"Ringo Kamens" <2600denver@xxxxxxxxx> top posted again: > On 5/21/06, Fabian Keil <freebsd-listen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > "Ringo Kamens" <2600denver@xxxxxxxxx> top posted: > > > I have a few points to add. For one, if you choose a user-agent that > > > is a linux build every time you start firefox (as opposed to having it > > > default) then that could be used as court evidence to say: > > > Well, I couldn't be xxx because he used a linux browser and I'm > > > obviously on windows and my user-agent field isn't spoofed. > > > > I seriously doubt that any judge will fall for that one. > Why wouldn't a judge/jury go for that. Let's make this a more real-life > example. Somebody is murdered and a witness says they saw the suspect in a > green car. If the suspect doesn't have a green car, it certainly helps his > case. I see this as no different than any albi. It couldn't have been me > because I'm not on linux. That's not a good example. Faking the colour of your car takes a little bit more effort and knowledge than to modify the User-Agent. A better example would be a witness seeing a suspect with a hat and sunglasses. If the suspect later has to defend himself at court, his equivalent excuse would be: "Look, at the moment I'm wearing neither a hat nor sunglasses, therefore it wasn't me". The judge probably knows that getting a hat and sunglasses (and dumping them after a crime) is quite easy. If you are in the position to defend yourself, it means there is already some evidence against you (or you are living in a regime and nobody cares for your excuses anyway). Not wearing a hat and sunglasses right now, will not let them disappear. Fabian -- http://www.fabiankeil.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature