Regarding Anonymity

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

* ChronJob :
> Gentlemen (and Ladies):
>
> I'm looking for some technique or other that would allow me to post photos
> and bios of my favorite morons and half-wits. I'd like this to be fairly
> anonymous, so that even a subpoena would be ineffective in identifying me.
>
> Any thoughts? Suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> ChronJob
>

Yes that takes great courage. Post photos and personal information of
people you don't like and cower under a rock while doing it.

Now go troll elsewhere little one.

Jason

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

ChronJob writes:

> Gentlemen (and Ladies):
>
> I'm looking for some technique or other that would allow me to post photos
> and bios of my favorite morons and half-wits. I'd like this to be fairly
> anonymous, so that even a subpoena would be ineffective in identifying me.
>
> Any thoughts? Suggestions?

Thoughts, yes. "Off topic for comp.security.firewalls" comes to
mind.

Suggestions: repost to alt.privacy.anon-server or alt.privacy perhaps
if you are intent on such sniping as an anonymous coward. Or perhaps
focus time and effort on something more positive. You'll end up
happier, with the latter suggestion, I suspect.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Re: Regarding Anonymity

* ChronJob :
> Well, thanks for the lecture Jason@invalid.address.lan, you little jackass.
>
> Now, anyone have thoughts or suggestions on the question above?
>
> Thanks,
> ChronJob

Ahh poor baby. Does the trurh hurt? What ever slights these people did,
imagined or otherwise (I suspect mostly imagined) it's not worth the
hassle of being childish and doing what you are asking.

Jason

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

In article ,
ChronJob wrote:

>I'm looking for some technique or other that would allow me to post photos
>and bios of my favorite morons and half-wits. I'd like this to be fairly
>anonymous, so that even a subpoena would be ineffective in identifying me.

If you happen to be in the USA, then note that the anonymous
pampleteering laws literally only protect physical pamplets, not
electronic discourse. And even using physical pamplets has not
historically prevented the anonymous pampleteers from being charged
or losing their jobs or whatnot: the relevant law effectively only
provides a defence leading to acquital from the charges, or being
sufficient to get a court order that the job dismissal was invalid.

Thus, in the USA, the right to remain anonymous is relatively thin
and media-specific.

Beyond that, you would be treading not so much in the area
where a subpoena would be ineffective in identifying you, but
rather in the area where the effort to track you down through
sufficient subpoenas would become inordinate for most purposes.
But if your "photos and bios" happened to be interpreted as threats
against the US President, or interpreted as a "terrorism threat"
then organizations who -do- have sufficient resources might decide
to go through the trouble.

Re: Regarding Anonymity

ChronJob writes:
> comphelp@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in news:844pdt8no3.fsf@ripco.com:
>
> > ChronJob writes:
> >
> >> Gentlemen (and Ladies):
> >>
> >> I'm looking for some technique or other that would allow me to post
> >> photos and bios of my favorite morons and half-wits. I'd like this
> >> to be fairly anonymous, so that even a subpoena would be ineffective
> >> in identifying me.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts? Suggestions?
> >
> > Thoughts, yes. "Off topic for comp.security.firewalls" comes to
> > mind.
> >
> > Suggestions: repost to alt.privacy.anon-server or alt.privacy perhaps
> > if you are intent on such sniping as an anonymous coward. Or perhaps
> > focus time and effort on something more positive. You'll end up
> > happier, with the latter suggestion, I suspect.
> >
> > Best Regards,
>
> Ah, some additional moralizing from a busy-body candy-ass.

At the risk of trolling the troll...

You apparently overlooked the pointers to the 2 on-topic groups that
specialize in your question.

> Why don't you just shut your cake-hole, and try answering a posted
> question.

It's not because I and others here don't know the answer. Put your
thinking cap on though as to why your approach isn't winning friends,
influencing people, or compelling the answers you seek.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Re: Regarding Anonymity

ChronJob writes:

> You see, morons like Todd just can't conceive of the possibility that
> anonymity can be for the good. It frequently is.
>
> So, FUCK OFF Todd!!

Blowjob, Wackjob, err, ChronJob,

For the record, I'm 100% in support for anonymity for legitimate uses.

I'm just
anti-dickwad-who-seems-bent-on-denigrating-others-to-no-usef ul-end-while-hiding-his-identity-because-he's-a-pussy.

I suspect your purpose for anonymity isn't exactly, say, exposing
humanitarian ills behind the c curtain of oppressive third world
regimes who strictly censor internet content here.

And dont' forget, I pointed you to the groups who champion privacy and
anonymity for specific recommendations. I'll even utter the word
"tor" for your googling.

By the way, do your middle school classes resume next week?

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Keep feeding the trolls! Duh.


"Todd H." wrote in message
news:84abnll1mi.fsf@ripco.com...
> ChronJob writes:
>
>> You see, morons like Todd just can't conceive of the possibility that
>> anonymity can be for the good. It frequently is.
>>
>> So, FUCK OFF Todd!!
>
> Blowjob, Wackjob, err, ChronJob,
>
> For the record, I'm 100% in support for anonymity for legitimate uses.
>
> I'm just
> anti-dickwad-who-seems-bent-on-denigrating-others-to-no-usef ul-end-while-hiding-his-identity-because-he's-a-pussy.
>
> I suspect your purpose for anonymity isn't exactly, say, exposing
> humanitarian ills behind the c curtain of oppressive third world
> regimes who strictly censor internet content here.
>
> And dont' forget, I pointed you to the groups who champion privacy and
> anonymity for specific recommendations. I'll even utter the word
> "tor" for your googling.
>
> By the way, do your middle school classes resume next week?
>
> Best Regards,
> --
> Todd H.
> http://www.toddh.net/

Re: Regarding Anonymity

"K2NNJ" writes:

> Keep feeding the trolls! Duh.

Nah... I don't actually think one is entirely a troll, but rather a
young moron.

Trolls (clever ones anyway) typically don't get emotional enough to
tell folks to F off, or get as defensive as this kid did. Hence the
fun.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

* Leythos :
>> You cannot completely avoid being traced, but you can use
>> Evidence Eliminator on your hard disk, so that they will not
>> be able to get anything out of your computer.
>
> And if you really believe that, well, you just keep using it, the term
> snake-oil is a common phrase around those products.
>

Calling it snake-oil is a compliment to ee. Keep using ee chilly, it
will make it easier for the men in black when they catch you.

Jason

Re: Regarding Anonymity

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "ChronJob" wrote in message
> news:Xns9A1AC6925A47Echronjob888@209.197.15.254...
> > Gentlemen (and Ladies):
> >
> > I'm looking for some technique or other that would allow me to post photos
> > and bios of my favorite morons and half-wits. I'd like this to be fairly
> > anonymous, so that even a subpoena would be ineffective in identifying me.
> >
> > Any thoughts? Suggestions?
> >
>
> You cannot completely avoid being traced, but you can use
> Evidence Eliminator on your hard disk, so that they will not
> be able to get anything out of your computer.

And if you really believe that, well, you just keep using it, the term
snake-oil is a common phrase around those products.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> > And if you really believe that, well, you just keep using it, the term
> > snake-oil is a common phrase around those products.
>
>
> Actually, there is a growing market now for such products. A
> number of products like that are on the market now.

Yes, snake-oil, it's been around for a long time, a very long time. You
keep believing that you're protected - right up to the point where you
get hit with a criminal action for helping people break company rules
and ethics violations.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

On Jan 9, 3:35=A0pm, "Chilly8" wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.21eee84a8018a9a9989959@Adfree.usenet.com...
>
> > In article , chil...@hotmail.com says...
> >> > And if you really believe that, well, you just keep using it, the ter=
m
> >> > snake-oil is a common phrase around those products.
>
> >> Actually, there is a growing market now for such products. A
> >> number of products like that are on the market now.
>
> > Yes, snake-oil, it's been around for a long time, a very long time. You
> > keep believing that you're protected - right up to the point where you
> > get hit with a criminal action for helping people break company rules
> > and ethics violations.
>
> If you are referring to the time that I helped a figure skating fan,
> in Canada, keep up with news, last Febrary, of one good friend
> of hers who was injured in the pairs event at Four Continents,
> I must say AGAIN that since NONE of my servers are in Canada,
> I was NOT SUBJECT to prosecution under ANY Canadian laws.
> Providing her with a login and password to my special private
> encrypted proxy did NOT make me subject to prosecution in
> Canada. Since NONE of my servers are in Canada, NONE
> of the content accessed through that server was subject to ANY
> Canadian laws. The Canada Criminal Code DOES NOT APPLY
> to server owners/operators whose servers are NOT in Canada.
> Its so simple, if your server is not in Canada, than Canadian
> laws DO NOT APPLY to your server.

On the topic of "Snake Oi"
Programs Like DD and things like electron microsopes do
magic for recovering data that these magnificent applications supposed
delete. While at a recent security conference in DC I heard a story on
this topic. A warrant was served at a residence and the individual in
an effort to cover there tracks actually shot his computer with a 9mm
pistol and happened to hit a portion of the hard drive. The hardrive
was damaged enough that using it in a computer was out of the
question. However, they were able to by extra means extract enough
data off the drive to convict the little bastard of possesion of child
porn. If people can extract data from a drive which has at least some
part of a bullet in or through it then your snake oil application is
not really going to stop much outside of the lazy and people those
that just dont care.

Like has been previously stated keep thinking those applications will
protect you. because what ever your hiding I am sure will inevitably
end up with a knock on your front door real soon.

On the topic of posting info on others. Nothing is completely
anonymous even when spoofing there is always a record somewhere. I am
sure with a little internet searching anyone could find someone who is
into "computer research" to blow your cover and weed you out.
Depending on how damaging the info you care to post is it might make
the person whose life you are about to ruin act shall we say
"unrational".

I like to think carma has a way at getting back at vengefull people.
trend lightly in these affairs because carma will find you good or
bad..

Re: Regarding Anonymity

On Jan 9, 4:06=A0pm, Newbie72 wrote:
> On Jan 9, 3:35=A0pm, "Chilly8" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > "Leythos" wrote in message
>
> >news:MPG.21eee84a8018a9a9989959@Adfree.usenet.com...
>
> > > In article , chil...@hotmail.com says...
> > >> > And if you really believe that, well, you just keep using it, the t=
erm
> > >> > snake-oil is a common phrase around those products.
>
> > >> Actually, there is a growing market now for such products. A
> > >> number of products like that are on the market now.
>
> > > Yes, snake-oil, it's been around for a long time, a very long time. Yo=
u
> > > keep believing that you're protected - right up to the point where you=

> > > get hit with a criminal action for helping people break company rules
> > > and ethics violations.
>
> > If you are referring to the time that I helped a figure skating fan,
> > in Canada, keep up with news, last Febrary, of one good friend
> > of hers who was injured in the pairs event at Four Continents,
> > I must say AGAIN that since NONE of my servers are in Canada,
> > I was NOT SUBJECT to prosecution under ANY Canadian laws.
> > Providing her with a login and password to my special private
> > encrypted proxy did NOT make me subject to prosecution in
> > Canada. Since NONE of my servers are in Canada, NONE
> > of the content accessed through that server was subject to ANY
> > Canadian laws. The Canada Criminal Code DOES NOT APPLY
> > to server owners/operators whose servers are NOT in Canada.
> > Its so simple, if your server is not in Canada, than Canadian
> > laws DO NOT APPLY to your server.
>
> On the topic of "Snake Oi"
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Programs Like DD and things like electron micro=
sopes do
> magic for recovering data that these magnificent applications supposed
> delete. While at a recent security conference in DC I heard a story on
> this topic. A warrant was served at a residence and the individual in
> an effort to cover there tracks actually shot his computer with a 9mm
> pistol and happened to hit a portion of the hard drive. The hardrive
> was damaged enough that using it in a computer was out of the
> question. However, they were able to by extra means extract enough
> data off the drive to convict the little bastard of possesion of child
> porn. If people can extract data from a drive which has at least some
> part of a bullet in or through it then your snake oil application is
> not really going to stop much outside of the lazy and people those
> that just dont care.
>
> Like has been previously stated keep thinking those applications will
> protect you. because what ever your hiding I am sure will inevitably
> end up with a knock on your front door real soon.
>
> On the topic of posting info on others. Nothing is completely
> anonymous even when spoofing there is always a record somewhere. I am
> sure with a little internet searching anyone could find someone who is
> into "computer research" to blow your cover and weed you out.
> Depending on how damaging the info you care to post is it might make
> the person whose life you are about to ruin act shall we say
> "unrational".
>
> I like to think carma has a way at getting back at vengefull people.
> trend lightly in these affairs because carma will find you good or
> bad..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My typing is horrible... i meant to say tread lightly.

Re: Regarding Anonymity

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> If you are referring to the time that I helped a figure skating fan

I'm talking about all of the BS you report here about helping people
break company policy and telling them that there is nothing wrong and it
can't be traced or detected.... complete and utter BS/lies on your part.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Get this and get this good, it is ONLY illegal to
> circumvent filtering systems if you BREAK
> someone's PASSWORD. If the filter FAILS
> to block it, then you CANNOT be charged
> with ANY crime for accessing any web site
> that the filter fails to block. While you could
> probably still fire someone, you could NOT
> charge them with a crime.

When you cause someone to be fired, for ethics/policy violation, because
they believed your BS, you could very easily end up in court being sued
for their termination because of your contributing to their actions.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> "Leythos" wrote in message
> news:MPG.21ef0b87e367242798995b@Adfree.usenet.com...
> > In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> If you are referring to the time that I helped a figure skating fan
> >
> > I'm talking about all of the BS you report here about helping people
> > break company policy and telling them that there is nothing wrong and it
> > can't be traced or detected.... complete and utter BS/lies on your part.
>
>
> I am starting to gain back a lot of the users I lost when Live 365
> upgraded their system and closed some loopholes for login-free
> and AYST-free listening. There is a way to get it to work through
> the anonymity services, but it requires more technical profffiency,
> and knowing how to get the direct-connect URL you need to
> plug in through the web proxy services. But people are doing
> it, and are lisetening again.

Which doesn't change anything - you tell people that listening can't be
detected - a lie, that their boss won't know - a lie, and you will get
people fired - truth, and sooner or later one of them will come after
you for the lies.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Chilly8 wrote:


> Not if they use phpProxy sites. The site obfuscates the URL, so that
> the logs will show a bunch of jibberish imn the URL.


The logs will show the original URL requested by the webbrowser, because the
webbrowser itself logs.

> And I see NOTHING unethical about listening to Internet radio at work,
> as long as you are getting your work done.


Except if you signed an agreement which forbids doing so.

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Sebastian G. wrote, On 10/01/08 19:32:
> Chilly8 wrote:
>
>> Not if they use phpProxy sites. The site obfuscates the URL, so that
>> the logs will show a bunch of jibberish imn the URL.
>
> The logs will show the original URL requested by the webbrowser, because
> the webbrowser itself logs.

Personally I would just publish a company policy forbidding the use of
*any* proxy. Then all I would have to do is prove that a proxy had been
used, not what it was used for. Proving what it was used for would, of
course, be a bonus.

>> And I see NOTHING unethical about listening to Internet radio at work,
>> as long as you are getting your work done.
>
> Except if you signed an agreement which forbids doing so.

Also companies *pay* for their bandwidth, they don't get it for free.
Someone listening to the internet radio (or more especially *everyone*
listening to it) could increase the charges the company has to pay for
internet connectivity, or cause problems for business related usage of
the internet. Since it is generally not permitted *and* can cost the
company in real hard cash I would say that it *is* unethical.
--
Flash Gordon

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> >> I am starting to gain back a lot of the users I lost when Live 365
> >> upgraded their system and closed some loopholes for login-free
> >> and AYST-free listening. There is a way to get it to work through
> >> the anonymity services, but it requires more technical profffiency,
> >> and knowing how to get the direct-connect URL you need to
> >> plug in through the web proxy services. But people are doing
> >> it, and are lisetening again.
> >
> > Which doesn't change anything - you tell people that listening can't be
> > detected - a lie, that their boss won't know - a lie, and you will get
> > people fired - truth, and sooner or later one of them will come after
> > you for the lies.
>
>
> Not if they use phpProxy sites. The site obfuscates the URL, so that
> the logs will show a bunch of jibberish imn the URL. And I see
> NOTHING unethical about listening to Internet radio at work,
> as long as you are getting your work done.

Again, it won't hide what they are doing or that they are breaking
company policy or laws, it only hides the content of the connection, but
we don't need to know what they are doing, only that they are connected
to a non-business site - it's that simple.

Oh, and getting work done means nothing - if the company policy is
against it, then it IS UNETHICAL to listen at work - that's a violation
of COMPANY POLICY AND THAT MEANS IT'S UNETHICAL.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> Since your home PC, and your ISP is handling the traffic, it is harder
> to figure out what you are doing. Since you are using nothing more than
> a "dumb terminal", it would not violate any policies against using
> proxies.

Wrong.

The firewall will show the connection to your home PC, that's a
violation of company policy, you're fired, and you can then bring legal
claim against Chilly for giving you false information that prompted your
firing.



--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Chilly8 wrote, On 10/01/08 22:23:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Flash Gordon" wrote in message
> news:dpfi55xinm.ln2@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
>> Sebastian G. wrote, On 10/01/08 19:32:
>>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not if they use phpProxy sites. The site obfuscates the URL, so that
>>>> the logs will show a bunch of jibberish imn the URL.
>>> The logs will show the original URL requested by the webbrowser, because
>>> the webbrowser itself logs.
>> Personally I would just publish a company policy forbidding the use of
>> *any* proxy. Then all I would have to do is prove that a proxy had been
>> used, not what it was used for. Proving what it was used for would, of
>> course, be a bonus.
>
> However, if you can get to your computer using Internet Desktop



Irrelevant. Using any form of remote desktop or remote terminal for
anything other that company business should also be in the published policy.

>>>> And I see NOTHING unethical about listening to Internet radio at work,
>>>> as long as you are getting your work done.
>>> Except if you signed an agreement which forbids doing so.
>> Also companies *pay* for their bandwidth, they don't get it for free.
>> Someone listening to the internet radio (or more especially *everyone*
>> listening to it) could increase the charges the company has to pay for
>> internet connectivity, or cause problems for business related usage of the
>> internet. Since it is generally not permitted *and* can cost the company
>> in real hard cash I would say that it *is* unethical.
>
> Well, providing an open proxy on my machine for the purpose
> of allowing circumvention of filtering systems is NOT illegal.
> As I have said, if it were, Tor would have been shut down long ago.
> You would not see these lists of open proxies all over the net,
> either. Running my own Tor entry proxy, to allow people, primarily
> from work or school computers, there are locked down against
> installation of additional software, to allow the Tor network to
> be used, without installing the software, is LEGAL.

Whether or not you are allowed to run a proxy or tor is also irrelevant.
I was saying why it is not ethical for people to listen to Internet
Radio at work is not ethical (unless the employer allows it). Whether
they do it though a proxy and whether they get caught has nothing to do
with whether it is ethical and whether the company would be within its
rights to discipline staff for doing it.

Also note that whatever technical means are used to disguise the access
it does not prevent the boss from walking up behind an employee and
seeing that they have headphones plugged in to the computer.

Now explain to me how it can be ethical for an employee to increase the
costs of the company by doing something the company states is not
allowed. Not whether your service works, not whether what you are doing
is legal, but whether what the *employee* is doing is ethical when it is
against a clearly stated policy and costs the company money.
--
Flash Gordon

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

In message "Chilly8"
wrote:

>X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>"Flash Gordon" wrote in message
>news:dpfi55xinm.ln2@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
>> Sebastian G. wrote, On 10/01/08 19:32:
>>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not if they use phpProxy sites. The site obfuscates the URL, so that
>>>> the logs will show a bunch of jibberish imn the URL.
>>>
>>> The logs will show the original URL requested by the webbrowser, because
>>> the webbrowser itself logs.
>>
>> Personally I would just publish a company policy forbidding the use of
>> *any* proxy. Then all I would have to do is prove that a proxy had been
>> used, not what it was used for. Proving what it was used for would, of
>> course, be a bonus.
>
>However, if you can get to your computer using Internet Desktop
>Connection, you can then get to what you want that way. Remember,
>that IDC is basically a "dumb terminal" to any Windows Vista or
>XP machine. Your computer becomes nothing more than a keyboard,
>mouse, screen, and speakers for the remote machine you are accessing.
>Since your home PC, and your ISP is handling the traffic, it is harder
>to figure out what you are doing. Since you are using nothing more than
>a "dumb terminal", it would not violate any policies against using
>proxies.

True, but it would violate policies on accessing remote machines without
authorization.

You wouldn't even need that policy though, just a simple "No personal
use of bandwidth" would be an all-inclusive policy.

Rather then worrying about what traffic *is*, a network admin simply has
to prove what the traffic *isn't*

Namely, is it legitimate business? No? Then it's in violation.

It doesn't matter if it's streaming media, remote access to a home PC,
online banking, a proxy, or whatever else.

Depending on the position of the employee, there are good odds that they
don't have any legitimate reason to be transferring any sort of
encrypted data, so the simple fact that the data is encrypted is
sufficient to know it's in violation of company policy.

Upon noticing unidentified traffic, the net admin would contact HR, who
would contact the appropriate management and then query the user, and if
the user doesn't have a valid business need explanation, they would be
placed on probation or terminated as the need arises.

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Chilly8 wrote, On 11/01/08 00:35:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Flash Gordon" wrote in message
> news:doni55xkno.ln2@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
>
>> Also note that whatever technical means are used to disguise the access it
>> does not prevent the boss from walking up behind an employee and seeing
>> that they have headphones plugged in to the computer.
>
> Headphones don't have to be plugged into the computer. One could
> plug in one of these SoundFeeder FM transmitters and keep it
> out of sight, and then listen through any ordinary cheatp FM
> headphone radio. You will appear to be listening to one of the
> local radio stations.


ANSWER THE QUESTION!
How is it ethical to do something BANNED by the company which costs the
money! This is at least the third time I have asked you.

As to your suggesting, it still does not help. Boss sees headphones on
and asks to see the radio. If headphones are too small to see it does
not help because boss asks question and user has problems hearing
because of radio giving the game away.
--
Flash Gordon

Re: Regarding Anonymity

In article , chilly8@hotmail.com says...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> "Flash Gordon" wrote in message
> news:doni55xkno.ln2@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
>
>
> > Also note that whatever technical means are used to disguise the access it
> > does not prevent the boss from walking up behind an employee and seeing
> > that they have headphones plugged in to the computer.
>
> Headphones don't have to be plugged into the computer. One could
> plug in one of these SoundFeeder FM transmitters and keep it
> out of sight, and then listen through any ordinary cheatp FM
> headphone radio. You will appear to be listening to one of the
> local radio stations.

Again, if it's on the company network it will be seen as traffic to a
non-business partner site.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Flash Gordon wrote:
> Sebastian G. wrote, On 10/01/08 19:32:
>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>> Not if they use phpProxy sites. The site obfuscates the URL, so that
>>> the logs will show a bunch of jibberish imn the URL.
>>
>> The logs will show the original URL requested by the webbrowser,
>> because the webbrowser itself logs.
>
> Personally I would just publish a company policy forbidding the use of
> *any* proxy.

That alone wouldn't suffice. You also have to make sure all employees
took notice of the policy. A common way to achieve that is having them
sign the policy.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote, On 11/01/08 14:32:
> Flash Gordon wrote:
>> Sebastian G. wrote, On 10/01/08 19:32:
>>> Chilly8 wrote:
>>>> Not if they use phpProxy sites. The site obfuscates the URL, so that
>>>> the logs will show a bunch of jibberish imn the URL.
>>> The logs will show the original URL requested by the webbrowser,
>>> because the webbrowser itself logs.
>> Personally I would just publish a company policy forbidding the use of
>> *any* proxy.
>
> That alone wouldn't suffice. You also have to make sure all employees
> took notice of the policy. A common way to achieve that is having them
> sign the policy.

It depends on the jurisdiction what is required.
--
Flash Gordon

Re: Regarding Anonymity

Flash Gordon wrote:
> Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote, On 11/01/08 14:32:
>> Flash Gordon wrote:
>>> Personally I would just publish a company policy forbidding the use of
>>> *any* proxy.
>>
>> That alone wouldn't suffice. You also have to make sure all employees
>> took notice of the policy. A common way to achieve that is having them
>> sign the policy.
>
> It depends on the jurisdiction what is required.

True. However, I'd suspect that the above applies to most jurisdictions
in Europe and North America.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich