"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:AJGdnellqduzMTjanZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The conceit of the current movie, UNTRACEABLE is that the more people
> viewing a streaming website, the faster a victim dies, yet said website
is
> "untraceable".
>
> I could see how a random website might be untraceable, but given that
it's
> streaming video, that's a ton of data. To quote NUMBERS, you don't need
to
> see the source of the water sprinkler in order to trace it from the path
> of the water drops. That much streaming video would seem like would be a
> geyser that could be tracked online back to the source. Not to mention
the
> heavy server load servicing all the people purportedly clicking into the
> website, you'd need a server farm to keep it going.
>
> Compounding the problem is that it's INTERACTIVE, so the more watching
the
> faster the poison is injected. So not only do you have a ton of data
> streaming out but also streaming in. Even if you had multiple webservers
> streaming out the data, the inward data would have to be networked to
one
> source and thus create a trace.
>
> And all this data is moving in REAL TIME--limiting the amount of
> "bouncing" of websites. Even if someone was using a server farm or
zombies
> to transmit the signal, that still seems like a lot of data moving fast
> that would stand out against the rest of "normal" internet traffic.
>
> Or is there some factor I'm overlooking, some new tech that makes it
> conceivable? Or some element in the movie (that I haven't seen) that
> explains this? Or am I just overthinking a thriller / action flick?
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
One of the things that amazed me about the Daniel Pearl case (the reporter
that was kidnapped and beheaded in Pakistan in '02) was this:
The kidnappers were communicationg through a Hotmail account, and the
authorities were UNABLE TO TRACE IT!
WTF?
But that was their story, and they stuck to it.
|
