NEWS The Seibold Rumours pt II: Pies Strikes Back

[007]

My guess is their "300 leads" are Facebook names who participated in the rumour. As far as I know, it's not a crime to tell someone something you heard. If it were we'd have to build thousands of women's field prisons to cope with the offenders.

Maybe @Jason Simmons can tell us whether they would have enough reason to demand the IP addresses associated with the accounts. I don't think Facebook would comply with such a trivial matter, unless they can frame it as a more serious crime. And once they have the IP's, they still have to get the ISPs to comply, presuming they're not using a VPN. And then they have to establish who in the household did it. They haven't had that kind of time.

More likely, they have the FB account names, and are treating them as verified names. I bet that Matty Johns Show page is "Matty Johns," for example.

Requires warrant based on likelihood of serious criminal conduct. They then require both IP and MAC + then requires proof a certain individual was actually behind the keyboard at the time, and not a friends friend, or child or who knows.

Recently went through having a stalker, and it took serious criminal conduct to finally get the warrant to get data from FB + IG and also seizure of phone/computer etc.

 

[McHunt]

Requires warrant based on likelihood of serious criminal conduct. They then require both IP and MAC +

How do you get the Mac address?

 

[007]

How do you get the Mac address?

Apparently IG logs MAC when user is on computer.

 

[McHunt]

Apparently IG logs MAC when user is on computer.

That sounds illegal. Not convinced it's true.

 

[BRC088]

Meanwhile the vultures are out in force already, preparing for the next captivating round of sensationalist drivel...

Looks like kerbside cleanup, feel free to pick what you want.

 

[Nashy]

That sounds illegal. Not convinced it's true.

That data is shared normally with an IP. I would be surprised if it took an internal MAC though. Having the Mac address of the modem is pointless as it still doesn't prove what device did the posting.

Scare tactics for days.

 

[McHunt]

That data is shared normally with an IP. I would be surprised if it took an internal MAC though. Having the Mac address of the modem is pointless as it still doesn't prove what device did the posting.

Scare tactics for days.

It might be possible for a mobile app to record the IMEI, which identifies the device, but I think that level of profiling is illegal.

 

[abashii]

It might be possible for a mobile app to record the IMEI, which identifies the device, but I think that level of profiling is illegal.

The app may well have access to your mac as well, a lot of them seem to grab whatever personal information the os allows.

 

[KnToad]

View attachment 9486

hahahahaha, worst photoshop ever, lol.

 

[Skathen]

It might be possible for a mobile app to record the IMEI, which identifies the device, but I think that level of profiling is illegal.

That and if its on 4/5G - all that traffic flow through CGNAT which requires device authentication. There's a very good chance that's all heavily logged due to the data retention laws etc. There is almost no chance a private group can access it legally though, they would need the police/AFP to get that level of access for which this simply would not qualify.

 

[The Strapper]

That data is shared normally with an IP. I would be surprised if it took an internal MAC though. Having the Mac address of the modem is pointless as it still doesn't prove what device did the posting.

Scare tactics for days.

It might be possible for a mobile app to record the IMEI, which identifies the device, but I think that level of profiling is illegal.

That and if its on 4/5G - all that traffic flow through CGNAT which requires device authentication. There's a very good chance that's all heavily logged due to the data retention laws etc. There is almost no chance a private group can access it legally though, they would need the police/AFP to get that level of access for which this simply would not qualify.

I am not a tech head so does all this mean in laymans terms that Garratt is just blowing smoke up everyone's arse?

 

[McHunt]

I am not a tech head so does all this mean in laymans terms that Garratt is just blowing smoke up everyone's arse?

No idea, but I wouldn't be letting him anywhere near my wallet.

 

[Nashy]

I am not a tech head so does all this mean in laymans terms that Garratt is just blowing smoke up everyone's arse?

I believe they are full of shit.

 

[Kimlo]

I'd happily bet they don't name shit because they don't have shit.

Lol "special forces" I'd be more convinced if they pulled an actor from big bang theory as the star detective.

 

[broncsgoat]

They’re just trying to stop the release of the real scandal where there’s images of pies sleeping nude in an oxygen tent because he believes it gives him sexual powers.

But I’m not scared

 

[Jason Simmons]

My guess is their "300 leads" are Facebook names who participated in the rumour. As far as I know, it's not a crime to tell someone something you heard. If it were we'd have to cordon off an entire state for a women's field prison.

Maybe @Jason Simmons can tell us whether they would have enough reason to demand the IP addresses associated with the accounts. I don't think Facebook would comply with such a trivial matter, unless they can frame it as a more serious crime. And once they have the IP's, they still have to get the ISPs to comply, presuming they're not using a VPN. And then they have to establish who in the household did it. They haven't had that kind of time.

More likely, they have the FB account names, and are treating them as verified names. I bet that Matty Johns Show page is "Matty Johns," for example.

The problem with the idea of pursuing ‘facebook’ trolls in defamation cases is proving they aren’t a ‘subordinate distributor’ which anyone who received these rumours and passed them on are.

They aren’t liable (under Qld Law) for the defamation, the original publisher is...

Beyond that, they will need a court order to gain the registration details of those user accounts from FB, unless the police are doing it and as far as I am aware neither Seibs nor his mouthpiece have stepped into court yet...

Then they’ll need to contact the ISP’s, then serve discovery notices and then bring in someone like Korda Mentha to do the physical examination of the devices and so on. This will take years and cost a fortune before Seibold can even determine if he has a case against anyone...

Which is why I suspect it will go away...

 

[Jason Simmons]

That and if its on 4/5G - all that traffic flow through CGNAT which requires device authentication. There's a very good chance that's all heavily logged due to the data retention laws etc. There is almost no chance a private group can access it legally though, they would need the police/AFP to get that level of access for which this simply would not qualify.

Telecommunications (Interception and Authority) Act doesn’t mention Anthony Seibold or European ‘cyber investigators’ last time I checked it...

There is a fundamental problem with IP addresses in Australia, with respect to data retention. DNS records and the IP addresses connected to aren’t retained, because that’s a way to determine content, not just meta-data.

So unless an enforcement agency is actually capturing telecommunications on a named person or a particular service (fixed line, mobile etc) via a TI Warrant, there IS no history of what a particular person has done with their device, except on the device itself, or what may be captured by an app (at the other end) or website.

Which is where Seibold runs into a problem. He has to identify these people, then restrain them via court order actually wiping their devices, before his forensic computer experts can get their hands on them.

PS, on an unrelated note boiling your phone is an excellent way of stuffing it beyond useability (to ANYONE, including a forensic computer examiner) as well as providing an excellent argument for it being accidentally , not deliberately destroyed...

Your honour, I’m a massive pasta fan, clearly just like Seibs...

 

[Galah]

Telecommunications (Interception and Authority) Act doesn’t mention Anthony Seibold or European ‘cyber investigators’ last time I checked it...

There is a fundamental problem with IP addresses in Australia, with respect to data retention. DNS records and the IP addresses connected to aren’t retained, because that’s a way to determine content, not just meta-data.

So unless an enforcement agency is actually capturing telecommunications on a named person or a particular service (fixed line, mobile etc) via a TI Warrant, there IS no history of what a particular person has done with their device, except on the device itself, or what may be captured by an app (at the other end) or website.

Which is where Seibold runs into a problem. He has to identify these people, then restrain them via court order actually wiping their devices, before his forensic computer experts can get their hands on them.

PS, on an unrelated note boiling your phone is an excellent way of stuffing it beyond useability (to ANYONE, including a forensic computer examiner) as well as providing an excellent argument for it being accidentally , not deliberately destroyed...

Your honour, I’m a massive pasta fan, clearly just like Seibs...