Judge Allows Subpoenas For Internet Users 338
crimeandpunishment writes "A federal judge has ruled that the company holding a movie copyright can subpoena the names of people who are accused of illegally downloading and distributing the film. The judge ruled that courts have maintained that once people convey subscriber information to their Internet service providers, they no longer have an expectation of privacy."
Talk of bribery is for losers. (Score:3, Informative)
And Mr/s Federal Judge might be enjoying a nice chewy steak later on, perhaps even some lobster if they feel like it.
Don't go down this road.
It leads nowhere.
From 1797 to date there have been only fifteen impeachments of a federal judge.
Ten ended in removal or resignation, five in acquittal.
There is only one impeachment trial pending, that of Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana. If it goes to trial, it will be the first since that of Bill Clinton in 1998.
As of January 2009, a total of 3,168 individuals had been appointed to federal judgeships, including 2,645 district court judges, 687 courts of appeals judges, 50 judges to the now-extinct circuit courts, and the 9 Supreme Court justices. This adds up to 3,492 total appointments United States federal judge [wikipedia.org]
Re:It's 1984 all over again (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hrm (Score:1, Informative)
Nor is this really any different than someone in a civil case who has your license plate number subpoenaing the DMV for your name and address, or subpoenaing your credit card records. (Both of these happen all the time.)
Do they, though? Without, say, a police report showing evidence of an accident, with ensuing criminal penalties for plaintiffs for filing a false police report? Or an adversarial hearing (with both parties present) for the defendant to protest the release of private information?
Re:No expectation of privacy? (Score:4, Informative)
My god man, have you tried thinking before writing?
Common carrier status means that the ISP is not liable for the actions of its customers. That in any legal action the customers would be the ones on the receiving end of a lawsuit or criminal conviction. Rather than whittling away at common carrier status THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT COMMON CARRIER status is.
I also suspect that you don't know what whittling it, but I'll let it go as that is merely the tip of the iceberg that is your stupidity.
Re:Phones? (Score:4, Informative)
If your call records are subpoenaed... absolutely.
Re:Hrm (Score:5, Informative)
They can subpoena your phone records from your service provider. How is this any different?
If you're infringing or breaking the law and someone has adequate proof of such, then I don't see where the problem is. You may be opposed to the law, but that doesn't change the fact that they can sue your ass and subpoena information.
You're right to privacy goes out the door once you're breaking the law. After that, they can get warrants and subpoenas to invade your privacy in any number of ways.
Law enforcement can subpoena for your phone records if you've been accused a breaking a criminal law. This ruling is saying a Privately held company that is accusing you of committing a civil infraction can now subpoena for your information.
Law enforcement has a right, as we've given any hopes of privacy from them away years ago. A private company however should not have the right to start subpoena issuing based of their "investigation" work we've seen thus far. Case in point: That old lady that had been sued by the RIAA a couple years ago that didn't even have a computer. [afterdawn.com] or RIAA suing the dead [theregister.co.uk]
Re:Hrm (Score:3, Informative)
Warrants? Ha.
Police now write their own warrants. And apparently you've not seen the videos on youtube where cops bust into citizens homes SS-style, shoot the pet dog or cat, and then start tearing into everything to find that gram of marijuana (you evil drug-sniffing scum).
The US is no longer the "free" country the Founders created in the 1780s. The Constitution is now just an inconvenient piece of paper that they pretend to pay lip service too but ignore, because they'd rather treat us like Wards of the government, rather than Sovereign individuals with rights.
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Informative)
National Debt (credit extended to US by foreign nations) == over $140,000 per US household
Personal Debt == about $80,000 in mortgage and $10,000 in credit cards per USH
Unfunded Liabilities = $110,000 promised to Medicare and SS recipients (future retirees) per USH
==
TOTAL $230,000 currently owed plus $110,000 promised but unfunded = $340,000 per USH (approximately)
Yeah this cashfree, live on nothing-but-credit society is working out really great isn't? Oh and the claim the US is the "richest nation" simply isn't true. When a person is in debt, he is poor not rich. Now maybe we are not "as poor" as Greece (we don't owe as much per home) but we're still not as rich as Norway or Saudi Arabia with their abundant stocks of wealth, and zero debt.
Source (plus some googling)
- http://usdebtclock.org/ [usdebtclock.org]