5 ms·

So not NATted IP? Not sure I understand how a typo in the IP could point to someone at the same residence. And without excusing police conduct or eliding his r

So not NATted IP? Not sure I understand how a typo in the IP could point to someone at the same residence. And without excusing police conduct or eliding his real distress, I'd also point out that his life was perhaps also ruined by having a peadophile for a partner...

macintux 10y ago
The incorrect IP was assigned to his partner. The "correct" IP, presumably of the criminal, was someone else entirely apparently.
Mtinie 10y ago
It appears you misinterpreted the case. His partner's IP address was the one that was mistakenly entered into a system when a typo was introduced. She had nothing to do with it, nor did he. To be fair, the phrasing of the paragraph when this fact was introduced was hard to parse. > The IP address passed on corresponded to an internet account held by Nigel's partner. But it had been typed incorrectly, with an extra digit added by mistake. The typo resulted in a representation his partner's IP. i.e.: 1.1.1.2 //intended target 1.1.1.12 //the partner's
- scrumper 10y ago
  Ah, thanks, that makes a lot more sense than what I understood.
stefco_ 10y ago
Sure, but it's always much more frustrating and disappointing when those tasked with protecting the innocent end up ruining innocent lives. In particular, it's frustrating that better auditing procedures and transparency would prevent things like this from happening. It's also scary how, due to the persistence of (mis)information on the internet, it is possible to end up with (either undeserved or at least excessive) notoriety that follows you across the world with little chance of escape. Who the hell is going to hire someone when a google search of their name mentions that they were arrested on pedophilia charges? Never mind whether they were innocent. [edit: as another poster pointed out, it seems his partner was not the pedophile, but rather that their shared IP address, which was registered to her, was the incorrectly entered value]
- noja 10y ago
  > better auditing procedures and transparency Or using "Copy and Paste" rather than manually typing something.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

macintux 10y ago

The incorrect IP was assigned to his partner. The "correct" IP, presumably of the criminal, was someone else entirely apparently.

Mtinie 10y ago

It appears you misinterpreted the case. His partner's IP address was the one that was mistakenly entered into a system when a typo was introduced. She had nothing to do with it, nor did he. To be fair, the phrasing of the paragraph when this fact was introduced was hard to parse. > The IP address passed on corresponded to an internet account held by Nigel's partner. But it had been typed incorrectly, with an extra digit added by mistake. The typo resulted in a representation his partner's IP. i.e.: 1.1.1.2 //intended target 1.1.1.12 //the partner's

scrumper 10y ago
Ah, thanks, that makes a lot more sense than what I understood.

stefco_ 10y ago

Sure, but it's always much more frustrating and disappointing when those tasked with protecting the innocent end up ruining innocent lives. In particular, it's frustrating that better auditing procedures and transparency would prevent things like this from happening. It's also scary how, due to the persistence of (mis)information on the internet, it is possible to end up with (either undeserved or at least excessive) notoriety that follows you across the world with little chance of escape. Who the hell is going to hire someone when a google search of their name mentions that they were arrested on pedophilia charges? Never mind whether they were innocent. [edit: as another poster pointed out, it seems his partner was not the pedophile, but rather that their shared IP address, which was registered to her, was the incorrectly entered value]

noja 10y ago
> better auditing procedures and transparency Or using "Copy and Paste" rather than manually typing something.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]