white_serpent
2009-01-26 07:54 pm UTC (link)

Well, I can't see how the IPs would get them anywhere close to useful information.

So, if they seriously thought the IPs on the email were not anonymized, they could say, "Hey, does this IP match one of the IPs on wank_report?" And let's imagine it does. What do you get from there, unless there's enough information in the anonymous post to identify the person involved. If you're matching an IP to a post by someone who's logged in-- there, at least, you can say, "Look! It matches! Aha-- it was you!"

Still, even in that situation, IPs are largely worthless, unless someone has a static IP (or one that remains static for months until the router is reset, say). Quite a lot of people have IPs randomly selected from an available pool. In which case: they probably won't match anyway, even if it's the same person.

Basically, unless you get a match really close in time, or multiple matches over time (like Scotch, for example), IPs can't tell you much of anything.

(It can be really funny when people start arguing with themselves or asking themselves for more information, though.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

white_serpent
2009-01-26 08:50 pm UTC (link)

*Actually, wait. I've been assuming that the purpose of wanting IPs was something to do with the alleged emails. If, instead, there are a couple of posts in those immense threads that quote or copy information out of posts which are, and have always been, flocked, then that's a little different.

That's something that's against the JF rules, so I can completely see a mod (or JF admin) handing the IP addresses for those comments directly to the person who complained. (As opposed to confirming whether or not they match a specified IP.)

Everything I said about IPs is still entirely true, but that may not matter if the purpose is just to boot people off your friendslist. A general location might be enough to know who you need to get rid of, or a school or employer.

That makes more sense as to why the person involved claims to have received two IP addresses off of those long threads.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

charmian
2009-01-26 11:12 pm UTC (link)

Hmmm, if that's so, then these anonymice are REALLY dumb. It's so easy to just use an anonymizer to disguise their IPs.

http://apetslife.livejournal.com/1596809.html

Hmm. Winterweathered is claiming that the w_r mods (or a mod?) just handed the Ips out (in her comments on the post). If WR isn't lying, I think the mice have a point. They shouldn't give out IP info so casually (assuming this is true), because it seems that WR (or the person who asked the w_r mod for her?) didn't even claim that this was about the emailer who outed her, just that she wanted to know who was saying nasty things about her on w_r.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

white_serpent
2009-01-26 11:36 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, she's saying she got two of them.

Agreed; if she's not lying, the mice have a point.

...But it hasn't traditionally been too hard to get IPs on f_w (or any of the other communities) if you ask, so I'm not sure how strong the presumption of anonymity is here.

Also, if I post a saved copy of a thread from any community in which I'm a "mod", for example, you can see all the IPs in it. (In quotes, because I maintain memories; I don't moderate. But I'm technically a maintainer on otf and cw, so I see IPs.) That's the view I have. I've done that once or twice when some mysterious and unexplained "accident" has led to the deletion of a post.

Is this unfair to the other people who were participating in the post?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

charmian
2009-01-27 12:32 am UTC (link)

Yeah, she could be lying, but if she is, she really is totally batshit insane to a) lie in public about something verifiable, and b) implicate unrelated parties in her lying.

True, but usually there is at least some proof of rulebreaking.

I think there are situations where it is unfair, but it's more of an oversight than anything else, because your intent wasn't to reveal their IP addresses, nor were they seeking under the situations specifically to hide their identities. But a case where a mod is asked for IPs of people who are trying to hide them seems to fall into another category.

The situation with the mice has kind of gotten rather crazy... but the comm belongs to the w_r mods, although if I were mod I would have told them long ago to just post wank or go to another anon comm.

(If it concerns you in the future you might want to just black out the IP addresses? if it's a screencap, or delete them in HTML)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	white_serpent 2009-01-27 01:24 am UTC (link)
	a) lie in public about something verifiable, and b) implicate unrelated parties in her lying. Well, waltraute's asked. So, we'll see. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	charmian 2009-01-27 04:41 am UTC (link)
	Hmm, very strange. I wonder what's really going on... (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	white_serpent 2009-01-27 05:52 am UTC (link)
	No idea. I could ask waltraute, but it's really none of my business. (...Not that I'm not happy to speculate endlessly about it, you understand...) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	charmian 2009-01-26 10:58 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah.... I don't see what it does. So you've proved that some anonymous person... is also an anonymous person on another board..? It just doesn't make much sense. Hahaha, that is weird. (Reply to this)(Parent)