Is it surprising? Every time you log in your IP is recorded, and the ISP can handle the rest.
And this is why IP addresses are often considered personally identifiable information under the GDPR, as impractical as that makes things like anti-spam/anti-bot.
GDPR requires a lawful basis for collecting and processing PII and one of possible lawful interest is "legitimate interests" that reasonable anti-spam/bot systems would fall under, i.e. ones that don't needlessly store the IP forever and don't use it for other purposes than security.
Stupid question: wouldn't a simple comparison with the body(parts) from the inappropriate pictures sent to the girl have helped the innocent guy? I mean those thingies all look different, no, like some sort of "fingerprint"?
I don't think it would matter - the crime is sending images, not necessarily sending images of you . Entirely plausible a perp might use a random image they found online rather than a genuine personal photo for a multitude of reasons. Terrible luck and a terrible legal defence. The stuff of nightmares!
Of course it would matter as it casts doubt on the evidence.
Stupid question: wouldn't a simple comparison with the body(parts) from the inappropriate pictures sent to the girl have helped the innocent guy? I mean those thingies all look different, no, like some sort of "fingerprint"?
Any number of things could have acquitted this man, including that. His lawyer, the judge, the prosecutors, the police and anyone else involved at any stage of this case need to be looked at very carefully and hard decisions should be made about whether it's appropriate for them to be licensed to perform whatever duties they were performing in the course of it.
More importantly all the other cases they have been involved in need to be re-examined to find out what else they fucked up.
> The case went to trial, where Klayme was found guilty. There’s a lot missing in this sentence. What evidence ended up convicting him?
The police testified that they had collected evidence from Kik that his username send the messages. Only he had access to that Kik account, ergo it is him. If that evidence is accepted as factually correct you are cooked. Case closed. Courts are inherently bad at understanding that technology has bugs. Injustice is the norm.
Yes, the root cause is that computer systems are seen as reliable witnesses even when they involve fallible human beings, e.g. the person making the request in this case.
You can assume "the system is lazy". In practice, "the system" is a lot of humans. The police in rural Canada aren't used to challenging the word of Wisconsin police. Police and prosecutors need to have an incredible discipline to hear "we have a suspect in your community who preyed on a pre-pubescent girl in our neighborhood" and remain neutral and dispassionate during the investigation. The stupid part is that the…
Exactly. The strong Western societal taboo and moral panic on this topic have led to a frenzied crusade that easily bypasses reason (e.g. Chat Control), unfortunately. This is just one of the tragic consequences.
Describing the crime here (which was committed, just not by the accused) as a "Western societal taboo and moral panic" is ... something.
"A well placed underscore can make the difference between a S_EXCHANGE and a SEX_CHANGE." - Intel 8048 manual ~1977. The Intel manuals of today lack such humor.
If only the founders of expertsexchange.com had read that.
A bit off topic but is there a reason why the Cyrillic letter in the example image is slightly different than the regular “a”? Did someone redraw it from scratch and it looks kind of different or did someone actually take the “a” glyph and slightly modify it to make it Cyrillic? Because the small difference is so small that it can’t really be on purpose to make them look different, right?
It's not required, you can re-use the exact same glyph. The letters are effectively the same (both descendants of the Greek 'alpha'). Generally when this happens, it's because they copied the Latin glyph and then made some tweaks to the whole Cyrillic alphabet to make it look more even, etc., and the changes to the 'a' may not even be intentional, but the 'a' got caught up in a batch change or something.
Could also be that both were traced/vectorized independently from the same source. Still, you'd think that a competent digital front creator would recognize that the glyphs should be the same and store them only once for both characters.
This is a mistake that shouldn't happen. It means that someone commiting crimes could trivially hide and get the wrong person accused by using homoglyphs [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoglyph
Only if non-ASCII characters are allowed in usernames, and generally I don't think they often are
Depending on the font there are homoglyphs even with ASCII. 0 and O as well as I and l are the obvious ones.
Only if non-ASCII characters are allowed in usernames, and generally I don't think they often are
I don't know what's most common these days, but quite to the contrary there's often a great deal of agitation for full i18n of name fields, such that people can specify their preferred name / spelling, in their native language. This is often pitched as a rights/respect issue. I feel otherwise: usernames and other identifiers (URLs particularly, and a number of other widely used identifiers), should be drawn from well…
Yes and pretty much all languages already have widely used and well known ASCII embeddings aka romanization schemes because early computing did have many places where more wasn't possible or at least not for more than one language at the same time.
Obsessing about intent here is so gross. A careless psychopath firing a gun into a crowd doesn’t necessarily care if he hits anyone. Despite the lack of intent, most would consider that careless psychopath worse than an individual that commits premeditated homicide for a reason other than “fun”. Intent is irrelevant. The person firing a gun into a crowd knows the consequences of their actions just as well as a lazy j…
The job of the prosecutor is to convict, I don't think it matters whether the person is innocent or not. They have no moral responsibility, if it is most efficient to their career to damn an innocent person the system is designed for the purpose of doing so.
Yes, this thread is about how it shouldn't be that way.