New Kit Police Investigation

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Jeremy Cluckson"]The emotional link between NCFC and it''s grassroot support has been dead for some considerable time unfortunately.
[/quote]

Mr.Cluckson you are 100% spot on.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

You both seem to know that when the club contacted the police they were already aware that the offender was a 17yr old norwich fan who had not mangaged access to more than photograpghs of a new kit, eg the thousands of financial details of their fans. May I ask how you know this?

[/quote]

 

This may not be right but my impression is that the sequence of events was as follows:

 

1. Chris Brown (whom I do not regard as blameless) tweets or posts about what he has done, making it clear that all he has gained access to is the kit stuff  -as I understand it from an outside website -  with no suggestion he has got into the club''s store of personal details on its website.

 

2. The club phones up Brown. At which point presumably the club can confirm that he hasn''t gained access to any confidential details. Presumaly also the club contacted this outside company to find out what was involved.

 

3.The club - by this point knowing there is no confidential security risk - later makes a formal complaint to the police.

 

If the above is right, and the club did know there was no serious security breach, then that is why I and others - including now the club - regard calling the police as an over-reaction.

[norfolkchance1 0]

This story is now in the top 10 on the BBC News site main page and is all over the internet on other clubs message boards and news sites.

The word is out that we have a new kit out, nearly every site has a picture of it with Delia etc stood with it. And people can''t help but make comments about the kit either.

When was the last time a kit release made the top ten of an international news site stories list, even Man U and England don''t manage that.

[AndyTGT 0]

[quote user="norfolkchance1"]

When was the last time a kit release made the top ten of an international news site stories list, even Man U and England don''t manage that.[/quote]Yes what a fantastic thing to get Worldwide recognition for, a club being run by complete Morons who should go and compete in the next series of The Apprentice.  Thats obviously where they would feel more at home, they would fit in do quite well.I will say it again I am actually embarrassed about it as should everyone connected to NCFC.  I hope the whole thing goes away and is forgotten as soon as possible. 

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

You both seem to know that when the club contacted the police they were already aware that the offender was a 17yr old norwich fan who had not mangaged access to more than photograpghs of a new kit, eg the thousands of financial details of their fans. May I ask how you know this?

[/quote]

 

This may not be right but my impression is that the sequence of events was as follows:

 

1. Chris Brown (whom I do not regard as blameless) tweets or posts about what he has done, making it clear that all he has gained access to is the kit stuff  -as I understand it from an outside website -  with no suggestion he has got into the club''s store of personal details on its website.

 

2. The club phones up Brown. At which point presumably the club can confirm that he hasn''t gained access to any confidential details. Presumaly also the club contacted this outside company to find out what was involved.

 

3.The club - by this point knowing there is no confidential security risk - later makes a formal complaint to the police.

 

If the above is right, and the club did know there was no serious security breach, then that is why I and others - including now the club - regard calling the police as an over-reaction.

[/quote]

 

Ok Purple, lets say for arguement sake that this was the sequence of events. When the club calls Mr Brown to assertain how the (in their view) protected data was obtain and were told, are you, as a fan with their personal financial data held by the club, happy if the club made no further inquiries. Are you satisified that the person making a telephone call (not even face to face) possesses both the intergation skills and technical knowhow to be confident that what was said by Mr Brown was the true and no danger either now or ongoing was present?

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="AndyTGT"][quote user="norfolkchance1"] When was the last time a kit release made the top ten of an international news site stories list, even Man U and England don''t manage that.[/quote]

Yes what a fantastic thing to get Worldwide recognition for, a club being run by complete Morons who should go and compete in the next series of The Apprentice.  Thats obviously where they would feel more at home, they would fit in do quite well.

I will say it again I am actually embarrassed about it as should everyone connected to NCFC.  I hope the whole thing goes away and is forgotten as soon as possible.
 
[/quote]

And will this worldwide recognition mean we will sell more shirts because of it?.....no doubt it very much.The worldwide publicity we have ascertained by this is only bad publicity and made us outside the Norwich City family subject to ridicule.

Now however is the time to move on and file this whole issue with the other PR gaffs in B 1 N.

[Browno 36]

Cheers for the support from everyone. Just glad the matter is now all resolved and we can look forward to Blackburn tomorrow. OTBC.

[. 0]

[quote user="AndyTGT"][quote user="norfolkchance1"]

When was the last time a kit release made the top ten of an international news site stories list, even Man U and England don''t manage that.[/quote]Yes what a fantastic thing to get Worldwide recognition for, a club being run by complete Morons who should go and compete in the next series of The Apprentice.  Thats obviously where they would feel more at home, they would fit in do quite well.I will say it again I am actually embarrassed about it as should everyone connected to NCFC.  I hope the whole thing goes away and is forgotten as soon as possible.  [/quote]Rather akin to a food poisoning outbreak in the Carrow Road kitchens....I reckon that would bring us worldwide attention too.  [Y]

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

You both seem to know that when the club contacted the police they were already aware that the offender was a 17yr old norwich fan who had not mangaged access to more than photograpghs of a new kit, eg the thousands of financial details of their fans. May I ask how you know this?

[/quote]

 

This may not be right but my impression is that the sequence of events was as follows:

 

1. Chris Brown (whom I do not regard as blameless) tweets or posts about what he has done, making it clear that all he has gained access to is the kit stuff  -as I understand it from an outside website -  with no suggestion he has got into the club''s store of personal details on its website.

 

2. The club phones up Brown. At which point presumably the club can confirm that he hasn''t gained access to any confidential details. Presumaly also the club contacted this outside company to find out what was involved.

 

3.The club - by this point knowing there is no confidential security risk - later makes a formal complaint to the police.

 

If the above is right, and the club did know there was no serious security breach, then that is why I and others - including now the club - regard calling the police as an over-reaction.

[/quote]

 

Ok Purple, lets say for arguement sake that this was the sequence of events. When the club calls Mr Brown to assertain how the (in their view) protected data was obtain and were told, are you, as a fan with their personal financial data held by the club, happy if the club made no further inquiries. Are you satisified that the person making a telephone call (not even face to face) possesses both the intergation skills and technical knowhow to be confident that what was said by Mr Brown was the true and no danger either now or ongoing was present?

[/quote]

 

Obviously I have no idea how competent this investigator may have been. But, as I also said, presumably the club spoke to this outside company to find out how this happened. Armed with that company''s expert knowledge it must have been apparent to the club before it contacted the police that there was no threat to confidential information. I am a tecnho-idiot but as I understand we are in effect talking about two different websites - the outside one and the club''s. The one would have no connection to confidential stuff on the other.

 

To back up my argument at no time has the club claimed it made a complaint to the police because it feared some serious confidential breach. If that had been the case it would have mentioned this in its climbdown statement. Something on the lines of "what looked to fans like an over-reaction on our part was only  prompted by us not knowing how serious this breach was. We feared confidential data may have been at risk." Nothing like that at all.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

You both seem to know that when the club contacted the police they were already aware that the offender was a 17yr old norwich fan who had not mangaged access to more than photograpghs of a new kit, eg the thousands of financial details of their fans. May I ask how you know this?

[/quote]

 

This may not be right but my impression is that the sequence of events was as follows:

 

1. Chris Brown (whom I do not regard as blameless) tweets or posts about what he has done, making it clear that all he has gained access to is the kit stuff  -as I understand it from an outside website -  with no suggestion he has got into the club''s store of personal details on its website.

 

2. The club phones up Brown. At which point presumably the club can confirm that he hasn''t gained access to any confidential details. Presumaly also the club contacted this outside company to find out what was involved.

 

3.The club - by this point knowing there is no confidential security risk - later makes a formal complaint to the police.

 

If the above is right, and the club did know there was no serious security breach, then that is why I and others - including now the club - regard calling the police as an over-reaction.

[/quote]

 

Ok Purple, lets say for arguement sake that this was the sequence of events. When the club calls Mr Brown to assertain how the (in their view) protected data was obtain and were told, are you, as a fan with their personal financial data held by the club, happy if the club made no further inquiries. Are you satisified that the person making a telephone call (not even face to face) possesses both the intergation skills and technical knowhow to be confident that what was said by Mr Brown was the true and no danger either now or ongoing was present?

[/quote]

Technically IMO the kid did ''hack'' the security in that he had no access to the kit file via existing html code but modified the security (albeit the hidden tag is hardly the best !!!) by removing the hidden tag thus allowing him access to the kit file and thus photos on the host computer. Copyright on the code made this illegal. The photos of the kit were never on his computer until he fetched them via unauthorised change to the code !!!!  

I do agree with others now that there was no damage to the club, but if there had been this kid could have been in serious trouble.

[blahblahblah 2]

Son ova gunn -The "leaked" photo was held on this site- http://norwichkit.comThere is no ticketing or other financial information held on that site.  There is a link to the Canary Store, where you can buy stuff securely online.  Norwichkit.com is like a leaflet for the kit, it is not a lever arch folder full of accounts, leaflets are handed out on street corners, lever arch folders full of accounts are held under lock and key.Any financial information is no doubt encrypted and held on a completely different set of computers, probably within a data centre in London by a third party company I''d imagine.  Any card details etc. passed through the internet will be handled by secure payment companies such as Paypal or WorldPay, to be honest I''ve never paid online for tickets, but this is by no means anything like the "proper hacking" you would have heard about on the Playstation Network etc.  He''s just a lad who got to see a photo a bit early and told his mates.

[Browno 36]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

You both seem to know that when the club contacted the police they were already aware that the offender was a 17yr old norwich fan who had not mangaged access to more than photograpghs of a new kit, eg the thousands of financial details of their fans. May I ask how you know this?

[/quote]

 

This may not be right but my impression is that the sequence of events was as follows:

 

1. Chris Brown (whom I do not regard as blameless) tweets or posts about what he has done, making it clear that all he has gained access to is the kit stuff  -as I understand it from an outside website -  with no suggestion he has got into the club''s store of personal details on its website.

 

2. The club phones up Brown. At which point presumably the club can confirm that he hasn''t gained access to any confidential details. Presumaly also the club contacted this outside company to find out what was involved.

 

3.The club - by this point knowing there is no confidential security risk - later makes a formal complaint to the police.

 

If the above is right, and the club did know there was no serious security breach, then that is why I and others - including now the club - regard calling the police as an over-reaction.

[/quote]

 

Ok Purple, lets say for arguement sake that this was the sequence of events. When the club calls Mr Brown to assertain how the (in their view) protected data was obtain and were told, are you, as a fan with their personal financial data held by the club, happy if the club made no further inquiries. Are you satisified that the person making a telephone call (not even face to face) possesses both the intergation skills and technical knowhow to be confident that what was said by Mr Brown was the true and no danger either now or ongoing was present?

[/quote]

Technically IMO the kid did ''hack'' the security in that he had no access to the kit file via existing html code but modified the security (albeit the hidden tag is hardly the best !!!) by removing the hidden tag thus allowing him access to the kit file and thus photos on the host computer. Copyright on the code made this illegal. The photos of the kit were never on his computer until he fetched them via unauthorised change to the code !!!!  

I do agree with others now that there was no damage to the club, but if there had been this kid could have been in serious trouble.

[/quote]

Incorrect.

[blahblahblah 2]

"The photos of the kit were never on his computer until he fetched them via unauthorised change to the code !!!! "Paul, you are wrong about this.If a .css (or page formatting for non-geeks) file contains the location of a graphics file, then that graphic is downloaded by your browser, and stored in your temporary images cache - regardless of whether the browser is then told to hide the graphic.He had to do a little bit of digging to find it, granted, but the files would have been on his machine, and on anyone elses'' machines that had visited the same page before the kit launch.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Browno"]Cheers for the support from everyone. Just glad the matter is now all resolved and we can look forward to Blackburn tomorrow. OTBC.[/quote]

You would obviously like to move on Chris and i think out of respect for the way you have handled yourself as witnessed on the TV last night we should all do so.Credit to you young man.

come on guys let this fall off the messageboard front page as it is over and done with.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Browno"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

You both seem to know that when the club contacted the police they were already aware that the offender was a 17yr old norwich fan who had not mangaged access to more than photograpghs of a new kit, eg the thousands of financial details of their fans. May I ask how you know this?

[/quote]

 

This may not be right but my impression is that the sequence of events was as follows:

 

1. Chris Brown (whom I do not regard as blameless) tweets or posts about what he has done, making it clear that all he has gained access to is the kit stuff  -as I understand it from an outside website -  with no suggestion he has got into the club''s store of personal details on its website.

 

2. The club phones up Brown. At which point presumably the club can confirm that he hasn''t gained access to any confidential details. Presumaly also the club contacted this outside company to find out what was involved.

 

3.The club - by this point knowing there is no confidential security risk - later makes a formal complaint to the police.

 

If the above is right, and the club did know there was no serious security breach, then that is why I and others - including now the club - regard calling the police as an over-reaction.

[/quote]

 

Ok Purple, lets say for arguement sake that this was the sequence of events. When the club calls Mr Brown to assertain how the (in their view) protected data was obtain and were told, are you, as a fan with their personal financial data held by the club, happy if the club made no further inquiries. Are you satisified that the person making a telephone call (not even face to face) possesses both the intergation skills and technical knowhow to be confident that what was said by Mr Brown was the true and no danger either now or ongoing was present?

[/quote]

Technically IMO the kid did ''hack'' the security in that he had no access to the kit file via existing html code but modified the security (albeit the hidden tag is hardly the best !!!) by removing the hidden tag thus allowing him access to the kit file and thus photos on the host computer. Copyright on the code made this illegal. The photos of the kit were never on his computer until he fetched them via unauthorised change to the code !!!!  

I do agree with others now that there was no damage to the club, but if there had been this kid could have been in serious trouble.

[/quote]

Incorrect.

[/quote]

 

Browno, you may well not want to comment on this, but is my supposed sequence of events correct? In other words the club knew the extent of what you had - and hadn''t - done before it contacted the police?

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

You both seem to know that when the club contacted the police they were already aware that the offender was a 17yr old norwich fan who had not mangaged access to more than photograpghs of a new kit, eg the thousands of financial details of their fans. May I ask how you know this?

[/quote]

 

This may not be right but my impression is that the sequence of events was as follows:

 

1. Chris Brown (whom I do not regard as blameless) tweets or posts about what he has done, making it clear that all he has gained access to is the kit stuff  -as I understand it from an outside website -  with no suggestion he has got into the club''s store of personal details on its website.

 

2. The club phones up Brown. At which point presumably the club can confirm that he hasn''t gained access to any confidential details. Presumaly also the club contacted this outside company to find out what was involved.

 

3.The club - by this point knowing there is no confidential security risk - later makes a formal complaint to the police.

 

If the above is right, and the club did know there was no serious security breach, then that is why I and others - including now the club - regard calling the police as an over-reaction.

[/quote]

 

Ok Purple, lets say for arguement sake that this was the sequence of events. When the club calls Mr Brown to assertain how the (in their view) protected data was obtain and were told, are you, as a fan with their personal financial data held by the club, happy if the club made no further inquiries. Are you satisified that the person making a telephone call (not even face to face) possesses both the intergation skills and technical knowhow to be confident that what was said by Mr Brown was the true and no danger either now or ongoing was present?

[/quote]

 

Obviously I have no idea how competent this investigator may have been. But, as I also said, presumably the club spoke to this outside company to find out how this happened. Armed with that company''s expert knowledge it must have been apparent to the club before it contacted the police that there was no threat to confidential information. I am a tecnho-idiot but as I understand we are in effect talking about two different websites - the outside one and the club''s. The one would have no connection to confidential stuff on the other.

 

To back up my argument at no time has the club claimed it made a complaint to the police because it feared some serious confidential breach. If that had been the case it would have mentioned this in its climbdown statement. Something on the lines of "what looked to fans like an over-reaction on our part was only  prompted by us not knowing how serious this breach was. We feared confidential data may have been at risk." Nothing like that at all.

[/quote]

 

That is a very good point Purple and one which I have no comback for. The clubs climbdown statement could off defected much critism if it had included something along these lines but maybe also could cause undue concern with fans about the it''s data secruity and therefore from a PR perspective its better just to say it was an over-reaction. Im only guessing and dont necerssarly believe this but it''s kinda the point I have been making throughout this.

We may not know all the details now, we certainly didnt at 9.00am yesterday. That (as Ruddy said) doesnt mean we cannot debate the matter but with so many making assumptions or guesswork about a confidential police investigation the over-reaction of so called fans against a possible over reation by the club is amazing. people that claim this is the end of the club as we know it, that the board are morons, inept and amatures, that they are ashamed to be norwich fans and this is the worst thing to happen to our club in their lifetime.. seriously. If thats the case and if I can get a day off work on a saturday maybe I can have your ticket. (Not directed at you Purple, always found your posts well balanced and interesting)

[Browno 36]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Browno"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

You both seem to know that when the club contacted the police they were already aware that the offender was a 17yr old norwich fan who had not mangaged access to more than photograpghs of a new kit, eg the thousands of financial details of their fans. May I ask how you know this?

[/quote]

 

This may not be right but my impression is that the sequence of events was as follows:

 

1. Chris Brown (whom I do not regard as blameless) tweets or posts about what he has done, making it clear that all he has gained access to is the kit stuff  -as I understand it from an outside website -  with no suggestion he has got into the club''s store of personal details on its website.

 

2. The club phones up Brown. At which point presumably the club can confirm that he hasn''t gained access to any confidential details. Presumaly also the club contacted this outside company to find out what was involved.

 

3.The club - by this point knowing there is no confidential security risk - later makes a formal complaint to the police.

 

If the above is right, and the club did know there was no serious security breach, then that is why I and others - including now the club - regard calling the police as an over-reaction.

[/quote]

 

Ok Purple, lets say for arguement sake that this was the sequence of events. When the club calls Mr Brown to assertain how the (in their view) protected data was obtain and were told, are you, as a fan with their personal financial data held by the club, happy if the club made no further inquiries. Are you satisified that the person making a telephone call (not even face to face) possesses both the intergation skills and technical knowhow to be confident that what was said by Mr Brown was the true and no danger either now or ongoing was present?

[/quote]

Technically IMO the kid did ''hack'' the security in that he had no access to the kit file via existing html code but modified the security (albeit the hidden tag is hardly the best !!!) by removing the hidden tag thus allowing him access to the kit file and thus photos on the host computer. Copyright on the code made this illegal. The photos of the kit were never on his computer until he fetched them via unauthorised change to the code !!!!  

I do agree with others now that there was no damage to the club, but if there had been this kid could have been in serious trouble.

[/quote]

Incorrect.

[/quote]

 

Browno, you may well not want to comment on this, but is my supposed sequence of events correct? In other words the club knew the extent of what you had - and hadn''t - done before it contacted the police?

[/quote]

Almost, apart from the extent bit.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Browno"]

 

Almost, apart from the extent bit.

[/quote]

 

Thanks for the reply, Browno, and to Son Ova Gunn. 

[Syteanric 1]

Had the lad who got the pictures have set up a hotmail email address under the name "Mr X" (EG mrx@hotmail), a bogus address (which can be done on hotmail sign up) and logged on from a public access point/cyber cafe/some random computer switched on somehwere the club would still be looking... and could look forever... what people need to accept is that the internet has made everything free, everything accesible, and whilst copyright exists and there are laws to uphold the internet has made it easy to cheat the system in just a few easy clicks... We need to accept it, David McNally needs to accept it, the club needs to accept it.another thought ... so if the club wants to protect their image what woukld stop someone

going onto google, entering "Norwich City Football Club" and then saving

un official pictures from the image search onto their hard drive?

doing a quick search now I have found a picture of captain canary on

John clarke Drums web site... an inflatable canary (complete with

branding) on photographers direct... a collage of pictures on a site

called twibbon....

all these are unofficial, I havent been on the sites to check what

context they are being used on or how they have been obtained... I could

if i wanted save them all via Google without even entering onto the

websites.. whilst this is different to the case in question over the

last couple of days it does pretty much show how easy it is to "cheat"

the system....

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]"The photos of the kit were never on his computer until he fetched them via unauthorised change to the code !!!! "

Paul, you are wrong about this.

If a .css (or page formatting for non-geeks) file contains the location of a graphics file, then that graphic is downloaded by your browser, and stored in your temporary images cache - regardless of whether the browser is then told to hide the graphic.

He had to do a little bit of digging to find it, granted, but the files would have been on his machine, and on anyone elses'' machines that had visited the same page before the kit launch.
[/quote]

Ok blahblahblah. If the contents of the file (ie. the photos) were actually on his computer, of course that is different. I''ll take your word for that as that would actually in my mind be logical, and of course if that is the case it is the total negligence of the host website.  The ''crime'' of the kid was thus distributing data that he must have known the host intended to remain secret until the deadline.

[William Darby 0]

I''ve basically said the same thing millions of images are copied pasted every day around the net.  Anyway after #beerbottlegate I thought the club acknowledged that images get borrowed, they only clamp down if somebody is making some coin on them.Anyway after #kitgate IMO this wasn''t really anything to do with security risks or hacking. It was about McNally blowing his top that the launch day was messed up. And after a day of calming down, on the whole scheme of things it was exactly what Mr Fry said, ''a storm in a tea cup''.

[blahblahblah 2]

"Ok blahblahblah. If the contents of the file (ie. the photos) were

actually on his computer, of course that is different. I''ll take your

word for that as that would actually in my mind be logical, and of

course if that is the case it is the total negligence of the host

website. "Essentially Paul, yes.  Most people wouldn''t have known that of course,

it''s not something that comes up unless you''re interested in the subject

/ make money from it."The ''crime'' of the kid was thus distributing data that he must have

known the host intended to remain secret until the deadline."Yes, but when this "crime" on an industrial scale has allowed Google to become a multi-billion dollar industry... could be difficult to prosecute that one.  If it''s on a website, it''s public - best you can do is put a copyright notice on it.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]"Ok blahblahblah. If the contents of the file (ie. the photos) were actually on his computer, of course that is different. I''ll take your word for that as that would actually in my mind be logical, and of course if that is the case it is the total negligence of the host website. "

Essentially Paul, yes.  Most people wouldn''t have known that of course, it''s not something that comes up unless you''re interested in the subject / make money from it.

"The ''crime'' of the kid was thus distributing data that he must have known the host intended to remain secret until the deadline."

Yes, but when this "crime" on an industrial scale has allowed Google to become a multi-billion dollar industry... could be difficult to prosecute that one.  If it''s on a website, it''s public - best you can do is put a copyright notice on it.
[/quote]

Well, there was a copyright notice on it according to one of the previous posters. Luckily no damage was done to the club but I''m not sure they would have gained much in suing the kid.

[andyc24_uk 59]

I''m not entirely sure why on-field success and sensible, ethical behaviour in the boardroom have to be mutually exclusive, but... Given the choice between being a smaller club that has less success but cares about its fans and treats them well, and a giant corporate avaricious Chelsea-esque behemoth? I''d honestly choose the championship every time. Hopefully the bad publicity McNally has got from this will curb his somewhat bullying attitude towards genuine fans who want to support the club, and we can enjoy the best of both worlds from now on.

[TCCANARY 263]

Not sure if this has been asked already but why would you want to right click and look at the source code?

 

[blahblahblah 2]

"Not sure if this has been asked already but why would you want to right click and look at the source code?"Some people just like to know things work.Probably best to let this thread die I guess.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

Not sure if this has been asked already but why would you want to right click and look at the source code?

 

[/quote]

He probably wanted the file name so he could search for it within the cache.  

[drurys testamonials V 15 0]

Does this mean the media will forget about Delia''s rant in future reports about NCFC and talk about kitgate instead?

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

Not sure if this has been asked already but why would you want to right click and look at the source code?

 

[/quote]

He probably wanted the file name so he could search for it within the cache.  

[/quote]

Why would you want to search the cache for the file name?

 

[blahblahblah 2]

"Why would you want to search the cache for the file name?"Because you can ?  As far as the user is concerned, they would be "looking" at the website.  But the browser will have stored the image to speed up page loading time.I can see what you''re getting at TC.  But it''s fairly straightforward really.  If you don''t want people to see something, don''t put it on a live site.