LOL

That IP address showed up in our comments too, in the person of "Thomas Ellers". Strikes me as pretty poor form.

Thankfully, they have so far used it only to write blog comments praising Greenwald. But, surely, this could be used for ill, too.

Have they no shame? Some things must not be tolerated in civil society.

To quote George Costanza, "I'm busting, Jerry. I'm busting!"

I'm going to enjoy this schadenfreude for awhile.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!

What a loser!

Not for nothing, but there are a lot of allegations floating around with very little real facts, from an IT perspective that is. Screen captures, for starters, are easily manipulated in something as basic as MS Paint.

Let's assume though, that this is not the case.

There are no less than half a dozen reliable ways to spoof an IP address.

All one would need is an email from the person to be spoofed, or their IP address. (Both of which can be easily gained by a number of techniques.)

Once the IP address is gained, it's pretty easy to spoof.

The MITM technique would be the easiest way actually. TCP/IP suite is vulnerable to this in a big way. It's elementary hacking actually.

A non-blind spoof would be another angle, but this would require the attacker being on the same subnet (in this case a .net in Brazil) as the victim. Not very likely, although possible.

A blind spoof is also a likely candidate. All you would need is the sequence number of the victim, and a packet sniffer could discover this in a snap.

These are all pretty old techniques actually, and more recent methods enable all kinds of interesting possibilities.

Y'all are making an awful lot of assumptions based upon information that is extremely easy to manipulate and spoof.

At your own peril.

Controller,

Yes, a big conspiracy against poor widdle gwenn.

Occam's razor, Controller, occam's razor.

Being a computer security person myself, I find your argument unpersuasive. I think sock puppetry a far better explanation

Numberous responses from different names at the same IP address? What's the big deal?

Maybe he has roommates and they decided to defend him.

Sheesh. This stuff is just stupid.

"Yes, a big conspiracy against poor widdle gwenn"

Who said anything about a "conspiracy"? I certainly did not. One person, with the will and the skill.

Come on. If you are who you say you are, then you understand how EASY it is to do, right?

"Ocham's razor"

Which is more plausible?

A. That Greenwald would use his own IP address to post faked comment posts.

B. That Greenwald has a home network and lives with others who posted those comments.

C. That a h4x0r spoofed Greenwald's IP and posted the comments.

Clearly, B is the winner if one applies Ocham's Razor.

"Being a computer security person myself, I find your argument unpersuasive. I think sock puppetry a far better explanation"

Sock puppetry is what you want to think. And, I have no doubt you will never change your mind, even if it were proved otherwise.

This is hysterical. He won't come out and say it, but he's implying that there are either multiple people using the same computer or the same connection.

I thought party lines went out a long time ago.

A tie, here between OTB and ACE, both on the same subject, for Bit's SNARK OF THE DAY

A tie on the same subject, between ACE and OTB for Bit's Snark of the day....

I think A is far more likely than B. If it's B, you then have to account for the partner having numerous sockpuppets, or you have to assume that there are several people living with him, all of whom go online and defend him on blogs. Not bloody likely.

If it were one, then maybe. But it's like 6 identities now. Occam's razor leads you to A.

Maybe it was the underpants gnomes.

Actually, B is the most logical: as I posted on my own site earlier, I find the writing in the comments to be not Greenwaldesque, shall we say, and why would a blogger and author, who is hardly shy about posting his opinions, engage in this kind of behavior? I am not saying it is impossible, but it is certainly unlikely.

However, a romantic partner, who wouldn't want to be dismissed out of hand because he was a partner, would have a motivation to use a pseudonym. Certainly our loved ones often take criticism of us more personally than we ourselves do (I know my wife does when people criticize me).

If we look at motivations and known facts about Greenwald, it seems to me the Occam's Razor points to the partner.

Why is that so hard to believe?

Pablo,

And why would multiple identies make it more likely that it was Greenwald and not his partner? There is no logical basis for that conclusion.

"Thankfully, they have so far used it only to write blog comments praising Greenwald. But, surely, this could be used for ill, too."

Pretty soon the rightwingnuts will get the word from Karl Rove to start hammering poor Glenn for using sock puppets, and then Greenwa...

Wait minute! That's what's going on right now!

Touche, Karl Rove, stealing an IP address all the way in Brazil to take down the great Glenn Greenwald. Touche. (or should that word start with a D?)

Actually, it is spelled both as Occam and Ockham. Your spelling (Ocham) is still wrong in either case.

Well, here is a another list for you:

A. Greenwald is a lawyer and nontechnical and is so vain that he desparately needs to bolster his point with 6 different online sockpuppets

B. Greenwald has 6 different people all living at his house, all with the same writing style and word usage. (Multiplicity)

C. Greenwald was p0wned by a 1337 h8x0r driven by the VRWC.

Aah, I pick what's behind door number A. "Occam/Ockham" s razor and all that.

And, I have no doubt you will never change your mind, even if it were proved otherwise.

back at you pal. ;)

capt joe wrote: "Actually, it is spelled both as Occam and Ockham. Your spelling (Ocham) is still wrong in either case."

The correct spelling is OCKHAM. Actually, I cut and pasted your misspelled effort - OCCAM - and added the "h" and the "k", but then removed the k because it looked wrong to me. o well. But, I was wrong once. You twice. If you want to get into a spelling war... sheesh.

"Aah, I pick what�s behind door number A. �Occam/Ockham� s razor and all that."

Ockham's razor...

And, you prove my point.

Steve Taylor is dead on with: "If we look at motivations and known facts about Greenwald, it seems to me the Occam�s Razor points to the partner."

Greenwald simply does not wish to name him specifically. But, that is clearly his implication. Not hard to fathom.

Controller, what the heck are you talking about. You made a mistake while I spelled it in one of the two correct ways.

from the link.

The term "Occam's razor" first appeared in 1852 in the works of Sir William Rowan Hamilton

jeez. learn to read, idiot.

They must have some solid ESL instructors in Brazil. All of Glenn's supporters hailing from there speak English more better than I does.

"eez. learn to read, idiot."

You are clearly a twat, since name calling seems to be all your good at... have at it fuckhead.

Ockham's razor is a methodological principle defined as �Don't multiply entities beyond necessity.� and is part of a theory of nominalism by...

William of Ockham (c. 1287-1347) All of his writings, including those on metaphysics in which the theories referred to as "Ockham's razor" are dealt with are credited to OCKHAM.

Get this fact and let it sink in: OCCAM is a MISSPELLING of OCKHAM. It is NOT correct. Just because the WIKI link you cite says so, does not make it CORRECT.

Look it up in a fucking encyclopedia.

"eez. learn to read, idiot."

You are clearly the idiot, since name calling seems to be all your good at... have at it.

Ockham's razor is a methodological principle defined as �Don't multiply entities beyond necessity.� and is part of a theory of nominalism by...

William of Ockham (c. 1287-1347) All of his writings, including those on metaphysics in which the theories referred to as "Ockham's razor" are dealt with are credited to OCKHAM.

Get this fact and let it sink in: OCCAM is a MISSPELLING of OCKHAM. It is NOT correct. Just because the WIKI link you cite says so, does not make it CORRECT.

Look it up in an encyclopedia.

It never ceases to amaze me how fast and furious so many right wing dorks fall into the "I thought it thus it must be true." abyss.

And, the application of Ockham's razor in this case is fairly obvious.

Multiple users (one making up identities or more than one doing so) from a single IP.

That said, there is another very plausible scenario...

In Brazil (and throughout South America actually) internet connections are very expensive and hard to get. Most everyone shares a network at the local internet cafe or in an apartment complex. Some houses share amongst themselves in the same neighborhood. This is done in the Middle East and the Far East as well.

It is indeed much like a party line. The backbone in these countries just can't support single connections as we do in the US. (The pipe gets really small once you are outside the US.)

Some of the networks, which share a single IP address, can be as large as 20 users.

Most likely though, Greenwald's partner or a friend is the culprit.

There is absolutely no reason to think that Greenwald would need to pump himself up by posting his own CV himself. It makes no sense.
He's stated his credentials before without using a fake name.

One or more people did it.

Jesus Wept.

Occam is weeping, too. (And yes - both "Occam" and "Ockham" are accepted spellings)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

Folks - he's using sock puppets. Those who believe the "multiple roommate" theory or the "one dedicated roommates with his own sock puppets" are blazingly clueless.

It is amazing how strong the Kool-Aid is for some of you.

Newsflash: I've posted under plenty of names over the years. They were all me. If I ever suggest my wife, my child, or my dogs did it ... just shoot me.

And if anyone believes me, shoot THEM.

This is wildly stupid. They're Mr. Greenjeans. All of them. Sock puppets.

Or does YOUR wife hop on the computer and come to the blogs and defend YOU? Anyone? Anyone? Does that happen to ANYONE, anywhere, ever?

Occam is laughing.

Get this fact and let it sink in: OCCAM is a MISSPELLING of OCKHAM. It is NOT correct. Just because the WIKI link you cite says so, does not make it CORRECT.

Look it up in an encyclopedia.

Actually, why don't you take your own advice and admit you are wrong, or is the Encyclopedia Brittanica also pulling it out of their butt (emphasis mine):

"Ockham's razor
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

Page 1 of 1

Print PagePrint ArticleE-mail ArticleCite Article

also spelled Occam's razor, also called law of economy, or law of parsimony, principle stated by William of Ockham (1285�1347/49), a scholastic, that Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate; �Plurality should not be posited without necessity.� The principle gives precedence to simplicity; of two competing theories, the simplest explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed �Entities are not to be multiplied beyond�

Ockham's razor... (75 of 252 words)"

Yes, Scott, it is also spelled OCCAM. (Get it? As in MISSPELLED)

God, you people are thick. Can't you capitulate a simple fact without getting bogged down in rhetorical nonsense? "It's also spelled THIS way so it MUST be correct." No. Umm. A misspelled name is still misspelled, even if it gains popular usage.

OCCAM is a (yes. widely used) misspelling of OCKHAM.

There are those of us who know of Ockham by his many other writings... not just his (very much interpreted and not entirely accredited theory) of "Ockham's razor".

He is called William of OCKHAM, because that is the town he is from. It still exists and it is STILL spelled OCKHAM. Anyone who spells it OCCAM or OCCHAM is spelling it WRONG.

Yes, even the Encyclopedia Scott! But, note, they say "also spelled", since "OCCAM" is the misspelling that became somewhat popular. Again, that does not mean it is correct.

Got it? Sheesh.

Could be magick, too, everybody seems to be overlooking that.

Multiple personality disorder could cause it.

Or maybe clones. Think Multiplicity.

But Occerman's Racer says otherwise.

Yikes lookit those goalposts a-movin'; one minute it was "nevermind wikipedia, any reputable encyclopedia will back me up", now that Encyclopedia Brittanica has failed to back you up, any alternate spelling magically transmutes into a "misspelling".

Following that logic, ancient romans are turning over in their graves every time you mutilate Latin with the debased slang you call "English".

Here's a news flash for ya - just about every word in the English language is a "misspelling" of some previous version, that's how so many of them start in one language like Latin, Greek or Old English and ultimately end up in Webster's through a process called "accepted usage" wherein the new spelling is (officially, your efforts notwithstanding) considered "correct".

So if you want to go down that road, be my guest, just remember by your own "logic" that you are "misspelling" virtually every non-capitalized word you type.

Controller, you lose that one. Sorry.

Ockham, Occcam, Sockem, Boppem!

It smells like either the Green Knight socked his own puppets in some sort of frustration, or he pimped out his friends, his wives, his concubines, his pets, and/or his neighbors to stain the water clear for him. I don't buy Chloe hacking through from CTU. Christ! Think of all the more tantalizing hacks out there, closer to Everest!!

Arguing vigorously over the correct spelling of the name of a nominalist is almost as funny as "Kantian nihilism."

But yeah, Controller, I hear ya on the IP stuff, but "Occam" is a perfectly respectable spelling.

A technical point regarding MITM attacks and IP spoofing. None of these are as trivial as Lot 49 would like to make it, particularly for protocols like TCP/IP (which HTTP uses) that require acknowledgement. In all cases, you'd pretty much have to be either on the endpoints, or reliably somewhere on the route or routes the connection takes. Modern switched networks makes this even tougher. Pretty much, the hacker would have had to hack into one of:

1. All of the local networks that house the web servers that Mr. Greenwald's defender posted on. Unlikely.

2. An ISP/network switch that was reliably on route between Mr. Greenwald's computer and all of those web servers. Does Mr. Greenwald have any friends at his ISP that secretly or otherwise use the Internet pretending to be him or his computer?

3. The local network that Greenwald's computer is on (or his computer). Though in this case, why bother?

I'd go with either the sock puppet or the defensive partner. Funny either way.

A jealous Brazilian lover who reads like a press release? Riiiiight.

Oh, and:

If that's what jealous Brazilian lovers get up to these days, then standards have really slipped.

Who in the hell is Greenwald ?

And, Who really CARES ?

The right wing is going nuts over this trivia. It's amazing. A quick look at memeorandum shows every winger in existence is writing about this.

Greenwald drives you guys nuts. Man, has he got your collective goat. He's right up there with Joe Wilson and Jack Murtha now.

Heâ??s right up there with Joe Wilson and Jack Murtha now.

He sure is...under the category Lying Dickwads.

Could one of you who have dismissed the idea that puppetmaster is someone other than Greenwald who lives in or near his place in Brazil explain what makes this theory so obviously specious?

The smell to me, as an (unfortunately) experienced sock-sniffer, is that the puppetmaster was trying to help Greenwald out, which was both unnecessary and foolish.