTV pictures on Crimewatch?

But that wouldn't work either cos I wear a Burkha

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A footballer shagging a C-list B Big Brother contestant is hardly a public interest news story. It's sad that this has had so much attention, yet Fred Goodwin's affair with a senior work colleague while their bank was going down the toilet is getting little coverage. This despite the issue being raised in parliament and the superinjunction subsequently being partially lifted to allow media to cover the story as long as they don't name the woman involved.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the people who named him on Twitter could indeed be sued and shouldn't take overly comfort in numbers in my opinion.

Correct... all 75,000 of the people who tweeted or re-tweeted it should be very nervous.

To be fair, if he gets £100 from each of them... he's gonna be loaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a decent comment piece on this whole sorry event in the Telegraph

Was this shambles what the architects of the European Convention on Human Rights had in mind in 1950 when they devised Article 8, the right to a private life? This is, after all, the reason given by the courts for granting so many of these injunctions. Yet Article 8 had nothing to do with preventing the press reporting tales of adulterous affairs: it was formulated as a protection from the intrusive power of the state, from the bugging and the late-night knocks on the door from the secret police. In the light of what had happened in Europe under the Fascists – and was still happening under various Communist tyrannies – this was an important right to uphold. To find it now cited in such tawdry cases as these is an insult to the memory of those who drafted the convention.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8531766/Human-Rights-Act-behind-privacy-farce.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else considered it more than a little coincidental that Andrew Marr chooses to reveal his previous use of a super injunction in an apparent pique of conscience just a mere couple of weeks before all of this kicks off?

If I were being cynical (heaven forfend!) I might suspect someone in-the-know gave him the nod in advance of all of this in order that he might remove himself from this maelstrom of bad publicity surrounding the use of super injunctions. This, in turn, would imply that the current shit-storm was orchestrated from above rather than evolving out of a groundswell from below.

Just a thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else considered it more than a little coincidental that Andrew Marr chooses to reveal his previous use of a super injunction in an apparent pique of conscience just a mere couple of weeks before all of this kicks off?

If I were being cynical (heaven forfend!) I might suspect someone in-the-know gave him the nod in advance of all of this in order that he might remove himself from this maelstrom of bad publicity surrounding the use of super injunctions. This, in turn, would imply that the current shit-storm was orchestrated from above rather than evolving out of a groundswell from below.

Just a thought...

The one with all the political connections makes the early escape ? Sounds plausible. Then again - how do we know there are not others with such political connections who have yet to come clean ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the people who named him on Twitter could indeed be sued and shouldn't take overly comfort in numbers in my opinion. If anything it should be easy as there is an irrefutable record of their words, date stamped, time stamped and IP stamped. The Recording Association Of America along with the FBI for example, took drastic action against thousands of illegal downloaders who used Torrents (remember those) to download music and films; fear took care of the rest. Now only an idiot would attempt to use these. Any Legal firm worth their salt could issue any number of doe subpoenas to find out the information if the law has been broken.

The Internet is not anonymous. Far from it. And people should stop divorcing what they do online with real life.

How did all these people find out?

Can someone explain exactly what the law is?

If I gossip to someone on the internet is that reporting what has gone on?

Seems to me the judges are trying to do what King Canute demonstrated can't be done.

Will this lead to more attempts to censor the internet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.