back to article 'Snoopers' Charter IS DEAD', Lib Dems claim as party waves through IP address-matching

IP address-matching powers for police and spooks are to be pushed through Parliament with the blessing of the junior member of the UK's Coalition government, after the Liberal Democrats claimed today that the Snoopers' Charter was "dead". Home Secretary Theresa May The move has been expected for some time. In May 2013, it …

Page:

  1. Disgruntled of TW
    FAIL

    Blind leading the blind

    Once again fantastic claims of "aiding crime prevention" without a shred of evidence to support them. Ms May appears ill informed, and thinks all she has to do is convince a non-technical parliamentary group to give her something she can wave as a trophy. Where are the subject matter experts, lining up to support her? Scared of peer review I expect.

    And does a DSL DHCP allocation to a router go far enough? If not, do they think ISPs can afford to deploy technology to map an individual (ID cards anyone?) to an IP address beyond the NATing router? What about public access points? VPNs? Proxies? RFC1918 addresses? They have no clue.

    If she succeeds, as there aren't enough security professionals to vote her out, she will go down as the Home Secretary that gave away our freedom.

    1. Adrian 4

      Re: Blind leading the blind

      "If she succeeds, as there aren't enough security professionals to vote her out, she will go down as the Home Secretary that gave away our freedom."

      Like all the home secretaries before her.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Blind leading the blind

        Like all the home secretaries before her.

        Yes. That's the role, isn't it. Shame they don't ham it up a bit; like, say, deliver these speeches as Richard the Third (okay, I suppose in one respect that's exactly what they do - but, you know, dressed for the part).

        The whole place is like a lot of poor to mediocre character actors. There were some good ones once upon a time but they kicked the bucket or anyway succummed to old age years ago. No leads. It's like English football without the Premiership or the Championship, as if Division Three was the height of our excellence.

        Cabinet Ministers trying to do comedy:

        Customer: "I wish to make a complaint"

        Director: "Register!"

        Customer: "Uh...I wish to complain about a register"

        Director: "For fuck's sake"

        Shopkeeper: "Certainly sir. If you'll just complete this form"

        Customer: "Dum de dum de dum"

        Director: "The parrot! The fucking parrot! "

        Customer: "Oh! Yes!...Er, I have a parrot!"

        Shopkeeper: "It's a very nice parrot sir!"

        Customer (to Director): "Shouldn't I say it's my wife's parrot?"

        Shopkeeper (to Director): "What if it's his second parrot? Would he even bring it in with that camera in here?"

        Director: "So much for the fourth wall."

        Customer: "This is for charity. It's tax deductible"

        Shopkeeper: "I'd be a lot happier if all this cash Children-in-Need raises every year went where it actually is needed! The sooner they're all microchipped, the safer they'll be!"

        Etc. Bored now.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Blind leading the blind

      Ms May appears ill informed

      Never mind that she also appears to be the daughter of Wurzel Gummidge.

      For those unfamiliar with the creature, look at that picture of the crone in the article, and then Google up an image of her dad. This could explain her feeble mindedness in handing the Stasi's requests for more snooping powers, because her brain is made of straw.

      In fact thinking about it, as May is a scarecrow, I think British politics has clearly been whisked away to fantasy land. Clegg's more than a bit of a tin man, Cameron's the cowardly lion. Which leaves the sad panda as Dorothy: "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Hampstead now!"

      1. frank ly

        Re: Blind leading the blind

        By strange coincidence, The Independent has just published an article about how Theresa May only sleeps for 5-6 hours a night. She seems to be positioning herself as Thatcher's heiress, projecting a strong-woman image. I assume that her PR team advised against being pictured with a hunting rifle while bare chested on horseback, since two of those activities would be illegal in this country.

        I'm wondering what the effects of long term sleep deprivation are on someone's physcial and mental health.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Blind leading the blind

          Paranoia, detachment from reality...were you around in the Thatcher era? I was never quite sure what she was on, but it seems to have come out since her death that the answer is "sleep deprivation and whisky". Sad really, John Major was worth ten of the mad old bat, and he's still around talking sense.

      2. hplasm
        Childcatcher

        Re: Blind leading the blind

        "Never mind that she also appears to be the daughter of Wurzel Gummidge."

        Ms May IS Emperor Palpatine. The photo in the article proves it.

        1. Red Bren

          Re: Blind leading the blind

          I find it distasteful that you're condemning Ms May on the basis of her appearance, when you could be condemning her for her words and deeds!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Blind leading the blind

            Mrs May is the main reason to get the conservatives out of power...

            She is the reason I won't be voting for them...

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Blind leading the blind

      And not just the issue of NATed addresses behind routers - this still doesn't meet the touted aim of "mapping an IP address to an individual". It just doesn't. It just gets you to at best, a device which is potentially shared by multiple users or at worst, a router which hosts a whole bunch of devices.

      A good few child porn cases already dropped through the net because the prosecution couldn't prove "beyond doubt" exactly who was using the computer at the time. How is this going to help?

      The worrying thing is how many politicos don't understand (or want to understand) any of this.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Blind leading the blind

        My wife is the only other person who shares my internet connections (assuming no wi-fi hijacking etc.) so if something came up about our IP address searching for something really bizarre and newly illegal (whatever the new thing is that's illegal) then the hammer will most likely fall on me - nevermind the fact that it will be my wife searching for stuff. She has a stronger stomach than mine and when she hears a rule 34 reference she can't help but go in search.

        "Come and look at this - it's really messed up!" she says. Mind bleach please!

      2. NumptyScrub

        Re: Blind leading the blind

        A good few child porn cases already dropped through the net because the prosecution couldn't prove "beyond doubt" exactly who was using the computer at the time. How is this going to help?

        Easy, they do it exactly like the law that required you to incriminate yourself for motor vehicle infractions; the driver (owner of the connection) is automatically held responsible unless they grass on someone else.

        Thereby solving several issues at once; the cost of a proper investigation is no longer required, they just need "went to IP address 21.22.23.24 which is Joe Bloggs" and bingo, you are guilty until proven innocent. Conviction rates skyrocket, politicians get to grandstand about how they made a difference, G&Ts all round :)

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Blind leading the blind

        @incarnis

        Well, to be fair, the population in general doesn't understand that its pretty damn difficult to track ACTUAL individual activity through an IP address or even a device that is shared within a household, so I don't fault pols for that. Its not reasonable to expect that they are going to know IT when they pass laws that involve IT, then pivot to know about agriculture when the farm policy bill comes up, then railroads when that comes up, etc.

        However, I do fault pols for passing laws about something they don't understand. It's like saying that we need a larger water supply, and we know that there are these unclaimed icebergs in the North Atlantic, so we're going to pass a law saying that our water supply issue is going to be resolved by lassoing icebergs floating around the North Atlantic and that will take care of the issue and we don't want to hear any more about it.

        Isn't there are committee in the House of Commons that should have at least a good layman's knowledge of IT and access to some genuine experts who are not in Parliament, and come forward with "Hey guys, what you are proposing is not going to work well for the following reasons"? As with agriculture, transport, health policy--there should be people who have a reasonable knowledge of these areas within committees devoted to legislation in those areas. Or are these committee members out there, but they are cowed into silence because they don't want to piss off the IT-witless party leadership?

      4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: incarnis Re: Blind leading the blind

        ".....this still doesn't meet the touted aim of "mapping an IP address to an individual"......" Think of it as prep work for IPv6, when the individual device comes with a fixed IP address. Until then, IPv4 still allows the coppers to at least track back to a firewall or router, which is a lot better than nothing. And as for logging DHCP that is childishly easy and would require trivial amounts of storage, so to say it is 'impossible' is simply untrue. Indeed, I'd be amazed if the ISPs weren't already logging all DHCP requests and IP addresses so issued.

  2. Christoph

    All these terrible things will happen!!!!!

    What a list of all the terrible things that will happen if you don't give them even more power to snoop on everything we do.

    Most of these will not be affected in any measurable way by the extra powers.

    The one thing that we do know for certain is that they will misuse the powers. Because they always, always do. Every single time any inside information on their operations becomes public, it is found that they have massively misused their powers.

    1. dan1980

      Re: All these terrible things will happen!!!!!

      @Cristoph

      ". . . will not be affected in any measurable way by the extra powers."

      This is exactly the thing. If you want to stand up and claim that Bad Things will happen unless your are allowed to disregard privacy and procedure then you should be required to list exactly what benefits you expect the changes to have.

      If they go through, there needs to be a review after 6 months. If your goals weren't achieved, the measures are repealed.

      They are so adamant that new powers will make everything better so fucking stand by that - tell us exactly HOW and by HOW MUCH. Commit to actual, MEASURABLE improvements that can be independently assessed in order to judge it a success or failure.

      What they are doing is - ostensibly - buying supposed safety at the cost of privacy and risks to our* personal information and liberties. It's a high price so tell us how much of this safety our freedoms are buying. No?

      * - I am in Australia but the same applies here.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All these terrible things will happen!!!!!

        @Dan1980

        Considered "should we do this" is not the nature of bureaucracies. After awhile the expansion of the bureaucracy and its powers becomes a goal in itself to keep generating larger budgets, more opportunities for employees, more happy customers who owe the bureaucracy.

        That's one of the things that I really credit America's founding fathers with, is a very clear understanding of the nature of governmental agencies who are initially "here to help". If left unchecked, before too long they start "helping" themselves to this or that at your expense.

        And if you doubt what I'm saying, think of the last time you saw a big bureaucracy that of it's own accord came to the conclusion that "we are doing too much, and we really need to cut back our activities".

  3. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    This must be really bad

    Even the vast majority of BBC commentards hate it.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "I'll have an IP address please, Bobby"

    It makes me nostalgic for an AOL style system where your IP address was continually changing.

    1. Tom Chiverton 1

      Re: "I'll have an IP address please, Bobby"

      Change your router's MAC once a week and reboot then.

      The point is not that it's easy to get around (use a public wifi hot spot) it's that it's being rammed through, as part of a grubby compromise (see DRIP) with no evidence (again, shades of DRIP).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "I'll have an IP address please, Bobby"

        and for the devices behind that router, or if you use dhcpd on a different box; stop using RFC1918 and start using

        subnet 195.99.147.112 netmask 255.255.255.240 {

        range 195.99.147.112 195.99.147.126;

        default-lease-time 10;

        max-lease-time 10;

        }

        Make sure the PC you do bad things from is the machine at .120 ...

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: "I'll have an IP address please, Bobby"

        I haven't tried this with Comcast, but a few years ago I had to replace a failed Cox router which, of course, had a different MAC address. It would not establish connectivity until I had a chat with Cox tech support.

        Given that many or most of the IP addresses the provider gives out, and the number of computers and users attached to each, the evidentiary value of the information is apt to be quite low, scarcely more, in the US at least, than what is necessary to get a search warrant.

        I suspect that those who want anonymity had best change their computer's wireless MAC address and connect from a public WiFi point. That probably won't protect those who are active surveillance targets of concern to a nation-state, but would make tracking more difficult.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "I'll have an IP address please, Bobby"

        Try changing your mac address in windows 7 good luck with that !

      4. phuzz Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: "I'll have an IP address please, Bobby"

        Note for Virgin (notso)Superhub users:

        To change your IP, put your SH back into SH mode (assuming you were starting off in modem mode).

        Then change the MAC of your router.

        Then put the SH back into modem mode.

        Just changing the MAC of your router while in modem mode will stop you from being able to connect at all.

        (You can easily change your MAC in Win7, as long as the driver for your network device allows it. It won't help you get a new external IP though)

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Three words about security

    I have been using a VPN for a while - OK, so maybe it's not perfect against government level tech but I'm a lot more concerned about the local busybodies than the GCHQ/NSA bunch.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    any recommendations for VPN router?

    Hi,

    Can anyone recommend a good router that allows VPN configuration? I'd like to get one before that becomes illegal too.

    Thanks

    anon in case this comment is regarded as aiding terrorism or something

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: any recommendations for VPN router?

      Well, for just standard privacy, I'd suggest that you abandon whatever modem/router the TELCO offers you, (mine has 3 separate admin accounts, DSLAM-side accessible, with hardwired passwords that I haven't found yet) Just take out a single short ethernet cable to your managed router. Update the firmware to whatever is latest. These ASUS below have reasonable VPN, probably insufficient entropy to upset the NSA but enough to avoid any local crims.

      Then you're free to start your real network, perhaps one of the ASUS routers, whichever is cheaper RT-N16 (maybe £70) or Asus RT-AC56U (dual-core CPU and 256MB DDR3 RAM around £75) or perhaps Asus RT-N66U for around £100 though these prices vary, (I bought an N16 really cheaply from AmazonFrance of all places)

      The asus'es have great amounts of RAM & FLASH and work much better than anything available off-the-shelf. Although in EU the 'FritzBox' router is starting to take off, if you don't like asustek. My fritzbox only speaks german, so be careful if you go that route. enjoy!

      p.s. don't forget to generate fake data, such as large use of P2P which might contain steganography, or might be harmless, or whatever... browse websites that don't interest you..automate it

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: any recommendations for VPN router?

      Just because it's legal to buy one now doesn't mean it won't be illegal to use or even just own one in the future.

      Just look at the annual gun and knife "amnesties" held by the police every year. People handing over what may well have been legally purchased and owned weapons but which are now illegal even to possess.

      I'd not put it past goverment to at least try to ban or licence VPN use in the future.

    3. Rabbit80

      Re: any recommendations for VPN router?

      Just have a look for anything that supports dd-wrt firmware. I picked up a TP-Link WDR3600 for about £50 and immediately put dd-wrt on it. Works fantastic.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: any recommendations for VPN router?

      Ubiquiti Edgemax, runs Debian/Vyatta and as such allows you to use IPSec, OpenVPN (both without much hassle) or anything else you can install on Debian. Offers more features and flexibility than most top grade routers, but only costs a fraction.

      Excellent community forum and support available at no extra cost, too.

      Mine is almost constantly logged into 3 different OpenVPNs (job related), which would be a major pain to deal with on several local devices without such a router.

      Have had it for a year now, and while the initial learning curve was a bit steep-ish, it has paid off. Super reliable piece of kit.

      (Also anon, because with several VPNs and hardly any traffic leaving the house unencrypted, I must be on somebody's radar already.)

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: any recommendations for VPN router?

      One can assume they will use this new law to force VPN services in the UK to log details of who connects by making it illegal not to keep logs. My VPN provider (tinyurl.com/safevpn - Seychelles based) would likely just shut down their UK nodes as their ethos is against this kind of thing and logging is out of the question. Their nodes in Germany, France or Nederlands are only a few milliseconds different in latency anyway. America and the UK is the last place anyone wants to host anything these days due to ridiculous snooping and related laws.

  7. Richard Boyce

    Static addresses

    It would be helpful for both law enforcement and customers, if broadband customers were always given a static IPv4 address plus a group of static IPv6 addresses for as long as they were customers, as with PSTN phone lines.

    I note that some (perhaps many?) of the ISP-provided routers have firmware that conspicuously lacks support for DDNS services or supports only one professional DDNS service. ISPs really don't want to encourage VoIP services, which could explode if static addresses were widely available to the average residential customer, OFCOM permitting Or maybe despite regulation.

    So what we have here is a battle between ISPs and government, who all want to maximise their control and use of the customer, some for commercial purposes, some for political purposes.

    1. edge_e
      Facepalm

      Re: Static addresses

      Plusnet give you the option of a static IP.

      They seem like a pretty widely available consumer ISP to me.

      And why would ISPs care about if people used VoIP more?

      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Re: Static addresses

        I think just about every ISP gives you the option of a static IP and in a few years time large numbers of people will be using IPv6 as their principal connection and so have a "static" IP without even asking.

        It is interesting that both of these are currently seen as "up-market" options for geeks. Apparently Mrs May wishes to be able to track Joe Public with the same ease as she can currently track the geeks. (And yes, I'm aware that she vprobably can't track the geeks as well as she thinks she can.)

        It is also interesting that no-one has ever queried the privacy implications of (nearly) everyone having "static" telephone numbers or postal addresses. Perhaps we should be careful which battles we choose to fight. This one looks like we could let it pass. Requests for deep packet inspection or "long-term storage of everything you send" look like more important battles to win.

        1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

          Re: Static addresses

          Sure, let them have this slice of the salami. There's still loads of sausage left. Just one more slice is fine...

          1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

            Re: Static addresses

            "Sure, let them have this slice of the salami."

            They already *have* this slice. You are going to look rather foolish arguing that this is where you draw the line, when power users have been paying with their own money for many years without complaint for services that provide the spooks with this slice. If you make yourself look foolish now, when it doesn't matter, you will be less persuasive later, when it does.

      2. Tom 35

        Re: Static addresses

        "And why would ISPs care about if people used VoIP more?"

        Because a lot of them are also phone companies, or offer their own VoIP.

        1. frank ly

          Re: Static addresses

          I'm with Virgin Media in the UK and my IP address is 'static' in that it always stays the same. (Until they have a network 'upgrade', then my modem locks up and I have to phone them and they 'reboot' it and I get a new IP address). The longest time I went with the same IP address was five years. Also, if I check with whatsmyip.com and similar services, they tell me that the host name is cpc3-(redacted)-2-0-cust(redacted).cable.virginm.net, which suggests to me that I can easily be traced by anyone who contacts VM and asks them nicely where I live.

          Because of this, I have no problem directing my No-IP services to my home, until the next VM network 'upgrade' when I need to update the IP pointers.

          1. Anon5000

            Re: Static addresses

            It does make you wonder if they will force ISP's to have home routers firmware send MAC address info of devices and time of use in the future and are getting in the legal framework now. IPv6 will make it easier to identify individual machines too.

            1. Frumious Bandersnatch

              Re: Static addresses

              IPv6 will make it easier to identify individual machines too.

              Not if you use the recommended protocol where the device randomly picks its own address. It's called (<clickety>) "stateless address assignment", apparently (SLAAC).

              I had a longer reply here, but I deleted it. The short version is that you use rfc4941 to make each machine pick a random, time-limited address instead of basing it on its MAC address. For this sort of setup to work well, you need to have a /64 address space for each physical LAN you have. Most tunnel brokers only offer that as the default option, so you might need to ask for a larger address space if you need to segment your LANs (such as in my case where I separate gigabit from 100Mb segments).

              I was ready to set up such a system (with a tunnel broker) until about 2 weeks of to-ing and fro-ing with my ISP's customer support finally ended up with them saying that they "couldn't" enable the two things that I needed on their side to get this to work. What two things? Bloody simple things, actually: respond to pings from the tunnel broker on their router and allow for forwarding of protocol 41 packets. I tried asking for someone higher up in the chain, but never got an answer. I have a dedicated server (with a single /64 IPv6 address range) out on the net, so I could set up a VPN on it and securely route one of my subnets out over it but in the end I decided it wasn't worth the hassle...

  8. Cipher
    FAIL

    Sady this woman has no clue as to how easy it is for a bad person with merely average skills to overcome her "solution."

    A case could be made that with the inevitable tuts on neutering her grand plan expanding all over the interwebz that she is actually assisting bad actors.

    Terrorists and organized crime already know how to evade detection, soon cyberbullies will as well...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Came here to say exactly the same thing. The magic "IP-matching" gives you a billing address and a name. What it completely fails to take into account is that a home/business internet account is a bloody gateway. At least whoever is living in the house, plus potential 'guests' use that IP and that's just taking kosher use into account.

      There's also use of VPNs; outsiders using that connection through open wifi; outsiders using compromised machines on that network; direct assault on the router or a bunch of other ways in.

      I can have 4 different IP addesses without moving from this chair. A short walk would net me a beer and a bunch more. And, of course, full naughty mode with Kali would net a potentially infinite number of IPs.

      Even if the law was to be approved; the evidence it produced would be circumstantial, at best, so -as laws go- it is not fit for purpose.

      1. billse10

        "Even if the law was to be approved; the evidence it produced would be circumstantial, at best,"

        It's late but that's just made me think of a scenario:.

        Prosecution: It was this IP address, so it was you.

        Defence (carefully briefed): Prove it.

        P: This IP address was allocated to your router at the time.

        D: Not my router, mate, ISP gave it to me. Their router, I don't own it, or get any say in it's management.

        P: They say this IP address was allocated to your house, and under the ConLabDem-sponsored "FSCK Freedom" Act that means whatever was done from that IP address was done by you.

        D: Really? No-one at ISP has the brains to falsify logs then? Really? Let's ask them. One at a time. Call witness (one of ten thousand) ...

        D: ok, so now we know the ISP employs a load of people capable of faking it. Who says i'm responsible?

        P: Err, the Home Secretary

        D: Right, let's have her/him on the stand next. This'll be fun.

        P: Err .. err .. panic panic .. Crown Immunity

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Yep, I just scanned a village with a 2.5GHz Yagi antenna & a Pineapple

        I'm not as good as GCHQ who can allegedly do this from 8km, but at just 2 kilometers distance I was able to scan an infinite number of nearby Wi-Fi Access Points, and being evil(for research purposes only) I chose one WPA2 AP, used Kali, generated a number of unencrypted 802.11b/a/n/g management frames & success! I chose an AP that I owned, and intercepted traffic from my own device from 1.3 miles away!!! not-line-of-sight

        It means that even a 'secure' Wi-Fi access-point associated with an 'IP-address' isn't necessarily responsible for all the traffic,

        further this 'secure' Wi-Fi access-point associated with an 'IP-address' could be hacked for between £0 and £100, depending on whether you make your own yagi or repurpose summat else,

        finally as my TELCO supplied modem/Router associated with my 'IP-address' has lots of back-doors/management-ports/GCHQ-scans/Putin-bot-scans then even I don't know the origin & destination of every packet floating around my system, but they could plausibly be from someone/something else

        circumstantial? how do we explain "security/risk" to an 'establishment' judge??

  9. John Watts

    won't somebody please think of the children!

    "For example, it can be used to identify a child who has threatened over social media to commit suicide."

    I'd argue the information on their profile would be a better and quicker way to identify them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: won't somebody please think of the children!

      But that involves asking a US corporation for information which they may not give you because of the pro-corporation (and pro-abuser) mess that is now case law around the First Amendment.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Coat

      Re: won't somebody please think of the children!

      "For example, it can be used to identify a child who has threatened over social media to commit suicide."

      So pro-actively monitoring children's posts on social media are we? Perverts!

      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Re: won't somebody please think of the children!

        "So pro-actively monitoring children's posts on social media are we? Perverts!"

        Careful with that line of argument. There is plenty of case history on El Reg forums for the proposition that once you've posted on the web then it is public and you can't really claim a privacy breach if it is read by people who you don't know.

        Also, you'd only be a pervert if the posting was obscene, although with the UK's silly laws you wouldn't know that until you'd read it by which time it would be too late. Oops!

        Also, also, I can't help but observe that suicide is irreversible, so if you are going to do anything then I suppose you ought to be pro-active rather than retro-active.

        Also, also, also, didn't the Samaritans try this the other week and were quickly slammed for the idea. Now Mrs May thinks it should be law. Sheesh! Go figure.

  10. nsld

    All you need

    Is an open wifi network of which you will find plenty and Tor running and you are good to go, use a dumb terminal with no hard drive and an OS on a stick and what will they have?

    This is really aimed at the man/woman in the street so that the mission creep we saw with RIPA can be enhanced so they know what episode of strictly you watched when you put the wrong bin out.

    And that's before we get people spoofing IP address details or cloning kit to make it look like someone else is up to no good.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon