Privacy & Data Protection

ZENER

Is it just me or does anyone else have a problem with "sharkman" displaying their ISP - IP - Browser - Platform at the base of his posts.

I'm aware that this information can be gleened in many ways but the posters on this board have the choice to remain anonymous. Publishing this kind of information, in my opinion, should be stopped.

What other information can this user obtain about me or anyone else using boards.

This information, if the user is using a dial-up connection where the IP would change regularly, is not too bad - but with an ADSL connection that is on 24-7 it's a different matter.

I intend to review my firewall rules with regard to this shortly and put a stop to this information being obtained from my machine.

Tinky

jim_bob

havn't seen it yet but i'm guessing it's the normally script
don't worry the only one who can see the information is you

you see it reads your info and displays it to you if i go to the site it will read my info and show my details to me .

seamus

This discussion was brought up before and everyone had their opinions, so nothing was changed.

The information in sharkman's sig is visible only to you. Whether it is stored on the pictures originating server or not, is none of boards.ie's concern.

If you are worried about this information being taken, then turn off signatures in your user cp, or as you say, either tell IE to download no pictures, or use your firewall rules to stop pictures being downloaded from that particular server.

Afaik, some browsers also let you turn off image downloads on a site-by-site basis.

The Muppet

Is it just me or does anyone else have a problem with "sharkman" displaying their ISP - IP - Browser - Platform at the base of his posts.

Just to save you the hassle of looking up the old thread someone (can,t remember who) explained it perfectly as like complaining of seeing your own reflection in a mirror.

dahamsta

Originally posted by The Muppet
Just to save you the hassle of looking up the old thread someone (can,t remember who) explained it perfectly as like complaining of seeing your own reflection in a mirror.

Perhaps tinky finds that offensive.

ecksor

Originally posted by tinky
Is it just me or does anyone else have a problem with "sharkman" displaying their ISP - IP - Browser - Platform at the base of his posts.

Some do, some don't. I do not believe we should give posters this sort of web bug ability. It was discussed here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99897

Unfortunately, given the outcome of that thread, your only alternatives are to surf boards with signatures and/or images turned off or (what I do) surf using a proxy.

Roller Toaster

I don't mind that particular one too much but I think that it opens the door for worse in the future. From now on I plan to browse with signatures off.

ecksor

Originally posted by seamus
The information in sharkman's sig is visible only to you. Whether it is stored on the pictures originating server or not, is none of boards.ie's concern.

Actually, I think it is. We're essentially publishing content that we don't host. If a user is so inclined, they could request a description of what little protection we have over such information and they can decide whether to trust us or not. Once we start to publish content from other servers then we lose that control completely and cannot make any guarantees.

jd

Originally posted by ecksor
Actually, I think it is. We're essentially publishing content that we don't host. .................. Once we start to publish content from other servers then we lose that control completely and cannot make any guarantees.

Perhaps you could restrict sigs so as they may only include images from the boards server..
members can get web space at
http://members.boards.ie/index.html
Dunno, maybe it would be one compromise...

ecksor

Originally posted by jd
Perhaps you could restrict sigs so as they may only include images from the boards server..
members can get web space at
http://members.boards.ie/index.html
Dunno, maybe it would be one compromise...

Aye, I have suggested this in the past and I see it as the ideal compromise.

seamus

Originally posted by ecksor
Aye, I have suggested this in the past and I see it as the ideal compromise.

/me nods in agreement

Roller Toaster

We're talking about all images here right, not just signatures? Looking at it in a different way people often post up pictures from other sites without the author's consent and it's unfair to image leech when they could just host the picture on the website here or their own personal space. Image leeching is a bannable offence on the Something Awful forum since they provide their own hosting space for the users there, I don't see why boards should be any different but rather than banning just make it so that theres a script similar to the signature violation one that replaces the linked image.

DeVore

Rarely have I read such stupidity. You go ahead and turn off sigs or "reconfigure" you're firewall rules to stop people getting your IP.

You go do that.

fs... to quote Ripley, Did IQ's just drop sharply??

Shessh. Learn how the internet works.

DeV.

ZENER

Perhaps you are the one who should learn my friend. Learn not to be so arrogant.

I accept that the sig in only a script and that only I can see these details - or so we are lead to believe.

Hypothetically though, its possible for someone to have a link in their sig that points to an infected file. Who is responsible then ?

Or that this "innocent" script contains some other nasty that can use a port that a firewall could block . . the point is it's downloaded to MY computer and executing on MY computer because boards permits it !

fs .... to quote John Wayne, Get of your horse !

Tinky

DeVore

I highly recommend you dont go outside your front door.

DeV.

DeVore

Hypothetically though, its possible for someone to have a link in their sig that points to an infected file. Who is responsible then ?

You and they are. Dont follow links you dont know. Dont talk to strangers either.

Mostly, dont open files.

Or that this "innocent" script contains some other nasty that can use a port that a firewall could block . . the point is it's downloaded to MY computer and executing on MY computer because boards permits it !

Someone please explain to tinky that it runs on his server, generates an image and serves that.

I intend to review my firewall rules with regard to this shortly and put a stop to this information being obtained from my machine.

I agree, I think you should stop your IP from going out. I think that would be a good thing for all concerned.

DeV.

amp

I see my comments have been removed from this thread. Fair enough. They could be construed as offensive and arrogant, which given Devs recent comments I take is now the preserve of Admins. My humble and sincere apologies.

Here's some helpful advice for Tinky:

You can put people who's sigs offend you on ignore.
You can turn off the ability to see sigs.
You can choose not to come to boards.ie.

But I presume action must be taken to thwart this new high security risk. QUICK! TO THE OVERREACTION CHAMBER!

Image leeching is a bannable offence on the Something Awful forum since they provide their own hosting space for the users there,

Image leeching is banned on Something Awful when the image is large or the hosting site hasn't given permission for it to be linked. This doesn't include putting up pics onto your own homepage space. I've posted a load of pics to SA, hosted on my own IOL webspace with no problems. Only those with platinum accounts can host files on SA anyway and do you really think that it would be a good idea for boards.ie to host every single picture that 9000 odd users use?

The boards servers diskspace could be used for more productive things then some stupid obscure potential security risk, which can be negated at any time using the methods I've highlighted above.

(hmmm "potential security risk".... getting a wierd sense of deja vu here)

P.s. Thanks to ecksor who provided me with inspiration for my next journal entry!

DeVore

I didnt edit your comments (in fact I didnt see them so I cant comment on them).

DeV.

jerk

although i think you lot are overreacting, I do think that if sigs had to be kept on boards servers it would at least stop the idiots mooing.

-note to people-

Your Operating System IP and what version browser you are using can be taken by EVERY website you visit without you even knowing if they wish it.

as devore the plonker said, learn how the internet works.

Talliesin

Originally posted by tinky
Perhaps you are the one who should learn my friend. Learn not to be so arrogant.

Talking authoritatively about something you know about is only arrogant if you assume nobody shares that knowledge. Talking authoritatively about something you don't understand is both arrogant and ignorant.

Yes, people can do things with your IP address. For example they can send you the web page you just asked for.

I accept that the sig in only a script and that only I can see these details - or so we are lead to believe.

Whether the image acts as it is claimed or whether it also logs the IPs in question is besides the point. You give your IP to every webserver you contact, just like you give your postal address to amazon if you want them to deliver a book - and for the same bloody reason.

I'm neutral on the question of whether we should restrict images to those hosted on boards. Ecksor does have a point, but sharkman is no more a risk to you than anybody else posting an image - turn off images if you don't like it.

Hypothetically though, its possible for someone to have a link in their sig that points to an infected file. Who is responsible then ?

Hypothetically it is possible for me to give someone directions that involves crossing the Liffey by jumping in head first. I refuse to accept that I'm responsible if someone follows my directions.

Links are directions. In the situation above the people responsible would be those that posted the dangerous material, and secondarily those that allowed it to run. Boards would probably do something about the link, but only because we don't like assholes, not because boards is responsible.

Or that this "innocent" script contains some other nasty that can use a port that a firewall could block . . the point is it's downloaded to MY computer and executing on MY computer because boards permits it !

It's executing on sharkman's computer and producing an image file which is being displayed on YOUR computer because YOU permit it.

fs .... to quote John Wayne, Get of your horse !

Oh no, you've quoted a self-serving racist idiot who dodged the draft in WWII out of pure cowardice and then whined about anti-Vietnam protestors. The moral high-ground is lost to us now, what shall we do?

tribble

Oh this is pathetic.

If you don't want anyone seeing your IP then don't go on the internet folks.

Every web, ftp, telnet server you talk to has your IP and probably logs it. If you have a problem with that go use an anonymising proxy - try http://nonymouse.com/ with Mozilla and Java and scripting turned off.

Sure there is the potential that the image infected - but that is NOTHING to do with it showing your IP - ANY image linked to a remote server by boards.ie carrys that risk.

It's like your shadow - it follows you everywhere - if that frightens you then sue it.

tribble

/typo

jerk

Originally posted by tribble
Oh this is pathetic.

....

It's like your shadow - it follows you everywhere - if that frightens you then sue it.

tribble

/typo

what he said.

echomadman

http://www.plinko.net/404/supersleuth.asp
go there, and see exactly how much information your computer is handing over, to *every* webpage you visit.
Privacy online is often just an illusion.
My advice is, If you're worried about your "sensitive information" being compromised, dont put it on a net-conected machine

amp

Originally posted by DeVore
I didnt edit your comments (in fact I didnt see them so I cant comment on them).

DeV.

Here ya go

Talliesin

Originally posted by echomadman
http://www.plinko.net/404/supersleuth.asp
go there, and see exactly how much information your computer is handing over, to *every* webpage you visit.

Hmm. Some of that is actually information about the server, not about the browser or the machine it is on.

Seriously though, echomadman's point is right - nobody ever said the Internet was anonymous (well okay, lots of people did, but differentiating between glossy magazines and real life is an important skill to develop).

amp

Found an interesting thread on another forum by the creator of that sig:

http://www.viperalley.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=offtopic&Number=124367&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=&vc=1

WARNING! THIS URL IS AN EXTERNAL LINK TO ANOTHER WEBSITE! THEY MAY LOG YOUR IP ADDRESS, OS, AND BROWSER TYPE THERE! IN FACT THEY PROBABLY DO!

ZENER

Quote:

Talking authoritatively about something you know about is only arrogant if you assume nobody shares that knowledge. Talking authoritatively about something you don't understand is both arrogant and ignorant.

Well Talliesin I guess that just makes you arrogant so !
I am reasonably familiar with the workings of the internet

Quote:

Rarely have I read such stupidity. You go ahead and turn off sigs or "reconfigure" you're firewall rules to stop people getting your IP.

DeVore, I never said I wanted to block my I.P. I implied that I was uncomfortable with the ability of scripts to obtain information about me and return them to persons unknown to me. You, too, according to Talliesin's definition are arrogant.

Quote:

DeVore: I agree, I think you should stop your IP from going out. I think that would be a good thing for all concerned.

By definition, Arrogant !

Quote:

amp: But I presume action must be taken to thwart this new high security risk. QUICK! TO THE OVERREACTION CHAMBER!

Muppet !!

Quote:

jerk: as devore the plonker said, learn how the internet works.

By definition, Arrogant !

Quote:

Talliesin: It's executing on sharkman's computer and producing an image file which is being displayed on YOUR computer because YOU permit it.

By your own definition, Arrogant & Ignorant !

Quote:

Oh no, you've quoted a self-serving racist idiot who dodged the draft in WWII out of pure cowardice and then whined about anti-Vietnam protestors. The moral high-ground is lost to us now, what shall we do?

Ok then!
To Quote Sgt. A. Apone:
I don't know. Is there anything you can do ?

Tinky

ecksor

I moved away amp and tinky's comments, since they weren't helpful or relevant. If amp wants to push his agenda about what a fascist I am for restricting his powers then he is welcome to start a new thread here.

I stand by my opinion that it would be better if we didn't allow this functionality. I'm not about to be convinced otherwise by anything I've seen here so far either.

amp

Oh get over yourself ecksor, I was joking ffs. You're the one that seems to have the agenda, I noticed that the other scathing attacks on tinkys stupidity were left untouched.

Guess that's my mistake for fucking with an admin. Not that I accused you of being a fascist, I actually said: "Also I welcome more restrictions on Boards.ie. Only through these restrictions can we create a more fascist bb than Stormfront!"

Even you've gotta see that I was going OTT for the laugh. Christ, if I'd a euron for everytime I've been called a fascist.

I am against dumbing boards down to tinkys level of stupidity. There are loads of minor unsecure things about boards. It doesn't mean we have to act on every single one of them. As you know yourself the ultimate security measure for ensuring boards.ie doesn't get hacked or erode peoples privacy would not to allow posting at all.

Balance is required.

ecksor

At least the other comments were somewhat relevant. If it was a joke rather than a serious comment, then you shouldn't care that I moved those posts.

I am looking for a balance. I have even presented a compromise on more than one occasion that doesn't prohibit people from posting images and addresses the concerns of the original poster. That is a balance. The people who are shouting "you don't understand the Internet" and similar at the people who object to external images are not presenting any such compromise.

Don't give me crap about not being willing to achieve a balance. How about you come up with an alternative compromise?

ZENER

amp: I am against dumbing boards down to tinkys level of stupidity.

Oh Dear ! Maybe you should do another FAS course .... on humility !

If you're gauging my "stupidity" on the your belief that I am uneducated then you are very wrong.

I may not word things very well in my posts or may post replies out of frustration or temper but don't make the mistake of assuming I am stupid.

Using other peoples knowledge to gloss your own posts is not intelligence it's plagiarism.

Tinky

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by ecksor
I am looking for a balance. I have even presented a compromise on more than one occasion that doesn't prohibit people from posting images and addresses the concerns of the original poster.

I don't think it's possible to do that (wrt. the concerns of the OP), no matter where those sigs. are hosted, if someone doesn't understand what's going on with them it's not going to be possible to compromise imo.
Either there not allowed at all, or else them are and anyone with objections can turn off sigs or just live with it.

amp

Originally posted by ecksor

Don't give me crap about not being willing to achieve a balance. How about you come up with an alternative compromise?

I already have:

Originally posted by amp

You can put people who's sigs offend you on ignore.
You can turn off the ability to see sigs.
You can choose not to come to boards.ie.

Three ways to address tinkys concerns. It also gives him/her the responsiblity of managing who sees his/her ip, and takes away the hassle and resources of having to require that sig images be stored on boards itself. How many users have external images in their sigs? How many have yet to configure their boards webspace. In short how much hassle would it be to implement this compromise of yours?

Personally I worry if every muppet who comes in here with some worthless complaint that nobody else seems to give a crap about is taken seriously.

I value my jokes, they make me laugh, sometimes they make others laugh. Just because something is funny doesn't mean it deserves to be deleted. I don't see you deleting anybody elses attempts at humour.

P.s. I can't help thinking Tinky's a troll.

ecksor

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
I don't think it's possible to do that (wrt. the concerns of the OP), no matter where those sigs. are hosted, if someone doesn't understand what's going on with them it's not going to be possible to compromise imo.

Anybody who chooses to visit boards.ie sends all the aforementioned information to us. The issue is that it is being shared with others that have nothing to do with boards.ie

If any/all images are hosted by boards.ie, then this issue goes away.

ecksor

Originally posted by amp
Three ways to address tinkys concerns. It also gives him/her the responsiblity of managing who sees his/her ip, and takes away the hassle and resources of having to require that sig images be stored on boards itself.

Ok, so you are advocating that anybody who is concerned (this assumes that they understand the risks) should reduce the functionality available to them on boards.

I would rather that people can leave all images on while visiting boards, and not have to worry about such things.

In short how much hassle would it be to implement this compromise of yours?

I have a fair idea of the problems involved with it. No doubt it would be myself putting in the time and effort to overcome them to implement this, so I think I'm justified in saying that this isn't a valid argument for you.

Personally I worry if every muppet who comes in here with some worthless complaint that nobody else seems to give a crap about is taken seriously.

Duly noted.

amp

Originally posted by ecksor

If any/all images are hosted by boards.ie, then this issue goes away.

You want any/all images stored on boards.ie? Fair enough, you got me, good one ecksor. Nice troll. I guess I had that one coming

jerk

i think amp should go away.
-nice earring-

ecksor

Originally posted by amp
You want any/all images stored on boards.ie? Fair enough, you got me, good one ecksor. Nice troll. I guess I had that one coming

I thought I had made that clear from the beginning.

jerk

It was fairly crystal to be honest, you would have to be a complete imbecile to have missed the point, wouldn't you amp?

ecksor

Bye bye jerk.

amp

Originally posted by ecksor
Ok, so you are advocating that anybody who is concerned (this assumes that they understand the risks) should reduce the functionality available to them on boards.

You're not trolling?

You going to give me the 100 megs I have on IOL on boards? Times that by 9000 or so. Not every boards user will use it, but they could potentially use it. I presume you'll be shutting down Pixie Mix too then?

I'm beginning to doubt that this issue has nothing to do with Tinky at all, you've previously highlighted your concern with this and I think you're just using tinkys complaint to push through yet another draconian measure.

This is fucking insane.

P.s. Hi Fisty!

ecksor

Originally posted by amp
You going to give me the 100 megs I have on IOL on boards? Times that by 9000 or so. Not every boards user will use it, but they could potentially use it. I presume you'll be shutting down Pixie Mix too then?

I don't know where you get your presumptions from. Or your figures for that matter. Suffice to say that diskspace isn't the main concern.

I'm beginning to doubt that this issue has nothing to do with Tinky at all,

Er, ok, you're finally up to speed here.

you've previously highlighted your concern with this and I think you're just using tinkys complaint to push through yet another draconian measure.

Tinky raised the issue again, and I answered his query and pointed him to the previous thread. It's not like I had magically changed my opinion. I don't know where you thought this was some great effort on my part purely to stand up for Tinky.

Why is this draconian or insane? One way, you get to post images in threads and in signatures. The other way, you get to post images in threads and in signatures. Possible restrictions might come in the form of quotas, I'll grant you, but I think we should encourage people to serve post less bulky images anyway for the sake of users' download times.

MarcusGarvey

Originally posted by amp


You going to give me the 100 megs I have on IOL on boards? [/B]

Have you linked to all of that 100megs in posts on boards.ie ?

The safest method would I guess be hosting on boards but that might take up too much diskspace/bandwidth.

How about trusting certain websites like homepages.eircom.net and various other Irish isps ? Can you trust them ?

Talliesin

Originally posted by tinky
Talliesin: It's executing on sharkman's computer and producing an image file which is being displayed on YOUR computer because YOU permit it.

Well okay then, I'm arrogant and stupid, but now modestly seeking enlightenment - what is happening pray tell?

ecksor

Originally posted by MarcusGarvey
How about trusting certain websites like homepages.eircom.net and various other Irish isps ? Can you trust them ?

Yay, a useful suggestion! I hadn't thought of that, but it sounds reasonable.

amp

Originally posted by ecksor

Why is this draconian or insane? One way, you get to post images in threads and in signatures. The other way, you get to post images in threads and in signatures. Possible restrictions might come in the form of quotas, I'll grant you, but I think we should encourage people to serve post less bulky images anyway for the sake of users' download times.

What about all the pictures I and all the other people have hosted externally and linked from boards in the past? You going to take care of all of them?

Diskspace isn't the main concern, but quotas maybe implemented.

Ah whatever, I'm tired of this ****. It's a losing battle anyway. You beat me on the view ip thing and your bound to win on this one too. More restrictions and sacrafices in the name of user privacy. User Privacy is king! The only people you can trust with your ip and email address is ecksor!

Here's a question for you ecskor: Have ever looked up a users e-mail address in the database and used that to unsolicitly contact them via say em... MSN?

Sorry, stupid question, Mr Privacy, you'd never do that. It must be me that's insane

ecksor

Originally posted by amp
Here's a question for you ecskor: Have ever looked up a users e-mail address in the database and used that to unsolicitly contact them via say em... MSN?

Sorry, stupid question, Mr Privacy, you'd never do that. It must be me that's insane

I don't think I've ever done that. Do you have a specific allegation to make?

amp

Good good ecksor. Glad to see you're a man of principle. Almost angelic in nature

Anyway back on topic:

Most users don't give a crap.
Most users don't have sharkmans sig.
Your solution affects all users. It will cause major inconvience to people like me who create and post pictures to boards. I do not want to have to reorganise my pictures. I have built a large structured setup on my IOL webspace and duplicating this would be a very large pain in the arse.

The few users that do give a crap can use one of my three suggestions. If they're that concerned let them take action. Give them the responsibilty.
Once again you're treating users on boards like sheep and presume to think you know what's best for them by making global changes to boards.

Any chance of you seeing the light on this one at all. Or are we going to be stuck in stubborn ecksor mode for the rest of the thread?

Or is it going to be a case of cue DeVore with the dancing lawyer excuse

"Yes your honour, Admiral_Ackbar.jpg trapped my ip address"

ecksor

amp, I think you've covered most of that previously here. Did you read MarcusGarvey's post by any chance? This is not something we've decided to do, so your indignant hopping up and down is even more tiring than usual.

I'll thank you not to pull vague statistics or implications of improper behaviour on my part out of your ass in future unless you have something to back them up.

Otherwise, I've been advised to stop bothering to argue with you, and I'm going to take that advice.

amp

Yeah well your overeactions get tiring too. Hopefully I'll have regained energy for the next "security crisis" to envelop boards. My statistics are as I said "potential" statistics and are far more likely imo than this "breach of privacy". Also I made no allegations so I don't know what exactly you want me to pull out of my ass.

I'm glad it's not going to be implemented, I'll hop no more. I'll start hopping again if it is going to be implemented, though.

Lastly, this boards is titled "Feedback/Suggestions", if you don't like my feedback then I humbly suggest that you either don't read it or ban me. I don't argue with you because I don't like you. I argue with you because sometimes I think you're wrong and you have the power to change boards completely.

DeVore

Eh, noone... not me Regi, ecksor, vex or even the inscrutible Cloud has the ability to change Boards completely. They'd get ****ed out of it by the other admins who arent short on giving their opinions believe me. I've been voted down before, trust me.

As it happens I *personally* dont think the security concerns warrant any restriction on the linking of images. I'm fully opposed to it and I've made that clear. Its unworkable, achieves very very little and affects everyone badly.

We've been through this one before... ecksor disagrees and thats his perogative and he's entitled to argue with you as much as you argue with him (and/or me) but its a community site and the admins decide and during that decision there is OFTEN consultation here (frequently when we cant think of a good solution or when we are divided on a specific idea).

The only reason I would ban such images in sigs is to stop the FUCKING DRIVING PAIN I get in my head when I have to read idiocy like "It's executing on sharkman's computer and producing an image file which is being displayed on YOUR computer because YOU permit it. "

DeV.