3 ms·

Stories like this make me wonder if we're truly better off with anonymous Internet traffic. (I'm not advocating for a change; I'm just unfamiliar with the argu

• rstuart4133 3y ago
  fwiw, I'm not trying to be anonymous. I've updated my profile to make that plain. The examples where there to demonstrate the conclusion in the final paragraph matters in real life. The para could stand on it's own - it's just a statement of the obvious. But like all obvious things, it's only obvious once you see it. Like the author of the article, I didn't see it for years (decades?).
  • CoastalCoder 3y ago
    > fwiw, I'm not trying to be anonymous. I've updated my profile to make that plain. Were you thinking that I was arguing that e.g. you shouldn't be able to use a pseudonym to post comments? Sorry if that's how my comment reads. The thing I was wondering about was if/why we should allow spammers / crackers to retain their anonymity when attacking computers in the way you described. E.g., 100 attacks / second on some port, with no accountability for the persons who originated / propagated those packets. I'm curious about the pros/cons of law-enforcement agencies having the ability (and mandate) to hunt down the sources of such traffic. I realize that doing so would open a huge can of works, so I'm 10000% not advocating for it. I'd just like to understand the steel-man arguments for and against.
    • petre 3y ago
      It's no use if you know your attackers are from SE Asia or Russia. It just creates another incentive for corporations to hoard use data and sell it. Block them and go on with your life. They have an IP address, so it's not 'anonymous'. Law enforcnent could probably get to them if it's worth it and they try hard enough.