Hello to our Hobart Hacker

[*CountessA*]

Ernest, yes... I suspect a lot of people using anonymisers or other methods of hiding behind proxy servers are not professionals in these fields. (I know we both know that...) They simply use the tools available to them, understanding some of the technology but not to the extent or depth which professional IT experts do. There are professional hackers employed by criminal organisations who ARE aware, of course... and even some of these have been tracked down in cases where they have been involved in high-cost or high-profile criminal activity.

As practice and legislation catch up with what is happening online, we'll certainly see increasing ease of identification occur.

The tools available online for the average net user are not as informative as the tools available to the serious professional - on EITHER side of the law.

[*CountessA*]

Bobby, you make an interesting point.

I do wonder why people try to surf anonymously unless they feel they are going to dodgy sites in relation with legal vulnerabilities or credit card information... and of course it doesn't protect their c/c information if they use a proxy server at all! If they give their card information to a phishing site, they can be as anonymous as they like IP-wise, but it's pointless. The site only wants the financial information, which they have if the person has handed it over.

As for pornography sites or extremist sites (terrorist activity, etc.?), I can see that anonymity would be desirable for people visiting those sites...

... and perhaps people who are in the habit of trying to hide their online activities because of their behaviour in one sphere will carry through the same desire for anonymity into another.

[Bazinga]

 :falseid:
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/301744.jpg

[Katbalou]

Bobby, you make an interesting point.

I do wonder why people try to surf anonymously unless they feel they are going to dodgy sites in relation with legal vulnerabilities or credit card information... and of course it doesn't protect their c/c information if they use a proxy server at all! If they give their card information to a phishing site, they can be as anonymous as they like IP-wise, but it's pointless. The site only wants the financial information, which they have if the person has handed it over.

As for pornography sites or extremist sites (terrorist activity, etc.?), I can see that anonymity would be desirable for people visiting those sites...

... and perhaps people who are in the habit of trying to hide their online activities because of their behaviour in one sphere will carry through the same desire for anonymity into another.

Or they get a stalker attached to them and are trying to protect themselves from the crazies when they find out how many nutso idiots there are online who like to collect peoples info  


Been there got the t shirt

Aint fun  

[Poddy]

Been there got the t shirt

Not one with bullet holes in the back one would hope    

[bobbybigbear]

Or they get a stalker attached to them and are trying to protect themselves from the crazies when they find out how many nutso idiots there are online who like to collect peoples info 


Been there got the t shirt

Aint fun   

Well Kat, I have been fighting those type of idiots for close to four years now, and in my investigations, the worst of them use all the tools to hide themselves.

After deleting hundreds of filthy names registered on my site, I have quite a list of proxy servers they use.
They have even registered my name on G and Y mail and sent me emails with them.
Oh and don't forget anonymail, and self destruct emails like fificorp. Idiots

[Katbalou]

Been there got the t shirt

Not one with bullet holes in the back one would hope    

 

nope Poddy not that stalker


there was threats to kill people but   


The police took a keen interest in that part and while nothing has happened to the stalker

yet



they are aware of what he is up to online and his harrasment of people

[bobbybigbear]

You can't get the police interested in anything.  I have shown evidence to more than half a dozen local cops here, including a superintendent, and nothing happens.

Just a joke, the AFP told me they can't touch the sites because they are off shore and out of jurisdiction, so quite simply, they told me I can do the same to them.

So what happens is they cue up on another site that don't want *** coming here for a Romp, and then you get something Fishy turn up. May as well head off to the nearest Diner and get another feed.

[cueperkins]

The police took a keen interest in that part and while nothing has happened to the stalker yet they are aware of what he is up to online and his harrasment of people

And nothing will happen to the stalker unless there is solid and irrefutable evidence that he poses a 'real' threat to his victims.  At this stage, it's harassment or nuisance, not apprehended violence.  Police only get involved if there is a clear threat, risk or breach of the peace. 

Has the many headed hydra actually made tangible threats to harm anyone?  If so, then Police will act, if not, then it's a nuisance complaint at best.

Police budgets are so tight right now, that they just simply don't have the money or man power to follow up on anything other than blatant cases of intimidation i.e. threatening to come around to your house to rearrange your face etc...Even then, they need evidence, or witnesses. 

This is where the gap in the law is....for instance, if someone came around to your front gate every day and screamed abuse at you....or followed you wherever you went, Police would be able to act because conceivably, that person is in fact posing a physical threat and engaging in obvious harassment.  The laws dealing with someone lurking at your cyber gate or following you around the net, are just not sophisticated enough yet, and Police are unable to act unless there is a clear risk of violence.

When cyber stalking enters the real world and leads to a fatal outcome however...it may start getting the attention of legislators. 

But in the interim, don't blame the police when they don't act.....their hands are tied by the lack of legislation in this area and shrinking budgets....so in the meantime they have to concentrate on crimes they can prosecute. 

For instance, Last Monday week ago.....37 houses in our suburb were burgled....37 !!!!  All in on day and night....Police are strapped to the boards trying to find the budget and man power to police the huge increase in tangible crime since the recession began.....Their budgets therefore, are much better applied tracking down these criminals, because they know that DPP will have no problem prosecuting.  Cyber stalking on the other hand is not quite as easy to prove, and the DPP is therefore less likely or able to prosecute the offender so why waste the money investigating?

Perhaps if an argument could be made for psychological injury, and apprehended violence broadened to include same, then we might be able to bring down some of these borderline personalities once and for all.  It's a thought......But the pressure has to be applied to the Pollies to amend the laws and provide budgets for police to focus on apprehending psychological risk for instance, not just physical violence.

[Katbalou]

Oh I agree Cupie and dont blame the police at all. The police have better things to do than worry about an idiot making threats online.  :comp:

Most of the time they didnt care.
But the threats to shoot people did make the detective we spoke to sit up and take a bit more notice and start an intelligence file on him for when others complain.  :fuzz:




He is already known to the local police in his area but I dont think they think his really dangerous.
 :chainsaw:

[cueperkins]

You'd be amazed how hard it is to prove 'dangerousness'...to oneself or others....

We had one such incident involving an undiagnosed mentally ill individual who made threats to a 'clerk of the court', who he knew from social sporting involvement.  The Chamber Magistrate rang Mental Health and asked for this individual to be assessed for 'dangerousness'.  Mental Health visited the person, and with absolutely no recognised assessment whatsoever, they determined that he was 'not dangerous'. 

Several years later, he took a shotgun and murdered my friends husband while he was visiting to fix this guys computer.....the guy was clearly dangerous, but the powers that be, didn't bother to properly assess him and my friends husband was killed as a result.  He died instantly leaving two children.  The devastation to this family was palpable.   Still sends shivers down my spine.   The moral being that even though police and the local court knew this guy was dangerous, they were powerless to act unless he continued to make threats....even so, the fact that he had been given the comfortable blanket of 'Mental Illness' Diagnosis, made him hard to deal with because his rights outweighed those of his potential victims...and they still do.  He wrote letters from prison, threatening the victims family under the noses of corrective services???.   The family of this murderer are terrified that he will be released and make good on his murderous threats.  Now that's as real as it gets.

Nevertheless, even when the threat is real....it's sometimes hard for police or the local court to get any proactive outcome in apprehending violence.  The above example, is an extreme case.

As you found out, the thing that gets the attention of police is actual threats of violence.  For instance, had the guy in the above example continued to harass and stalk the clerk of the court, Police would have been able to apprehend the violence before it happened but they would have had an uphill battle getting past the Mental Health Legislation to have him scheduled........and without that, he was a ticking time bomb.

[*CountessA*]

Legislation is going to change to reflect the altering technology and the opportunities this offers stalkers and bullies, but this will almost certainly require a concerted effort from interested people, groups, the community at large.

It's going to be all-important to see incidents in their real context.

There is a correlation between the extent to which some individuals will behave poorly and aggressively and their belief in their anonymity and/or immunity to prosecution or action - and also their belief in its being impossible to prevent their behaviour.

There is no doubt that the internet offers a higher degree of practical everyday anonymity than dealing face to face with people. There is no doubt that legislation is still catching up with cyber stalking and online bullying. There is no doubt that internet technology facilitates anonymous behaviour and thus also the result that most forums find it impossible to stop an individual or a group of individuals whose purpose is to become a forum troll, a spammer, a hacker, a contentious bully or someone who behaves covertly with a hidden agenda.

It's obviously a VERY inflammatory subject. Perhaps there will be the opportunity for members here to be able to contribute to the changing legislation. If the opportunity arises, I will definitely let members here know.

In the meantime... we will do our best to make this a safe environment for our members, and lordy lord, we have more than enough emoticons for everyone to enjoy... (except that - yes, I did notice we did not have a poodle emoticon. TRAGEDY!)

[*CountessA*]

Holy Handgrenade of Antioch... I posted before I saw your post, Cupie.

What an awful thing to happen.

It does seem that the rights of someone deemed to be "mentally ill" outweigh the rights of anyone at risk from the behaviour of that person.

I have a problem with the very term "mentally ill" - I am not certain we as a society perceive some types of aberrant and dangerous behaviour clearly while we allow it to be given that fluffy little term. Someone who behaves in a self-destructive way, an unprovoked and senseless way, a dangerous way without any apparent cause, is usually (or at least frequently) thought of as "sick". "A normal person wouldn't act like that"... "A well person wouldn't think like that." Does this cloud our judgement? Where should we draw the line to say that the rights of an individual to feel safe and not menaced by someone else - IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not that someone else is deemed to be "ill" - supersede the rights of the menacer to feel validated, free, etc.?

[Katbalou]

Its like the crims using the excuse they were drugged out of their brain or drunk when they have killed some poor bu***r or beat someone up and getting reduced sentences.

Shouldnt be that way.

If they cant behave like the rest of the population and want to use the excuse of substance abuse to try and escape their responsibilities then they are nothing but animals who cant control themselves and should be treated like animals.


 



Excuses are for the weak willed and are only used to justify their behaviour in the first place so no excuse is good enough i think. 

[*barny*]

The law in assessment of "ill" or "responsible" is very inadequate..

The instance where a guy fell asleep while driving and ran down and killed four kids, proves the point...

He was help by the law not to be responsible for culpable negligent driving because he was asleep.

As I have said before the "law" and Justice" do not dwell together.

 

[cueperkins]

Ah yes, and the road for victims is paved with cases where Mental Health either failed to appropriately assess, or released a dangerous individual, on the basis of their 'rights', and that individual has subsequently murdered someone.  There have been some very chilling cases in the past decade, particularly those involving the death of children......

The main problem is that Mental Health is grossly underfunded, and there is literally nowhere to put those considered potentially dangerous in terms of scheduling.  They are often released on the basis of their so called rights, but.....they have nowhere to go, or no follow up services!!! 

And then there's the ago old argument over whether a Borderline or Anti social personality (formerly known as sociopath...lol) is a mental illness, or just plain evil.  It's a real grey area....the concept that someone who kills, must be sick, is one our society tends to lean towards. 

Serial killers are not mentally ill, they are just plain evil...their personality is flawed, and broken...and you can't cure personality...there is no chemical imbalance that is demonstrable.  Nevertheless, many murderers in this category, sail through our justice system on a mental illness argument??.  This guy's lawyer argued schizophrenia?  Late adult onset?  huh?

Every six months my friend must attend a review wherein the release of this individual is discussed....it's like Groundhog Day and Friday the 13th all rolled into one for this family.  Their right to be safe in their own community is outweighed by the rights of this guy, even though he's made threats directly against the family?  Intent you might ask?  Well yeah !!!  Mentally Ill? or sociopathic?

[bobbybigbear]

The main problem is that Mental Health is grossly underfunded, and there is literally nowhere to put those considered potentially dangerous in terms of scheduling.  They are often released on the basis of their so called rights, but.....they have nowhere to go, or no follow up services!!! 

Society is underfunded, and there are too many lawless people, like stalkers, who think it's fun to bait people on forums, and try and get them banned, but when the tables are turned, and those who do it, get exposed for what they do, and the things they try and hide, scream and Irma Grese and lie through their teeth, to try and deflect the truth, being that they started it all in the first place.

It's a common malady that suits a certain type of people, you can call the family actually, but generally spending all day and night on computers, gleaning peoples details, using other peoples id's to make money on the net.

Did you know Kat, some of these people actually register other peoples ID's to do paid surveys on line, simply altering their IP for each identity, and having multiple Paypal accounts to receive payments, it's all very unlawful what some people get up to, and sometimes, the mere hinting at it, is enough excuse for those who do, to start a vendetta against people to silence them.

I have seen evidence of this where people have claimed to have registered complaints with police, and actually in my case, I rang the police station only to find they had never heard of me, now that's when you know the sort of lying scheming idiots you deal with on the internet.

As far as the law catching up with idiots, and legislation to help, forget it, the law has been there for a coons age, and people can be prosecuted under the telecommunications act. which states it is unlawful to use a conveyance to harass. intimidate, yada yada yada.

The Police will act if someone dies, and that's about it, even then it's because the media is going to blow it sky high.

[*CountessA*]

Cupie, there is no question in my mind that evil is real - I have seen it. I've dealt with people who have so much evil in them that it outweighs any fragment of good.

I've also dealt with people who were genuinely mentally ill.

I think the problem is partly this perception that mental illness equates to something morally off-kilter - what we call amorality as well as immoral. That is, someone who feels no hesitation in and no remorse about harming others, and has shut off his/her conscience so as to hear no alarm bells ringing when harmful behaviour is contemplated or carried out - that's someone who is amoral. (It's not that the person doesn't know "right" from "wrong", but he doesn't FEEL it - it's primarily a learned knowledge that doesn't affect him emotionally.) He is above all a selfish person - he does not consider the needs and wants of others - he is dangerous. An immoral person is different in that he certainly feels the emotional ropes of "right" and "wrong", and very often part of what gives him pleasure is the deliberate breaking of those ropes. He knows and feels the signals that tell him what he wants or what he is doing is wrong - and he does it anyway. He's dangerous too, but he suffers the flip side of his desires as well. He may experience long periods of guilt; however, his overriding passion to do things that are harmful break through his overt moral principles.

Neither of these are what I consider "mental illness". Neither of these types cannot know and are completely unaware of what they are doing. They don't imagine that what they are doing has no consequences to their victim; they simply either don't care or exult in it.

Mental illness is a different animal.

Different ambience entirely... as I know you know.

[bobbybigbear]

He is above all a selfish person - he does not consider the needs and wants of others - he is dangerous.

Try " SHE ",  in many of the cases & people I investigated, it was predominately female members who delight in their games, and in one or two cases, I would say " Mental Instability " is a governing factor.

Often brought on by a severe does of misandry, many of these old biddies rely on the " Female Factor " of forums, to be able to garner support for their lies against their victims.

The males involved, I have found, suffer from inferiority complex, or small man syndrome, and have found the one device they can feel superior in, and that is the internet. That is why they go to so much trouble to cover their tracks, for fear of being caught by the victim, and suffering physical retribution for their dirty deeds.

They do it because they can, and there is next to no chance of being caught by the law.

[Katbalou]

Thanks for that Countessa. Very informative.