Not very. Will Polgar and Truong want their web logs examined in a legal
action? Unlikely. Will they voluntarily share them? Unlikely.

From the USCF Issues Forum this morning.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Brian Mottershead on Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:46 am #73171

gregory wrote:
MikeMurray wrote:Are you accusing him of faking or altering the contents
of his report ?



Hmmm.... I never thought of that really, but now that you ask, it begs me
to ask a new question. If someone can read the log files, why can't they
write to them as well? I worked in the Human Genome Project as a
BioInformatics expert, but I have very little clue about these things and
just thought that I would ask. I am sure that an answer will be made in the
negative, sigh.


I've answered this elsewhere, Gregory, as you know since you contributed to
those threads. Or do you only read your own posts in the threads in which
you participate?

The answer is not negative. The logs were being generated by software that I
wrote -- specifically the Joomla-phpBB3 Bridge. I included logging in my
code so that I could debug the code, and I first noticed the match of user
agent strings between the Fake Sam Sloan posts and ChessPromotion's forum
account while I was debugging the code. Of course I could have tampered with
the logs. They were my logs from my code. Since I also had access to the
USCF Forums database, I could have tampered with that, too.

That fact that I could have does not mean that I did.

For the record, I will state that I did not tamper with the logs or USCF
forums database. However, it should not be necessary for me to say this,
because a moment's thought will make it obvious that it would have been
crazy for me to have based this case on fabricated evidence.

The major problem with this log-tampering defense is that it misunderstands
the nature of the evidence. Once the connection is established between an IP
address and a particular user, there are many sources of information to
corroborate that connection. The problem is not proving the connection
between a particular person and an IP address. The problem is finding the
connection in the first place. Once it is found, it is not hard to obtain
corroborating evidence, especially if you are someone with the ability to
get a subpoena or a search warrant.

For example, in this particular case, the USCF has corroborating information
to which I have no access at all, such as Apache web logs and database
backups. The USCF probably has other databases to which I do not have access
and which I don't even know about, and these may well also establish
connections between Paul Truong and the particular IP addresses.

Beyond the sources available to the USCF, there are many other sources of
corroborating information.

Obvious sources are ISP logs, for example.

The logs of the website you run for Paul, chessdiscussions.com, have
information corroborating the findings, if you care to examine them.
(Incidentally, may I suggest that you retain those logs. I don't think you
want to be in the position of explaining why they have been deleted.)

Many other sites probably also contain corroborating information --
including Polgar's blog site, Mig's site, and any other site which Paul
Truong has accessed from those IP addresses, as himself.

On the other hand, if there is no connection between these IP addresses and
the particular users, and I fabricated the connection by tampering with
logs, etc, all of these other sources can be used to disconfirm the
connection -- and expose me as a fraud. How stupid do you want to bet I am?

On Oct 11, 10:14 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
Not very. Will Polgar and Truong want their web logs examined in a legal
action? Unlikely. Will they voluntarily share them? Unlikely.

From the USCF Issues Forum this morning.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Brian Mottershead on Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:46 am #73171

gregory wrote:

MikeMurray wrote:Are you accusing him of faking or altering the contents
of his report ?

Hmmm.... I never thought of that really, but now that you ask, it begs me
to ask a new question. If someone can read the log files, why can't they
write to them as well? I worked in the Human Genome Project as a
BioInformatics expert, but I have very little clue about these things and
just thought that I would ask. I am sure that an answer will be made in the
negative, sigh.

I've answered this elsewhere, Gregory, as you know since you contributed to
those threads. Or do you only read your own posts in the threads in which
you participate?

The answer is not negative. The logs were being generated by software that I
wrote -- specifically the Joomla-phpBB3 Bridge. I included logging in my
code so that I could debug the code, and I first noticed the match of user
agent strings between the Fake Sam Sloan posts and ChessPromotion's forum
account while I was debugging the code. Of course I could have tampered with
the logs. They were my logs from my code. Since I also had access to the
USCF Forums database, I could have tampered with that, too.

That fact that I could have does not mean that I did.

For the record, I will state that I did not tamper with the logs or USCF
forums database. However, it should not be necessary for me to say this,
because a moment's thought will make it obvious that it would have been
crazy for me to have based this case on fabricated evidence.

The major problem with this log-tampering defense is that it misunderstands
the nature of the evidence. Once the connection is established between an IP
address and a particular user, there are many sources of information to
corroborate that connection. The problem is not proving the connection
between a particular person and an IP address. The problem is finding the
connection in the first place. Once it is found, it is not hard to obtain
corroborating evidence, especially if you are someone with the ability to
get a subpoena or a search warrant.

For example, in this particular case, the USCF has corroborating information
to which I have no access at all, such as Apache web logs and database
backups. The USCF probably has other databases to which I do not have access
and which I don't even know about, and these may well also establish
connections between Paul Truong and the particular IP addresses.

Beyond the sources available to the USCF, there are many other sources of
corroborating information.

Obvious sources are ISP logs, for example.

The logs of the website you run for Paul, chessdiscussions.com, have
information corroborating the findings, if you care to examine them.
(Incidentally, may I suggest that you retain those logs. I don't think you
want to be in the position of explaining why they have been deleted.)

Many other sites probably also contain corroborating information --
including Polgar's blog site, Mig's site, and any other site which Paul
Truong has accessed from those IP addresses, as himself.

On the other hand, if there is no connection between these IP addresses and
the particular users, and I fabricated the connection by tampering with
logs, etc, all of these other sources can be used to disconfirm the
connection -- and expose me as a fraud. How stupid do you want to bet I am?

"The answer is not negative."

I quit law school becasue of statements like this. You know he is a
damn liar, and what can you do? If this is a conspiracy, then
who are the real villans, and what is S. Polgar doing to protect us on
r.g.c.p from future death threats?

Marcus Roberts