Is Big Brother watching you as you surf Indymedia????

All of your little sister and bros and those who do not identify with either are preparing to kick your ass. Just thought I would let you know. And to those who identify with big bro, your ass needs to be kicked as well. Have a nice day!

How do I monitor whether my computer is getting more pings at "incrementing ports?" What software is available to monitor that kind of activity for the different OSs out there: PC, Mac, Linux, etc.

jones: tell me your OS and I'll tell you about some firewall software for it. Any firewall should have logs of pings/scans/connection attempts, and do what you are asking for.

Here follows a simplistic explanation of the things that people are tripping about here:

A ping is just a check to see if a system exists at a certain address. You can open a DOS prompt (in Windoze) and do "ping google.com" to see what ping does. Nothing scary.

Port scanning is where each of the 1000+ commonly used TCP connection ports on a system are pinged one by one, to see if they are open or closed. This can be done against your own system (to test for vulnerability) or against another (to test for possible connections). Some scans are incremental (as mentioned above), some are random in location and timing in order to be more sneaky. Tools like nmap (do a google for it) let you test your system's vulnerability and provide lots of fun besides. ;)

Neither "port scanning" nor "pinging" are intrusions to your machine, merely "knocks on the door", and your machine only gives out as much information about itself as you let it.

To secure your computer from most intrusion: Shut down all unnecessary system services (Windoze: Start: Programs: Accessories: Administrator: Services). Get a firewall and install it. Get some anti-virus software (Norton Anti-Virus ain't free but it does the job). You will then be as "safe" as almost anyone on the Net. It's not too hard these days.

The last step is to make yourself more anonymous by using a proxy server to surf the Net. Using a web proxy means that your request for a web page (say  http://www.google.com/index.html) is sent to the proxy, instead of to google.com. The proxy server then asks google for the page, and serves it to you. Read more at antiproxy.com.

Steps:
1) I use www.antiproxy.com's proxy search engine to find a proxy with low latency (better speed).
2) Go to your browser's preferences screen. In Mozilla/Netscape go to Advanced/Proxies. Put the proxy server's address in the HTTP field. Click "OK".
3) I then test the proxy's effectiveness in hiding my identity, by going to www.youripis.com. This site displays the IP address which I appear to be coming from. Normally this would be the address of my computer; using a proxy, the proxy's address shows up. If you don't see your IP address anywhere on youripis.com's front page, you're good to go.

Of course you can still be traced back through the proxy's access log's - but realistically, "they" are not going to bother to do this for every random visitor to Indymedia.

Folks who complained of apparent port scanning after visiting activist websites, were either victims of coincidence, or they were tracked through their IP showing up on that website's visitor logs. A proxy would have avoided that.

Port scanning is not "the background noise of the Internet" as somebody said elsewhere on this site, but is also a fairly common experience for anyone with a cable modem, DSL or other always-on net connection. Don't trip if it happens to you. If you notice it at all, it's because you're fairly well protected by a firewall anyway.

I have a firewall, and my computer 'clicks' each time I get pinged. As I am writing these two sentences my computer has clicked about half a dozen times, and if I stay on the net for any length of time my computer will probably click click click hundreds of times. It clicks all the time, no matter where I go, and the problem here are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of 'script kiddies' using software toys that allow them to pretend to be hackers (hacking is now possible with all the convenience of a program windows, menus, buttons, etc., but only when the script kiddies port scanner returns vulnerable ports - no firewall. Even then, given how the port scanners would return tens of thousands of results, the ods that any one person would be nailed by the script kiddy are slim, since they have such an over abundance of results returned by their automated port scanners that work constantly, scanning every ip address on the net while the script kiddy is out skate boarding...

this port scanning is just a fact of life...happens all the time, and sometimes it happens very heavily, sometimes it slows down...it is random, and yes port scanning is now part of the 'background noise' of the internet today, due to script kiddies...if you check your firewall logs you find you are scanned from china, from russia, from europe, from brazil and on and on and on it goes...

I am no geek, and I don't play one on t.v. but I think that the Big Bro we are all running from can get any information, any time it wants, from this, or any other computer or site. Their problem is that the assholes would not recognize valid info if it bit them on their Ashcroft. Just think of all the information that they "had," and knew not what to do with it, prior to 911. Sure, they might get lucky, and catch one of us telling the truth, but then again, if they want us, all they gotta do is make up a few "factoids," as the courts, the press, the system, all belong to them. I say, DROWN THE FUCKERS IN INFORMATION.

of course big brother is watching you surf indymedia. who gives a shit?

Let's say the NSA wanted to monitor your web activity and all your blathering you do on this website. How would they go about it? The easyest way to do that would be to own a host or router between you and indymedia and monitor all traffic searching for your IP address. If I do a traceroute between me and indymedia and I'm in portland, I count 11 hops. That means everything I just typed goes through 11 different computers or routers before it gets to indy. If the NSA had control over any of those computers then they would be able to decipher everything I'm typing and trace it back to my house. There are presestant rumors in the telecom industry that unidentified men in black have total access to many of the big internet nodes here in town. It wouldn't suprise me if they did. What would I notice if the NSA were monitering my internet traffic? Absolutely nothing. It's passive, like listening. You would never ,could never know. Is it happening right now? Who knows? I do know that it would take an incredible amount of energy and money to monitor any signifigant portion of web traffic in this country. So of course they must be listening selectively. If you are doing or planning to do anything illegal, it would be totally idiotic to write about it in a public forum like this. These things can of course be traced back to you if you are not carefull. If you have something to hide and want to use the internet, then don't publish what you have to hide on public websites. If you want a secure connection between two computers that connection must be encrypted. Normally internet traffic is not. It goes over the wires in clear text for anyone to see. This includes email, IM, web traffic, everything. If you don't know if your connection is encrypted assume that it isn't. It's really very hard to be anonymous on the internet. Everything is logged. You are passing your communications to strangers in hopes that your messeges will be passed along and delivered. It's easyer for the government to listen to internet traffic than it is for the post office to read your mail. With the internet you can never know if your mail has been opened or copied while in transit. So just assume that it could be. Using off shore proxys, pgp and ssl are good for starters but what happens when the break your door down and simply walk out with your computer? It's been known to happen.

As far as the pings and what not goes. I run a website. In the last 10 minutes I've had over 100 non http ip connection attempts to the server. I use a packet logger called ippl. This ten minute snapshot gives me these impressions: About 60% of this traffic is a ping to see if my server is up and then a request for port 135. This is from teenagers trying to exploit a serious flaw in microsoft windows. This time it's RPC. It's the latest craze in exploiting shity expensive software made by a company that has been charged and convicted for a number of crimes. Next week it will likely be something different. Mabey port 80 and IIS again. Anyway is a microsoft problem. I don't use microsoft software so I could care less. If you do you should update windows, shut down all services on your box or get a firewall. The other 40% or so is just pings. This could be for any reason including people exploring the network, broken computers, people looking for IM clients, people looking for PTP nodes. Could be some kind of search bot for all I know. It's harmless and like knocks on the door and gunshots in the night is the background noise of the big city, I would call it the back ground noise of the net. It's a big scary world out there and the net is global.

But what's really the point in all this thread? I don't like the US government's policies. I don't like our local government's policies. I am a dissident. I am not ashamed of my opinions and veiws. If the NSA came and knocked on my fucking door and asked me, I'd tell them I think GW Bush is a fuck head and should be thrown in prison. The Portland Police Dept are brutal thugs. This is my country and I want it to be better. I've stood on street corners in front of hundreds of law inforcement officers and screamed these things as loud as I could. Why would I be worried if those little shit brains want to spy on me? I have nothing to hide.

If you do have something to hide however portland.indymedia.org is not a good place to hide it.

The surest, and simplest way to get Uncle bigbro to scrutinize your actions would be to take heroic measures to hide them. Uncle is always looking for those little suspicious movements, excess encryption, multifirewallproxybullshit things to give his moron geniuses something to do when they are not draping justice with more appropriate attire. Even then, though, like the man says, if you don't want everyone to know what you are thinking, why are you spewing all your words of wit to this or any other web site? All we have to fear is fear itself, and John Ashole. If he can frighten us, he has fuckin won, without ever having to do any of the work dorkya's assarm appointed him for.

Fuck You Uncle Sam -- if you really worked for the government you wouldn't be out in public on Indy Media mooning us with your pants down. Try and scare us all you like, your time will come; you and all your rich greedy corporate world-domination rip-off buddys are going down. We're not living in gated communities like you are 'cause we've got nothing to hide...then again, it's more likely that "Uncle Sam" is just some poor deluded trailer trash that the R's have convinced have his best interests in mind. Ha Ha Ha Ha...the joke's on you.

>> Is Big Brother watching you as you surf Indymedia?

Yes.

So, moderator, why was the original post from 'Uncle Sam' deleted?? If you're going to be selective about what you censor, why don't you just kill the whole thread?? Was the post from 'Uncle Sam' too likely to raise the paranoia level of your readers, in your opinion?? IMO, you should put 'Uncle Sams' post back in the thread and let it stand for what it is, and let your readers form their own opinions...or delete the responsed to 'Uncle's' post, as well...

Because I read so called Uncle's clip I can tell you it was not articulated info bent on raising paranoia but a bunch of trivial trash meant to flame people. If "Uncle" I had written anything of even the most trivial import I would be indignant too.

He's just a corporate drone crying out Uncle at Indymedia in hopes we will release the pressure.

How is "hidden" different from "deleted?"

I don't much care for corporate drone-speak, but I also don't much care for other people reading something on my behalf and then hiding it because I "probably wouldn't want to read it anyway." I don't like moderators and I don't like censorship. Even (and perhaps especially) when that censorship is exercised against words I might find offensive. If Uncle Sam is a tool and is just sowing disinfo, I think I am capable of discerning that without the benefit of others.

Where are the moderator policy and guidelines posted anyway? Do threads and comments just sort of disappear depending on who is on duty?

>> Like all IMCs, portland indymedia hosts a website with an open publishing newswire to which anyone can post text, images, audio and video using the online publish form, anonymously if desired. Unlike a newspaper or other form of media, content uploaded to the website using this form is published directly to the newswire without being approved or edited.

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/static/about.shtml

>> 2. All IMC's consider open exchange of and open access to information a prerequisite to the building of a more free and just society.

>> 4. All IMC's, based upon the trust of their contributors and readers, shall utilize open web based publishing, allowing individuals, groups and organizations to express their views, anonymously if desired.

I don't see anywhere in that text where it says "except for asshole corporate drones who post crap."

Hate to say it, but even Asshole Corporate Drones deserve an opinion.

 http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/PrinciplesOfUnity

Posted at the top of all publishing forms:

>>
-- advocate criminal activity indicating a specific time, place and/or manner
-- are duplicate posts (the most recent remaining on the newswire)
-- are obviously libelous or slanderous
-- interfere with the technical functionality of the website
-- are intended to disrupt the site
-- are empty posts (no content or gibberish)
-- are commercial advertisements
-- promote racism, homophobia, sexism, or other discrimination.
-- are obviously incorrect or misleading, including attempts to spread dis-information
>>

While I understand the reasons behind each rule, and while they all seem on the surface to be reasonable, more than half of them are dangerously gray and subjective.

"Libelous or slanderous?"

Against whom? There are many remarks I have seen which are libelous or slanderous here so far, but they are remarks made against a Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld. Or supporters of same. Is it okay to slander opponents on the right but not on the left? I have some very strong opinions about George Bush, but maybe we can all agree to loathe the guy. Fine. But what about supporters of Dean? Or Kucinich? Or Clark? Or Nader?

I don't particularly care for Nader and I might have some nasty things to say. Is it slander? Probably. Or maybe just spleen. Will a Kucinich moderator tolerate "slander" from a Dean supporter? Is it okay to slander Sharpton?

"Intended to disrupt the site?"

That's a rule only Ashcroft could love. Any post which a volunteer (moderator) deems "disruptive" can be hidden (and I'm not entirely sure what hidden means. Are hidden posts available for viewing SOMEWHERE on the site? If so, where? Is there a link which says: "this post has been hidden due to violation of editorial policy. Click here if you wish to view it anyway.").

"Empty posts?"

No content or gibberish? Fine. A post with no content needs to be deleted, but is a rant considered gibberish? How coherent does one need to be? I see a lot of poorly spelled, profanity filled, ALL CAPS rants. Some are just crowded with (what appears to me) useless info. But I just scan the post and move on.

"Are obviously incorrect or misleading, including attempts to spread dis-information."

I notice the word "obviously" is used again. But disinfo is rarely "obvious" unless it is clumsy. Further, sometimes individuals who mean well pass on disinfo without being aware of it. Who is to say what disinfo is? I'm not at all comfortable with an "internet volunteer" filtering my posts or posts which I read for disinfo. The entire reason I am reading this site is because I am sick as fuck of having someone else filter my info because "I don't need to see it" or "I can't handle it." And I don't recall seeing anything of the sort listed in the Indymedia "Principles of Unity" which I linked to before. My reading of that text lead me to believe that the content was moderator and censor free.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the efforts of everyone who labors on this site. I have really been spending a lot of time here recently going through the kind of content and opinions I can't find in very many other locations, but even a benevolent censor is still a censor.

Maybe the problem lies in the ambiguity of the article publishing. It is used as much as a message board as a news engine. Perhaps the site creators could more clearly differentiate between message board and news. Maybe the news could have an editorial staff, but the message board would be 100% moderator free.

Most published articles are simply hidden. You can if you choose to read those articles at anytime you want. At the very bottom of the articles their should be a hidden posts link.

As for comments, I believe their should be a hidden comments link who hate to miss even a word in a conversation. See for some of us it isn't the censorship, it's the fact you feel left out of some private joke or conversation. Who ever edited that comment, ruined a perfectly good conversation, amongst people who had some understanding of technical lingo. And the comment was more smartass than inflamatory.

A comment that reads forests activist should die and I am glad when you do, should be edited. But one that merely reads, yuor paranoid and won't get anywhere, and they are watching you, you are going down, blah, blah, blah, shouldn't be edited. It was the point of this debate.

I truly believe, because I have seen so, that there is over censorship of comments on this site, because there isn't accountability for comments going missing.

What would it take? Probably more money for supplies and equipment. If you want to get involved and change one very small part of indymedia for the better, then "contact us."

You don't have to be an armchair activis.

Also one thing you need to realize is that there are only about a handful of editorial staff editing thousands of comments a day. Indymedia can get slammed with spam posts and comments. It would be a full time job for all of them but they are simply volunteers. Since they all need to work sometimes they will get overwhelmed. There would be a lot less sloppy work and a hell of a lot more accountability if people would donate money, super good equipment, and time. There is a lot of work to do. Indymedia is beyond arm chair activism. Once you get involved you will find out all the ways you can help.

PS you do not need to be a tech. You can know nothing about computers and still find a way to help.

Why do you assume I am an armchair activist? I don't assume that of you.

And I have submitted an invitation to help. I didn't get a response. Perhaps I need to try again. And I will. Today.

When you say I can see hidden posts, are you talking about the "compost bin" link on the front? Last night it wasn't working for me, so all I got then was an empty page. However, I don't see such a link for "hidden" comments. Do those just get deleted?

And let me say once again that I appreciate the efforts of everyone who volunteers to keep this site going. It's a worthwhile and vital resource. I have criticisms, but I hope they are taken in the spirit of well-meaning feedback and not as an attack. Pardon me if the tenor of my posts can seem aggressive, but I am prone to getting excited rather easily.

I have run or moderated a few message forums before. In all of them the application software records the source computer's IP number. The IP is not usually visible to casual readers. The IP is visible to the forum moderator, or anyone who knows how to access and see it. It is recorded with every message and stays there. Why? Because some forums are not like this one. Censorship and control are essential. The moderator uses the IP to identify abuse and ban abusers. The IP for most broadband connections can easily and reliably identify where the source computer is located. The IP for most dialup connections changes with every call and is much more difficult to locate, but it can if the system logs keep this info.

Indymedia has not made it clear what kind of IP logging they do or do not do. I suspect they can see exactly what dialup IP I am at as I post this message. If they, or anyone, were to contact my ISP with this IP then my ISP could cross reference that IP with their user who was assigned it at the time of the message.

Unless Indymedia explicity denies that they record and log the IP of posters (and yes, reader's IP numbers can be easily logged too) then it is safest to assume you have ZERO privacy here.

Most ISPs will not devulge that sort of information to anyone outside of law inforcement. Indymedia could not call teleport and find out which user had what IP at what time. They would have to contact the MAN or file a law suit to get that info. See info about RIAA's suits against file traders. The RIAA got the info but only after going to court. You have a little tiny bit of privacy online from those in the private sector. Little tiny itsy bit.