jinnia
Dormant account
jpm said:No, it wouldn't. An IP spoof would not show the same machine ID as his own.
Ok jpm, I'll let it go... for now
Might feel like debating this at a later date with you though
Casinos By Status
Popular Filters
By Banking Options
All Games
Popular Bonus Filters
Popular Forums
Forum User Features
Recent Forum Threads
Submit A Complaint (PAB)
PAB Rules and Guidelines
Browse PABs
Popular News Sections
Recent News
jpm said:No, it wouldn't. An IP spoof would not show the same machine ID as his own.
Originally Posted by casinomeister
Here is Casava's final decision:
We were first contacted by the member on 8/1/04 at 9.25 am (GMT time).
The member phoned to say that he had not played since 7/31/04.
The account was blocked on 8/1/04 at 9.29, when the bankroll was at
$1240.05.
The member was able to re-enter the account. He has admitted making
several attempts to do so, to check the hand history. He also phoned the
Member Support Team two hours after the initial claim, asking for the
account to be re-opened.
All of the log ins to the account, from the beginning on 7/21/04,
through the period that the member is concerned with, to the last log
ins on 8/1/04, are from the same IP and ISP.
In order to enter the account, an unauthorized user would require the
confidential username and password of the member.
Based on these facts, we concluded that there was no security breach
from our behalf. The bankroll was wagered down to $187 from the same PC
as previously used on the account, and with access through confidential
passwords.
The member has claimed that this could be due to a Trojan Horse Virus
stealing his identity. We don't accept responsibility for this.
We also noted that the game play of the time span concerned and the
previous immediate history were similar. This is in terms of game
choice, and stakes played. This is an indication that there was no
unauthorized user playing on the site, though our investigation is not
based on this point. The member does not agree with these findings,
though we have explained that the outcome of the investigation is not
affected by this similarity.
We have concluded that the bankroll on this account was wagered through
access achieved with the accounts confidential password, and from the
same location as recorded all throughout the previous log ins. We have
concluded that we are not responsible for any case of unauthorized
access of the account, if this was actually occurring.
We have offered to reopen the account, where the member will find the
amount of $187 still in the bankroll, with a new confidential password
to secure the account from further access.