Hiding files

[Peter Percival]

I think it was in this newsgroup that I heard of a password protected
file depository with another "invisible" depository inside it. I've
forgotten what it's called, and I've no idea what to Google for. If
anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'll be very grateful to be reminded.

--
I think I am an Elephant,
Behind another Elephant
Behind /another/ Elephant who isn't really there....
A.A. Milne

[Phi]

"Peter Percival" <peterxp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:knlmq6$qr6$1...@news.albasani.net...

Truecrypt

[Cynic]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 19:23:01 +0100, Peter Percival
<peterxp...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I think it was in this newsgroup that I heard of a password protected
>file depository with another "invisible" depository inside it. I've
>forgotten what it's called, and I've no idea what to Google for. If
>anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'll be very grateful to be reminded.

http://www.truecrypt.org/

--
Cynic

[Nigel Oldfield]

On 23/05/2013 19:23, Peter Percival wrote:
> I think it was in this newsgroup that I heard of a password protected
> file depository with another "invisible" depository inside it. I've
> forgotten what it's called, and I've no idea what to Google for. If
> anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'll be very grateful to be reminded.

Steganography.

--
WM
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk
http://soaptoo.blogspot.co.uk
http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk
Truth:Humanity:Justice

[Boutros Boutros-PMD]

Peter Percival pretended :

> I think it was in this newsgroup that I heard of a password protected
> file depository with another "invisible" depository inside it. I've
> forgotten what it's called, and I've no idea what to Google for. If
> anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'll be very grateful to be
> reminded.

Are you referring to the encrypted Wikileaks insurance file?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02/wikileaks_insurance/

[AlanG]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 19:23:01 +0100, Peter Percival
<peterxp...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I think it was in this newsgroup that I heard of a password protected
>file depository with another "invisible" depository inside it. I've
>forgotten what it's called, and I've no idea what to Google for. If
>anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'll be very grateful to be reminded.

Could be Cryptainer

[James P]

On 24/05/2013 10:18, Jethro_uk wrote:

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 19:23:01 +0100, Peter Percival wrote:
>
>> I think it was in this newsgroup that I heard of a password protected
>> file depository with another "invisible" depository inside it. I've
>> forgotten what it's called, and I've no idea what to Google for. If
>> anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'll be very grateful to be
>> reminded.
>

> As others have said, Truecrypt. You'll need to read about "plausible
> deniability" on the FAQ. If you intend using it to keep something safe
> from the authorities, then make sure you read *very* carefully, or you
> will leave clues as to the hidden volume. Also note this method will
> leave a sodding big encrypted file on your disk you would have to explain
> were you to come into contact with the police.
>

Virus?

[Peter Percival]

Peter Percival wrote:
> I think it was in this newsgroup that I heard of a password protected
> file depository with another "invisible" depository inside it. I've
> forgotten what it's called, and I've no idea what to Google for. If
> anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'll be very grateful to be reminded.

Thank you for all replies. 'twas Truecrypt.

[Cynic]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:18:23 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:

>> I think it was in this newsgroup that I heard of a password protected
>> file depository with another "invisible" depository inside it. I've
>> forgotten what it's called, and I've no idea what to Google for. If
>> anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'll be very grateful to be
>> reminded.

>As others have said, Truecrypt. You'll need to read about "plausible
>deniability" on the FAQ. If you intend using it to keep something safe
>from the authorities, then make sure you read *very* carefully, or you
>will leave clues as to the hidden volume. Also note this method will
>leave a sodding big encrypted file on your disk you would have to explain
>were you to come into contact with the police.

Use whole-disk encryption with hidden container. No overly big file,
just a HDD that doesn't contain a lot of data (which is perfectly
normal)

Not that it is particularly suspicious for a person to create a large
container that doesn't (presently) contain a lot of data. Certainly
it would not be proof BRD that it is any more than it appears to be.
The explanation is simply that you wanted to be certain to create a
container that was big enough to hold everything you might want to put
in it for the foreseeable future. With the cost of storage being as
low as it is today, that explanation is perfectly reasonable.

--
Cynic

[AndyW]

Or given that microSD cards are dropping in price all the time, a
collection of 64Gb mSD can hold a lot of data and still be stashed
inside a pen, book, under the lining of a jar lid,inside a mouse...
Run your PC on a live linux CD and there is not record left behind.

Andy

[Phi]

"AndyW" <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote in message
news:51a30fc0$0$37766$862e...@ngroups.net...

I always run my computer as a virtual system, every reboot is the original
configuration.

[Norman Wells]

> I always run my computer as a virtual system, every reboot is the
> original configuration.

Why do you need to be so paranoid?

[AndyW]

On 27/05/2013 11:25, Norman Wells wrote:

> Phi wrote:
>> I always run my computer as a virtual system, every reboot is the
>> original configuration.
>
> Why do you need to be so paranoid?

Why not? sometimes it is necessary.
I often run as a virtual machine, it means that you never have to worry
about viruses, malware or anything nasty remaining on the disk.
I often play in the dodgy neighbourhoods of the internet where drive by
infection is common and where script kiddies love a new PC to play with.
Also, if I am abroad and/or use a local network where the web proxy rams
adverts at me I don't trust anything that changes my data feed to suit
itself. Usually it is just adverts but sometimes the hotel server has
been hacked to inject malware. Hotel servers are generally poorly run
and are a common gateway for infection.
The ability to 'rip up' your PC and start again with a known good
configuration instantly is very useful. There are Linux distros that run
as multiple simultaneous virtual machines for security and stability.
These effectively start from scratch with every programme run.

Andy

[Norman Wells]

AndyW wrote:
> On 27/05/2013 11:25, Norman Wells wrote:
>> Phi wrote:
>>> I always run my computer as a virtual system, every reboot is the
>>> original configuration.
>>
>> Why do you need to be so paranoid?
>
> Why not? sometimes it is necessary.
> I often run as a virtual machine, it means that you never have to
> worry about viruses, malware or anything nasty remaining on the disk.
> I often play in the dodgy neighbourhoods of the internet

Porn or theft?

[Phi]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:WmZot.188520$kO.6...@fx14.fr7...

It doesn't matter, there is no trace on the pc

[Peter Percival]

Norman Wells wrote:
> Phi wrote:

>> I always run my computer as a virtual system, every reboot is the
>> original configuration.
>
> Why do you need to be so paranoid?

One man's paranoia is another's being reasonably cautious.

[Norman Wells]

Peter Percival wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> Phi wrote:
>
>>> I always run my computer as a virtual system, every reboot is the
>>> original configuration.
>>
>> Why do you need to be so paranoid?
>
> One man's paranoia is another's being reasonably cautious.

But not a reasonable man being reasonably cautious.

[MM]

Only problem there is the 'Linux' part!

MM

[Obi-three]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:15:47 +0100, Peter Percival
<peterxp...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Norman Wells wrote:
>> Phi wrote:
>
>>> I always run my computer as a virtual system, every reboot is the
>>> original configuration.
>>
>> Why do you need to be so paranoid?
>
>One man's paranoia is another's being reasonably cautious.

Paranoia is nature's way of telling you to be careful out there

[The Todal]

No, not really. I think the point he was making is that if you obtain a
Linux boot-up CD you can start your PC from that CD and preserve your
privacy more effectively. Never tried it myself.

[Norman Wells]

No, paranoia is nature's way of informing others just how mentally ill
you are.

[MM]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 11:42:20 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

I understand all that. I, too, have tried various Linux 'live' CDs.
But since I gave up on Linux following the complete change of
direction of Ubuntu 10 from the Ubuntu 8 that I was using, I just said
WTF and gave Linux the finger. I shall never use it. I think it's
never going to grow up to become a proper, well-designed operating
system, but will forever remain an OS for geeks. Windows by contrast
IS a well-designed OS, whether one likes Bill Gates or not.

God knows, but that the Linux aficionados haven't tried to make Linux
mainstream with crappily named versions like "Lindows", "Linspire" (I
ask you!), but scratch the surface of these so-call "user friendly"
variants and soon you'll find yourself back in the familiar territory
of Linux geekdom.

MM

[AndyW]

Wow. Binary thinking.

There are loads of legitimate reasons why I should be knocking about
darker parts of the internet than porn or theft.
White hatting, virus capture, software hacking, password cracking,
hardware hacking tools... lots of legitimate reasons.

Mostly I do it out of curiosity

Andy

[AndyW]

Why?

Andy

[AndyW]

On 28/05/2013 13:07, MM wrote:

> I understand all that. I, too, have tried various Linux 'live' CDs.
> But since I gave up on Linux following the complete change of
> direction of Ubuntu 10 from the Ubuntu 8 that I was using, I just said
> WTF and gave Linux the finger. I shall never use it. I think it's
> never going to grow up to become a proper, well-designed operating
> system, but will forever remain an OS for geeks. Windows by contrast
> IS a well-designed OS, whether one likes Bill Gates or not.

So linux 10 was different to linux 8 and you did not like it and prefer
windows. That's OK but windows also brings out newer versions that are
just awful (Millennium, Vista and Win8 spring to mind).

> God knows, but that the Linux aficionados haven't tried to make Linux
> mainstream with crappily named versions like "Lindows", "Linspire" (I
> ask you!), but scratch the surface of these so-call "user friendly"
> variants and soon you'll find yourself back in the familiar territory
> of Linux geekdom.

Oh so very wrong.
I regularly buy old machines from Ebay and bring them back to life with
linux then pass them on to friends and family. I rarely have any call
backs from linux machines. None of them are geeks and they seem to get
it to work without any problems. Linux as a basic office and internet
machine just works and works fast, especially with older machines.

OTOH I get regular calls from windows owners due to crashes and malware.
Mostly bootup issues where the registry hive has corrupted.

I have ditched windows almost completely as even my windows games run
under wine on linux at a faster frame rate than under win7. I even have
MS Access running under wine on linux.
My only regret is that linux still lacks good support for DVT digital TV
cards and usb sticks.

YMMV

Andy

[Paul Cummins]

In article <51a4bc99$0$15334$862e...@ngroups.net>, An...@nojunqmail.com
(AndyW) wrote:

> Wow. Binary thinking.

Yes, to Normal, all Hacking, cracking and cloneware is theft.

Even though he can't explain what has been stolen.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[pensive hamster]

On May 28, 12:02 pm, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
[...]

> >>> Why do you need to be so paranoid?
>
> >> One man's paranoia is another's being reasonably cautious.
>
> > Paranoia is nature's way of telling you to be careful out there
>
> No, paranoia is nature's way of informing others just how mentally ill
> you are.

Am I paranoid or does this kettle really look like Hitler?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/hitler-kettle-jc-penneys-advert-1917601
http://preview.tinyurl.com/oak6cdb

[Norman Wells]

Why do you describe them as legitimate when most are plainly not? And
why do you need to hide them if they are?

> Mostly I do it out of curiosity

That's what they all say when viewing porn or seeing what there is to
steal.

[MM]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 15:28:34 +0100, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:

>My only regret is that linux still lacks good support for DVT digital TV
>cards and usb sticks.

I remember with horror the hassle I went through just to find some
package and get it installed that would play MIDI files. With Windows
it's dead easy. You have a whole raft of apps to choose from.

MM

[AndyW]

On 28/05/2013 17:08, Norman Wells wrote:
> AndyW wrote:
>> On 28/05/2013 08:52, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> AndyW wrote:
>>>> On 27/05/2013 11:25, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> Phi wrote:
>>>>>> I always run my computer as a virtual system, every reboot is the
>>>>>> original configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you need to be so paranoid?
>>>>
>>>> Why not? sometimes it is necessary.
>>>> I often run as a virtual machine, it means that you never have to
>>>> worry about viruses, malware or anything nasty remaining on the
>>>> disk. I often play in the dodgy neighbourhoods of the internet
>>>
>>> Porn or theft?
>>
>> Wow. Binary thinking.
>>
>> There are loads of legitimate reasons why I should be knocking about
>> darker parts of the internet than porn or theft.
>> White hatting, virus capture, software hacking, password cracking,
>> hardware hacking tools... lots of legitimate reasons.
>
> Why do you describe them as legitimate when most are plainly not? And
> why do you need to hide them if they are?

But the uses I generally put them to are legitimate and cause no losses
to anyone.(and note I will admit to the occassional theft of hotel and
airport wifi).

But lets have a look (again) and you tell me what I am doing that is not
legitimate-

White Hatting - be definition is not illegal

Virus capture - not illegal

Virus hacking - if I need to hack some code to find hooks and entry
points to allow me to build it into some automated system there is
nothing in the software agreement to prevent it

Password Cracking - I have a series of passworded archives on my PC, I
have in the past forgotten the passwords and use crackers to get into them.
I fix a lot of PCs for people and it is not uncommon for someone to
forget their windows passwords. Password crackers allow me to gain
access and/or remove the windows password.
I buy and restore a lot of laptops from ebay. Many Lenovo laptops have
a hardware boot password (note not the standard BIOS based password that
can be bypassed by some pin shorting)that use dedicated circuitry to
store and check a password on boot up. When people forget their password
most local shops cannot help and so they go on ebay fairly cheaply as
nobody wants to buy them. Custom tools and a bit of hardware hacking
using instructions off the dodgier part of the internet allow me to
recover the passwords.

Hardware hacking - see above.

As for hiding, it is not illegal to hide things. People who claim that
'if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide' miss the point
entirely. We as human being live on a spectrum of revealing/hiding
information about ourselves and our activities. Everybody does it.
I repaired a computer for a friend after a ransomware infection went
wrong and damaged the boot process. He had a 2 login accounts, one was
passworded. I did a data recovery and pulled off all the documents. I
assume that he assumed that since the account was passworded I could not
get into it but linux ignores NTFS passwording and pulled off all jpgs
from that account as well.. mostly naked shots of him, his missus and
friends occasionally all at the same time. Nothing illegal but certainly
something that he legitimately wanted to hide. I have also found some
interesting shots while recovering holidays snaps from a formatted SD Card.
In all cases I have respected their privacy and said nothing - in the
case of the passworded account I suggested that I could run some
cracking tools on it and he declined.

During a 'nothing illegal/nothing to hide' discussion (general and not
just limited to computers) I countered the arguement by asking just how
much money he earned and what his wife's favourite sexual position was.
He was not a happy bunny and it did rather prove my point although
risked me getting a punch.

As for disposable virtual machines I do not necessarily hide things, I
just don't want dodgy software (by which I mean malware) hanging around
on my computer.
I also have a special XP virtual machine I reserve for 'Microsoft
technical department' phone calls.

>> Mostly I do it out of curiosity
>
> That's what they all say when viewing porn or seeing what there is to
> steal.

And yet viewing porn is NOT illegal. I could have an extensive
collection on my PC - all legitimate, all adults and all legal in this
country and yet I would be unwilling to let people know about it...
which rather supports my point that people have a right to keep things
private.

I learned to pick locks and break into some cars using instructions on
the net but I have never broken into a house or a car (I have managed to
gain someone entry to their house and someone into their car).

But we have been through all this before and then into NO-CD cracks and
format shifting music (which is now legal IIRC) and you never managed to
find anything that I did that caused any loss to any business or was
(beyond my admitted wifi stealing or perhaps inconveniencing a few
electrons somewhere or diverting a milliwatt).


Andy

[Phi]

"AndyW" <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote in message

news:51a5ab38$0$19896$862e...@ngroups.net...

I use XP Mode within the virtual Win7 system, because I have many software
tools that work best or only in XP. I also have a habit of altering standard
programs to suit my personal requirements, but would never release any of
these.

[Big Les Wade]

AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> posted

>naked shots of him, his missus and friends occasionally all at the same
>time. Nothing illegal but certainly something that he legitimately
>wanted to hide. I have also found some interesting shots while
>recovering holidays snaps from a formatted SD Card.

I would guess quite a few men have erotic photos of their partners on
their computers. Morally legitimate as well as legal, and very
reasonable not to want anybody else to see them.

--
Les

[AndyW]

On 29/05/2013 08:16, AndyW wrote:

> Virus hacking - if I need to hack some code to find hooks and entry
> points to allow me to build it into some automated system there is
> nothing in the software agreement to prevent it

NOT virus hacking - Software hacking. Had a brane fart on this.
I shall go sit on the naughty step now....

Andy

[Norman Wells]

Under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, that, as well as several other
activities you mention, is actually an offence unless authorised by the
owner of the computer system being tested or hacked.

I assume you have no such authorisation.

I suggest you read the Act.

The question I asked was why you needed to be so paranoid.

Then perhaps you didn't read my comments properly.

[Ophelia]

"AndyW" <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote in message

news:51a5b76e$0$54656$862e...@ngroups.net...

And while you are there you can tell me what 'White Hatting' is please!
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Paul Cummins]

In article <VPjpt.148776$hY1....@fx23.fr7>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman

Wells) wrote:

> The question I asked was why you needed to be so paranoid.

So only the guilty have something to hide?

[Cynic]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:08:51 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> There are loads of legitimate reasons why I should be knocking about
>> darker parts of the internet than porn or theft.
>> White hatting, virus capture, software hacking, password cracking,
>> hardware hacking tools... lots of legitimate reasons.
>
>Why do you describe them as legitimate when most are plainly not? And
>why do you need to hide them if they are?
>
>> Mostly I do it out of curiosity
>
>That's what they all say when viewing porn or seeing what there is to
>steal.

The biggest reason of course is that people such as yourself will take
a look, add together 2+2 and come up with an imaginary number.

--
Cynic

[Norman Wells]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <VPjpt.148776$hY1....@fx23.fr7>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
> Wells) wrote:
>
>> The question I asked was why you needed to be so paranoid.
>
> So only the guilty have something to hide?

There's a difference between hiding something and being paranoid about
hiding it.

[Norman Wells]

No, the biggest reason by far is to conceal illegal acts.

[Jon Ribbens]

"Black hats" are the bad guys (e.g. virus writers, spammers, people
trying to hack into your computer so they can steal your money, etc).

"White hats" are the good guys (e.g. people employed by a company to
try and break into their IT systems to that they can fix the holes,
security researchers, etc).

[Ophelia]

"Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnkqbso6.k...@snowy.squish.net...

Thanks, Jon:) Makes sense .. sort of:))

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[AndyW]

White hatting - a reference to westerns where good guys wore white hats
and bad guys wore black hats.
A white hatter is someone who tests network and server security with the
permission of the network owner and looks for security holes. A good-guy
cracker.

Black hat is a bad dude who goes it for the purposes of theft or damage.

Grey hatters are freelancers who test security without the permission of
the owner but usually let the owner know of the security holes.

Andy

[AndyW]

On 29/05/2013 10:21, Norman Wells wrote:
> AndyW wrote:

>> But lets have a look (again) and you tell me what I am doing that is
>> not legitimate-
>>

>> White Hatting - by definition is not illegal

>
> Under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, that, as well as several other
> activities you mention, is actually an offence unless authorised by the
> owner of the computer system being tested or hacked.
>
> I assume you have no such authorisation.

And yet it was done with the server owner's permission, especially when
some of those servers and networks are mine or friends.

> I suggest you read the Act.

I suggest you have evidence. I white hat occassionally. I do not grey hat.

> The question I asked was why you needed to be so paranoid.

did you miss this bit:-

"And yet viewing porn is NOT illegal. I could have an extensive
collection on my PC - all legitimate, all adults and all legal in this
country and yet I would be unwilling to let people know about it...
which rather supports my point that people have a right to keep things
private."

Also I refer careful to paranoid, just protective of privacy. I simply
do not people wanting to know anything about me that I do not want to
release.
As has been posted before I was cyber-stalked some time ago when I was
less careful and it ended up with some religious nut with whom I was
having a discussion that turned nasty emailing pictures of my kids to
me. Since then I have become very guarded about releasing information
about myself. That includes being careful of viruses, trackers and web
traces.
Since I volunteer to work with kids I am aware that should someone make
an unfounded accusation (which I have seen before and posted here
before) my PCs are likely to be seized and people have been taken to
court based on a few thumbnails or internet cache images.
My web caches get scrubbed on a daily basis. All it takes is for one
image on an innocent web session or to be infected by a drive-by botnet
porn server infection. Even an idiot posting something inappropriate on
FB could end up in a chache unless I scrub or use an anonymous session.

> Then perhaps you didn't read my comments properly.

I did and you never did show that anything I do is actually illegal
(beyond stealing wifi to which I raise my hand). You claimed and implied
and assumed but all my uses of hacks, cracks and no-cds were legitimate
on purchased software. I have NO commercial software on any of my
computers that was obtained by any other means than purchasing it.

Andy

[Paul Cummins]

In article <Bylpt.188557$RQ1....@fx20.fr7>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman

Wells) wrote:

> No, the biggest reason by far is to conceal illegal acts.

An, now we know why you claim to be at the Unseen University of Ankh
Morpork - it's because you are doing something illegal.

[AndyW]

On 29/05/2013 14:32, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <Bylpt.188557$RQ1....@fx20.fr7>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
> Wells) wrote:
>
>> No, the biggest reason by far is to conceal illegal acts.
>
> An, now we know why you claim to be at the Unseen University of Ankh
> Morpork - it's because you are doing something illegal.

how do you know that his real name is not Ponder Stibbons?

Andy

[Cynic]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 12:23:04 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> The biggest reason of course is that people such as yourself will take
>> a look, add together 2+2 and come up with an imaginary number.

>No, the biggest reason by far is to conceal illegal acts.

What's your present bank balance, Norm?
When was the last time you had sex, who was it with and how long did
it last?

If you don't tell us, we will have to assume that you are concealing
some illegal acts.

--
Cynic

[Norman Wells]

If you have a huge and expensive safe that you use, it's a reasonable
assumption that it's not just for securing a £5 ring. There's a very
good and obvious correlation between the measures someone takes to
conceal something and the value of that something to him or to someone
else.

[Norman Wells]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <Bylpt.188557$RQ1....@fx20.fr7>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
> Wells) wrote:
>
>> No, the biggest reason by far is to conceal illegal acts.
>
> An, now we know why you claim to be at the Unseen University of Ankh
> Morpork - it's because you are doing something illegal.

I haven't actually claimed to be anywhere.

[Norman Wells]

AndyW wrote:
> On 29/05/2013 10:21, Norman Wells wrote:
>> AndyW wrote:
>
>>> But lets have a look (again) and you tell me what I am doing that is
>>> not legitimate-
>>>
>>> White Hatting - by definition is not illegal
>>
>> Under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, that, as well as several other
>> activities you mention, is actually an offence unless authorised by
>> the owner of the computer system being tested or hacked.
>>
>> I assume you have no such authorisation.
>
> And yet it was done with the server owner's permission, especially
> when some of those servers and networks are mine or friends.

Oh, I see. They're the ones engaged in nefarious activities they want
to hide then? Not you at all, oh no!

>> I suggest you read the Act.
>
> I suggest you have evidence. I white hat occassionally. I do not grey
> hat.
>> The question I asked was why you needed to be so paranoid.
>
> did you miss this bit:-
>
> "And yet viewing porn is NOT illegal. I could have an extensive
> collection on my PC - all legitimate, all adults and all legal in this
> country and yet I would be unwilling to let people know about it...
> which rather supports my point that people have a right to keep things
> private."
>
> Also I refer careful to paranoid, just protective of privacy. I simply
> do not people wanting to know anything about me that I do not want to
> release.

The lengths you go to appear paranoid.

> As has been posted before I was cyber-stalked some time ago when I was
> less careful and it ended up with some religious nut with whom I was
> having a discussion that turned nasty emailing pictures of my kids to
> me. Since then I have become very guarded about releasing information
> about myself. That includes being careful of viruses, trackers and web
> traces.

That has nothing whatever to do with concealing the activities you carry
out on your computer

> Since I volunteer to work with kids I am aware that should someone
> make an unfounded accusation (which I have seen before and posted here
> before) my PCs are likely to be seized and people have been taken to
> court based on a few thumbnails or internet cache images.
> My web caches get scrubbed on a daily basis. All it takes is for one
> image on an innocent web session or to be infected by a drive-by
> botnet porn server infection. Even an idiot posting something
> inappropriate on FB could end up in a chache unless I scrub or use an
> anonymous session.

See, I told you you were paranoid.

>> Then perhaps you didn't read my comments properly.
>
> I did and you never did show that anything I do is actually illegal
> (beyond stealing wifi to which I raise my hand). You claimed and
> implied and assumed but all my uses of hacks, cracks and no-cds were
> legitimate on purchased software. I have NO commercial software on
> any of my computers that was obtained by any other means than
> purchasing it.

Then there's no reason to hide them, is there?

However, whatever you say, the use of many hacks and cracks is in fact
illegal. And the fact that you may have bought the software to perform
them doesn't make what you do with that software legal.

[Peter Percival]

What's the betting that there are some hackers who are sometimes one and
sometimes the other?


--
I think I am an Elephant,
Behind another Elephant
Behind /another/ Elephant who isn't really there....
A.A. Milne

[Peter Percival]

That claim can only be based on guess work.

[Ophelia]

"AndyW" <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote in message

news:51a5fd32$0$25610$862e...@ngroups.net...

Thanks, Andy:) I am very please you are a White Hatter:))
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Ophelia]

"Peter Percival" <peterxp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ko55rj$q8u$1...@news.albasani.net...

Maybe, but we are talking about Andy here,
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Cynic]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:54:19 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> And yet it was done with the server owner's permission, especially
>> when some of those servers and networks are mine or friends.

>Oh, I see. They're the ones engaged in nefarious activities they want
>to hide then? Not you at all, oh no!

No, they are not the ones engaged in nefarious activities. You
obviously do not understand what the PP's activities comprise of in
the slightest, so if I were you I'd shut my mouth and try not to make
myself appear stupid as well as ignorant.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 15:40:12 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>>> No, the biggest reason by far is to conceal illegal acts.

>> What's your present bank balance, Norm?
>> When was the last time you had sex, who was it with and how long did
>> it last?

>> If you don't tell us, we will have to assume that you are concealing
>> some illegal acts.

You didn't answer the questions, Norm. Do you have something to hide?

>If you have a huge and expensive safe that you use, it's a reasonable
>assumption that it's not just for securing a £5 ring. There's a very
>good and obvious correlation between the measures someone takes to
>conceal something and the value of that something to him or to someone
>else.

A safe is not used mainly to conceal, it is used to prevent other
people gaining access to your property, so you have come up with a
very poor analogy.

But in any case, the fact that someone wants to *conceal* something
(just as you obviously want to do by not answering a couple of simple
questions) does not mean that there is anything in the slightest way
illegal involved as you have said there must be, or even anything
inappropriate.

*Everyone* except a very tiny minority of people have many things that
they want to conceal from most other people. Only a total idiot would
assume that concealing something is an indication of illegal
activities.

--
Cynic

[Norman Wells]

Well, if you know perhaps you'd tell us. He seems, as usual, to be
reticent to disclose anything meaningful.

[Peter Percival]

Oh quite, a thoroughly decent and upstanding fellow!

[Cynic]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:54:41 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

He has disclosed everything regarding his activities. Not only are
you too ignorant to understand what he has said, but you are now
making yourself look stupid by not bothering to find out before
opening your mouth.

--
Cynic

[Norman Wells]

That's why I said "There's a very good and obvious correlation between
_the measures_ someone takes to conceal something and the value of that
something to him or to someone else". If you take extreme precautions,
you almost certainly have something that would excite others who may be
interested in it. Fact of life.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <gxppt.3155$MY....@fx08.fr7>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
wrote:

> He seems, as usual, to be
> reticent to disclose anything meaningful.

I wasn;t aware that "disclosure" was a legal requirement for usenet...

[Norman Wells]

Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <gxppt.3155$MY....@fx08.fr7>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
> Wells) wrote:
>
>> He seems, as usual, to be
>> reticent to disclose anything meaningful.
>
> I wasn;t aware that "disclosure" was a legal requirement for usenet...

If you don't want to discuss, why come to a discussion forum?

[Cynic]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 19:11:01 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> I wasn;t aware that "disclosure" was a legal requirement for usenet...

>If you don't want to discuss, why come to a discussion forum?

So let's discuss your present bank balance and your last few sexual
experiences, Norm.

After all, like you just said ...

--
Cynic

[Norman Wells]

I don't hide them. I don't secure their secrecy. I just choose not to
tell you about them, that's all. There is a difference.

[AndyW]

[AndyW]

AHA!
So he may be a correspondence student or one of the telecommuting Wizard
staff (it's a pune y'know).

Or an AI entity created by Hex so technically he is not actually anywhere.

Andy

[AndyW]

On 29/05/2013 15:54, Norman Wells wrote:
> AndyW wrote:
>> On 29/05/2013 10:21, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> I assume you have no such authorisation.
>>
>> And yet it was done with the server owner's permission, especially
>> when some of those servers and networks are mine or friends.
>
> Oh, I see. They're the ones engaged in nefarious activities they want
> to hide then? Not you at all, oh no!

No they are the ones who own or lease the server or networks, I thought
that it was clear enough.
And as for "Not you at all, oh no!" Absolutely correct. I work as a
military contractor all over the UK and abroad. One computer intrusion
or network hacking conviction is enough to have my MoD security status
revoked and I lose my employment. I may be daft but I am not stupid
enough to risk my source of income of trying to break into networks for
a laugh. If I feel the need to test my skills then I can do it risk free
while whitehatting.

>>> I suggest you read the Act.
>>
>> I suggest you have evidence. I white hat occassionally. I do not grey
>> hat.
>>> The question I asked was why you needed to be so paranoid.
>>
>> did you miss this bit:-
>>
>> "And yet viewing porn is NOT illegal. I could have an extensive
>> collection on my PC - all legitimate, all adults and all legal in this
>> country and yet I would be unwilling to let people know about it...
>> which rather supports my point that people have a right to keep things
>> private."
>>
>> Also I refer careful to paranoid, just protective of privacy. I simply
>> do not people wanting to know anything about me that I do not want to
>> release.
>
> The lengths you go to appear paranoid.

Paranoid is a spectrum ranging from totally open to totally shut down,
we are only argueing about where I sit on the scale. You think that I am
paranoid I think that I am careful.

>> Since I volunteer to work with kids I am aware that should someone
>> make an unfounded accusation (which I have seen before and posted here
>> before) my PCs are likely to be seized and people have been taken to
>> court based on a few thumbnails or internet cache images.
>> My web caches get scrubbed on a daily basis. All it takes is for one
>> image on an innocent web session or to be infected by a drive-by
>> botnet porn server infection. Even an idiot posting something
>> inappropriate on FB could end up in a chache unless I scrub or use an
>> anonymous session.
>
> See, I told you you were paranoid.

Paranoid - spectrum.
I have spotted enough accounts in the press and also in 'trade
papers'for people working with youngsters. I have also witnessed the
carnage resulting from a false and baseless accusation by a vindictive
child (proven to have lied). I will not give the peedo Hysteria industry
an inroads into my life as I have already suffered at the hands of paedo
hysteria knuckle draggers (the angry mob and not police or SS). I can
back it up as the newspaper accounts are freely available but I will not
do so in an open forum. Should you be interested in verification we can
sort out some offline method of communication. Basically someone with
the same name as me in the same general area was convicted for a
frightening number of child images and video. People just looked at the
name, presumably the phone book and came a-visiting full of righteous anger.
You may call it paranoia but I call it experience and care.

>>> Then perhaps you didn't read my comments properly.
>>
>> I did and you never did show that anything I do is actually illegal
>> (beyond stealing wifi to which I raise my hand). You claimed and
>> implied and assumed but all my uses of hacks, cracks and no-cds were
>> legitimate on purchased software. I have NO commercial software on
>> any of my computers that was obtained by any other means than
>> purchasing it.
>
> Then there's no reason to hide them, is there?

I don't hide them, my disks are encryption free (except where required
under DPA or child protection on a shared use computer, in that case the
account is a non-encrypted passworded account as in the guidelines).

> However, whatever you say, the use of many hacks and cracks is in fact
> illegal. And the fact that you may have bought the software to perform
> them doesn't make what you do with that software legal.

Indeed you are correct "the use of *many* hacks and cracks is in fact
illegal" However the use of many others is not illegal.
A lot of the software I use (especially games) welcome the use of mods
and hacks (but not cheats), Call of Duty for example allows modification
but the T&Cs give the publisher the rights to option useful mods.
The Call of Duty PC version zombie mod was accepted for use in the newer
CoD versions. The zombie mod proved very very popular on consoles.
The Company of Heroes Mod "Eastern Front" adding the soviet army to the
existing UK/US/Nazis was such a popular mod that CoH: II includes the
Eastern front as well as many of the smaller tweaks. Other mods and
hacks such as Iron Cross or NCH or physics changes, AI edits, artwork,
machinery, weapons etc are used by the games designer as a source of new
material for the new versions.
I use a number of commercial and free video editing tools that have open
'hooks' allowing me to inject data into the code and thus I can set up a
simple script to inject a load of parameters at various points and set
it running instead of having to manually open each file, set up the
filters etc, run them and export the video. Again, not a banned
activity. I am doing the software equivalent of building a hammer into a
machine of my own making.

Andy

[AndyW]

On 29/05/2013 16:11, Peter Percival wrote:
> What's the betting that there are some hackers who are sometimes one and
> sometimes the other?

Many are poacher turned gamekeeper.

Andy

[AndyW]

On 29/05/2013 16:56, Peter Percival wrote:

> Ophelia wrote:

>>> What's the betting that there are some hackers who are sometimes one
>>> and sometimes the other?
>>
>> Maybe, but we are talking about Andy here,
>
> Oh quite, a thoroughly decent and upstanding fellow!

..and I bake a mean sponge as well.

[AndyW]

It is quite simple.
I states that I often test network security.
You claimed that can be illegal.
I stated

"And yet it was done with the server owner's permission, especially
when some of those servers and networks are mine or friends."

and you responded with :-

"Oh, I see. They're the ones engaged in nefarious activities they
want to hide then? Not you at all, oh no!"

Which I did not quite follow.
I sometimes test server and database security for people, nothing too
complex I poke at ports, run a dictionary of common passwords, poke
about file structure and try to pull data out of databases but all with
permission of the server owner. I cannot be any more open and clear
about it than say "And yet it was done with the server owner's permission".
If you think that I am not being clear on this issue then let me know
how I can be clearer.

Andy

[AndyW]

On 29/05/2013 15:40, Norman Wells wrote:

I probably have more home security than most, I have a front door with 2
locks including a multi point deadbolt system including hinge-side.
the rear door is similar, the only other entry point is - the garage
door - has a ground bolt and the door into the house is a
wood-steel-wood sandwich blade with multipoint locking.
I suffered what the Americans call a 'home invasion' NEVER again.

I take the same steps with my online security and yet you seem to think
that physical security is the person protecting themselves but online
security is hiding something or paranoid.

Andy

[Norman Wells]

Well, you did say earlier in this thread "Mostly I do it out of
curiosity", and you mentioned "knocking about darker parts of the
internet". They don't imply totally legitimate activities, do they?

[AndyW]

On 30/05/2013 10:37, Norman Wells wrote:
> AndyW wrote:

> Well, you did say earlier in this thread "Mostly I do it out of
> curiosity", and you mentioned "knocking about darker parts of the
> internet". They don't imply totally legitimate activities, do they?

It implies that the area has a reputation for illegitimate activities
but not necessarily all the people who visit it. I used to have a
student flat just off Bread St in Edinburgh in an area that was known as
the pubic triangle, it was well know as a red-light area with pubs and
clubs with dancers of increasingly fewer clothes and ladies of
negotiable affection on street corners. It was said that men in that
area at night were only after one thing, in my case and the case of my
flatmates it was generally getting home for some kip. Just because I
went there did not mean I partook - all fizzy beer pubs for a start, not
my kind of beer.
"Darker parts" it is just that there are areas of the internet that are
riskier than others especially when you are not using email or browsers
since most virus killing tools are set up to deal with these.

Many of the serious hackers, crackers etc hang about on IRC and swap
files using DCC, very very few malware tools can deal with an IRC feed.

Also you get script kiddies (the digital equivalent of people who draw
penises in bus shelters) who think that it is fun to share malware,
viruses or even disgusting, obscene or illegal images of videos, it is a
form of digital "indecent exposure".
When you think you are getting a "How To" video you can end up with
something else, kids, mutilation videos (headshots), for some reason,
crap ftish videos are common. Ditto for images. Cracking programmes can
often have embedded malware so running in a virtual machine while
testing is vital.

Like it or not, if you need security tools for white hatting, then
cutting edge is black in colour.

But then this has already come up before. I recall having to defend
myself at least once, possibly twice on this issue with you. Possibly
more with modding software and using cracks.

Andy

[Norman Wells]

You mean one of those favoured by drug dealers on Council estates?

> I suffered what the Americans call a 'home invasion' NEVER again.
>
> I take the same steps with my online security and yet you seem to
> think that physical security is the person protecting themselves but
> online security is hiding something or paranoid.

No, I haven't mentioned physical security at all. For most people I'd
say a drug dealer's door on their house was paranoid too. However, it
depends on what you're anxious to protect, and the likelihood of 'home
invasion'. If the latter is likely to be by the Police, or anyone else
really determined to get in, it's a bit pointless. They'll do it
anyway, and you might as well save the extra damage they'll cause in
having to break down something tough.

[Ophelia]

"AndyW" <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote in message

news:51a7195a$0$24203$862e...@ngroups.net...

Not forgetting baking over a fire in a pipe ... :)

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Ophelia]

"AndyW" <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote in message

news:51a718c2$0$32587$862e...@ngroups.net...

Andy, why do you bother? You are justifying yourself to someone who says he
'chooses' not to share details about himself.

Btw Wells, I have had it pointed out that your bullying of me continues so I
wanted you to know I am watching, just so that you know that the fact that I
am ignoring you is deliberate:))
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Cynic]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:56:07 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

I do not understand the essential difference between "hiding", "not
wanting to discuss" and "choosing not to tell you". Please explain.

And I suggest that you *do* "secure the secrecy" of both your bank
balance and your sexual activities to whatever extent you believe it
necessary to ensure that other people will not be able to find out
their details unless you want them to.

All my online banking activities are encrypted, for example, and a
great many people burn or shred paper bills and statements rather than
throwing them in the bin where anyone could retrieve them.

Which are both designed for the sole purpose of keeping them secret.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 13:16:36 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>No, I haven't mentioned physical security at all. For most people I'd
>say a drug dealer's door on their house was paranoid too. However, it
>depends on what you're anxious to protect, and the likelihood of 'home
>invasion'. If the latter is likely to be by the Police, or anyone else
>really determined to get in, it's a bit pointless. They'll do it
>anyway, and you might as well save the extra damage they'll cause in
>having to break down something tough.

There are however situations where being able to smash a door open in
2 seconds and taking 10 minutes to achieve an entry can make a
significant difference to the eventual outcome of the exercise.

--
Cynic

[Norman Wells]

Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:56:07 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> I wasn;t aware that "disclosure" was a legal requirement for
>>>>> usenet...
>
>>>> If you don't want to discuss, why come to a discussion forum?
>
>>> So let's discuss your present bank balance and your last few sexual
>>> experiences, Norm.
>
>>> After all, like you just said ...
>
>> I don't hide them. I don't secure their secrecy. I just choose not
>> to tell you about them, that's all. There is a difference.
>
> I do not understand the essential difference between "hiding", "not
> wanting to discuss" and "choosing not to tell you". Please explain.

I think you need a dictionary. They're perfectly ordinary English
expressions, with perfectly ordinary English meanings.

> And I suggest that you *do* "secure the secrecy" of both your bank
> balance and your sexual activities to whatever extent you believe it
> necessary to ensure that other people will not be able to find out
> their details unless you want them to.

No, my bank does that, largely for its own protection.

> All my online banking activities are encrypted, for example, and a
> great many people burn or shred paper bills and statements rather than
> throwing them in the bin where anyone could retrieve them.
>
> Which are both designed for the sole purpose of keeping them secret.

Confidential rather than secret because there's another party involved.

As I told you before, but sadly doesn't seem to have sunk in:

"There's a very good and obvious correlation between _the measures_

someone takes to conceal something and the value of that something to
him or to someone else".

I take no measures that anyone could regard as paranoid or even unusual.
And if I thought providing the answers to your questions might advance
the discussion, I'd give them. However, they're very silly questions
because I could give you whatever answers I wanted and you would be none
the wiser, having no means at all to verify them. It would therefore be
a totally futile activity.

[Norman Wells]

As I say, there's a very good and obvious correlation between the

[Big Les Wade]

Ophelia <Oph...@elsinore.me.ku.invalid> posted

>Btw Wells, I have had it pointed out that your bullying of me continues
>so I wanted you to know I am watching, just so that you know that the
>fact that I am ignoring you is deliberate:))

Being bullied by Norman Wells must be like being savaged by a dead
woodlouse.

--
Les

[Ophelia]

"Big Les Wade" <L...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:9SEW3wDl...@invalid.com...

lolol true enough but it is irritating:))
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Percy]

Indeed, drugs down the lavvy pan means no evidence left.

[Norman Wells]

Ophelia wrote:

> Btw Wells, I have had it pointed out that your bullying of me
> continues so I wanted you to know I am watching, just so that you
> know that the fact that I am ignoring you is deliberate:))

How is it possible to bully someone who doesn't see or hear anything you
do?

Perhaps you'd explain.

[Norman Wells]

Perhaps you'd explain how anything I've done or said can possibly, even
in your most febrile imaginings, constitute 'bullying'.

[AlanG]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:31:22 +0100, Percy <pickle...@talktalk.net>
wrote:

You do know that a fine filter in the sewer pipe inserted via the
inspection hatch can catch all sorts of stuff.

A nice open fire or solid fuel stove is another matter

[Cynic]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:58:10 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> I do not understand the essential difference between "hiding", "not
>> wanting to discuss" and "choosing not to tell you". Please explain.

>I think you need a dictionary. They're perfectly ordinary English
>expressions, with perfectly ordinary English meanings.

In that case I am correct that there is no essential difference.

>Confidential rather than secret because there's another party involved.

Oh right! What *HE* does is keeping secrets which is wrong, what
*YOU* do is maintaining confidentiality and therefore perfectly OK.

I shall remember to use the correct words in future so as to stay on
the right side of the line.

--
Cynic

[Cynic]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 15:04:36 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> There are however situations where being able to smash a door open in
>> 2 seconds and taking 10 minutes to achieve an entry can make a
>> significant difference to the eventual outcome of the exercise.

>As I say, there's a very good and obvious correlation between the
>measures someone takes to conceal something and the value of that
>something to him or to someone else.

Of course there is - and there is nothing bad or suspicious about
having something that you or someone else values highly.

--
Cynic

[Ophelia]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:51a76e1f...@127.0.0.1...

> On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:58:10 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>> I do not understand the essential difference between "hiding", "not
>>> wanting to discuss" and "choosing not to tell you". Please explain.
>
>>I think you need a dictionary. They're perfectly ordinary English
>>expressions, with perfectly ordinary English meanings.
>
> In that case I am correct that there is no essential difference.
>
>>Confidential rather than secret because there's another party involved.
>
> Oh right! What *HE* does is keeping secrets which is wrong, what
> *YOU* do is maintaining confidentiality and therefore perfectly OK.

Now you are getting the idea))

> I shall remember to use the correct words in future so as to stay on
> the right side of the line.

--

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Norman Wells]

There might be. It depends what it is.

[Cynic]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 17:29:54 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> Of course there is - and there is nothing bad or suspicious about
>> having something that you or someone else values highly.
>
>There might be. It depends what it is.

And who is making the judgement.

--
Cynic

[Norman Wells]

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:58:10 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>> I do not understand the essential difference between "hiding", "not
>>> wanting to discuss" and "choosing not to tell you". Please explain.
>
>> I think you need a dictionary. They're perfectly ordinary English
>> expressions, with perfectly ordinary English meanings.
>
> In that case I am correct that there is no essential difference.

No. There's no point in just having a dictionary. You also need to use
it.

>> Confidential rather than secret because there's another party
>> involved.
>
> Oh right! What *HE* does is keeping secrets which is wrong, what
> *YOU* do is maintaining confidentiality and therefore perfectly OK.
>
> I shall remember to use the correct words in future so as to stay on
> the right side of the line.

I keep telling you, it's _the lengths_ to which people go that's
indicative of the nature of the item or information. Normal items and
information require only normal protection. If you go to extraordinary
lengths to secure something while pretending otherwise to be perfectly
normal, it's natural for others to be curious and/or suspicious about
what it might be, and with good reason. Illegal items or information
are very often those most securely hidden away.

Deny it as much as you like, but it's the truth.

[Norman Wells]

If it's illegal it's a matter of fact rather than judgement. But the
police will always be interested in something that appears to be
unusually securely protected. It's only natural since, like it or not,
it is very often bad or suspicious.

[Cynic]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 17:48:30 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>

wrote:

>>>> Of course there is - and there is nothing bad or suspicious about
>>>> having something that you or someone else values highly.

>>> There might be. It depends what it is.

>> And who is making the judgement.

>If it's illegal it's a matter of fact rather than judgement.

The words I used were "bad or suspicious" which I see you have now
changed into "illegal".

>But the
>police will always be interested in something that appears to be
>unusually securely protected. It's only natural since, like it or not,
>it is very often bad or suspicious.

That's because many police officers, like yourself, always think the
worst of people.

You might also consider that the degree of protection people use is
not only dependent on the value of whatever they are protecting, but
also their perceived risk of it being stolen or vandalised.

I would use far stronger locks and doors in some parts of the country
than others, despite having exactly the same value to protect.

And how far you go to protect your private life from the eyes of the
state depends a great deal on how much you trust the state not to use
such information in a way that ends up harming you.

Personally I can see several ways that innocent information held about
me by strangers could end up causing me harm, but I cannot see a great
deal of harm to me would result if those people *didn't* hold such
information. So even if I trusted the state pretty well (which as it
happens I do not), I see no downside to erring on the side of caution
- it's not as if it costs me anything.

The problem with giving away information about yourself is that you
can almost never get it back should it prove to have been an unwise
thing to have done. If however it ever becomes advantageous for the
state to know particular details about yourself that they do not know,
that deficit can usually be rectified within a few minutes.

I purchased a pair of passive 3D glasses a while back. The shop
(Argos) refused to sell them unless I supplied my address for TV
licencing purposes. I pointed out that a pair of polaroid glasses was
incapable of receiving broadcast TV programs, but they insisted. As I
wanted the goods and didn't want to muck about, I gave them a random
building number and postcode to shut them up (took 3 attempts to come
up with some random numbers the till would accept). I expect you will
be accusing me of operating an unlicenced TV set - because that's the
sort of nasty thought all your sort tend to get when uppity people
refuse to give away private information whenever anyone claiming
authority asks for it.

--
Cynic

[Phi]

"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:shLpt.2948$6y4...@fx03.fr7...

One can always stoop and pick up nothing.

[Norman Wells]

It's a question of how often though. Of course it's _possible_ to stoop
and pick up nothing, but normally a person will only stoop to pick up
something of interest. I do anyway.

I suppose you'll now tell me you have an OCD that makes you stoop
uncontrollably.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <CBMpt.8277$ck4....@fx24.fr7>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman Wells)
wrote:

> I suppose you'll now tell me you have an OCD that makes you stoop
> uncontrollably.

I don't have OCD, I'm just defragmenting the universe...

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Cynic]

On Thu, 30 May 2013 19:09:25 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> One can always stoop and pick up nothing.

>It's a question of how often though. Of course it's _possible_ to stoop
>and pick up nothing, but normally a person will only stoop to pick up
>something of interest. I do anyway.

>I suppose you'll now tell me you have an OCD that makes you stoop
>uncontrollably.

I lived for a short time in a house that was overlooked by an
extremely snoopy neighbour. At any sign of movement she would be at
her window very obviously watching everything going on with a stern
and disapproving expression.

So one evening I carried out a very elaborate pantomime in the garden,
measuring between various points with a tape and running string
between various things. I then set up a table and a living room chair
in the garden, and started making careful measurements to determine
the exact position to place a lamp. Finally I stood back, made a few
minute adjustments to the position of the table, nodded in a satisfied
way and called a friend out to look. We stood discussing intently and
gesticulating at the various items, and finally clapped each other on
the back, shook hands and took everything back inside the house.

That neighbour must have been absolutely burning up with curiosity.

--
Cynic

[Ophelia]

"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:51a79a30...@127.0.0.1...

lol well I expect it brightened up her day:) I find that people who have to
watch others like that are sad and lonely. At least you gave her something
to think about:)

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Norman Wells]

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 17:48:30 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> Of course there is - and there is nothing bad or suspicious about
>>>>> having something that you or someone else values highly.
>
>>>> There might be. It depends what it is.
>
>>> And who is making the judgement.
>
>> If it's illegal it's a matter of fact rather than judgement.
>
> The words I used were "bad or suspicious" which I see you have now
> changed into "illegal".
>
>> But the
>> police will always be interested in something that appears to be
>> unusually securely protected. It's only natural since, like it or
>> not, it is very often bad or suspicious.
>
> That's because many police officers, like yourself, always think the
> worst of people.
>
> You might also consider that the degree of protection people use is
> not only dependent on the value of whatever they are protecting, but
> also their perceived risk of it being stolen or vandalised.
>
> I would use far stronger locks and doors in some parts of the country
> than others, despite having exactly the same value to protect.
>
> And how far you go to protect your private life from the eyes of the
> state depends a great deal on how much you trust the state not to use
> such information in a way that ends up harming you.

You may be able to justify it to yourself but the fact remains that, if
you're substantially out of line with others in roughly the same
position as you, you will attract curiosity and suspicion, if only
because you're doing exactly what those engaged in illegal activities
do.

> Personally I can see several ways that innocent information held about
> me by strangers could end up causing me harm, but I cannot see a great
> deal of harm to me would result if those people *didn't* hold such
> information. So even if I trusted the state pretty well (which as it
> happens I do not), I see no downside to erring on the side of caution
> - it's not as if it costs me anything.
>
> The problem with giving away information about yourself is that you
> can almost never get it back should it prove to have been an unwise
> thing to have done. If however it ever becomes advantageous for the
> state to know particular details about yourself that they do not know,
> that deficit can usually be rectified within a few minutes.

Your rationalisation, even if it's correct, won't dispel suspicion.