Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

news.bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#61

Post by dgordon »

sailormoon wrote: post #46

"Being arrested and accused of what is probably one of the worst crimes known to man, losing my job, having my reputation run through the mud, it's a living nightmare." I love how downloading a stream of bytes - simply copying a file from A to B - is now "one of the worst crimes known to man". I wonder how long this kind of crap goes on before the average person considers it a good use of their time to learn about en…

This is a rather common logical fallacy. It should have a name, but the "zeroes and ones fallacy" doesn't sound too good. A stream of bytes has a meaning which has to do with not only the bytes themselves but their context, and I can think of several ways in which copying a file from A to B could be among the worst crimes known to man. This fallacy ignores the context of the bytes.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#62

Post by derefr »

llimllib wrote: post #60
derefr wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An IP address is only assigned to one computer at a time . If you have a (recent) timestamp, you can resolve the IP address to a MAC address (and customer account number/address) by subpoenaing the ISP. You might get a router/gateway/proxy, but that's still "one computer" and you've still found it. It's just not the one you wanted.

In the context of the article, the "it" in "whenever it is used to access the internet." refers to the computer that you're using, not your gateway or some proxy machine. Also, it's not true that an IP address is only assigned to one computer at a time; the IP address 10.0.0.1 is assigned to a whole lot of computers right now. You and I know that, and understand why it's true, but the article implies (pretty directly…

10.0.0.1 isn't actually an unqualified "IP address", though; it's specifically a virtual IP address, which should really be dichotomous to "real" IP addresses, not considered a subset of them.

Besides, they never said globally unique. Your IP uniquely identifies you to whatever network you're participating on, the same way your username uniquely identifies you to whatever website you're logging into.

Alternate ending: In the context of the article, they were talking about tracing people via their IPs, as recorded in the logs of Internet-routable ("public facing") servers. The only kinds of IPs such a log would record are other real IPs; there's no real way it could see a virtual IP. Thus, whatever is in the log is "good enough" for pointing the finger at someone, whether that someone is a person, a company, or an ISP. The goal of such a trace is to pass the buck, not to catch the person yourself.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#63

Post by jacquesm »

codexon wrote: post #45
btilly wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you responded to the wrong person. jacquesm is the one who thinks businesses should not be allowed to discriminate. Incidentally you're wrong about the "couple of decades ago" timeline. The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, and the Heart of Atlanta case of 1964 upheld its constitutionality, and the Ollie's BBQ case of 1967 upheld that it applied even to businesses with little obvious interstate commerce (this…

Well I see that now in his other comments, but the phrasing of the comment I replied to wasn't quite right. Discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily. And last time I checked, a couple decades ago also includes 50 years ago.

I think it was phrased just right, there is no implication that discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily, it is just that for private dwellings these laws do not apply. You can like that or not but that's the way it is and it probably isn't going to change. A mans home is his castle, no matter how reprehensible his views.

And that works both ways, you can't be forced to attend the birthday party of a white supremacist either. (personally I'd rather avoid such people completely, effectively discriminating against the minority of white supremacists).

The discussion above has a 'scope', the scope is workplace discrimination. You can expand the scope but you can't expand it and declare a parent of the conversation of not addressing your expanded scope by poor phrasing at the same time.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#64

Post by jacquesm »

philk wrote: post #56

"I made the mistake of telling my father, and he cut me off," Mr Bunce says. "He then told all my siblings and they also cut us off." "I've forgiven them [my family] - there's no point in bearing a grudge." His family seems pretty loathsome and reconciling with them after the fact seems like a waste of time.

Yes, but even if your family can be pretty loathsome for some people they're all they've got.

If my family did something like this to me or to any other family member of mine then I'd disown them instead.

Reprehensible doesn't even begin to cover it, if you are family and you can't even wait for the verdict to be in before having a hanging party then it's really sad.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#65

Post by codexon »

eds wrote: post #47
codexon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I see that now in his other comments, but the phrasing of the comment I replied to wasn't quite right. Discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily. And last time I checked, a couple decades ago also includes 50 years ago.

Was the last time you checked thirty years ago?

Are you seriously going to argue the definition of couple and getting 5 upvotes for being wrong?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple

an indefinite small number : few

Hint: the phrase "a couple" does not always mean 2.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#66

Post by codexon »

jacquesm wrote: post #63
codexon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I see that now in his other comments, but the phrasing of the comment I replied to wasn't quite right. Discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily. And last time I checked, a couple decades ago also includes 50 years ago.

I think it was phrased just right, there is no implication that discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily, it is just that for private dwellings these laws do not apply. You can like that or not but that's the way it is and it probably isn't going to change. A mans home is his castle, no matter how reprehensible his views. And that works both ways, you can't be forced to…

there is no implication that discrimination outside of businesses can still be immoral and affect minorities heavily, it is just that for private dwellings these laws do not apply

You phrased it as though you support discrimination under the cover of private property. Private property is being used as a blanket excuse for discrimination which is being rightfully challenged in the US in situations such as this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1093375 There are obvious cases like this where the line between public and private is blurred, and at great cost to the welfare of minorities.

And that works both ways, you can't be forced to attend the birthday party of a white supremacist either.

That analogy is incorrect. The correct analogy is being able to choose to attend the birthday party of a white supremacist where admission was being offered to the general public except blacks.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#67

Post by shrikant »

jacquesm wrote: post #64
philk wrote: post #56

"I made the mistake of telling my father, and he cut me off," Mr Bunce says. "He then told all my siblings and they also cut us off." "I've forgiven them [my family] - there's no point in bearing a grudge." His family seems pretty loathsome and reconciling with them after the fact seems like a waste of time.

Yes, but even if your family can be pretty loathsome for some people they're all they've got. If my family did something like this to me or to any other family member of mine then I'd disown them instead. Reprehensible doesn't even begin to cover it, if you are family and you can't even wait for the verdict to be in before having a hanging party then it's really sad.

Why wait for the verdict? Ask and accept his word for it as best you can.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#68

Post by philk »

jacquesm wrote: post #64
philk wrote: post #56

"I made the mistake of telling my father, and he cut me off," Mr Bunce says. "He then told all my siblings and they also cut us off." "I've forgiven them [my family] - there's no point in bearing a grudge." His family seems pretty loathsome and reconciling with them after the fact seems like a waste of time.

Yes, but even if your family can be pretty loathsome for some people they're all they've got. If my family did something like this to me or to any other family member of mine then I'd disown them instead. Reprehensible doesn't even begin to cover it, if you are family and you can't even wait for the verdict to be in before having a hanging party then it's really sad.

To be honest I'm puzzled as to why they'd cut the guy off even if he was guilty. Condemning what someone has done doesn't mean you can't provide a bit of emotional support.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#69

Post by olefoo »

derefr wrote: post #62
llimllib wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of the article, the "it" in "whenever it is used to access the internet." refers to the computer that you're using, not your gateway or some proxy machine. Also, it's not true that an IP address is only assigned to one computer at a time; the IP address 10.0.0.1 is assigned to a whole lot of computers right now. You and I know that, and understand why it's true, but the article implies (pretty directly…

10.0.0.1 isn't actually an unqualified "IP address", though; it's specifically a virtual IP address, which should really be dichotomous to "real" IP addresses, not considered a subset of them. Besides, they never said globally unique. Your IP uniquely identifies you to whatever network you're participating on, the same way your username uniquely identifies you to whatever website you're logging into. Alternate ending…

There are all sorts of ways in which a routable ip address can be shared. At the most basic, a pair of routers or load-balancers sharing a virtual ip using CARP. And you can do weird and wacky things if you control an entire routable netblock ( /24 or larger) using bgp to tell different peers to route it to different gateways etc.

Most of the time you can get away with thinking of an address as being tied (at least temporarily) to a particular location. But once you throw in things like NAT and proxying and the like... That abstraction starts to look more and more sieve-like.

An ip address in a web-servers logs isn't going to tell you much, for one thing it's probably not the address of a specific device; it's going to be the address of a gateway that does address translation for a private subnet; for another, what happens if the machine on the client end of the transaction is acting as a proxy for the real eventual destination of that stream of bits?

In digital forensics, an IP is only one piece of evidence; you need to be able to assemble lots of pieces to get a complete picture.

Re: 'I was falsely branded a paedophile'

#70

Post by ErrantX »

sailormoon wrote: post #49
ErrantX wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be surprised at the number that are caught using their own cc. The standard approach in such a case would be to ask the guy in (or arrest him if you were suspicious) and sieze the computers. Then you decide what to do depending on the interview. Rereading it maybe your right; it shouldn't have gone so far.

If someone is dumb enough to use their own cc then I hardly think they have the wherewithal to proxy the requests through indonesia. Rereading it maybe your right; it shouldn't have gone so far. Maybe you don't realise it, but you come across as amazingly blasé towards this miscarriage of justice. There is no "maybe" about it. And it shouldn't have gone anywhere at all. The state has fucked this guy's life up for no…

> but you come across as amazingly blasé towards this miscarriage of justice

Sorry, not my intention.

I dont think this is considered a "necessary evil". I think fuck ups and mistakes happen; yes this should be investigated (I have no idea if it has been) and it should be considered how to stop mistakes happening. I think this guy has been screwed by society and his employer as much as the system of law. It's an extreme case and we need to find ways for it not to occur.

However I am also of the opinion that we shouldn't second guess what happened on the basis of a news article. It's hardly a complete investigation.

We have no idea what happened; if there is an investigation then I personally would be happier forming an opinion :)

At the end of the day it comes down to a wire choice for the investigator. Does he pursue this aggressively and risk tarnishing an innocents reputation. Or does he back off from his cases and risk letting a pedophile go free. The LE officers I know tread this line with skill and dedication: I dispute the idea that this mistake, a situation where the line was crossed in the wrong way, is representative of the entire picture. :)

Post reply on HN