When I began reading the story, I was worried it would be about a NAT problem (since it involved his phone).
While I'm glad this guy got his situation cleared so easily, I wonder how you would defend yourself in this situation. Police ask telecom, "who has this address?" Telecom says: "this person has that address" (while failing to mention who else has that address). How would you refute such charges, since it would be true that you did have that ip address in this hypothetical situation?
While I'm glad this guy got his situation cleared so easily, I wonder how you would defend yourself in this situation. Police ask telecom, "who has this address?" Telecom says: "this person has that address" (while failing to mention who else has that address). How would you refute such charges, since it would be true that you did have that ip address in this hypothetical situation?