An IP address by any other name

No more harassing emails so far from the faux me to the real me.

Some research done on the email headers showed that one of the IP addresses that appeared on it next to a statement that read, "Received from" was 192.248.248.66.

Here's some more technical information on this particular address from an online site that provides information on IP addresses.



Internet Numbers Registry Report for 192.248.248.66

Visit 11,245
OrgName: City of Riverside
OrgID: CITYOF-151
Address: City of Riverside
Address:
Information SystemsAddress: 3900 Main Street
City: Riverside
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 92522
Country:
USNetRange: 192.248.128.0 - 192.248.255.255
CIDR: 192.248.128.0/17
NetName: NETBLK-RIVCTY
NetHandle: NET-192-248-128-0-1
Parent: NET-192-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS1.RIVERSIDECA.GOV
NameServer: NS1.PBI.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 1992-11-09
Updated: 2005-02-08R
TechHandle: TT1578-ARINR
TechName: Taylor, Thomas
Rtec Phone: +1-951-826-5505
RTechEmail: tow@riversideca.gov
OrgTechHandle: TT1578-ARINOrg
TechName: Taylor, Thomas Org
TechPhone: +1-951-826-5505Org
TechEmail: tow@riversideca.gov#

ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-07-18 19:10#

whois.arin.net



Interesting, indeed. In other words, it's owned, administrated, operated and registered to the city of Riverside. Not just any Riverside, but the one in California.

When I contacted the city for an explanation as to what it means to have an IP address which is registered to it on an email header, the city forwarded my request to Steve Ranecker, Information Officer on "behalf of the city". He was polite, gave me the standard explanation about hows the city is unable to track down computer network use by its employees if they use Yahoo, call for a subpoena(!) and that I should contact Yahoo for assistance.

I never actually asked for any of these things, simply for an explanation
as to why this IP address was listed on the header of a harassment email that someone sent under a Yahoo account that they initiated under my name.

He or the city he represents has yet to answer that single question.


But as far as strawmen arguments go, his wasn't that bad.



Ironically, I would be surprised if it was a city employee. The ones who hate me are probably too smart to do such a stupid thing on a city computer especially because contrary to what Renecker stated, the city last year gave a seminar on exactly how effective it was in terms of identifying its employees who accessed just one single Web site. And the vast majority of the city's work force are professional and very dedicated to serving the public. Many have expressed concern about this situation.

My impression is that whoever wrote the email probably lacks the social maturity, judgment and probably the skills as well to serve as a city employee and likely if applied, would not be hired. My question is that if this is the case, how was this individual able to do possibly through an internet system owned and operated by the city of Riverside. My question is still why is this particular IP address on a header on an email sent specifically to harass me?


Neither he nor anyone else from the city has answered that one question I did ask. I don't suspect that they ever will. I will be asking my elected city government this same question.

Some people have generously sent me referrals to private investigators to help me track down who sent this email. Several people even offered to donate funds to pay for his or her services. My only interest in choosing this option is because there's no way of knowing whether or not this individual is a new harasser on the roster or one of the still unidentified individuals who harassed and stalked me last year on my Web site.

The people who harassed me online last year engaged in what is known as cyber stalking. That's a federal and state crime. I was told by the police department that criminal conduct had occurred on my Web site including violations of PC 422 which is issuing criminal threats. Also, it was possible that violations of the federal laws against cyber stalking had taken place as well.

In addition, an unidentified poster threatened me in July last year with blackmail because they were upset at my site. Even thought the information this person provided was false, the penal code defining felony blackmail states that the person who commits the offense only has to believe that it's true.

I switched comments to moderation and that seemed to discourage a couple but others including one or more who used nicknames continued though less infrequently to send posts that either were harassing or talking about shooting investigations including Brown and especially Joseph Darnell Hill including one who thought learning that one family losing two family members to officer-involved shootings was just hilarious, until I shut down comments in May.

One had IP addresses using PacNet in the Los Angeles County area including the cities of Downey, Rosemead, Monteray Park, Pico Rivera and Brea. This ISP cluster still visits my site at least once daily, usually morning or late night.

One had IP addresses using a Verizon ISP from cities including Pomona, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland. This ISP cluster has not visited in several months.

Another harasser who wrote comments in September and October used a Road Runner account showing the cities Fontana and San Bernardino. This ISP cluster still visits nearly weekly though there was a spike in visits around the postings on the Kelsy Metzler law suit.

These were individuals who posted after September 2006.

I'm not big on IP numbers, but if you harass, stalk or threaten me, yours will be posted here on this site. Consider this your written notification.






The mayor of Salt Lake City has selected four new commissioners to serve on the beleagured review board which had lost nine of its members, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

Not everyone approved of the mayor's selections or even that he made them at all.


(excerpt)


During an emotional exchange, Saxton admonished the council for making the move, insisting "the board is tainted."

"I have no question about your ability to do the job," she told the appointees. "My problem is to put you into a broken system and expect stellar response is unrealistic and unfair. . . . It's garbage in, garbage out."

Councilman Dave Buhler, who is running for mayor, agreed the board's reputation is in question. But he disagreed with Saxton's approach, saying he
will remain "optimistic."

"I'm hoping you can restore the board's credibility," he said.




Now if they could only restore that of the city and its politicians.

The city of Riverside can relate to this, having lost five of its nine members to resignations and being termed out after the city manager's office apparently decided to as Press Enterprise columnist Dan Bernstein called it, hollow out the Community Police Review Commission.




The Spokane(WA) Review released some interesting news about a report released by the city's attorney about the assault and arrests of activists at a rally.


(excerpt)


In a report delivered Monday to Mayor Dennis Hession, City Attorney Jim
Craven said his review of video shot by a police officer does not
depict events described in police reports written after 17 people were
arrested in the park.

“It does not show an assault on an officer,” Craven wrote. “It R>does not show any obviously criminal behavior on the part of anyone,
other than resisting arrest once the trouble started.”

Craven said the incident would be appropriate for review by an ombudman
or someone else with the responsibility for police oversight. Hession
has said he supports hiring such a person, but must first wait for
negotiations with the police union.