On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 11:27 -0500, Omega -1911 wrote: > Which topic ashley do u wish to discuss. With the eccouncil.org being in > your neck of th woods, learning/reading what hackers are using/doing > shouldn't be hard... > On Dec 30, 2010 11:23 AM, "Ashley Sheridan" <ash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 11:19 -0500, Omega -1911 wrote: > > > >> I'm pretty sure there is a lot that happened that has not been mentioned > yet > >> ;) > >> > >> But I digress... it's all came down to no one being able to contradict my > >> post. If u consider an attempt to get personal a defense, I would hope > that > >> in a real world scenario, u have a better tactic. > > > > > > I would just like to say, that I've not seen any proof of your > > statements, particularly pertaining to "the government" (of which > > country you've not specified.) Following the scientific methodology, > > it's up to the person who made the claim to provide proof, not on the > > opposition to provide evidence to the contrary. As such, the onus is on > > you to provide the proof of your statements. > > > > [/end_two_pence_worth] > > > > Thanks, > > Ash > > http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk > > > > Well, by my "neck of the woods" I assume you mean Earth here, as I'm not anywhere near there, to which I quote: "The EC-Council University, based in the state of New Mexico, United States of America," And my email address itself should be a little give-a-way that I'm not based in the US ;) I'm looking for proof provided by you on some of your own statements: "it is a known fact that post 9/11 companies that develop such leave ports open for "Big Brother" as required." And: "Even though a firewall reports that the ports are blocked, they aren't." I'd be very interested to find out which companies are "required" to do this, and if any are at all, as it would go against a lot of laws we have on privacy over here in the UK. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
