An IP Address Does Not Point To a Person, Judge Rules

AffidavitDonda writes with this excerpt from Torrentfreak: "A possible landmark ruling in one of the mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the US may spell the end of the 'pay-up-or-else-schemes' that have targeted over 100,000 Internet users in the last year. District Court Judge Harold Baker has denied a copyright holder the right to subpoena the ISPs of alleged copyright infringers, because an IP-address does not equal a person. Among other things, Judge Baker cited a recent child porn case where the US authorities raided the wrong people, because the real offenders were piggybacking on their Wi-Fi connections. Using this example, the judge claims that several of the defendants in VPR's case may have nothing to do with the alleged offense either. ... Baker concludes by saying that his Court is not supporting a 'fishing expedition' for subscribers' details if there is no evidence that it has jurisdiction over the defendants."

Wow.

[Moryath]

Pity this'll never survive through the appellate courts, since the MafiAA bought off all the appellate judges long ago.

1 Hurdle Down, A Few More to Go

[Huntr]

Obviously, this won't be settled until it reaches the Supreme Court, but it's a vital 1st step. Go Freedom!

What parallel universe have I fallen into...

[The Optimizer]

...where Judges are applying an understanding of the technical issues, common sense, and considering the situation of ordinary citizens?

Re:1 Hurdle Down, A Few More to Go

[rwven]

Yup. IMHO, bar none one of the most important court decisions in a good while now.

Re:So slashdotters

[Moryath]

Wait, you mean the police might have to do actual police work rather than relying on shoddy "evidence" that doesn't point to the right place, raiding innocent people's houses, trampling all over civil liberties...

Gee. I must be insane to think we could agree that the cops should be required to do their due diligence...

Re:So slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better to let 10 guilty men free than to put one innocent man behind bars.

Re:What parallel universe have I fallen into...

[H0p313ss]

...where Judges are applying an understanding of the technical issues, common sense, and considering the situation of ordinary citizens?

The same world where bin Ladin is dead, democracy is sweeping the middle east like a sandstorm, Duke Nukem Forever will ship in June and the NDP are the official opposition in Canada.

2011 is pretty interesting so far.

Re:So slashdotters

[MightyMartian]

So let me get this straight. You're saying, because crap evidence can be used to nail child pornographers, the fact that it's crap evidence ought to be overlooked?

I don't think anyone is saying outright that an IP address can't be used to determine if someone at a specific geographical location is doing bad things. But rather than being some absolute identifier like RIAA and the MPAA have for so long claimed, it's more like blood tests in the pre-DNA days, a way of narrowing things down, but not in and of itself sufficient evidence to indicate wrongdoing.

Re:So slashdotters

[NevarMore]

It wouldn't be probable cause for a warrantless search, but it would be enough for a bench warrant or enough to justify further actions. Perhaps something as complicated as stopping near the residence and checking to see if they have an open wireless AP.

Re:So slashdotters

[pixline]

World isn't ready for that: Voltaire died 200 years ago and people is still trying to deal with his works, let them have their time..

Re:So slashdotters

[billstewart]

(Should I feed the troll? Awww, c'mon, it'll be fun!)

An IPv4 address typically identifies a single household, not a single individual.

And while sometimes the activity that leads to a search warrant based on an IP address rates the term "pieces of human waste", it's usually not child pornography, it's usually just music or movie downloading, and maybe the person trying to have sex with the "13-year-old girl" in the chat room is actually the 13-year-old teenage boy in the household, not the 40-year-old adult who's paying for the IP address.

Getting a warrant for a guns-drawn SWAT raid should require an extremely high amount of certainty and a lot of information about the suspect, not just the simple "we've seen him dealing weed and don't want him flushing it" level. Even a warrant for a normal polite knock on the door by an officer with a search warrant or arrest warrant ought to require higher standards than police have been getting away with lately, and if the alleged "crime" is "copyright violation", that's something that ought to be dealt with by a process server, not a cop.

Re:Finally!!

[sjames]

The fact that it can be hacked and there exists a strong motive for a criminal to do so means it's still not adequate as a personal identifier.

Re:So slashdotters

[unperson]

But this probably will close the door on the 99 cases out of 100 where an IP actually does equal a bad person who needs to be caught.

I'm not sure about the 99/100 figure. However, even if that's true, I'd argue that just because something is a 99% accurate indicator of crime, it doesn't justify a forfeiture of rights for the other 1%. Is having an IP address linked to an illegal activity justification to open an investigation? Sure. Enough to break in and confiscate property of an individual who has an open WAP living in a populated area? Probably not. Keep in mind people committing internet crimes are "crafty" and know that its important to hide their own identities (often, masking them as the identities of others)

Re:So slashdotters

[sjames]

One fine day when the cops break your door down without warning, "drive stun" your crotch with a Taser and then destroy everything in your house (including the sheet rock, carpets, and floorboards) because as far as they're concerned, you are a "piece of human waste" and it's good enough for you, remember that you advocated that IP address=personal identity.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for compensation, an apology, or even a note to your neighbors that you're not actually a perv, because you'll get none of that without a years long bankrupting court battle.

Or, we could simply insist that they do actual followup police work to see if there's a GOOD reason to believe they have the right person first. They can look for things like financial transactions between the suspect and a known bad guy, or physical evidence of the crime taking place. If they find none of that, they should just move on. If they DO find it, then I'm sure a judge will be glad to sign the appropriate warrants.

Re:So slashdotters

[sjames]

Surveillance. Any contact with children? Does any of it look inappropriate? Look at financial transactions. Any payment to known pornographers or their agents?

Re:So slashdotters

[Riceballsan]

While I don't condone in the trading of such items, I do have to say the legal system fighting the images does more harm then good. The actual abusers of the stuff (IE the ones actually taking the pictures, harming children etc...) are rarely targeted, while ones who actually trade the images after the fact, whether intentionally or by accident (accidentally finding an image posted on a forum, then having it in your cache is considered possession) are persecuted way beyond necessity. Heck people are going to jail for the rest of their lives over drawn pictures, manga collections etc... Putting a stop to the moronic abuses of the law is something for me to oppose.

Re:er this is a bit silly

[evanbd]

Why are SWAT teams raiding houses and kicking in doors at all for suspects who aren't believed to be armed and dangerous? There are plenty of ways to make mistakes, and a knock on the door with warrant in hand would have been as effective if they'd been right, and drastically reduced the trauma to innocent people if they were wrong.

Re:So slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

The wrong person's door getting kicked down is not good, but you'll accept it anyway?

Who the hell are you to decide whether or not its acceptable, as an innocent in a FREE society, to be treated in such a matter as this? Yes it makes it harder for the good guys to catch the bad guys but thats how it will ALWAYS be.

Law enforcement will always be at a disadvantage because criminals, by definition, have already decided they don't have to play by the rules. Courts, judges, and cops are restricted by things called laws--and for good reason. If cops and criminals don't have to abide by rules, whats the difference between the two?.

I like cops, and would like to differentiate them from the criminals. Rulings like this make it easier for me to hold law enforcement in high regard.