Sheriff Joe (house, rent, lease)

[Bummer]

Originally Posted by ibarrio

And please show me where I said that I support crooks and criminals? I support our rights as citizens of the United States..obviously you do not and are eager to give them away. Very weak minded in my opinion.

Ok, where did I state or imply this ridiculous statement?

[Artliquide]

Originally Posted by Arizona Annie

So.... just so I can be sure I understand what you are saying here, please tell me if I misunderstood something. From what I understand from your statements...

#1 You are opposed to government officials having access to this information because you consider it spying.

#2 You collect the same information about people who visit your website.

So you are spying on people and it's o.k. in your eyes, but the government officials better not do it.

Did I get that right?

How wrong it is to "spy" on people's IPs really depends on who's looking at the info and what they intend to do with it. I took a pic of my boyfriend, photoshopped it, uploaded to my website. I looked at the log about a month later and saw a lot of hits for that pic on a different site. Someone had hotlinked my 100% original photo which was sitting on my website, which I pay for. Every time that pic was loaded, it was using up my bandwidth. So, not only did this person use a copyrighted photo without my permission, but they were stealing bandwidth from me.

I did the old switcheroo on them, which quickly prompted the person to remove the hotlink. Problem solved.

But, if I hadn't "spied" on them, they could still be stealing my copyrighted material and bandwidth today. Luckily, I pay a flat rate and don't usually get a whole lot of hits, so I wasn't losing money, but what if the photo was spread around, my bandwidth spiked and my host decided to start charging me more for using more bandwidth? Do you think that "spying" would still be wrong in that case?

Since this person chose to do this without asking my permission, I figure that it's fair that I spied on their ip. This is a case of justice. But, say, a big corp taking my information to spy on my spending habits would be a different story, in my opinion.

[kdog]

Originally Posted by ibarrio

Second. As an owner and operator/designer of a website I will tell that I do have access this this info on my website. My website logs the IP, the referring website, the website you went to after you left, how long you were on my website, which pages you visited while you were on my website, which browser you used, which country you come from, and so on...

If you do not believe me google it. Maybe the Mod can chime in...as he can see/find your IP very easily...

You're not following the thread.

This is the comment that I replied, which was right there in my post that you quoted.

Originally Posted by irwin

NONSENSE!

They don't just want the number of views on that one story but they want ALL PEOPLE who have viewed the website in the past years AND the other websites those people have viewed. That is absolutely ridicules. PERIOD.

I stand behind what I said. First of all, PEOPLE are not logged on web servers; IP addresses are. Big difference. The NY times does NOT have the names of PEOPLE, but only IP addresses. Get it?

Secondly, "the other websites those people have viewed" aren't logged either. A webserver gets exactly one previous URL from the browser, and that's assumed to the the referring link. I said this in several of my posts which you choose to ignore, along with the other data that a web server logs. Thanks for the HTTP lesson, but I certainly don't need one from you.

[ibarrio]

You can very easily get the names... How do you think the music industry is getting the names of individuals and suing? Get it? Apparently not.

And your not following the thread...because it isn't the NY Times...

Secondly, "the other websites those people have viewed" aren't logged either.

BS. I get the referring and exiting link...

Regardless, Joe and his cronies were shot down...and in the end that is what counts!

[kdog]

Originally Posted by ibarrio

You can very easily get the names... How do you think the music industry is getting the names of individuals and suing? Get it? Apparently not.

You're getting way off track here. I said that the NY Times doesn't have access to names, and I stand behind that. You and your cronies claim that Sheriff Joe sued the NY Times for NAMES. That is a LIE. He sued for web logs. The only way he could get NAMES is by then suing individual ISPs to track down residences. That is a HUGE undertaking, not "very easily" as you claim. Has he done that? NO. So quit saying he's after NAMES because there is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever.

And your not following the thread...because it isn't the NY Times...

It is NY Times folks that Sheriff Joe arrested and sued for web logs. That's what I'm talking about. What the heck are you talking about?

Regardless, Joe and his cronies were shot down...and in the end that is what counts!

No, what matters is the misinformation that you and your ilk are spreading on this forum about somebody that you don't like.

[ibarrio]

No, what matters is the misinformation that you and your ilk are spreading on this forum about somebody that you don't like.

misinformation? Your the one trying to tell people that it is not possible...when it clearly is.

Neither of us truly know his intentions but when it comes to Joe you have to assume the worse.

It would be a safe bet to take that Joe would take the IP's and take it to the next level...very safe bet. Good thing we will not have to find out.

[kdog]

Originally Posted by ibarrio

misinformation? Your the one trying to tell people that it is not possible...when it clearly is.

I never said that. You have shown a strong propensity for misconstruing what other say. I am done with you.

[Artliquide]

Originally Posted by kdog

It is NY Times folks that Sheriff Joe arrested and sued for web logs. That's what I'm talking about. What the heck are you talking about?

Yes, you are confused. You must not live in Phoenix. It's the Phoenix New Times

[ibarrio]

I never said that. You have shown a strong propensity for misconstruing what other say. I am done with you.

Thank you...move on. The people win this time!

[kdog]

Originally Posted by Artliquide

Yes, you are confused. You must not live in Phoenix. It's the Phoenix New Times

Oh! I was wondering how the heck NY Times owners got arrested in Phoenix. Thanks for the correction. Regardless, it doesn't change any of my arguments.