Greg Hanson says "Psychotropic meds can do good things, but most slowly kill the patient."

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?

I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add up.

Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking about.
Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that is placed
into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many non-secure) that
reports back to the web site certain information. Without that cookie on
his machine re-entry is not possible without the user ID and the password.

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?

Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an HTTPS
page.

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.

Yes they are gregg, both of them.

The HTTPS argument is a red herring.

Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.

It's a FELONY.

No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained is
used illegally.

Ron

Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
enlarges the criminal "enterprise".

"Michael©" wrote in message
. 97.140...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:


The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
"private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not
part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong.

Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
written permission.

Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
privacy, period.

Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.


Ron

But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?

Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!




A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is copyrighted
and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted because YOU
authored them.

Copyright is a complicated process, one that cannot be applied to internet
postings in public news groups mike. You claim copyright protections, but
they are not available to you. You might want to look up the copyright
process before you break out the lawyers.

Ron


A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The DMCA
makes that very clear.

--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

J.D.Wentworth wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
oups.com...

Greegor wrote:
Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?

You have as yet to prove he did so.

This is not the arena for Greg to offer his proof.

Arena?

Greg got a job at a circus?

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?

Hotmail was broken into?

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.

They were broken into?

No - Danno broke into other sites- Google is just an example of your stupid
https remark.

"Other sites???"

Such as?

The HTTPS argument is a red herring.


Show how this is so.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

You have yet to prove this assertion. Now you are talking as though you
had.

Provide proof please.

Not here stupid - the proof gets presented to the Court.

Which court?

Where?

In LaLa Land where Greg lives?

"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?

I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add up.

Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that is
placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many non-secure)
that reports back to the web site certain information. Without that
cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the user ID and the
password.

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?

Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an HTTPS
page.

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.

Yes they are gregg, both of them.

The HTTPS argument is a red herring.

Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.

It's a FELONY.

No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
is used illegally.

Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime until
he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.

While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury would
buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].


Ron

Enlisting others to lift this text FOR HIM only
enlarges the criminal "enterprise".

"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Michael©" wrote in message
. 97.140...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:


The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
"private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not
part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong.

Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
written permission.

Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
privacy, period.

Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.


Ron

But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?

Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!




A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is copyrighted
and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted because YOU
authored them.

Copyright is a complicated process, one that cannot be applied to internet
postings in public news groups mike. You claim copyright protections, but
they are not available to you. You might want to look up the copyright
process before you break out the lawyers.

Yes - stalking and harassment is what happened - not 'copyright
infringement" duh.



Ron


A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
DMCA
makes that very clear.

--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

"J.D.Wentworth" wrote in message
news:Lq05h.10$T_.7@trndny06...

"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?

I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add
up.

Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that is
placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many non-secure)
that reports back to the web site certain information. Without that
cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the user ID and
the password.

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?

Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an
HTTPS page.

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.

Yes they are gregg, both of them.

The HTTPS argument is a red herring.

Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.

It's a FELONY.

No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
is used illegally.

Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime
until he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.

While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury
would buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].

An interesting legal question. Is it possible to "stalk" someone through
the newsgroup process? After all, everyone knows that the laws have not
evolved quickly enough to keep up with the growth of the internet or the
expansion of technology for the last decade or so.

Somehow I don't believe that what Dan is doing can be construed to be
stalking. But each states laws are different. I'm fairly certain that
Iowa's laws are not up to the task, since I live within a mile of Iowa and
that is the state that gregg lives in.

Ron

"Ron" wrote in message
...

"J.D.Wentworth" wrote in message
news:Lq05h.10$T_.7@trndny06...

"Ron" wrote in message
...

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Faking an IP address to re-enter a private and passworded web site
that he was kicked OUT of under a phony name is AOK Ron?

I'm no web tech gregg, but from what I do know your story does not add
up.

Spoofing an IP would not be enough to accomplish what you are talking
about. Ever hear of cookies? A cookie is a tiny little text file that
is placed into your cache when you enter a secure site (and many
non-secure) that reports back to the web site certain information.
Without that cookie on his machine re-entry is not possible without the
user ID and the password.

Hotmail is not all behind HTTPS.
Do you think breaking into it is legal?

Hotmail IS behind a secure web page. The password and ID page is an
HTTPS page.

Yahoo and Google e-mail hosts are not all behind HTTPS.

Yes they are gregg, both of them.

The HTTPS argument is a red herring.

Seems that you know even less about web tech than you do about the law.

When a person is KICKED OUT of a private support group web site,
fakes an IP address to re-enter, and uses a bogus name, that's
pretty deliberate.

To lift "support group" text to repost publicly is a violation.
There is more than a little "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Breaking and entering is not legal whether it
involves HTTPS or not.

Pfishing for private information on the internet
is not OK.

It's a FELONY.

No gregg, its not. Its not against the law until the information gained
is used illegally.

Absolutely. Danno's use of Greggs private posts didn't become a crime
until he used them to stalk, harrass, intimidate, and falsely accuse.

While Danno has brought up some possible defenses, it's unlikly a jury
would buy any of them [his excuses are all rather lame].

An interesting legal question. Is it possible to "stalk" someone through
the newsgroup process? After all, everyone knows that the laws have not
evolved quickly enough to keep up with the growth of the internet or the
expansion of technology for the last decade or so.

Somehow I don't believe that what Dan is doing can be construed to be
stalking. But each states laws are different. I'm fairly certain that
Iowa's laws are not up to the task, since I live within a mile of Iowa and
that is the state that gregg lives in.

Well, Danno and Kane have admitted that their purpose in stalking,
harassing, and falsely accusing Greg is to deprive him of his First
Amendment free speech rights. They claim that allowing Greg to exercise his
free speech rights is 'dangerous' and have even provided him with an
ultimatum - stop advising folks about CPS and we'll stop harassing you !!

Iowa's statutes on stalking and harassment are clear.


Ron

"Michael©" wrote in message
. 97.140...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:


The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is considered
"private" unless it is secured behind encryption protocols. So, if the
pages he got this information from, assuming he did get it, were not
part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol) then he did nothing wrong.

Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
written permission.

Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
privacy, period.

Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.

You forget, you can get away with almost anything so long as you credit the
original author.



Ron

But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?

Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!




A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is copyrighted
and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted because YOU
authored them.

A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The DMCA
makes that very clear.

--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

"Michael©" wrote in message
7.140...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 03:21:16 GMT (Zulu), "0:-"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:


Michael© wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:20:56 GMT (Zulu), "Dan Sullivan"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:


The laws are pretty clear gregg, nothing on the internet is
considered "private" unless it is secured behind encryption
protocols. So, if the pages he got this information from, assuming
he did get it, were not part of a secure system (See HTTPS protocol)
then he did nothing wrong.

Except republish someone's copyrighted material without their express
written permission.

Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
privacy, period.

Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.


Ron

But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?

Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!




A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is
copyrighted and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted
because YOU authored them.

A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
DMCA makes that very clear.

Court cases please, for newsgroup and other casual conversation
exchanges on The Web.

Thanks in advance. 0:-


I wasn't discussing Usenet or exchanges such as e-mail which stays in that
medium. I was discussing Dan's cut and paste of others writings from one
place to another. They are not his and the author may not be very happy
with his work being published elsewhere.

Stealing something from one site to place on another if you lack
permission or you are not the author of the work is no different than
copying an article from a book or magazine and republishing it. It is a
violation of the owners copyright. You should heed the little notices next
time you copy entire news articles here instead of linking to them.

But it is legal as long as you credit the copyright holder...as Dan did with
'Greg wrote'






--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !




--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:43:01 GMT (Zulu), "dragonsgirl"
put the following graffiti on the walls of
alt.support.child-protective-services:

....

Once something is placed on the internet there is no expectation of
privacy, period.

Privacy, perhaps not. Copyright violations, abso****inloutly.

You forget, you can get away with almost anything so long as you credit
the original author.

I'll remember that when I'm ready to make unauthorized copies of the Harry
Potter books and sell them. I'll be sure to give credit to JK Rowling so
my ass is covered! LMAO!



Ron

But what if Greg Hanson SAYS so, Ron?

Doesn't that make a copy and paste job a FELONY???

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!




A popular misconception is that if something is on the internet, it is
public domain. That is not the case. My post for example is
copyrighted and protected because it is MY work. Yours are copyrighted
because YOU authored them.

A cut and paste job is at the very least copyright infringement. The
DMCA makes that very clear.

--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !






--
Michael©

Deutsches Vaterland Über alles in der Welt
Freiheit für Deutschland !