Re: TECH: Accountability and the Internet, Part IV

["Fletcher E. Kittredge" <fkittred@BIDDEFORD.COM>]

> Hi folks!  (I've also blind-carboned several folks connected to this issue
> in some way.)  Some interesting updates since my last report on the
> vulgar-email incident.  I contacted the person who maintains the network
> that was the source of the IP number originating the inappropriate message.
> He identified the IP # as coming from a recently-connected K-12 district
> elsewhere in his state. At this point I can put a pin on the map and tell
> you where that message came from; I also know the date and minute it was
> sent, and of course I have the original message ID# from the header of the
> message.
 
No you don't, you just think you do.  All of this information can be,
and has been spoofed.
 
As someone who has been involved with Internet security for 12 years,
a bit of advice: you are setting yourself up for a peck of trouble.
You are making accusations without a legal leg to stand on.  Be
extremely careful or you will end up on the wrong end of a law suit.
 
I wish you well, but you know just enough to be dangerous to yourself
and others.
 
> I emailed the district that was the source of this message and I'm awaiting
> a reply--it has been over 24 hours so I may have to follow up by telephone,
> as I did yesterday (crime may not pay, but it isn't cheap to fight it,
> either). I'm squeezing this work in around deadlines.  But I feel good
> about my follow-up.
>
> The administrator I spoke to yesterday was cooperative, but he made an
> interesting comment: "you must feel pretty strongly about this."
> Understand I was working to be upbeat, chipper and nonthreatening, so it's
> an interesting comment, directed, I presume, at the time and resources I'm
> using to run down this message.  So why AM I following up?  There are many
> reasons.  First, the Internet is my community and I expect to be treated
> with respect; it's a basic human right.  Second, it really bothers me that
> the Internet seems to replicate and in some instances aggravate some
> extremely misogynist behavior in our society.  Messages such as the one I
> received are primitive attempts to control one gender through intimidation.
> What I'm supposed to do, I think, is shriek and cry and never log on
> again--I'm certainly not supposed to hunt down the perp and have a talk
> about respect and the 'net.  Third, I'm bothered that software
> manufacturers aren't listening to libraries when we say we need more secure
> versions of their software.  Don't we count?  Or are they too "moneybags"
> to deal with us?  Fourth, when things are wrong, we need to right them;
> this is my version of "the personal is the political."
 
You don't understand the problem.  The Internet was designed to be a
command and control network for the military.  Its main purpose was to
survive a nuclear war, not provide for school children.  Couple of points:
 
1) Whomever solves the problem of controlled Internet gets rich.
 
2) This problem is extremely difficult
 
The commercial companies have lots of motivation to solve this problem
and you should be ashamed to be so careless in your
accusations.
 
> End of lecture.  More to follow when I have concrete updates.  I'm thinking
> of turning this into an article...
 
Oh dear, here we go again.  Another ill-informed article on the
Internet.
 
feltcher