|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > May 2007 > Jailed for naming his files with pedo names
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Jailed for naming his files with pedo names
|
|
| macarro 2007-04-26, 1:12 pm |
| Not long ago someone in this group alleged that file names alone mean
nothing in a court of justice, here is someone who also believed that
and is now in jail.
Summing up the case, the guy stored all of his child porn collection on
an external hard drive, maybe even encrypted, I don't know, but it does
not matter as the files names are still easily recoverable from the
registry.
SO this IT worker repairing his computer notices jpegs named "7yo boy
XXXXed by man" but only the names, and all the data point to an external
hard disk. He calls the cops who have no hard evidence, but thanks to
the suspicious named files it is enough to confiscate his computer
(maybe also search his home), they never find the external hard drive
but they do find some few child porn (deleted internet cache anyone?) on
the computer.
Another one bites the dust, in this case just because he thought naming
his files with what looks like criminal actions did not matter as long
as they do not find the hard evidence, but it does as this case proves,
and then go and explain a jury why you name your pictures with those names.
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/st...from=public_rss
OK, someone will say, they did find evidence in the end, but they would
have never investigated him if he had named his files with something else.
--
Customized News: http://news.spotback.com
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-26, 1:12 pm |
| In article <4630a3d5$0$36744$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
email@is.invalid says...
>
>
>Not long ago someone in this group alleged that file names alone mean
>nothing in a court of justice, here is someone who also believed that
>and is now in jail.
(Snip)
Yes, I recall that. I got flamed as a clueless twit because I had the temerity
to suggest that innocuous file names could be a first line of defence against
snoopers and busybodies. It was in connection with a file name changing
application with a simple GUI that the effete know-it-alls here sneered at.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2007-04-26, 1:12 pm |
| In article <Y6qdnW2qMoKrNa3bnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@bway.net>
Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
>
> In article <4630a3d5$0$36744$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
> email@is.invalid says...
>
> (Snip)
>
> Yes, I recall that. I got flamed as a clueless twit because I had the temerity
> to suggest that innocuous file names could be a first line of defence against
> snoopers and busybodies. It was in connection with a file name changing
> application with a simple GUI that the effete know-it-alls here sneered at.
Nice rewrite of history there, gogarty.
You got flamed as a clueless twit because you had the temerity to
suggest that renaming a file containing something illegal such as
child porn would make the slightest bit of difference when the file
still contained that illegal material.
Renaming a file that contains illegal material is not going to help
anyone. The law enforcement use tools that look at the *content* of
the hard drive. Renaming childporn.jpg to shoppinglist.txt does
nothing to help.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2007-04-26, 1:12 pm |
| Gogarty wrote:
> In article <4630a3d5$0$36744$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
> email@is.invalid says...
>
> (Snip)
>
> Yes, I recall that. I got flamed as a clueless twit because I had the
> temerity to suggest that innocuous file names could be a first line
> of defence against snoopers and busybodies. It was in connection with
> a file name changing application with a simple GUI that the effete
> know-it-alls here sneered at.
You're STILL a clueless twit. For one thing you apparently neglected to
actually read the cite so you're oblivious to the fact that the OP is
rewriting the article to make it appear to be something it's not. Flat
out lying in fact, if you assume everything the OP did is intentional.
Fact is, clueless twit, we have no way of knowing whether or not file
renaming would have removed this "evidence" at all. The alleged
material was allegedly downloaded from the Internet so it's almost a
sure bet the original names would have still existed somewhere after
renaming anyway, probably in an Internet history.
In fact, you clueless twit, we don't even know if that's not where the
names were found SPECIFICALLY because the article doesn't say. We don't
even know if the files hadn't actually BEEN renamed because they were
never found. You and the OP assume (or try to convince us) that they
were in some sort of "access log", but that's the very least likely
scenario. Near IMPOSSIBLE scenario considering the names were first
spotted by a tech who would have had no pressing reason to look for
things which a "forensic investigation" would need to be initiated to
uncover.
The most plausible scenario, and the one suggested by the article
itself, is that the repair guy opened a browser and spotted them in its
history while fixing up some sort of connectivity issue. Even the
nature of the alleged file names themselves is strong evidence of that,
and the fact your "file renaming" bullshit would have or actually
DID fail miserably just like anyone who doesn't lack the ability to
think critically knows it will.
Sorry clueless twit, but renaming files is useless from the perspective
of the person trying to secure something, and even the OP's fabricated
"synopsis" of an article doesn't do anything to prove otherwise. It may
even be evidence to the contrary.
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-26, 1:12 pm |
| In article <b7e38f2481fe2ce9228723880c1b9819@pseudo.borked.net>,
nobody@pseudo.borked.net says...
>
>
>Gogarty wrote:
>
>
>You're STILL a clueless twit. For one thing you apparently neglected to
>actually read the cite so you're oblivious to the fact that the OP is
>rewriting the article to make it appear to be something it's not. Flat
>out lying in fact, if you assume everything the OP did is intentional.
>
>Fact is, clueless twit, we have no way of knowing whether or not file
>renaming would have removed this "evidence" at all. The alleged
>material was allegedly downloaded from the Internet so it's almost a
>sure bet the original names would have still existed somewhere after
>renaming anyway, probably in an Internet history.
>
>In fact, you clueless twit, we don't even know if that's not where the
>names were found SPECIFICALLY because the article doesn't say. We don't
>even know if the files hadn't actually BEEN renamed because they were
>never found. You and the OP assume (or try to convince us) that they
>were in some sort of "access log", but that's the very least likely
>scenario. Near IMPOSSIBLE scenario considering the names were first
>spotted by a tech who would have had no pressing reason to look for
>things which a "forensic investigation" would need to be initiated to
>uncover.
>
>The most plausible scenario, and the one suggested by the article
>itself, is that the repair guy opened a browser and spotted them in its
>history while fixing up some sort of connectivity issue. Even the
>nature of the alleged file names themselves is strong evidence of that,
>and the fact your "file renaming" bullshit would have or actually
>DID fail miserably just like anyone who doesn't lack the ability to
>think critically knows it will.
>
>Sorry clueless twit, but renaming files is useless from the perspective
>of the person trying to secure something, and even the OP's fabricated
>"synopsis" of an article doesn't do anything to prove otherwise. It may
>even be evidence to the contrary.
>
See? They are still at it. Effete twerps.
| |
| Anonymous 2007-04-26, 1:12 pm |
| macarro wrote:
> Not long ago someone in this group alleged that file names alone mean
> nothing in a court of justice, here is someone who also believed that
> and is now in jail.
>
> Summing up the case, the guy stored all of his child porn collection
> on an external hard drive, maybe even encrypted, I don't know, but it
> does not matter as the files names are still easily recoverable from
> the registry.
Where in the article does anyone say anything about the file names
being discovered in a registry, or that file renaming would have
removed the evidence of the original file names from the registry if
they were?
Summing up, it doesn't. You're assuming, and either inadvertently or
purposefully being misleading. The more likely scenario is that the
tech in question spotted the manes in a history file that wouldn't have
been effected in any way shape or form by renaming the files, if they
ever actually existed at all.
> Another one bites the dust,
Only in your delusions. The truth of the matter is that the article
suggests file renaming is useless, because the evidence existed even
without the files themselves being present.
> OK, someone will say, they did find evidence in the end, but they
> would have never investigated him if he had named his files with
> something else.
Now you're just telling bald faced lies.
Not only do you have no way of knowing if the clues would have still
existed regardless of new file names, you're not psychic and can't
predict the "never" part. History suggests this pervert would have, at
some point, been discovered.
| |
| Anonymous 2007-04-26, 1:12 pm |
| On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:58:03 -0600, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Renaming a file that contains illegal material is not going to help
> anyone. The law enforcement use tools that look at the *content* of the
> hard drive. Renaming childporn.jpg to shoppinglist.txt does nothing to
> help.
Did you read the original post? The pedophile kept the original names of
the files when he stored them.
The names were all the police needed to confiscate his computer and
probably search his house. That led to them finding child porn pictures.
If Australia is like the US, the police have to make a case to a judge to
get a warrant to do the search and confiscation. The evidence given them
by the repairman was all they needed.
If he had renamed the files in the first place, he would never have come
to the attention of the police, they would not have been able to get a
warrant, and he would still be free.
| |
| nospam 2007-04-26, 7:12 pm |
| Gogarty wrote:
> In article <b7e38f2481fe2ce9228723880c1b9819@pseudo.borked.net>,
> nobody@pseudo.borked.net says...
<snip>[vbcol=seagreen]
> See? They are still at it. Effete twerps.
>
Bombastic git maybe, but making good points. You might not like the way
he is talking to you, but ignore that and you could learn something useful.
Andy
| |
| nospam 2007-04-26, 7:12 pm |
| Anonymous wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:58:03 -0600, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>
>
> Did you read the original post? The pedophile kept the original names of
> the files when he stored them.
>
> The names were all the police needed to confiscate his computer and
> probably search his house. That led to them finding child porn pictures.
>
> If Australia is like the US, the police have to make a case to a judge to
> get a warrant to do the search and confiscation. The evidence given them
> by the repairman was all they needed.
>
> If he had renamed the files in the first place, he would never have come
> to the attention of the police, they would not have been able to get a
> warrant, and he would still be free.
>
But as the other poster pointed out, you don't know if re-naming the
files might still have left something on disk somewhere. It doesn't say
how the filenames were recovered, or from where. So the article proves
nothing.
Andy
| |
| George Orwell 2007-04-26, 7:12 pm |
| On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:35:45 -0600, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
> You're STILL a clueless twit....Fact is, clueless twit...In fact, you
> clueless twit..."file renaming" bullshit...lack the ability to think
> critically...Sorry clueless twit...
As the old saying goes: when you lie down with lice you get lousy.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2007-04-26, 7:12 pm |
| Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
> See? They are still at it. Effete twerps.
What's important to note here, is that you have exactly zero in your
arsenal to refute or dispute anything. The very best you can come up
with is a lame XXX, one line "told you so" insult.
This proves at least three things:
1. You didn't bother reading the article before you started your ASCII
masturbation session, and now that you're caught out in the open with
your pants around your ankles you're too embarrassed to even try and
defend your spew.
2. You can't dispute the fact that this alleged incident doesn't
really prove anything, because you know damned well after being clubbed
over the head with a clue-by-four that the information the tech
stumbled across could have been there whether the files were renamed or
not, and probably was given the fact that it was so damned easy to
find.
3. You're a congenital idiot.
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-26, 7:12 pm |
| In article <f0qre7$lpd$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall@iol.ie says...
>
>
>Gogarty wrote:
><snip>
>Bombastic git maybe, but making good points. You might not like the way
>he is talking to you,
You are correct about that.
but ignore that and you could learn something useful.
Possibly. But I can also learn it elsewhere.
| |
| Non scrivetemi 2007-04-26, 7:12 pm |
| On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:17:10 +0100, nospam wrote:
> But as the other poster pointed out, you don't know if re-naming the
> files might still have left something on disk somewhere. It doesn't say
> how the filenames were recovered, or from where. So the article proves
> nothing.
Does this mean that if somebody has your hard drive to play with, such as
the IT repairman, or the police, then you can't hide evidence of what you
downloaded over the past day or week or month?
If you can hide it, what does it take?
| |
| nospam 2007-04-26, 7:12 pm |
| Gogarty wrote:
> In article <f0qre7$lpd$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall@iol.ie says...
>
> You are correct about that.
>
> but ignore that and you could learn something useful.
>
> Possibly. But I can also learn it elsewhere.
>
Yup, fair enough...
| |
| nospam 2007-04-26, 7:12 pm |
| Non scrivetemi wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:17:10 +0100, nospam wrote:
>
>
> Does this mean that if somebody has your hard drive to play with, such as
> the IT repairman, or the police, then you can't hide evidence of what you
> downloaded over the past day or week or month?
>
> If you can hide it, what does it take?
To have any meaningful level of privacy beyond locking out housemates or
family or whatever, to have any chance of beating a serious attacker,
you need to have a very good knowledge of how your system works. This
kind of takes away the advantages of windows, becuase when you have th
erequired level of knowledge you might as well have an OS that is
designed by and for people like you, and is free. Sure, it's probable
that you could lock down a windows box pretty good and tight, but why
bother when you would be working against a fundamental design principle
of the system? Better to get and learn a system that doesn't work
against you.
It seems like perverts and so on can take advantage of sophisticated
techniques to hide their activity, but even if you take away those
techniques under the pretence of 'the public good' you haven't taken
away the perverts, only frustrated one of their outlets. This does the
public no good at all. I get sick of seeing these 'news' articles,
becuase they aren't being pushed on us in order to advance the cause of
public safety, only to equate the desire for privacy with the activities
of a small number of people who happen to also use computers. What they
use is irrelevant. Law enforcers (among other things) are failing
dismally to do the things they were ostensibly set up to do, and these
kinds of stories help to divert attention from that fact.
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-27, 1:12 am |
| In article <f0ras4$pi1$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall@iol.ie says...
>
>
>Non scrivetemi wrote:
>
>To have any meaningful level of privacy beyond locking out housemates or
>family or whatever, to have any chance of beating a serious attacker,
>you need to have a very good knowledge of how your system works. This
>kind of takes away the advantages of windows, becuase when you have th
>erequired level of knowledge you might as well have an OS that is
>designed by and for people like you, and is free. Sure, it's probable
>that you could lock down a windows box pretty good and tight, but why
>bother when you would be working against a fundamental design principle
>of the system? Better to get and learn a system that doesn't work
>against you.
>
>It seems like perverts and so on can take advantage of sophisticated
>techniques to hide their activity, but even if you take away those
>techniques under the pretence of 'the public good' you haven't taken
>away the perverts, only frustrated one of their outlets. This does the
>public no good at all. I get sick of seeing these 'news' articles,
>becuase they aren't being pushed on us in order to advance the cause of
>public safety, only to equate the desire for privacy with the activities
>of a small number of people who happen to also use computers. What they
>use is irrelevant. Law enforcers (among other things) are failing
>dismally to do the things they were ostensibly set up to do, and these
>kinds of stories help to divert attention from that fact.
Well said. Basically, my concern is locking out snooping grandchildren
(wife does not snoop).. I am not concerned about CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., etc.
If those people want me no asmount of expertise will protect me. And of
course I am also concerned with simple privacy. TOR et al do all I need. I
left the Capt. Marvel Secret Decoder Rings back somewhere in grade school.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2007-04-27, 1:12 am |
| Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
> In article <f0qre7$lpd$1@aioe.org>, nospamatall@iol.ie says...
>
> You are correct about that.
>
> but ignore that and you could learn something useful.
>
> Possibly. But I can also learn it elsewhere.
Then by all means do just that.
>
| |
| macarro 2007-04-27, 7:11 am |
|
>
> Renaming a file that contains illegal material is not going to help
> anyone. The law enforcement use tools that look at the *content* of
> the hard drive.
You mean they look at the contents of the external hard disk they have
never managed to find then? Is it a new X-Ray Forensic tool?
Maybe the even trespass your tin foil hat, be careful.
--
Customized News: http://news.spotback.com
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-27, 1:12 pm |
| In article <d170b1f04a47e95cf07dc70c705c458a@pseudo.borked.net>,
nobody@pseudo.borked.net says...
>
>
>Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Then by all means do just that.
>
Thank you. So kind of you.
The name of the file name changing utility, once again, is af5.exe. Try it,
you'll like it.
| |
| Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer 2007-04-27, 1:12 pm |
| macarro <email@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> You mean they look at the contents of the external hard disk they have
> never managed to find then? Is it a new X-Ray Forensic tool?
Don't be an ignorant twat. The name of a file can be contained in the
contents of a hard drive even if the file is not, and your own cite
said there were *SOME* files actually on the machine that was seized.
If they hadn't eventually discovered at least some number of evil files
there'd be nothing to report, or discuss.
> Maybe the even trespass your tin foil hat, be careful.
Maybe you need to read your own cites and apply a few IQ points towards
comprehending their meaning.
No, not just maybe....
P.S.
Know what the funniest part of this whole thread is? Even if everything
was as you tried to rewrite it, we knew exactly how the file names were
stumbled across and some of the files ultimately discovered, and
renaming would have prevented it, it *still* wouldn't prove a damned
thing either way. The philosophy of security through obscurity being no
security at all isn't disproved by anomalies, it's supported.
Obscurity relies on an attackers inability to solve trivial problems.
Which if you think about it is just a way of insulting your attacker
and giving her more resolve. The fact that some number of scenarios
play out both ways at random is expected. If it weren't so, if
obscurity had any inherent secure qualities, it would either work or
fail in predictable and calculable patterns.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2007-04-27, 7:11 pm |
| Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
>
> Thank you. So kind of you.
>
> The name of the file name changing utility, once again, is af5.exe.
> Try it, you'll like it.
You probably convinced yourself that was clever, huh?
One more time, just to rub your nose in it because you don't have the
testicles to walk away after you lied about leaving:
Your so called "proof" that renaming files means something doesn't
mean anything at all. You didn't bother to consider it said absolutely
nothing about how these files were discovered, or that even if it did
it would be meaningless anyway because of the very nature of
obscurity"itself.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in
news:99aaf56eb0c6a590ae8c98b80a5c7594@ps
eudo.borked.net:
> In article <Y6qdnW2qMoKrNa3bnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@bway.net>
> Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
>
> Nice rewrite of history there, gogarty.
>
> You got flamed as a clueless twit because you had the temerity to
> suggest that renaming a file containing something illegal such as
> child porn would make the slightest bit of difference when the file
> still contained that illegal material.
>
> Renaming a file that contains illegal material is not going to help
> anyone. The law enforcement use tools that look at the *content* of
> the hard drive. Renaming childporn.jpg to shoppinglist.txt does
> nothing to help.
>
....except that a file named 'shoppinglist.txt' might not get a second
glance in a situation like the one described by the OP.
- --
http://blog.peculiarplace.com
http://offthecuff.lurasbookcase.com
http://peculiarplace.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.52
iQEVAwUBRjLJEHV+YnyE1GYEAQjQwgf/WoAC1fThx7nTsu/7d+0l+NDPv+qJOFxz
TW1yQZ9AQkVJLzxIPD0pfkb5kkoRluH+Uw8qvYz0
dt/cRp6Dw25mJWDOsEpZYjkM
GaKlmtOfFzOx6g+2MRH8TzLYvgCnd5FMHeit2tZt
tDbF36EuAgni493DxzCAXHZ4
hGM/ d5ydyCZ0EO9nMXpJuNLLWYB18AKOswNQEXo9o4rO
/rRwH318L26xxn0ym/0v
+k0wozDwQ2bMaEtrxm2Kr7UOLtjWuqf2sj75D72L
Gkow3ohblxkUgXan8a+pEVeF
MAEcXoY7SRs/ IYo1LW4UMvyKL5iRTu+df+ivRnMv0Aiq52M4TZ8G
QQ==
=yDHJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| macarro 2007-04-28, 7:11 am |
|
To settle it I will admit that file renaming ALONE will not protect you
as there are lots of other places where the file name could be stored.
But if you clean the registry, and any good privacy conscious person
should do, and you do not rename your files, then the file names will be
stored again in the index.dat (hhtp://www.systenance.com) or somehwere
else you open the file making your clean up pretty useless.
But if you rename your files and clean everywhere the file name has been
stored in the OS chances are that the file it will not be stored again
again with the same name.
Ultimately the best security it is not to let anyone other than yourself
touch the computer and use whole disk encryption so that no part of the
OS can be accessed.
I did sum up the article my way, but I put the original link at the end,
I did not copy it because it was too long.
--
Customized News: http://news.spotback.com
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2007-04-28, 7:11 am |
| Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <4630a3d5$0$36744$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
> email@is.invalid says...
>
> (Snip)
>
> Yes, I recall that. I got flamed as a clueless twit because I
> had the temerity to suggest that innocuous file names could be a
> first line of defence against snoopers and busybodies. It was in
> connection with a file name changing application with a simple
> GUI that the effete know-it-alls here sneered at.
>
>
I think that pedos should name their files honestly. I also think
they should take their favorite picture and make it their
wallpaper. Even better would be to turn it into a tshirt they
wear.
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-28, 1:11 pm |
| In article <Xns991FEBA71657F2362352@127.0.0.1>,
apostle@REMOVETHISpeculiar.homeip.net says...
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA256
>
>Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in
> news:99aaf56eb0c6a590ae8c98b80a5c7594@ps
eudo.borked.net:
>
>
>...except that a file named 'shoppinglist.txt' might not get a second
>glance in a situation like the one described by the OP.
>
Precisely. You don't want to get looked at in the first place.
af5.exe
| |
| Nomen Nescio 2007-04-29, 1:13 am |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I think that pedos should name their files honestly. I also think
> they should take their favorite picture and make it their
> wallpaper. Even better would be to turn it into a tshirt they
> wear.
Already done. This is basically what Megan's Law web resources do.
>
| |
| Anonymous 2007-04-29, 1:13 am |
| Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
> In article <Xns991FEBA71657F2362352@127.0.0.1>,
> apostle@REMOVETHISpeculiar.homeip.net says...
> Precisely. You don't want to get looked at in the first place.
I suppose you think a binary .txt file, or a file that's being
routinely renamed (command history), or an oddly named file that's
opened regularly in a media player for example..... won't be "looked
at".
Renaming files is useless. They're still easily discovered. If you want
them secure then encrypt them. If they're encrypted it doesn't matter
what the hell the name is.
By the way, the renaming utility you've been touting logs everything
you do to the registry in a place that most cleaners aren't aware of.
So using it is worse than just manually renaming files.
Good going.
| |
| Jason Neausox 2007-04-29, 7:11 am |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
>
>
> You probably convinced yourself that was clever, huh?
>
> One more time, just to rub your nose in it because you don't
> have the testicles to walk away after you lied about leaving:
>
> Your so called "proof" that renaming files means something
> doesn't mean anything at all. You didn't bother to consider it
> said absolutely nothing about how these files were discovered,
> or that even if it did it would be meaningless anyway because of
> the very nature of obscurity"itself.
>
>
Go away pedo. Not only are your practices sickening, but you only
post to argue. No matter what is said you will find some little
nuance to argue about how you are right and the other poster is
wrong. Every post you make is like this. That's a hell of an ego
there, son. Yes I say son because older males usually grow out of
this need to always prove themselves right even if it means
focusing on the tangental to do it. So you are either young or you
have never grown up (which could also be the root cause of your
pedophilia).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-29, 7:11 am |
| In article < 47a0b909aec0c24f79f5db73c0900b5e@remaile
r.paranoici.org>,
nobody@remailer.paranoici.org says...
>
>By the way, the renaming utility you've been touting logs everything
>you do to the registry in a place that most cleaners aren't aware of.
>So using it is worse than just manually renaming files.
>
Really? I suppose it is beneath you to let the rest of us know what place in
the registry that is. That's what any gentleman would do.
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-29, 1:11 pm |
| In article <8H7J01RE39200.5030324074@anonymous.poster>,
neausoxj@nomail.invalid says...
>
>
>Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
>
>Go away pedo. Not only are your practices sickening, but you only
>post to argue. No matter what is said you will find some little
>nuance to argue about how you are right and the other poster is
>wrong. Every post you make is like this. That's a hell of an ego
>there, son. Yes I say son because older males usually grow out of
>this need to always prove themselves right even if it means
>focusing on the tangental to do it. So you are either young or you
>have never grown up (which could also be the root cause of your
>pedophilia).
Why in the world are you accusing people of being paedophiles?
| |
| Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer 2007-04-29, 1:11 pm |
| On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
>neausoxj@nomail.invalid says...
>
>Why in the world are you accusing people of being paedophiles?
It's called "projection" or "projecting". Notice how he's fantasizing
about the other poster - "That's a hell of an [ego] there, son. Yes I say
son..." and "... you are either young or you have never grown up"
I think he's made it clear exactly who desires what.
| |
| Anonymous 2007-04-29, 7:11 pm |
| On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 04:43:15 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
> Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I suppose you think a binary .txt file, or a file that's being
> routinely renamed (command history), or an oddly named file that's
> opened regularly in a media player for example..... won't be "looked
> at".
You're talking about a situation where the computer has been seized and is
undergoing analysis. He was talking about a situation where the computer
is being routinely looked at by some technician, a repairman, for example.
Do you read just the last few lines of the latest thread before replying?
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-29, 7:11 pm |
| In article < b74ab6f439bd169d88b110c3f1658357@remaile
r.cyberiade.it>,
anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it says...
>
>
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
>
>It's called "projection" or "projecting". Notice how he's fantasizing
>about the other poster - "That's a hell of an [ego] there, son. Yes I say
>son..." and "... you are either young or you have never grown up"
>
>I think he's made it clear exactly who desires what.
>
Hee, hee. Well put.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote in
news:T7SdnZeY1JIsGKnbnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@bw
ay.net:
> In article < 47a0b909aec0c24f79f5db73c0900b5e@remaile
r.paranoici.org>,
> nobody@remailer.paranoici.org says...
>
> Really? I suppose it is beneath you to let the rest of us know what
> place in the registry that is. That's what any gentleman would do.
>
I'd look at MRU entries for various media players etc.
'course, if they made a habit of using crap cleaner there wouldn't be
much (if anything) to find.
- --
HTTP://lurasbookcase.com/sp8.shtml
HTTP://lurasbookcase.com/squished-cinnamon-rolls.shtml
HTTP://lurasbookcase.com/sstories.shtml
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.52
iQEVAwUBRjUT+XV+YnyE1GYEAQhcKQgAiNfSIQut
9J0fdbEHn1ob/B7PFED8Bkcy
XNkEF4YaRD3CR+gNFE+dhpYc8kgVw2pUtOk6JubM
SZu3Xv+3/16WMx+VUU7FGWOZ
HG3OtxHaOBCpdcHvZ5zzOxkyKP+Yj+1rVaZv07jh
YQFYjLE7q7PT+5AHV3GdOh49
Aev9K5Pk/ 2GbWlprtDuZQBgfbBzLqUQtmmK5VYikwOeZ9xJrN
Z8wWEl16u8D80+K
ULIcskxFigsmiqST2t0xPXcIXGVtkxzAwmTqvnr2
O84dUpSrTLMg5Zxqat8ET5dv
5eiY7OwErvNnaTILk/WLTQqizuyUIXXbXzQpSXcrt0wa6WpKljK+sA==
=oy6b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote in
news:47a0b909aec0c24f79f5db73c0900b5e@re
mailer.paranoici.org:
> Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I suppose you think a binary .txt file, or a file that's being
> routinely renamed (command history), or an oddly named file that's
> opened regularly in a media player for example..... won't be "looked
> at".
perhaps, but if all you're talking about is a casual look by somebody
that's working on a machine, renamed files would escape attention
because the tech isn't looking at files that don't attract attention..
and they're not looking for things to look at, they're trying to fix a
problem and get to the next job asap. after all, it's about making $$$
> Renaming files is useless. They're still easily discovered. If you
> want them secure then encrypt them. If they're encrypted it doesn't
> matter what the hell the name is.
even better, files you don't want anyone snooping should be within an
encrypted container that you can 'forget' the passphrase to.
> By the way, the renaming utility you've been touting logs everything
> you do to the registry in a place that most cleaners aren't aware of.
> So using it is worse than just manually renaming files.
>
> Good going.
- --
HTTP://lurasbookcase.com/sp5.shtml
HTTP://lurasbookcase.com/sp6.shtml
HTTP://lurasbookcase.com/sp7.shtml
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.52
iQEVAwUBRjUTcHV+YnyE1GYEAQjNdwf/cEW30rcMa4ZwWXoebhb68OMhZVNr1J1O
sGRR5bo02tZp1ZJNUZqIAp/AM1d46CXtf/AzYbIDqOopsSkrce/FzdAV7RDTw3OT
GzGm63jsPuXpplkka836mFfEU17mpslW03Yhvt31
NSd/Wr+3x4ipThfSmyR4JHCf
jELaDdnIfcLkaihbsaVtpAC4gpFTe0ifpfNwJSBm
rRbbFGU57wqx9KKAgrNZ2HcE
z2Kny5zhs8zm6oyv3RMP2/yrEct0EZzst+LNXX8M3ugKAGZuzuT2YInrbwjYK/0L
oejq8ZgWIpMH3yuPqAQkEMUcIY/3tfKfFAEdUE3fHwVdwHtP60AGyQ==
=lHQU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Nomen Nescio 2007-04-29, 7:11 pm |
| Anonymous wrote:
>
> You're talking about a situation where the computer has been seized
> and is undergoing analysis. He was talking about a situation where
> the computer is being routinely looked at by some technician, a
> repairman, for example.
>
> Do you read just the last few lines of the latest thread before
> replying?
You'd be shocked at what computer techs find by accident, and that's
the honest ones. If they have even a tiny bit of larceny in their blood
you can be 99.99% sure they'll find your renamed files. The .01% is the
probability you'll get a tech that's too dumb to figure it out. If they
have to do any major surgery on your machine you can be 100% sure
they'll have a backup of everything before digging in so they'll have
all the time in the world to paw over your data looking for them.
Sending your machine out to a shop with sensitive data on it that's not
encrypted is just plain stupidity. You pretty much deserve what you
get, and will almost certainly get what you deserve. So pedophiles of
the world unite in your use of bulk file renaming utilities. ;)
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2007-04-29, 7:11 pm |
| Anonymous <nobody@mixmin.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 04:43:15 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
>
>
>
> You're talking about a situation where the computer has been seized and is
> undergoing analysis. He was talking about a situation where the computer
> is being routinely looked at by some technician, a repairman, for example.
No, I'm a college educated tech with 20+ years of experience fixing
PC's, and I'm talking about those sorts of things being noticed in the
course of a normal work day. Things I know about after years of first hand
experience with thousands of personal computers, and stumbling across
shit I'd rather not know about because some imbecile thought nobody
would find their so called "hidden files".
Multimedia renamed to .txt stick out like a sore thumb in a directory
listing, just like any directory full of files of similar but "odd"
sizes for a file type. After staring at the things for a couple years
you get a good feel for what's odd and what's not.
Command/usage histories are impossible not to see when testing your
work after a fix. Application specific command and usage histories
aren't stored in any consistent place at all, so no cleaner is going to
catch them. Missing .mpeg files right next to big XXX
txt/doc/xyz/whatever files are a dead giveaway. They'll attract
attention and have the tech snooping even harder trying to figure out
what the hell is what.
There isn't a tech in the world who won't at least routinely examine
directory listings looking for odd files, especially on Windoze boxes
where it's a good indication of where a problem might be. And they'll
at the *very* least fire a machine up and do *something* with it before
shipping it back to the customer. 99 times out of 100 they'll pick few
unrelated things like a web browser, an office application, a game, and
a media player just to cover as many bases as possible.
The chances that a repair guy is going to run across your stupid .txt
kiddie porn files aren't just good, they're a good bet. If you're
trying to hide files by renaming them and sending your computer out to
be repaired you're a knuckle dragging moron. Fix it yourself or encrypt
your filth, because in a lot of places computer repair people are
required by law to notify authorities when they uncover perverts and
terrorists, and even the coolest tech in the world won't risk his job
for a pervert.
> Do you read just the last few lines of the latest thread before
> replying?
Do you have any XXXXing clue what you're talking about at all, or are
you just running your mouth because you don't know enough to realize
you're totally clueless?
Don't waste your ASCII, it's a rhetorical question....
| |
| Anonymous 2007-04-30, 1:12 am |
| Ed <apostle@peculiar.homeip.net> wrote:
>
> perhaps, but if all you're talking about is a casual look by somebody
> that's working on a machine, renamed files would escape attention
You have no idea what a tech does to your machine while working on it,
or how far into that machine they'll have to dig to find and fix
problems or verify the condition of the machine after.
And that's the honest ones.
> because the tech isn't looking at files that don't attract attention..
> and they're not looking for things to look at, they're trying to fix a
> problem and get to the next job asap. after all, it's about making $$$
And you can't do that if you have to keep repairing the same machine
over and over on your dime as warranty work, so you're going to be as
thorough the first time as you possibly can. It's not even uncommon for
good shops to go looking for problems the customer hasn't even
encountered yet, and/or run utilities that scan an entire machine's
contents looking for evil.
Do you Have any idea how many utilities there are that compare file
contents to file names and report discrepancies?
>
> even better, files you don't want anyone snooping should be within an
> encrypted container that you can 'forget' the passphrase to.
There's no "better" about it. On way works, the other way doesn't. It's
not shades of gray guy, it's night and day. They might still see evil
file names but they're meaningless. In fact it can work to your
advantage by generating false alarms.
[vbcol=seagreen]
This is true by the way, it has an "undo" feature that claims to be
one level but it stores several. Anyone can see exactly what files
you've been messing with with a simple registry search. It's worse than
a batch file.
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-30, 1:12 am |
| In article < 81869fd24095dfd4f4758058e8c52667@remaile
r.paranoici.org>,
nobody@remailer.paranoici.org says...
>
>
>This is true by the way, it has an "undo" feature that claims to be
>one level but it stores several. Anyone can see exactly what files
>you've been messing with with a simple registry search. It's worse than
>a batch file.
>
You know, all this froo fraa is just idiotic. The issue is privacy, not
paedophiles.
I use the name changer not to hide files but to find them. The digital
camera produces dozens of files with the same ID incremented. Tells me
zilch. So I change them to something that does mean something. That simple.
If I got files from my mistress that I did not want my wife to see, I
might change them too. But I don't have a mistress.
Be awfully nice if there were some people on this group who considered
themselves teachers and were able to express themselves in civil and
temperate language.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2007-04-30, 1:12 am |
| Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
> I use the name changer not to hide files but to find them.
Then why the XXXX are you running your big mouth in privacy forums
about renaming files as a way of hiding them, and recommending it for
that purpose when you don't even USE it that way let alone know whether
it's any good or not, ya' braying jackass?
<SHEESH!>
| |
| Anonymous 2007-04-30, 7:11 am |
| Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
> In article < 81869fd24095dfd4f4758058e8c52667@remaile
r.paranoici.org>,
> nobody@remailer.paranoici.org says...
>
> You know, all this froo fraa is just idiotic. The issue is privacy, not
> paedophiles.
>
> I use the name changer not to hide files but to find them. The digital
> camera produces dozens of files with the same ID incremented. Tells me
> zilch. So I change them to something that does mean something. That simple.
> If I got files from my mistress that I did not want my wife to see, I
> might change them too. But I don't have a mistress.
It would be a miracle if you even had a friend.
>
> Be awfully nice if there were some people on this group who considered
> themselves teachers and were able to express themselves in civil and
> temperate language.
>
| |
| George Orwell 2007-04-30, 7:11 am |
| Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
> In article < 81869fd24095dfd4f4758058e8c52667@remaile
r.paranoici.org>,
> nobody@remailer.paranoici.org says...
>
> You know, all this froo fraa is just idiotic. The issue is privacy, not
> paedophiles.
>
> I use the name changer not to hide files but to find them. The digital
> camera produces dozens of files with the same ID incremented. Tells me
> zilch. So I change them to something that does mean something. That simple.
> If I got files from my mistress that I did not want my wife to see, I
> might change them too. But I don't have a mistress.
so your calling your wife an idiot? she's too stupid to figure out your
file name bullshit?
better start shopping for that mistress.
>
> Be awfully nice if there were some people on this group who considered
> themselves teachers and were able to express themselves in civil and
> temperate language.
it would be awfully nice if you grew a brain, but i don't see it
happening.
>
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-30, 1:12 pm |
| In article < 0ba388cd853ffd23113085df62d397f9@mixmast
er.it>,
nobody@mixmaster.it says...
>
>
>Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
>
>
>so your calling your wife an idiot? she's too stupid to figure out your
>file name bullshit?
>
>better start shopping for that mistress.
>
>
>
>it would be awfully nice if you grew a brain, but i don't see it
>happening.
>
You guys really do make my point.
Hypothetical curiosity never crossed your minds? Practically speaking, I have
no need of elaborate security schemes.
| |
| Anonymous 2007-04-30, 1:12 pm |
| > You have no idea what a tech does to your machine while working on it,
> or how far into that machine they'll have to dig to find and fix
> problems or verify the condition of the machine after.
>
> And that's the honest ones.
Yeah, a friend of mine had to report suspected child pornography when
a PC that came in for repair had lots of references to child porn
files in their browsing history. It wouldn't make a difference if
you'd renamed the files later if there are logs of the old file names
still around.
And if you're savvy enough to remember to clear every single trace
from your hard drive of the old file name, you're probably savvy
enough to either encrypt the bad files in the first place, or not take
that hard drive in for repair.
| |
| Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer 2007-04-30, 1:12 pm |
| On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:42:16 -0600, Borked Pseudo Orwell wrote:
> Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Then why the XXXX are you running your big mouth...ya' braying
> jackass?
> so your calling your wife an idiot? she's too stupid...it would
> be awfully nice if you grew a brain....
Another proof of the old saying: When you lie down with lice you
get lousy.
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-30, 1:12 pm |
| In article < 5bf7e1a83f1848a6e72da3a8053bb040@echo931
.server4you.de>,
mixmaster@echo931.server4you.de says...
>
>
>And if you're savvy enough to remember to clear every single trace
>from your hard drive of the old file name, you're probably savvy
>enough to either encrypt the bad files in the first place, or not take
>that hard drive in for repair.
Quite so.
| |
| Anonymous 2007-04-30, 7:12 pm |
| Gogarty <Gogarty@Clongowes.edu> wrote:
> You guys really do make my point.
What point is that? Do you even have one?
>
> Hypothetical curiosity never crossed your minds? Practically speaking, I have
> no need of elaborate security schemes.
I guess you do..... you believe that since you're broke nobody else
needs a safe.
All you've really done here is prove the point that you're a clueless
hack handing out advice even though you have no knowledge or
experience, or any motivation to educate yourself.
Thanks for clearing that up.
| |
| Gogarty 2007-04-30, 7:12 pm |
| In article < e1a19f484ac6fc9889cca779766cbd9e@echo931
.server4you.de>,
mixmaster@echo931.server4you.de says...
>
>I guess you do..... you believe that since you're broke nobody else
>needs a safe.
>
Pretty good analogy. But no, I begrudge no one his safe. Indeed, everyone
should have one, needed or not. You will never know when it will be needed.
| |
| Gogarty 2007-05-01, 7:14 pm |
| Here is what the developer of the AF5 filke renaming utility has to say about
how it saves information from previous sessions or previous file names.
A.F.5 saves the program options ("Options / Preferences"),the last opened
folder to add files, the last used rename settings and all saved rename
settings in the registry.
You can find and inspect all saved data with regedit.exe under the key:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Fauland\A.F.5 Rename your files 1.1
A.F.5 doesn't save its rename activities into the registry. But A.F.5 logs
all rename operations by default into a log file "af5log.txt" that resides
in same directory as the "af5.exe" program file. In the "Options /
Preferences" dialog, on the "General" tab you can uncheck the "Create log
file" checkbox, if you don't want this feature.
So if you use A.F.5 without the log file feature, nobody can see wich files
were renamed.
The information that is stored in the registry only tells what rename
settings were used when the program was closed the last time - not the
settings that were used when the program renamed files. This save&restore
feature only makes sure that A.F.5 starts with the settings of your last
A.F.5-session.
If you want to rename files and leave no hints, it's possible:
- switch of the log file option,
- always reset ("File / Reset") your rename settings before exiting the
program
- and use drag&drop - not "Add" - to add your files to A.F.5.
Sincerely,
Alex Fauland
WWW: http://www.fauland.com
E-Mail: info@fauland.com
| |
| [Anon] Anon User 2007-05-02, 1:14 pm |
| This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
Project Pboxmix mixminion server at pboxmix.winstonsmith.info. If you
do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
admin@winstonsmith.info. For information about anonymity, see
https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
In <d7688a813bb88da163b0c4ca1a567a16@dizum.com> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>Anonymous wrote:
>
>
>You'd be shocked at what computer techs find by accident, and that's
>the honest ones. If they have even a tiny bit of larceny in their blood
>you can be 99.99% sure they'll find your renamed files.
The files themselves were located on an encrypted drive. The filenames
were located in the registry. Hence, even with the filenames, the
files could not be "found".
Hence, if the files had been renamed, no one would have been suspicious.
"Testing.dat" does not arouse suspicion.
"XXXXkids.jpg" does even if the file is not on the hard drive.
>The .01% is the
>probability you'll get a tech that's too dumb to figure it out. If they
>have to do any major surgery on your machine you can be 100% sure
>they'll have a backup of everything before digging in so they'll have
>all the time in the world to paw over your data looking for them.
Have you no faith in OTF encryption software?
>
>Sending your machine out to a shop with sensitive data on it that's not
>encrypted is just plain stupidity.
Yes. Of course, having the "data" encrypted does not mean that the
filenames won't be in the registry.
>You pretty much deserve what you
>get, and will almost certainly get what you deserve. So pedophiles of
>the world unite in your use of bulk file renaming utilities. ;)
Or something.
Anon User
| |
| macarro 2007-05-03, 7:13 am |
| Gogarty wrote:
> Here is what the developer of the AF5 filke renaming utility has to say about
> how it saves information from previous sessions or previous file names.
<snip>
To batch rename in Windows, no need for any utility.
1- Higlight your file (single mouse click)
2- Click CTRL+A (this will select everything inside the folder)
3- Click F2, and rename your 200 or more files at once, they will all
use the same name appended with (1),(2),(3),etc...
Another way:
1- Higlight your file (single mouse click)
2- Hold CTRL key down and click on all the files you want to rename
3- Click F2 and rename all selected files at once.
I want to insist that renaming ALONE leads to nothing, from my point of
view, obviously debatable, it is only PART OF A TRACE DELETION PROCESS
to keep the file names more difficult to recover if your computer was
stolen and its hard disk forensically analyzed, which is a worst case
scenario
Ideally in the first place you must avoid anyone stealing your computer
and in the second place you should have all the hard disk encrypted, if
possible with an explosive device ready to go off when someone removes
it without your consent.
--
Customized News: http://news.spotback.com
| |
| Gogarty 2007-05-03, 7:13 am |
| In article <4639a83a$1$36732$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
email@is.invalid says...
>
>
>Gogarty wrote:
about[vbcol=seagreen]
>
><snip>
>
>To batch rename in Windows, no need for any utility.
>
>1- Higlight your file (single mouse click)
>
>2- Click CTRL+A (this will select everything inside the folder)
>
>3- Click F2, and rename your 200 or more files at once, they will all
>use the same name appended with (1),(2),(3),etc...
>
>
>Another way:
>
>1- Higlight your file (single mouse click)
>
>2- Hold CTRL key down and click on all the files you want to rename
>
>3- Click F2 and rename all selected files at once.
>
>
>I want to insist that renaming ALONE leads to nothing, from my point of
>view, obviously debatable, it is only PART OF A TRACE DELETION PROCESS
>to keep the file names more difficult to recover if your computer was
>stolen and its hard disk forensically analyzed, which is a worst case
>scenario
>
>Ideally in the first place you must avoid anyone stealing your computer
>and in the second place you should have all the hard disk encrypted, if
>possible with an explosive device ready to go off when someone removes
>it without your consent.
>
Thank you for your very informative and useful response. Refreshing!
|
|
|
|
|