Reiterating: Bypassing Blog Security

Some time ago someone at one of the less moderate "moderators" at a rather uncommon LDS blog became perturbed at my participation in the discussion, and activated whatever lame mechanism they use to try to block people they don't agree with from participating. Why did I care? I wasn't aware that I did until I found that the blog did not even prompt me for a comment any more.

Well, it turns out that this blog and most others use a software black box called Akismet that supposedly filters out unwanted stuff. It is supposed to keep spammers from cluttering up the place.  It works just fine for preventing spam.


I decided that anyone rude enough to presume to cut me off deserved more-or-less equal treatment. So I started researching the Akismet machine to figure out how to bypass the security measures.

According to the authors of the software, it is supposed to be very smart. As far as I can tell, it isn't. Akismet just tries to associate comments with a list of IP addresses and other possible junk commonly associated with spammers.

I have known for some time of software servers that anonymize the IP address of a web browser session. So, being the persistent bother that I am, I experimented until I could post again.

After I had accomplished that rather unremarkable feat, I was nonplussed to realize that I had absolutely nothing to say. So I decided to study more about Akismet.

This defense mechanism reminds me of the Star Trek phaser dilemma when attacking the Borg defenses.



Phasers could only penetrate their shields on the first few tries. After that, the Borg shifted the frequency of their shields to restore attenuation.

Blog operators only have a few parameters they can use to check incoming traffic against known spam offenders. This approach doesn't work at all against those who know how to shift the values of those parameters. It is effective against spam only because the spammers are mostly mindless automatons exploiting easy undefended targets.

I suppose most network users do not have much idea what an IP address signifies, let alone how to manipulate it. To put it simply, IP addresses are assigned by software, and can be easily changed or manipulated by software. Internet users with a bit of technical savvy and ambition can easily switch IP numbers and other software parameters. And for every more sophisticated technique of tracking addresses, there are even more elaborate schemes to conceal them.

My web browser volunteers personal information to web pages I interact with. I have no obligation to surrender this data, nor do I see anything unethical about refusing to freely hand over everything arbitrarily demanded. When blog operators use my voluntary compliance as a weapon against me, they forfeit my willing cooperation. The blog security structure is based entirely on voluntary compliance. I become an advocate for freedom from oppression.  Unless they resort to a closed system that only allows comments from established, trusted sources, blog operators cannot do much to block anonymous comments.

Not only that, but I strongly suspect that this particularly uncommon blog and others like it absolutely depend on anonymity to even operate at all. Many LDS Internet users who tend to waver on the lunatic fringe have grown noticeably paranoid about someone taking note of what they say in open forums. And rightly so, I suppose. Ironically, I suspect many of those with such concerns do not exactly subscribe to the principle of uncommon consent. They want free license to criticize the Church and speak evil of the brethren without suffering any consequence. This uncommon blog is not about to jeopardize the mechanism that affords naysayers a forum in which to offer criticism without disclosing their identity.

Also an interesting phenomenon observed in this context - on another similar blog, after some supposedly anonymous person had left behind a stinking deposit of obscene comments on my blog, I happened to make casual mention of the fact that "anonymous" comments on the Internet are not really anonymous, and are in fact rather easy for a technically-minded blogger to track to their origin.  Most gratuitously, the obscene comments ceased.  Good thing, too - it was starting to draw flies. :-)

I recently renewed my attempts to participate on the uncommon blog.  They didn't seem to want to bother blocking me again, just deleted some of my comments that someone apparently found alarming, or took exception to.  The mental gymnastics some will go to in trying to protect the sanctity of the domain they have staked out for themselves is just amazing to me - worth every effort to defy their devious "moderation", for the entertainment value alone.

I think it would be most interesting to know just how incoherent the casual hackers who read this post find it.

Thanks for all the fish.

Unforgiven

(Please note – there are rational comments below – please DO NOT PROCEED if you do not want to take further thought!)

 
Having a rhetorical discussion with refugees from the fringes at "Feminist Mormon Housewives" kinda reminds me of the scene from "Unforgiven"...

"Any man don't want to get killed, better clear on out the back..."

Every contact I have with people of this ilk ends in a violent gunfight.  Further confirms my suspicion that they aren't interested in open discussion, or anything that really "celebrates diversity" other than their own approved brand of weirdness.  That they speak it in public forum belies the unwritten protocol of silencing.

One of the beloved paradigms of feminist misinformation

Run, run, fast as you can!
Can't catch me, I'm the Genderbread Man, er, Person!

I always loved the story about the gingerbread man.  Now they have redefined the terms to appeal to simple-minded naive deviants.  Worse than Sesame Street.  I fail to see how this distorted thinking differs significantly from the pejorative "whitebread", referring to people of European ancestry.  The gingerbread man used to be a man.  Now we can't tell what he is - and he can't either.

The language perversion of feminism and homosexuality is one of the things that provokes me.  They tend to isolate on perfectly understandable things, then warp them to their own nuanced meaning.  Like it is somehow more natural and gentle to call yourself "gay" and pretend that it's all about rainbows.

Not that it is any sort of celebration of diversity anyway.  My suggestion about implications of the genetic mosaicism that is unique to all human females produced feeble responses.  They seemed to obsess about abnormal human genitalia and deviant behavior, to the point of gushing in effusiveness.  I had thought that a forum for women's issues would share my intellectual interest in a subject that personally affects more than half the human population.  It was my mistake to suppose that women would find anything of interest in such cerebral rhetoric.  Obviously it was just too demanding.

The main focus of the post in question seems to be on establishing some kind of parallel between abnormal embryology and deviant sexuality.  This is a specious premise, there is no such parallel.  Abnormal development of unborn babies is not characterized in behavioral habits.  Deviant sexuality is characterized by nothing other than superficial self-identified behavioral preferences.  The only comparison is that neither characteristic is anything to be admired or praised.  Misuse of well defined terms of science disciplines to justify social trends and abnormal behavioral habits is highly irrational.  Anyone can copy graphics from the Internet these days, but it takes something more than that to frame a convincing thesis.

Generally the blog participants seem to be talking because it so gratifies their own egos to hear themselves talk.  Talking without purpose seems to be another trait that characterizes human females.  Most of the outspoken proponents seem far too deeply invested in their own "social constructs" to consider that there might be more legitimate points of view.

I continue to reserve the right to apply the same personal preferences and tyrannical ground rules on this blog.  Dissenters will be moderated by the neck until dead.

...reason and accountability...

Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
Rick: If I gave you any thought I probably would...

Regardless, I still can't even pretend to ever be quite as capricious and arbitrary as this troupe of illiterate misinformed gossips.

One of the politically-correct categorizations that has evolved in Internet parlance is the modern-day epithet "troll".  The etymology and semantics are rather interesting.  Most who use it now seem to believe the term has roots in reference to some mythical ugly little sub-human creature to be driven away and shunned, although this is simply another distortion of real meaning.  In general terms it has become the online equivalent to labelling someone "nigger" in pre-civil-rights days.  Not that it really means anything in particular.  Calling someone a "troll" has become one of the de riguer labels for disparaging and marginalizing one who disagrees with you.

Make no mistake - these folks are haters. The whole feminazi business is so ludicrous, it's laughable.  :-)