Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy The Courts Movies Music Piracy The Internet

Court Allows Unmasking of P2P Downloaders 244

Posted by Soulskill
from the i-didn't-realize-we-had-to-wear-masks dept.
bricko writes "A federal appeals court says copyright-infringing downloaders can now be outed. If you use or have used P2P, this may interest you. From Wired: 'The RIAA detected what it claimed to be infringing activity on an IP address the university linked to the student. The unidentified student moved to quash a federal judge’s order that the university forward the student’s identity to the RIAA. The student asserted a First Amendment right of privacy on the Internet, in addition to a fair-use right to the six music tracks in question. The appeals court ruled in the RIAA’s favor (PDF) after balancing a constitutional right to remain anonymous against a copyright owner’s right to disclosure of the identity of a possible “trespasser of its intellectual property interest."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court Allows Unmasking of P2P Downloaders

Comments Filter:
  • Title is nonsense (Score:4, Informative)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday May 01, 2010 @09:11AM (#32055540) Homepage Journal

    A better title would be "court upholds right to serve warrant".

  • Yes, well ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday May 01, 2010 @09:11AM (#32055548)
    That judge better keep track of what his (or her, I didn't RTFA yet) kids are doing online. This is the kind of ruling that can come back to haunt them. Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.
    • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

      Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.

      The case would never become a case.

      These forced IP identifications are going to turn into great big fishing expeditions, where ISPs turn over lists of users data and the RIAA can play whack-a-mole.

      Fuck the RIAA, and fuck any federal court asshole judge that would force ISPs to become snitches..

      • Fuck the RIAA, and fuck any federal court asshole judge that would force ISPs to become snitches..

        Incrementalism. There are a lot of people in government that admire the way the East Germans went about matters, and would like the U.S. to work along similar lines. They can't do it all at once, of course, but they can lay the groundwork.

    • by westlake (615356)

      Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.

      A cynical, lazy and dangerous assumption that is all too typically geek.

      Spend some time talking to a kid whose father is a pastor, a policeman, a federal prosecutor or a strict "law and order" judge. It will help clear your head of such nonsense.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ScrewMaster (602015)

        Of course, once the RIAA discovers that it has nailed a Federal judge's kid, they'd drop the case like a hot potato.

        A cynical, lazy and dangerous assumption that is all too typically geek.

        Spend some time talking to a kid whose father is a pastor, a policeman, a federal prosecutor or a strict "law and order" judge. It will help clear your head of such nonsense.

        Actually I've spoken to lawyers about it, and given the nature of the RIAA's operation, it's a very reasonable assumption, cynical or otherwise. They cherry-pick their cases. Spend some time reading about the RIAA's lawsuit mill: that will help clear your head of some obvious misunderstandings. Start with Ray Beckerman's blog, go from there.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Regardless of how you feel about copyright, let's be honest here: The "right to privacy" is a bullshit excuse when you're involved in what is, more or less, a community activity.

    I think we've lost sight of the bare metal workings of what the founding fathers meant them to be.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RobertM1968 (951074)

      Regardless of how you feel about copyright, let's be honest here: The "right to privacy" is a bullshit excuse when you're involved in what is, more or less, a community activity.

      I think we've lost sight of the bare metal workings of what the founding fathers meant them to be.

      I am not saying I agree with either point, but there is a second point that follows your basis but is contradictory to your conclusion. the "right to privacy" is a valid excuse for all of those outside the community you believe you have an expectation of privacy within. Similar to how if you went to group therapy, you would expect (either legally (therapists) or "morally" (other group participants)) that you should have a right to privacy covering your interactions within that group/community.

      Again, I'm

  • I'm poring over the United States Constitution, as Amended, and I can't find where it grants a right to anonymity, either from the Federal government, or from other citizens. Can any confused hippies^W^W Constitutional scholars help me out here?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by portnux (630256)
      At least terrorists, pornographers and mass-murderers are still protected.
      • by Bragador (1036480)
        Implying pornographers are a bad thing.
        • Implying pornographers are a bad thing.

          Many, of course, are not bad 'things', or even bad people, (unless you are morally /religiously against pornography, in which case pornographers are de facto 'bad'. Some, however, are very nasty 'things' indeed, preying on the young, weak, poor, drug-addicted...

          • by Bragador (1036480)
            Sure, I knew that, but those are far from being the norm. So, why generalize? Anyway, your explanation seems to be targeted at pimps, not filmmakers.
    • by gclef (96311) on Saturday May 01, 2010 @09:30AM (#32055648)

      Anonymity and political speech have been connected for quite a bit of the US' history, starting even from before independence: many of the messages pushing for independence from the UK were sent around as anonymous pamphlets. So, while it may not be explicitly mentioned the inferred right to privacy and the tradition on anonymous free speech does exist. Whether either of these are applicable to a college kid sharing music is a whole other story, though.

    • by Derosian (943622) on Saturday May 01, 2010 @09:37AM (#32055684) Homepage Journal
      I'm not a confused hippie constitutional scholar but I did just take a political science class. The teacher talked about something called precedent and about unwritten or "unenumerated" rights. The 9th Amendment counsels against dismissing such rights. The actual right to privacy was handed down in Roe v. Wade when the supreme court ruled in the favor of Norma McCorvey saying she had a right to privacy in general, and a right to abortion more specifically. Of course the right to an abortion is not equal throughout the entire pregnancy term as I am sure you know.

      So don't be so quick to toss away your unwritten rights, yes you do have them, and accept that the consitution is not the final paper on where your rights are. Start looking at court cases too.
      • by Kjella (173770) on Saturday May 01, 2010 @10:06AM (#32055844) Homepage

        However, even so privacy and anonymity are not entirely the same. I think it's most obvious if you compare "private letter" with "anonymous letter". Privacy protects the contents, anonymity the sender. Most of the privacy rights come from a reading of the 14th amendment that the state may not restrict your liberty. Some various supreme court quotes:

        "While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

        "Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."

        "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'

        All of those deal with whether the state can regulate your personal life. There aren't really that many cases on whether you have a right to be anonymous while doing it.

      • by DaveV1.0 (203135)

        In other words, it does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, and thus is not an absolute right and so this guy's argument about having a "First Amendment right to privacy" is bullshit.

    • by Kjella (173770) on Saturday May 01, 2010 @09:47AM (#32055732) Homepage

      This is what the supreme court said in 1995:

      Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

      That's not to say that everyone doing anything bad is protected by anonymity. But it should put strong bonds on whether the government can force a company (your ISP) to disclose your personal information to a third party. For example imagine that someone anonymous is coming with scolding political criticism and you file a slander case against them, not with any intent of winning only with the intent of exposing that person. But no, the word "anonymity" is not in the constitution so the question is very much real and on topic. Shame on the moderators.

      • by DaveV1.0 (203135)

        Unfortunately, this is not about political discourse. This is about copyright law and civil litigation of same. The right to anonymous speech is not absolute, even in "democratic discourse" and political speech, ex: Someone states he is going to kill the President. In this case, a person is accused of violating the copyrights held by a different "person". That is not "democratic discourse" anymore than threatening or expressing a will to kill a government official.

      • by Joce640k (829181)

        Do you think it's right to post "scolding political criticism" anonymously? Maybe what the law should be protecting is the ability to respond to your critics.

    • by Smallpond (221300)

      I'm poring over the United States Constitution, as Amended, and I can't find where it grants a right to anonymity, either from the Federal government, or from other citizens. Can any confused hippies^W^W Constitutional scholars help me out here?

      How about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So where in the Constitution does it give the government the power to invade my privacy?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DaveV1.0 (203135)

        Article 1 Section 8 "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

        "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

        Article 3 Section 1 "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by TubeSteak (669689)

          Now, please post the article and section of the Constitution of the United States where it says that you have an absolute right to privacy and anonymity.

          It's because of people like you that many writers of the Constitution did not want to include the Bill of Rights.

          The Constitution is not an exhaustive or complete list of your rights.
          It is only a list of rights the government has.

          As a concession to those who did not want the Bill of Rights,
          the 9th and 10th Amendments were tacked on to the end.
          You should really go back and read them [usconstitution.net].

          A more appropriate challenge would be:
          "please post the article and section of the Constitution of the United States where it sa

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by hairyfeet (841228)

          Did you even read the first sentence of what you posted? "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Jack Valenti's 'Forever minus a single day' may be a limited time where you come from, but for everybody else it is pretty obvious what it is...theft. The theft of our public domains from you, me, and all our descendants.

          The USA copyright system was a contract, nothing more. Not

    • The Constitution doesn't grant rights to citizens, it restricts the rights the Government has. Of course, there are people who feel differently. Perhaps it's time for a new constitution? That is something for the citizens to decide.

      However, whichever point of view you take, the question of constitutional rights doesn't apply to this case, because Government isn't party. It's RIAA vs. some John Doe. Constitutional limits (or Constitutional Rights) are just a smokescreen. Now we are down a rabbit hole and off

      • However, whichever point of view you take, the question of constitutional rights doesn't apply to this case, because Government isn't party.

        On the contrary, the government is a party to this case, indirectly. The RIAA is basing its complaint on the privilege of copyright which was granted it by the government. If the government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to infringe on free speech, and enforcement of copyright in this manner would infringe on free speech, then the government cannot delegate the privilege of enforcing copyright in this manner to the RIAA.

  • Promised Land? BS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Voulnet (1630793)
    Bit by bit, people in America lose everybit of freedom they thought they had. It seems that freedom in America is granted as long as it doesn't interfere with the interests of corporations. That's worse than the freedom in many many parts around the world! Is the American public capable of a revolution against the system that favors those with deep pockets? The right to share, the right for a fair trial, the right to use what you bought in whatever way you want; and consequently the right of privacy; ar
    • by flajann (658201)
      http://fractopoly.com/ [fractopoly.com]
    • by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater@nosPam.gmail.com> on Saturday May 01, 2010 @10:12AM (#32055866) Homepage

      Except - I don't see any examples here of any 'loss of freedom'. John Doe was sharing copyrighted material, which has been illegal for a very long time, so being prosecuted for it hardly represents anything new.
       

      The right to share, the right for a fair trial, the right to use what you bought in whatever way you want; and consequently the right of privacy; are the first forts of freedom to fall.

      We've never had the unlimited right to share what does not belong to us. There's nothing here preventing the defendant(s) from getting a fair trial. The unlimited 'right' to use what bought in whatever way you want has never been a right - it's strictly a creation of pirates to justify their actions. And you've never been able to claim anonymity to avoid prosecution except in the limited case of whistle blowers.
       
      Or, in short, while your statement is essentially the 'perfect storm' of karmawhoring - it bears very little connection with reality.

      • by Voulnet (1630793)
        Oh really? You say you have the right to a fair trial? Why in the world, then, are people persecuted based on their IPs? The IP is the lone piece of evidence they use against alleged file sharers, and everybody who knows anything about computers knows that the IP as an evidence is, practically, no evidence. How in the hell is a trial 'fair' when you get fined 2 million dollars for 20 songs? The outcome of the trial is part of the trial, you know. How come in your system; you have to have lots of money t
    • by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Saturday May 01, 2010 @10:52AM (#32056080) Journal

      Please show where in American history there was a time when people were free to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. Remember, if there is N copies of a work in existence authorized by the copyright holder and an action occurs without the copyright holders consent after which there are N+1 copies then copying has taken place and unless it falls under fair use, which is for a court to decide, then it is copyright infringement.

      Please explain how this person is not getting a fair trial.

      Please explain where in U.S. law it says one has an absolute right to privacy that can not be violate, at all, ever.

      • by dissy (172727)

        Please show where in American history there was a time when people were free to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted works.

        For reference, it was between 1776 (When America was declared independent) and 1790 when America introduced their first copyright laws.

        Beyond the basic facts of history, one could easily argue the time period was quite a bit larger than that, as the first copyright bill to appear similar to what we have, though a lot more limited, was not formed until the 1830's.
        Since then it has mostly been extended, or expanded by signing treaties with others.

        Your other points are right on, even if worded in a needlessly

      • by Voulnet (1630793)
        Since I already answered a similar question, here is a copypasta: If you guys have the right to a fair trial then why in the world are people persecuted based on their IPs? The IP is the lone piece of evidence they use against alleged file sharers, and everybody who knows anything about computers knows that the IP as an evidence is, practically, no evidence. How is a trial 'fair' when you get fined 2 million dollars for 20 songs? The outcome of the trial is part of the trial, you know. How come in your s
    • by nurb432 (527695)

      No, we aren't losing our rights. We are f-ing handing them to the man on a silver platter.

      "losing" implies we put up a fight. :(

  • by unity100 (970058) on Saturday May 01, 2010 @09:28AM (#32055626) Homepage Journal
    now thats a first.

    i wonder how low u.s. judicial system will sink under the weight of the money of riaa.
    • by nurb432 (527695)

      But the attorneys will make money.. More people will be ruined financially, and more will be in jail ( don't laugh, this will start happening soon, so the *AAs can transfer the cost of pursuing to the government. )

    • Actually, I think this is at least amazingly better than calling it "theft". The analogy of "accessing 'content' without permission of the rightsholder" to "accessing private physical space without permission of the rightsholder" is far more rational than the usual attempt to analogize it with "removing property from the owner by force" ("theft").

      As silly as it still sounds, this represents a substantial improvement.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Time
    Flowing like a river
    Time
    Beckoning me
    Who knows when we shall meet again
    If ever
    But time
    Keeps flowing like a river
    To the sea

    Goodbye my love
    Maybe for forever
    Goodbye my love
    The tide waits for me
    Who knows when we shall meet again
    If ever
    But time
    Keeps flowing like a river (on and on)
    To the sea, to the sea

    Till it's gone forever
    Gone forever
    Gone forevermore

    Goodbye my friends (goodbye my love, now I must leave)
    Maybe for forever
    Goodbye my friends (who knows when we shall meet again)
    The stars wait for me
    Who knows whe

    • by Fluffeh (1273756)
      I wonder who our anon poet is, have being seeing a lot of this stuff on here of late. Sure, it's offtopic, but it's sort of cool actually. To me, it's sort of like bumping into a stranger at a coffee shop, who says something really amazing, or insightful, but then walks away quickly and you never get to speak to them again.

      As funny as it is, I would love to know why this person picked this, of all places to post to over something like deviantart or one of the countless others, whether they come back to c
      • I'd be impressed if it was original... but as it is, it's just offtopic. I suppose we could get all intellectual and assume that he's trying to make some deeper point about copyright infringement and anonymity ;)
        • Um, we've got this thing called "Google", you can type words into it and it finds pages with those words on them.

          You could try it with those words...see what happens.

    • Alan Parsons Project! Not sure what it has to do with this thread though...
  • by h00manist (800926) on Saturday May 01, 2010 @09:33AM (#32055670) Journal
    As far as I can see, the best way to change this stuff is civil disobedience - breaking the law, asserting rights to use all human knowledge as a human right, and accusing the law of denying the rights to freedom of thought, expression, assembly, knowledge and communication. As a political campaign, ideally I think this should be public, not anonymous, and in great numbers, accompanied by media communications. A public wifi network in a public square, public distribution of copyrighted works on media, etc. Sheets of paper with links and instructions on how to share files, addresses, etc. Following this, public debate on the law will begin, and the more public involved in the debate, the vocal they are, the more likely the public will win, not the copyright holders.
    • by nextekcarl (1402899) on Saturday May 01, 2010 @09:50AM (#32055746)

      I take the other approach. I think we need to work to make things much worse for the average user (and not so average). We need to push for laws that make IP infringement a mandatory capital offense. And then we need to make sure sons of politicians get caught, daughters of RIAA execs get caught, spouses of MPAA execs get caught. Only then will we see some change that isn't awful.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by DaveV1.0 (203135)

      You do that and let me know how that works out for you, m'kay?

    • by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Saturday May 01, 2010 @10:26AM (#32055940) Journal

      What is it specifically you don't like about copyright and patent laws? Is it the whole thing; the whole concept? Or is it just parts (e.g. term lengths, DMCA, no protection of fair use, etc)? I don't know, perhaps it is the whole thing, and perhaps you should be violating every copyright and patent you can see. However, that being the case, good luck finding enough people for a political movement. Sure, they exist, but most people you talk to can see some utility in copyright and patent law, including most judges.

      If it's not so much the entire bundle as it is certain parts, try to focus on those parts. Perhaps, if you object to DMCA, restrict yourself to distributing cracks for popular games. Or if you dislike term lengths, perhaps violate only the copyrights that are older than 20-30 years. Try to violate only what you object to.

      An even better approach would be to divorce yourself from copyrighted media (or the elements you dislike). Prove to people that you, and they, can live without $BAD_FACTOR_OF_COPYRIGHT and everything that it could possibly bring. Prove that we are better off without it. It's certainly no less harmful to Big Media.

      There's a lot of greed in play in the copyright debate. Not just on Big Media's side, but on both sides. It's difficult to differentiate between those who want change and those who want free stuff. Make it unavoidably clear, whatever you do, that you are not in it for the entertainment.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      asserting rights to use all human knowledge as a human right

      Do you think that the world would be a better place if the only thing we valued was manual labor? If any public knowledge was worthless (in a financial sense) knowledge?

      The world already experimented with the idea that "knowledge is free to all". We ended up with opaque guilds that fiercely protected their trade secrets. The Freemasons and similar groups are a throwback to when skilled labor groups used every means they had to ensure that the skills of their trade never became public knowledge. And while

      • by Sabriel (134364)

        I think there's a great difference between worthless and priceless. And as for opaque and secretive medieval guilds, times have changed. Technology is no longer an arcane art known only to a few; the sciences both theoretical and practical are taught in universities and colleges the world over, the internet allows any piece of reverse-engineered information to be widely spread across the planet in moments, and even merely knowing something could be done would allow the creative output of millions of scienti

      • by Draek (916851)

        Do you think that the world would be a better place if the only thing we valued was manual labor? If any public knowledge was worthless (in a financial sense) knowledge?

        Yeah, I do.

        The world already experimented with the idea that "knowledge is free to all". We ended up with opaque guilds that fiercely protected their trade secrets./quote>

        In an age where dissemination of knowledge was incredibly expensive and relatively easy to trace and the average layman had even less education than a modern 4-years-old kid does. Do you really, honestly believe that 'trade secrets' could ever remain so in a world where WikiLeaks exists and thrives? that mere corporate associations would succeed where entire governments have not?

        If secrecy is the worst thing you can think of then fucking bring it, go ahead and throw all this copyright crap out of the window.

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      If *everyone* disobeys, they will just automate the process, strip of us of more rights without due process and end up just adding a RIAA tax.

    • As far as I can see, the best way to change this stuff is civil disobedience - breaking the law, asserting rights to use all human knowledge as a human right, and accusing the law of denying the rights to freedom of. . . knowledge and communication. . .

      So what you're saying is that Nixon was standing up for our P2P rights with Watergate. He truly was a pioneer!

      • by znerk (1162519)

        So what you're saying is that Nixon was standing up for our P2P rights with Watergate. He truly was a pioneer!

        Quite obviously false - he was *destroying* information!

  • by Lord Bitman (95493) on Saturday May 01, 2010 @09:39AM (#32055690) Homepage

    You have a right to communicate anonymously. This is protected by the first amendment and anyone who stands in your way of doing so is committing a crime.

    You do NOT have the right to force others to act as if you are anonymous after you communicate non-anonymously. This is not protected by anything, and is pretty stupid.

  • All these comments about privacy. My understanding of our basic rights is that we have them as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. All of you are blindly trying to say we all have the right to P2P. While true, we do not have the right to hand out our music or games to others for free. It is one thing to burn a friend a cd of some songs, its entirely different to burn 1000 discs and hand them out blindly. You would be infringing upon someone's right to make a living. (yes even the ev

    • by h00manist (800926)
      Indeed the right to privacy should not be abused as a shield from the law, as it often is, by government and corporations. The law does however evolve with the times, new realities, public pressure, cultural changes, momentary needs, etc. It's not set in stone forever. "The law", all aspects of it, includes custom, tradition, social tolerance, a bunch of stuff that's not even written anywhere - like it or not. Copyright and IP law is at a crossroads moment, is widely ignored, ridicularized, called obsolete
    • by celle (906675)

      "While true, we do not have the right to hand out our music or games to others for free."

      Oh yes you do. The number given away is irrelevant. When you buy something it is yours, period, to do with what you like and that includes giving it away. It's called the right of ownership and it's a very basic right in this country. Never mind the number of wars fought over that right. Stop beating around the bush, this is what it's really about. Remember that original copyright law states giving a limited monopoly to

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by siride (974284)
        The idea with copyright is that you, the consumer, *don't* actually own the content. You own a copy, which is a limited use grant of the content. Only the copyright owner actually owns it and is free to do with it what he or she pleases, including giving it away for free to anyone. You do not have that freedom.
        • by cdrguru (88047)

          The essential point of piracy is the destruction of revenue from digital goods. If someone can sell it, then it can be redistributed for free making the original seller give up on selling it. You can't compete with free.

          This has already happened in China with music - officially there is no more music sold in China. It is very soon to happen in the US. Sure iTunes sells millions of songs a year - but they have maybe 2% of the overall download marketplace with the rest being free and usually pirated. iTu

      • by DaveV1.0 (203135)

        The monopoly is not longer limited

        That is a bald-faced lie. It is, in fact, limited by law to "70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a work for hire (e.g., those created by a corporation) then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication". That is in no way unlimited.

  • I would think this is more of a 4th amendment thing.

Remember: use logout to logout.

Working...