Wednesday, June 11, 2008

The spy who didn't shag my wifi 4: theoretical possibilities

In our last post, we saw that there are at least two versions out there about when Steacy/jadewarr had the IP 70.48.181.203 and what he did with it. The versions differ from one another in two key ways: they report different actions on the part of jadewarr, and they report different dates for those actions.

Here are the two versions in tabular form:
    Black (via Lemire)OdinPatrick
    Actionvisit Stormfrontpost to Stormfront
    Date Dec. 8, 2006 Sept. 15, 2006
    IP 70.48.181.203 70.48.181.203
    IP ownerHechme* (unknown)
    *From the Bell technician's testimony
If Black and OdinPatrick were both telling the truth, one of these four scenarios would have to be true:
  1. Hecme had the same IP for the entire period and Steacy hacked her wifi twice (once to post to Stormfront and once to visit there).
  2. Steacy had the IP for the whole time and he used it twice (once to post to Stormfront and once to visit there).
  3. The IP belonged to Steacy personally in September, but Hechme in December, and the wifi that he hacked in December by coincidence had the same IP as the one he had used in September.
  4. The IP belonged to some unknown person in September, and to Hechme in December, and Steacy hacked both wifis, which coincidentally happened to have the same IP.
In fact, however, none of these can be true. Scenarios #3 and #4 may be theoretically possible, but the chances of either of these happening are infinitismal: they can be rejected out of hand. And #1 and #2 contradict the testimony of the Bell Technician, who testified that Hechme had this IP from 18:36, Dec. 7, until 21:35, Dec. 8 (T1073/5405, vol. 26, p. 5646, lines 9-10): thus Hechme could not have had the IP in September (ruling out no. 1) and Steacy could not have had this IP in December (ruling out no. 2)

Clearly one of Black and OdinPatrick must be wrong.

To be continued…


Other posts relevant to this controversy:

8 comments:

The Rat said...

#1 is still possible if the Bell tech was only testifying to the IP address on the date specified in the subpoena. The dates given could simply be the relevant lease acquisition/renewal time and end of lease period from the log. It is quite possible she had the address before and after that from previous and future renewals. Her router was likely and alway-on device and would have kept renewing the same IP address possibly for months.

buckets said...

Thanks for your comment, Rat. I suppose nothing is impossible. But once an IP is has been "recycled" by Bell, the odds against getting it again are exceedingly small. The Bell technician was fairly clear on this (p. 5647): "In fact, each time that Sympatico or Bell account will go and connect itself to Internet it will be connected to a dynamic IP address. So, it's never the same address, IP address."

eastern capitalist said...

Buckets,

I think the point was with routers as an always on device, the same IP can be picked up quite frequently. At least that is the case with my rogers account when I use my own router settings to release and then renew the IP address, I often get the same IP.

--EC

Ryan said...

I'm on Shaw and have had the same IP address for almost eight months. Even when I renew my IP, the address assigned to my computer is reassigned unless taken. It all depends on how the network admin has assigned IP addresses and leases.

buckets said...

EC. I suppose that may be true. But the Bell technician says "never", and even he really means "almost never", the odds are very, very slim.

Ryan. I've found the same thing with my cable. As you say, "It all depends on how the network admin has assigned IP addresses and leases." Apparently Bell does it differently. (One of my other hobbies is wikipedia, and there is one trouble maker who has a dsl account whom I've tracked through what must be at least three hundred IPs, none of them the same.)

eastern capitalist said...

Needless to say you pick up a very interesting point, although, I would think it is also very odd that the person that had the IP on the date in question could also be said to be within wi-fi distance, or surely someone would have made that argument already (ie. that it is out of wi-fi range)

buckets said...

On wifi distance, see here here and here.

buckets said...

Dr Dawg, too: here