Dispute over IP address with VOIP service - Page 2

Daveoc64 · 15-10-2011, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nopanic

Well that's not strictly true.. A IP can always be traced back to a user... No matter how many hops they create, if someone has the time resource and technical ability. At the end of the day to get online you need to physically connect somewhere and that location can be found ...

Not if an IP is shared (intentionally or otherwise).

If you have 5 people in your household it's not possible to trace which one of those 5 people did something (e.g accessed a specific site) from just the IP address.

Likewise, if someone hacked into your Wi-Fi network, they could access an illegal site and it would be traced back to your household

Sirius · 15-10-2011, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

Not if an IP is shared (intentionally or otherwise).

If you have 5 people in your household it's not possible to trace which one of those 5 people did something (e.g accessed a specific site) from just the IP address.

Likewise, if someone hacked into your Wi-Fi network, they could access an illegal site and it would be traced back to your household

Ultimately the responsibility for that activity will reside with the account holder of the broadband connection ??

Nopanic · 15-10-2011, 16:03

As above account holder to blame ...

ferretuk · 15-10-2011, 17:17

To bring this back on topic however, the 'user' in this context is the individual making use of the VOIP service not the account holder with an ISP.

For example, if the OP took his PAP2 to a hotel the IP address that the call appears to come from the WAN address of the hotel internet connection but the user responsible for the phone call is not the hotel... If several users of the same service were staying at the hotel then all the calls would appear to be from the same address and therefore the 300mins would get used up fairly quickly much to the bemusement of the individual customers.

As per AbyssUnderground - Pretty silly for basing their service on IP address rather than login credentials.

---------- Post added at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 15:42 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvout

Hi Hugh, just me and my girlfriend using it and the calls are made through a DECT phone connected to a SIP device (PAP2) connected to the router. No-one else would have made any calls through any account via my home router/connection and I know that no-one else would have the same IP address..
I'm really intrigued to know what evidence they can provide to suggest someone else is making calls from another account from my IP address. I can only assume they're basing it on another VM address somewhere as the calls couldn't have been made via my network other than the ones that were on my bill. I think they're trying to pull a fast one...

Hi tvout

1. Is this a recent problem? You've been using a Betamax provider for some time now?
2. What are your PAP2 NAT settings? Have they changed recently?
3. Do you have an Outbound Proxy setup? Is this a recent change?

As per my reply earlier, what IP address is VOIPCheap saying that you're using?

Nopanic · 15-10-2011, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferretuk

To bring this back on topic however, the 'user' in this context is the individual making use of the VOIP service not the account holder with an ISP.

It then becomes the responsibility of the hotel/bar whatever to provide the details of who used the service, which again would allow them to be traced.

There are very few, if any completely open wi-fi spots and you'll probably find that the CCTV in the area would be enough to find the person .. big brother is watching

ferretuk · 15-10-2011, 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nopanic

It then becomes the responsibility of the hotel/bar whatever to provide the details of who used the service, which again would allow them to be traced.

There are very few, if any completely open wi-fi spots and you'll probably find that the CCTV in the area would be enough to find the person .. big brother is watching

Did you actually *read* any of what I wrote?

Nopanic · 16-10-2011, 07:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferretuk

Did you actually *read* any of what I wrote?

I quoted the wrong bit ...

ferretuk · 16-10-2011, 10:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nopanic

I quoted the wrong bit ...

...which you didn't actually read!

Daveoc64 · 17-10-2011, 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nopanic

As above account holder to blame ...

"To blame" for what!? Using a service legally?

You have jumped in to the thread and replied out of context.

An IP address DOES NOT identify a user.

This is a fact.

You can pin any wrongdoing on the account holder, but that doesn't change the fact that the IP does not identify the user.

In this subject of this thread there is no illegal or unauthorised activity, so there isn't even anything to actually blame the account holder for!

Nopanic · 17-10-2011, 16:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

"To blame" for what!? Using a service legally?

You have jumped in to the thread and replied out of context.

An IP address DOES NOT identify a user.

This is a fact.

You can pin any wrongdoing on the account holder, but that doesn't change the fact that the IP does not identify the user.

In this subject of this thread there is no illegal or unauthorised activity, so there isn't even anything to actually blame the account holder for!

Ahh an anti staff poster .. Have another read .. My reply was to advise that unfortunately proving to the company it wasn't him will be difficult, I then took lead from other posters in my replies... Seeing my title has clearly annoyed you.. Care to explain why ?