Indigenous Hunter reverse directory site.

On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:02:14 +0930, [email protected] wrote:

>

Now http://www.indigenoushunter.com redirects to Boongtown.com, with
the following statement:


19 March 06 - Development has begun!

This site has been shutdown temporarily closed.

I have been receiving a few emails lately regarding the closure of the
site. Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for your comments about
the site. You have shown me that the game did have quite a few
regular's who seem very disappointed that I took the game offline. I
have revised the status of the site from SHUTDOWN to TEMPORARILY
CLOSED.

The reason for the temporary closure is due to a major overhaul of the
game. This overhaul requires me to make a few major changes to the
database, which I will find difficult to do whilst current games are
running.

Unfortunetly, once the new game platform is running, old games will
not be accessible. All scores from old games will be posted on the
site so your bragging rights will still be left intact.

The new platform should be available within a week or two. I am
currently the only coder on the site and since a lot of changes are
required, this will take me some time. The major enhancement will be
to the fight system. The old fight mechanisim was total bull****. I
know this because I wrote it. I have completed a new and improved
system that should make everyone much happier.

I will keep you posted on the development status.

Email: [email protected]

---

› See More: Indigenous Hunter reverse directory site.

On 25 May 2006 17:49:47 +0200, "EnjoyDialup" <[email protected]>
wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 25 May 2006 15:37:28 +0200, "EnjoyDialup" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On 25 May 2006 12:31:15 +0200, "EnjoyDialup" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:44:02 +1000, Scornful <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:02:14 +0930, horacewachope wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <http://www.privacylawyer.ca/blog/atom.xml>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Privacy Commissioner of Australia is poised to investigate a
>>>>>>>> controvertial "reverse directory" in that country.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It will be interesting to read the results of the investigation, and
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>see how much it costs in taxpayer dollars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>These politically correct clowns are impervious to rational thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm more concerned about the "telecommunications industry sources" who
>>>>>> think that an "overseas computer hacker" has gained access to the
>>>>>> IPND to create the site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just mind numbingly STUPID.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about these sorts of things
>>>>>> (let alone a someone classed as a "telecommunications industry
>>>>>> source") , would know that it's far, far, far more likely that
>>>>>> someone's just stripped the data from a CD-ROM phone directory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The outdatedness of parts of it (together with the lack of any silent
>>>>>> numbers appearing in it) is a bit of a give-away.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I found at least one number that I know to be silent in this database.
>>>>>Cant
>>>>>post it here for obvious reasons
>>>>
>>>> Someone else just told me that a silent number belonging to them was
>>>> listed as well.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if it was silent at the time the data used on that site
>>>> was collated, however.
>>>
>>>The number I check has always been silent. So it would appear that some
>>>silent numbers are listed, while others are not according to wolfgang.
>>
>> It'd be far more likely that Telstra has made a mistake, and the
>> number isn't actually "listed" as a silent number.
>
>Nope the number was always correctly listed as silent. I have check it
>using the online whitepages on a number of occasions.

What does that prove? Only that it's not listed when you "forward
search" for it. Again, it's far more likely that Telstra has made a
mistake, and the number isn't actually "listed" as a silent number
(even though you're paying the monthly fee, and nothing comes up on
Whitepages.com.au when you seach for the name).


>> Incidentally, no silent number that I've checked (out of about a
>> dozen) has appeared.
>
>Lucky you.

Why? They're not my numbers.


>>>The owner of the site has gone to some trouble to mask their identity and
>>>location. I would not be surprised if it was an Australian, despite the
>>>blurb to the contra on the site.
>>
>> What trouble did he or she go to? Not putting "name and location" up
>> on the site (when "name and location" has no relevance to the
>> "service" the site is offering)? Wow. That's some trouble.
>
>You need to do a lot more than just read the webpage to find what measures
>he has taken to hide his identity.

What? The details held by the domain name registrar?

It seems it wasn't too hard for some solicitor working for an ALS to
track the owner down via the host.


>> Furthermore, it appears that the owner was quite happy to call the
>> solicitor from the ALS, which is not something that someone trying to
>> "mask their identity" would be.
>
>So what? I can call anyone on a public phone without having to worry about
>them tracing me.

Why bother? Why take unnecessary risk? Obviously the hosting company
knows how to contact the guy, because they passed on the solicitor's
email.

Other than you and Nigel Howe, what sort of moron would bother to use
a public phone to ring a solicitor, when he could be traced via the
hosting company?

And if you reply "well, the hosting company won't pass on those
details", neither would Optus, or Telstra, or Three, or Vodafone, so
why not use his mobile and avoid the public phone entirely?

You and Nigel Howe have been playing childish games with each other
for so long you appear to have come to believe that such behaviour is
common.


>> The media/Telstra/government reaction to this site has been
>> over-the-top.
>>
>> Precisely the same information (subject to the silent number
>> controversy) has been available on CD for years.
>
>The information that was available on cd though DTMS was pulled from the
>market after telstra took them to court.

For COPYRIGHT reasons, YOU SPASTIC. NOT for reasons relating to
"privacy" or "stalking".

On Fri, 26 May 2006 01:34:16 +0930, [email protected] wrote:

>On 25 May 2006 17:49:47 +0200, "EnjoyDialup" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>>>The owner of the site has gone to some trouble to mask their identity and
>>>>location. I would not be surprised if it was an Australian, despite the
>>>>blurb to the contra on the site.
>>>
>>> What trouble did he or she go to? Not putting "name and location" up
>>> on the site (when "name and location" has no relevance to the
>>> "service" the site is offering)? Wow. That's some trouble.
>>
>>You need to do a lot more than just read the webpage to find what measures
>>he has taken to hide his identity.
>
>What? The details held by the domain name registrar?
>
>It seems it wasn't too hard for some solicitor working for an ALS to
>track the owner down via the host.

They even have a policy SPECIFICALLY created for these situations:

http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/popup/...apolicies.aspx

On Fri, 26 May 2006 01:41:42 +0930, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 26 May 2006 01:34:16 +0930, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On 25 May 2006 17:49:47 +0200, "EnjoyDialup" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote
>>>
>>>>>The owner of the site has gone to some trouble to mask their identity and
>>>>>location. I would not be surprised if it was an Australian, despite the
>>>>>blurb to the contra on the site.
>>>>
>>>> What trouble did he or she go to? Not putting "name and location" up
>>>> on the site (when "name and location" has no relevance to the
>>>> "service" the site is offering)? Wow. That's some trouble.
>>>
>>>You need to do a lot more than just read the webpage to find what measures
>>>he has taken to hide his identity.
>>
>>What? The details held by the domain name registrar?
>>
>>It seems it wasn't too hard for some solicitor working for an ALS to
>>track the owner down via the host.
>
>They even have a policy SPECIFICALLY created for these situations:
>
>http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/popup/...apolicies.aspx

And I bet Quicknet Internet Service Provider know precisely who he is,
as well.

<http://www.quicknet.com.au>

God, you're a moron.

On Fri, 26 May 2006 01:47:18 +0930, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 26 May 2006 01:41:42 +0930, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 May 2006 01:34:16 +0930, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On 25 May 2006 17:49:47 +0200, "EnjoyDialup" <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>><[email protected]> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>The owner of the site has gone to some trouble to mask their identity and
>>>>>>location. I would not be surprised if it was an Australian, despite the
>>>>>>blurb to the contra on the site.
>>>>>
>>>>> What trouble did he or she go to? Not putting "name and location" up
>>>>> on the site (when "name and location" has no relevance to the
>>>>> "service" the site is offering)? Wow. That's some trouble.
>>>>
>>>>You need to do a lot more than just read the webpage to find what measures
>>>>he has taken to hide his identity.
>>>
>>>What? The details held by the domain name registrar?
>>>
>>>It seems it wasn't too hard for some solicitor working for an ALS to
>>>track the owner down via the host.
>>
>>They even have a policy SPECIFICALLY created for these situations:
>>
>>http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/popup/...apolicies.aspx
>
>And I bet Quicknet Internet Service Provider know precisely who he is,
>as well.
>
><http://www.quicknet.com.au>
>
>God, you're a moron.

And I'd bet Nigel Howe's life that someone living in a certain unit on
Dennis Road, Springwood, QLD 4127 also knows.

"Wolfgang Wildeblood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > <http://www.privacylawyer.ca/blog/atom.xml>
>
> > The website - www.boonghunter.com - also has
> > disturbed Telstra, which yesterday described it as "a gross invasion
> > of privacy".
>
> Odd they didn't consider it a "gross invasion of privacy" when they
> sold that database to all the direct marketing firms? Perhaps they mean
> an invasion of their private revenue stream?
>
>

Equally odd they didn't consider this "a gross invasion of privacy" when
they
provided an equivalent service to the cops and have done for a number of
years. I know this because I have personally witnessed it.

Also the cops got CLI before any of us mere "citizens" were deemed worthy
of it.

Charles L

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


> "Whoever is behind this website has no regard for
> Australians' rights to have their personal contact information handled
> responsibly and with respect."

I wish I had the right to have my personal contact information not handled
at all, especially by Telstra.

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote

> Now http://www.indigenoushunter.com redirects to Boongtown.com,

Now to
http://sedoparking.com/search/regist...strar=sedopark

> with the following statement:

> 19 March 06 - Development has begun!

> This site has been shutdown temporarily closed.

> I have been receiving a few emails lately regarding the closure of the
> site. Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for your comments about
> the site. You have shown me that the game did have quite a few
> regular's who seem very disappointed that I took the game offline. I
> have revised the status of the site from SHUTDOWN to TEMPORARILY
> CLOSED.
>
> The reason for the temporary closure is due to a major overhaul of the
> game. This overhaul requires me to make a few major changes to the
> database, which I will find difficult to do whilst current games are
> running.
>
> Unfortunetly, once the new game platform is running, old games will
> not be accessible. All scores from old games will be posted on the
> site so your bragging rights will still be left intact.
>
> The new platform should be available within a week or two. I am
> currently the only coder on the site and since a lot of changes are
> required, this will take me some time. The major enhancement will be
> to the fight system. The old fight mechanisim was total bull****. I
> know this because I wrote it. I have completed a new and improved
> system that should make everyone much happier.
>
> I will keep you posted on the development status.
>
> Email: [email protected]

On Fri, 26 May 2006 05:09:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote
>
>> Now http://www.indigenoushunter.com redirects to Boongtown.com,
>
>Now to
>http://sedoparking.com/search/regist...strar=sedopark

Yeah... amazing after hours service this guy's getting from his
hosting company, isn't it? :-)

(Which, funnily enough, operates out of a residential unit.)

"Big LN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:44:02 +1000, Scornful <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:02:14 +0930, horacewachope wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.privacylawyer.ca/blog/atom.xml>
> >>>
> >>> The Privacy Commissioner of Australia is poised to investigate a
> >>> controvertial "reverse directory" in that country.
> >>
> >>It will be interesting to read the results of the investigation, and to
> >>see how much it costs in taxpayer dollars.
> >>
> >>These politically correct clowns are impervious to rational thought.
> >
> > I'm more concerned about the "telecommunications industry sources" who
> > think that an "overseas computer hacker" has gained access to the
> > IPND to create the site.
> >
> > That's just mind numbingly STUPID.
> >
> > Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about these sorts of things
> > (let alone a someone classed as a "telecommunications industry
> > source") , would know that it's far, far, far more likely that
> > someone's just stripped the data from a CD-ROM phone directory.
> >
> > The outdatedness of parts of it (together with the lack of any silent
> > numbers appearing in it) is a bit of a give-away.
>
> I reckon he just screen scraped the info from the online White Pages. They

How do you screen scrape online white pages?

"EnjoyDialup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:44:02 +1000, Scornful <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 25 May 2006 16:02:14 +0930, horacewachope wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <http://www.privacylawyer.ca/blog/atom.xml>
> >>>
> >>> The Privacy Commissioner of Australia is poised to investigate a
> >>> controvertial "reverse directory" in that country.
> >>
> >>It will be interesting to read the results of the investigation, and to
> >>see how much it costs in taxpayer dollars.
> >>
> >>These politically correct clowns are impervious to rational thought.
> >
> > I'm more concerned about the "telecommunications industry sources" who
> > think that an "overseas computer hacker" has gained access to the
> > IPND to create the site.
> >
> > That's just mind numbingly STUPID.
> >
> > Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about these sorts of things
> > (let alone a someone classed as a "telecommunications industry
> > source") , would know that it's far, far, far more likely that
> > someone's just stripped the data from a CD-ROM phone directory.
> >
> > The outdatedness of parts of it (together with the lack of any silent
> > numbers appearing in it) is a bit of a give-away.
>
>
> I found at least one number that I know to be silent in this database.
Cant
> post it here for obvious reasons

You'd be wrong about the silent number

> >> Someone else just told me that a silent number belonging to them was
> >> listed as well.
> >>
> >> I don't know if it was silent at the time the data used on that site
> >> was collated, however.
> >
> >The number I check has always been silent. So it would appear that some
> >silent numbers are listed, while others are not according to wolfgang.
>
> It'd be far more likely that Telstra has made a mistake, and the
> number isn't actually "listed" as a silent number.

Or that the customer made a mistake, and its never been a silent number

> What trouble did he or she go to? Not putting "name and location" up
> on the site (when "name and location" has no relevance to the
> "service" the site is offering)? Wow. That's some trouble.

Agreed

> The media/Telstra/government reaction to this site has been
> over-the-top.

Agreed

> >Nope the number was always correctly listed as silent. I have check it
> >using the online whitepages on a number of occasions.
>
> What does that prove? Only that it's not listed when you "forward
> search" for it. Again, it's far more likely that Telstra has made a
> mistake, and the number isn't actually "listed" as a silent number
> (even though you're paying the monthly fee, and nothing comes up on
> Whitepages.com.au when you seach for the name).

If it doesnt come up on Whitepages then it IS silent

> >The information that was available on cd though DTMS was pulled from the
> >market after telstra took them to court.
>
> For COPYRIGHT reasons, YOU SPASTIC. NOT for reasons relating to
> "privacy" or "stalking".
>
>

"Wolfgang Wildeblood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> EnjoyDialup wrote:
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Someone else just told me that a silent number belonging to them was
> >> listed as well.
> >>
> >> I don't know if it was silent at the time the data used on that site
> >> was collated, however.
> >
> > The number I check has always been silent. So it would appear that some
> > silent numbers are listed, while others are not according to wolfgang.
>
> The way to demonstrate that the database is only partial (by which I
> mean VERY incomplete) is simply to dump a whole street. Since there are
> very few houses without a telephone these days, you should get a result
> for almost every house.
>
> Try entering Walder Rd and postcode 2170. That street has at least 100
> houses, a small shopping centre and a retirement village, but returns
> only 61 results. Do you really believe there are that many
> unlisted/silent numbers?

Yes. Thats only 40% silent

"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
> >
> > The way to demonstrate that the database is only partial (by which I
> > mean VERY incomplete) is simply to dump a whole street.
>
> Its not as simple as that. The database is badly indexed.
> For example, for one person I tried, I got nothing for his street
> or phone number. But giving his name, I got the listing. Still
> can't get his neighbors.

The database is indexed just fine, thanks.