UKC

Why I categorically despise the Daily Mail - http://i.imgur.com/m2XOiZv.png

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Lovely.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Oh dear. This should be HUGE news....

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Curiously the forum is unavailable when you try to access it.

Good story though

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I'm pretty sure what this 'journalist' has done is a crime - incitement of some sort.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

That is a thing of joy. I particularly liked the first reply: 'sigh'

Martin

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Hoping that's real

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Good point. Seems like a lot of effort for a hoax though!

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

I go for fake. Conveniently enough, the IP's owner is a Jewish affairs columnist http://www.independent.co.uk/biography/richard-ferrer who to me sounds like a reasonable chap and not the kind who would try that childish troll http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/im-not-a-racist-but-sometimes-i...

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

And apparently he left the DM in 2008... Defo a hoax https://twitter.com/richferrer

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Apparently that name is but one that the IP address is linked to. Prbably very hard to prove who it was.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Just because he left in 2008 doesn't mean that IP can't be linked to his name. Happy for it to be a hoax but saying it def is a hoax based on this fact alone isn't enough to make it so.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Point is, he should not have access to that ip for a start, as those kind of ip's are normally only accessed through workstations or remote networks guarded by passwords which would have been changed at some point in the last 6 years (usually automatically every 1/3 months and when a person leaves the company).

The ip is daily mail, but seems unlikely they would register each journo with an ip of their own. So not sure the name is correct which casts a lot of doubt about the rest.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Don't think you understand how IPs work. They are assigned to a machine and can be recycled - no one is saying the individual named is the person using the machine.

In reply to Removed User:

Mmmh...


Isn't that exaclty what i'm saying? I don't think you understand how the english language works...

In reply to Mr Lopez:


http://www.dnswatch.info/dns/dnslookup?la=en&host=195.234.240.212&s...

Seems the daily mail resolve a lot of xxxx.dailymail.co.uk to the same IP.

So the story may well be true, just the person doing the reverse DNS has picked a name at random from the list. Or perhaps not at random, I suspect their are plenty of daily mail employees that have upset people in the past.

In reply to Philip:


I wouldn't say it casts a lot of doubt on the rest given that it's almost certainly a DM IP address.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


The reason I said that, was that the only evidence was in the same post as the identification of the person. That person either didn't understand, deliberately meant to twist what little evidence they had, or made it all up. Hence my suspicion.

In reply to Philip:

That IP address' server hosts nearly 300 sites here ( http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/web-sites-on-web-server/ )

My bet is on kids stirring shit

In reply to Removed User:

Even then it is very unusual for a public IP address to be assigned to a work station. Normally to a building.

In reply to all:

just come across this on the forum in the OP: http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?408346-Statement-Regarding-allega...

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Was just about the post the same myself

In reply to kwoods:

it's all very sinister. How easy is it to fake an IP from somewhere like DM?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Pretty difficult, as IPs are routed through multiple servers and networks to their home location. You could use a computer / server within the DM network if you hacked in though to make it look like it was someone from within.

In reply to Milesy: seems a rather convoluted process for just one post that would be easily flagged as suspicious by the mods.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


Not all that easy really. The IP address the forum records is the IP address of the computer that sent the post to the forum. Either someone sitting at that computer sent it, or a a third computer told that computer to send it - this is known as using the computer as a proxy. A computer can only be used as a proxy if the owner sets it up that way, or someone has gone to the effort of hacking it.

But:
1) IPs sometimes change or move.
2) The daily mail IP is the IP from which the account was registered, the post itself came from a north american IP.

Possible theories:
- A daily mail journo made an account from work, then lost the login details. Someone in north america logged in as him and left the post.
- A daily mail journo made the account and left the post. He used a proxy in america to mask his IP when posting, but didn't think to do so when registering.
- Someone else made the post, but that IP was then moved over to the daily mail.
- etc. etc., we just don't know.

It's all a bit by the by though, the response from the forum mods links to a previous case of similar behavior by the Sun. So yes, it happens. The moral of this story is that red-top rags have some very unpleasant characters trying to drum up stories and incite hatred. And I'm going to stop there before I go on a massive rant about islamaphobia and the gutter press.

In reply to Jack B:


It wasn't the Sun last time, it was international man of mystery Glen Jenvey, the Hindu/Christian/Muslim (pick a card, any card) anti-radicalisation activist. He sold the story to the Sun but claimed that it was another paper that had forced his hand before the 'sting' was complete.

He's certainly managed to expose some networks by fooling a few radicals but he didn't get much of a rise out of ummah.com, which is why he ran out of time.

In reply to winhill:

Richard Ferrer in the Indie:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/richard-ferrer-the-truth-about-...

In reply to winhill:

while it's extremely unlikely to have been Richard Ferrer, it's still highly probable (approaching 1.0) that the message came from within the DM.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


dunno, not my area of expertise but apparently you'd have to know how the forum handled hhtp headers and how the DM network was set up. the DM have changed the way it's handled now but (apparently) the IP address was a linux web server, so unlikely to be tied to a workstation. of course what you'd see behind the web server could be anything, clustered servers, load balancers, WAN optimsers but that owuld mean that everything showed the same IP.

perhaps the DM could prove it wasn't them if they forensically recorded all their network traffic but I can see why they would rather not have everything recorded, as they would probably find themselves on the wrong side of the law more often than not.

The latest theory is that it is such a poor faked troll that the DM faked the troll deliberately to make it look like ummah.com had faked it!

In reply to winhill:


A kind of double-bluff bluff?

In reply to higherclimbingwales:


I dunno, but this hasn't really turned out as I'd hoped/expected. It's a shame that twitter allows everyone to go mental and make fools of themselves, diverting all the attention to wherever the ill-informed, unaccountable mob directs it. In this case, at a completely unrelated individual.

I'd really like to know whether it's an anti-DM hoax or the DM. Seems more likely it's the DM to me (not from a technical point of view - no knowledge), in which case, I want them strung up for it.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




Me too. They've already issued an apology to George Cloony for their piece involving him.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Why waste so much emotion on what is surely just a stupid internet prank? Ever though of getting a life?

In reply to stroppygob:


This sort of thing interests me. I think the press have a lot of influence on what people think about their fellow citizens, so how society works - if they're using dirty tricks to manipulate people's views - filling people's heads with socially corrosive bullshit to make money - it's important that that's exposed.

In reply to stroppygob:

It's not just a stupid internet prank though. And, those who claim someone should get a life, should probably get a life themselves. If it's not something that bothers you enough to contribute positively then don't contribute.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:
My contribution was positive. Pointing out teh futility of wasting energy and emotion on;


is more helpful than encouraging someone to devleop hate for a newspaper for maybe or maybe not having done something sometime, or at least hating that maybe or maybe not someone who was once employed by them maybe did soemthing, perhaps, is positive, isnt it?