NY Judge Rules IP Addresses Insufficient To Identify Pirates 268
milbournosphere writes "New York Judge Gary Brown has found that IP addresses don't provide enough evidence to identify pirates, and wrote an extensive argument explaining his reasoning. A quote from the judge's order: 'While a decade ago, home wireless networks were nearly non-existent, 61% of U.S. homes now have wireless access. As a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices – which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals. Different family members, or even visitors, could have performed the alleged downloads. Unless the wireless router has been appropriately secured (and in some cases, even if it has been secured), neighbors or passersby could access the Internet using the IP address assigned to a particular subscriber and download the plaintiff's film.' Perhaps this will help to stem the tide of frivolous mass lawsuits being brought by the RIAA and other rights-holders where IP addresses are the bulk of the 'evidence' suggested."
Does this apply to all cases? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:5, Informative)
This still means that an IP address is sufficient for them to seize and search your computer hard disks and such, so if you have corroborating evidence there you'd still be fucked. It's just not sufficient in the absence of anything else.
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:5, Insightful)
This still means that an IP address is sufficient for them to seize and search your computer hard disks and such, so if you have corroborating evidence there you'd still be fucked.
For a criminal matter, an IP address might be enough by itself to issue a search warrant.
Luckily, the copyright infringement that is being done in file sharing doesn't fall under the "criminal" section of copyright law.
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:4, Informative)
The standard for probable cause in the case of a search warrant is significantly lower than the standard for conviction.
Yes, but everyone is hungup on the idea that the plaintiff has to prove an individual is responsible. At the moment, this may be true, but it's not much of an obstacle. Whenever you park your car illegally, they write a ticket out to the vehicle owner; And there have been many cases where the vehicle's owner was later arrested for not paying a fine they didn't know about because they had loaned their vehicle out to someone else. And unless the vehicle owner can prove they weren't the ones operating the vehicle, the courts have held they are responsible; They can't simply say "It was Ghost Man that parked my car downtown, not me!"
So for now, in that jurisdiction, they may be able to stop people from being sued for copyright infringement based on the IP address alone; But laws can and will be passed within a few years there where the ip address "owner" is responsible (and by owner, I mean ISP subscriber).
At best, this is an empty victory: It may stall copyright enforcement in that juridsdiction temporarily, but it will resume, and the cat and mouse game will move forward. They'll just start using things like timing, traffic analysis, client version identification, etc., to form digital fingerprints that (after they've seized your computer) will be used to individually identify you even from behind your standard NAT router.
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:5, Insightful)
That depends. The parking ticket thing was standing between a city government and a revenue stream. That is known to be the most dangerous place to stand in all of existence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the most part, an IP address has never been able to prove anything short of a temporary usage.
- most cable and DSL modems use NAT, one ip address for the outside.
- proximity to busy areas (eg in a condo building that's part of a shopping district is enough) is enough to claim "it wasn't me"
- Wireless devices (mobile phones, tablets) that can also operate as WiFi access points may not be secured enough
- Shopping Convention centers may have many of the above showing up peoples devices, particularly iPhone
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with being proactive is that, in the case of an ISP, it can set you up for legal headaches.
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you loan your car to someone. Therefore you are responsible. If someone steals your car and crashes into a bus full of nuns, you aren't.
You may be able to make a case that if the person billed for the IP address would be responsible for guests, but if the kid next door is "stealing" internet from you then you shouldn't be.
Its an analogy fail. Get over yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you loan your car to someone. Therefore you are responsible. If someone steals your car and crashes into a bus full of nuns, you aren't.
If they crash into a bus full of nuns because you neglegently failed to have the brakes regularly inspected and they catastrophically failed, you are liable then. The argument can be made that failing to secure your networks is an act of gross negligence, especially considering Windows warns you before connecting to such a network (as do most operating systems) that it is not secure, that it says in the owner's manual of every wifi router words to the effect of "We strongly recommend you put a password on t
Re: (Score:3)
In Texas, it is illegal to leave you keys in an unattended car to help prevent your car from being used in a crime.
http://www.txdmv.gov/protection/auto_theft/hold_key.htm [txdmv.gov]
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:5, Informative)
"It's not flawed at all, it's just a position you disagree with."
Actually, it is flawed, because automobiles are just about the only things for which the courts have upheld this idea... and there is very little doubt that they have done so for no reason other than that not doing so would interfere with their own branch of government's revenue stream, just as someone else mentioned. Otherwise they would have generalized the concept to other areas of the law... but they haven't.
In general, you cannot be held liable for other people's actions, even if they used something belonging to you in order to do it. Automobiles have been held to be an exception to that, but that's the important part: they are an exception, not the rule. So as an analogy it doesn't work.
"You're an accomplice in any illegal activity if you fail to take any steps to prevent it. "
Horsepucky. It just doesn't work that way. In most states -- maybe even all -- this is simply not true. There is no obligation on the part of a citizen to prevent others from committing crimes. It simply isn't a valid legal principle. I could stand by and watch a man shoot other people for no reason, and I am still not his accomplice. Not even remotely, in any area of the law with which I am familiar. I am not obligated by law to insert myself into the situation at all. Failing to do so might mean I was not a very nice person, but it does not make me a criminal.
The only exception to this of which I am aware is that some states have "Good Samaritan" laws that require you to help people under certain, specific circumstances. For example, in my state you are obligated to stop and help someone who is stuck in the snow in a remote area, because the chance of otherwise not finding help and freezing to death is so great. And to be honest, I am not convinced that even that law is completely Constitutional.
"There's plenty of legal precident to support my position, and only moral indignation to support yours."
No, there isn't. I know for an absolute fact that my state laws contradict every single thing you have stated here, the sole exception being the part about automobile liability. And I am pretty sure that most other states are similar.
Re: (Score:3)
If I knew that someone were planning to rob a bank tomorrow, for example, and I aided them in any way, and/or did not at least report it, it is possible that I could be charged as an accessory, or even an accomplice if my actions actually helped, even a little.
BUT... and this is the kind of situation I was talking about... if I am standing in a bank and somebody decides to rob it (that is, I knew
Re: (Score:3)
BUT... and this is the kind of situation I was talking about... if I am standing in a bank and somebody decides to rob it (that is, I knew nothing about any such plan), I am not legally obligated to try to prevent it, even if I am behind the guy and have a monkey wrench in my hand and could easily bash his skull in to prevent the robbery.
That's correct -- because you cannot be expected to put yourself in harm's way. However, as you indicated earlier; your obligation to report it as quickly as possible once you are out of harm's way remains.
Also, if my neighbor steals my gun when I am not looking, and goes out and shoots somebody with it, I am generally not liable even though it was my gun he did it with.
Again, correct, but if you leave the gun, say, laying in the street, and your neighbor comes and takes it and then uses it to commit a crime, you are liable: Because not securing your weapon in some fashion is negligent.
If I loan a gun to the neighbor (which is perfectly legal here), and he goes out and shoots somebody with it without telling me about it, I am still not liable. Even though he did it with my gun.
Correct, but if you know he's a convicted felon and you loan it to him, you are liable
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it is flawed, because automobiles are just about the only things for which the courts have upheld this idea...
Oil tanker owner [lloydslist.com] held liable for captain being negligent and crashing. Owner [nwsource.com] of a building complex that caught fire held liable, even though he wasn't the one who started the fire. Hotel owner [wisconsins...ryblog.com] held liable for meth lab being setup in room. Owners of male cattle [bible.cc] not held responsible for bull killing someone. By the way, that's a biblical reference; I just wanted to demonstrate it's not a new concept. I can provide many, many more examples. It's not just cars. If you own something, you can be held responsible if you're neglegent in the maintenance of it.
Your failure to secure your wifi connection and then having it used in the commission of a crime makes you liable for damages. This has already happened [bbc.co.uk] in the UK and Germany. It's currently being looked into in several jurisdictions in the United States [myce.com]. Bottom line here, there is plenty of legal precident here and globally to create, enforce, and have upheld, a law that makes the owners of an unsecured network legally liable for illegal activity which occurs on it.
No, there isn't. I know for an absolute fact that my state laws contradict every single thing you have stated here, the sole exception being the part about automobile liability. And I am pretty sure that most other states are similar.
I have provided several links indicating that at the state and national level, this is something that is being considered, has legal merit, and may be enforceable. Your turn.
Re: (Score:3)
Firstly, my understanding is that the German case was a civil matter, so it comes down to two tort lawyers having a pissing contest. I would suggest this is not very relevant a discussion of criminality; it's more akin to patent wars.
Secondly, this has not happened in the UK. In the UK Straszkiewicz was found guilty of entirely the reverse; he took advantage of an open network that was intended as private domestic infrastructure, and THE OWNER OF THE NETWORK was not even charged with an offence in the first
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:4, Informative)
You're an accomplice in any illegal activity if you fail to take any steps to prevent it.
I'd be curious to hear which law school you attended that taught you that, considering how wrong it is.
My previous example demonstrates additional legal situations where the owner can be charged for a crime that's committed by the user, absent proof that the user did it instead of the owner.
You neglect that your examples are the exception rather than the rule. Cars are large, fast, dangerous and expensive. They have their own rules. Almost nothing works that way, nor should it. The person responsible is the person responsible, not random innocent bystanders who happens to be in the general vicinity or who lent general purpose tools to someone not knowing they would be used for nefarious purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
since most packets will probably take at least several hops, often via different routes, before getting to you.
Really? Perhaps back in the 90s, or if one of the intermediate networks has some serious problem.
The internet just doesn't work like that these days. Most often, once established, the connection will continue along the same route before termination. Even subsequent connections within a reasonable timeframe will follow the same path.
Re: (Score:3)
"The standard for probable cause in the case of a search warrant is significantly lower than the standard for conviction."
True, but irrelevant. Court ruling after court ruling in recent years have stated that an IP address, by itself, simply does not meet minimum standards as probable cause for a search.
The main reason is obvious, and I can use my own situation as an example: my WiFi router has a strong clear signal, it is completely open, and somebody a full block away could be using it at any time. Or even somebody driving past or parked at the curb on the next street over. It simply does not point to me specifically, or
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a search warrant required as much evidence as a conviction, there would be no point to search warrants.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
My understanding of "sufficient" is
Lawyer: We think that IP is a pirate.
Judge: Well, I IP is not sufficient ev
Lawyer: That IP has downloaded 500 movies this month, has never stopped being active in the swarm (so it's not a passerby), runs a linux-based torrent client (they are only ~3% of the desktop market and the dude has an FSF sticker on his car, so it's totally him), and one of the movies was 'Hackers'. Who the hell watches that but geeks who like 'sticking it to the man'?
Judge: I see. In that case, release the pirate hounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Was merely pointing out that a precedent-setting decision in civil court doesn't apply to criminal matters, and vice versa.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One would think that... then again, considering that a person can be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of "resisting arrest" without any other charge, I have my doubts about these 'higher standards' of which you speak...
I've seen this raised several time over the past few days, (perhaps by you), and I fail to see the point of this argument.
If the police or the prosecutor declined (for what ever reason) to press on with the original charges for which you were being arrested, I fail to see how you can expect to get away with resisting arrest, which is a separate offense.
The original charge may not be provable in court, or perhaps they find out you really didn't do it. Doesn't matter.
That you in fact resisted what was belie
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that it is not. I was arrested for "resisting arrest", then added a charge of being "drunk in public" to cover the act that I knew that they couldn't arrest me for resisting arrest alone. They then changed the charge to "Resisting arrest" and "Assault on a police officer" after I informed the police I was neither "drunk" nor in "public" (being sober INSIDE a private residence).
The prosecutor continued prosecution through the trial and I was acquitted in less than 1 hour. Juries take a very dim view of police trying to cover their asses. It also helps that could recall with exact detail (even to this day) the entire conversation the police officers had trying to cover the fact that they were arresting an asshole (me) who was smarter than they were.
My suggestion is, don't resist, but don't help them. They often claim the latter is the former, it is not.
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was in a private residence, they had no rights to order me to do anything, because I was not hindering their investigation, nor was I doing or involved in anything illegal. If the cops can go into any residence and order the occupants around and arrest people for not "not following orders" ... then I have a HUGE problem with that society. And you don't?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this ruling apply if someone downloads child porn, makes bomb threats, discusses with terrorists or other larger crimes? Just saying it should be consistent if pirates get a pass.
In the context of this ruling, an IP address is not enough evidence to justify giving your name and address to someone who claims that his copyright is infringed, but isn't really interested in sorting out the copyright infringement but only to blackmail you into a settlement. Especially if someone tries to get the names of dozens of people while paying only one court fee.
On the other hand, it is surely enough evidence to get the police started investigating serious crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, it is surely enough evidence to get the police started investigating crimes they are interested in because the DA thinks they can win it.
FTFY.
You can have a device broadcasting IP information all day long and a sworn statement that your property has been stolen, and it is at that location, and the police will act like the laziest most disinterested bastards on the fucking planet.
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the ruling doesn't really set any legal precedent since it is just a district judge, and it is about a civil case not a criminal one. But it is consistent with how most judges have ruled across the country. The consensus is that it is more than sufficient evidence to get a warrant, is not even close to enough to secure a conviction by itself, but when combined with other evidence may do the job. Just follows common sense really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does this apply to all cases? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think if someone made bomb threats from an IP address, the FBI would FULLY investigate, because jailing the wrong person means the bomb still goes off,
Judging by how the FBI handled the Pittsburgh bomb threats, I do not give much credit to their ability to "fully" investigate anything online. The FBI's approach to computers is to lobby for backdoors, then point to examples where a lack of a backdoor impeded their investigation when they do not get their way.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's my take on the matter:
If someone dies because a TV is thrown out of a window, you shouldn't just arrest the person with the open window. Maybe that's sufficient evidence to go search the room for a missing TV, but maybe it was the neighbor. In that scenario they would look at who might have sent the TV flying, not just the weak evidence that it was someone from within my apartment.
Same with bomb threats. If bomb threats are originating from my IP address, I would imagine society (ie: throough the
Re: (Score:3)
If bomb threats are originating from my IP address, I would imagine society (ie: throough the police authority) would like to see my computer and know more about me. They shouldn't send a class action lawsuit against me, and/or bully me just because a hacker has hijacked my computer.
The problem with this is that "see my computer" must mean "take everything in my house that can store digital information and keep it at the station until the computer forensic guys have time to look at it, likely within the next 6 months."
In this day and age, it's pretty much like taking everything you own...
Well in the cases we've seen info on (Score:2)
The FBI does their homework. They don't try to take someone to court based on an IP address. They get more evidence, a whole lot more, because they have a higher standard to meet than civil court (beyond a reasonable doubt instead of preponderance of the evidence).
I haven't read the ruling but I very much doubt the judge said an IP address couldn't be used AT ALL, just that it alone is not grounds for "identification" and as such filing a lawsuit against a person. They'd need to do more work.
Re: (Score:2)
It does sort of create this odd incentive to run an unsecured WAP to dodge the potential liability for what you're going to use it for. Which is just bad security practice in general, and can tend to risk problems with everything you mentioned, because people who want to engage in things which are definitely illegal, and should be illegal don't usually want to get caught doing it.
In the case of a household of multiple people, sure, they can't specify which of the 4 members of the household are responsible
Re: (Score:2)
It should be consistent, but let's be clear: This isn't pirates getting a pass, this is prosecution/plaintiff being held to appropriate Constitutional standards.
Judges. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of them are teachable.
Seems Optimistic... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this does appear to be a federal court (Score:5, Informative)
Don't know why it wasn't in the writeup. This ruling was in the federal court for New York's East District [wikipedia.org], which I think (IANAL) means it is precedent there (but not necessarily elsewhere in the country)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter if it is federal (Score:2)
If a court actually rules on a case that they have jurisdiction over, then there is precedent. Doesn't mean other courts will always respect the precedent, but it is a precedent, it can be cited in cases throughout the country, and so on. It is case law.
What is not precedent is when there is a settlement. If the court doesn't actually rule, no precedent is created.
Does this speed up IPv6 rollouts? (Score:2)
If this ruling stands, I wonder if **AA will start pushing for IPv6. It'd be their best interest to eliminate NAT to protect their new revenue stream of suing their consumers. Years of technical arguments never got traction, but maybe a Judge just kicked us over the hump.
Something or other about the ends not justifying the means.
Re: (Score:2)
stem the tide of frivolous mass lawsuits by RIAA (Score:2)
No.
They just choose a different venue with a more-compliant judge. Just as MPAA found a Congressman willing to be their new CEO.
Finally some common sense in the judiciary (Score:5, Insightful)
I live near a coffee shop in a high tech city (Score:2)
And on my block there are hundreds of unsecured wireless routers, cellphones acting as hotspots, and laptops and iPads.
Even though I secure my wireless N router, anyone using Google warganging software from their streetview team could still slurp up all the IPs and then brute fake it on another device.
The judge is right.
Response from IT Community: (Score:2)
And if someone doesn't have a wireless network ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.itworld.com/security/84077/child-porn-malwares-ultimate-evil [itworld.com]
PhotoRadar Example? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. Usually they need photographic evidence of both your car and your face.
Re: (Score:2)
- something you can't get out of by simply going "Gee, I don't know who that driver might be, I guess I don't need to pay the ticket!"
Around me, that is how it is: tickets must be given by a police officer, who physically hands the ticket to the driver of a car. It is perfectly valid to say, "Yes that was my car, no it was not me driving it," and it is perfectly valid to say, "I do not know who was driving it." People lend their cars to others sometimes, and if they lend their car to a group of people, they really cannot know who in the group was driving.
IPv6 (Score:3)
Hey, we can finally get IPv6 adopted everywhere now that the entertainment mafiaas will lobby for every system to have a unique address.
Where is IPv6 anti-NAT crowd now? (Score:4, Informative)
This is a great argument. Unfortunately, once we are all moved to IPv6, and with help of IPv6 zealots who are against NAT privacy protection "on a principle" - each device behind home router will receive its very own unique IP (perhaps more than one, if temporary IPs are used, but certainly unique address). Once that is in place, the argument no longer holds and we are back to square one.
I certainly hope that Linux network stack crowd (because they are the ones whose product will be used, as is customary, in large chunk of wifi routers and other home network devices) will get something done before copyright holders wisen up, and poke Comcast/Cox cable/Verizon to roll out IPv6 to end users.
Re: (Score:2)
Once that is in place, the argument no longer holds and we are back to square one.
A single computer can be used by more than one person, wireless connections hijacked, etc. Not to mention viruses
Re:Where is IPv6 anti-NAT crowd now? (Score:5, Informative)
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
People dislike NAT because it's a crappy idea whose best featured are better implemented in other ways. It's not because we're too dumb to understand the issues or too cavalier to care about them.
I certainly hope that Linux network stack crowd (because they are the ones whose product will be used, as is customary, in large chunk of wifi routers and other home network devices) will get something done before copyright holders wisen up, and poke Comcast/Cox cable/Verizon to roll out IPv6 to end users.
We did, about a decade ago.
Re:Where is IPv6 anti-NAT crowd now? (Score:4)
Once that is in place, the argument no longer holds and we are back to square one.
if you are using the "wasn't me downloading that" defense as a loophole to allow you to get away with illegal activities, then sure, you are back to square one.
on the other hand, if your goal is to ensure that people aren't incorrectly identified and persecuted for for crimes they did not commit, then it solves the problem perfectly.
what about party lines? (Score:2)
"which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals"
Does anyone remember party lines. several houses with the same line, and you had to listen to a specific ring.
An IP number is not solid evidence of anything (Score:2)
From TFA:
the logic of “IP address = person” — which was once reasonably valid
That logic was never vaguely reasonable if the equation is taken to be a reliable identification for any legal purpose.
If someone comes into court with an IP number, one needs to know a whole lot about how that number was discovered in order to consider giving them any credibility in associating some misbehavior with a person who is supposedly associated with that number. Mere knowledge of my name, or my car's license plate number, or my US mail address, or even an envelope with my US mail address
Not far enough (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The complaint comes in via an unverifiable email. The ISP has no idea who really sent it. As any ISP knows, spoofing an email is about the simplest thing for a teenage hacker to perform.
2. Even if the ISP could verify the sender, they have no idea if the sender is really the content owner. In fact, the ISP has absolutely no way to find out who the content owner is. This is something, that by its very definition would need to be decided in a court of law.
3. The ISP has no idea if the person sending the email is telling the truth in the least. Even if they are telling the truth they have no idea how competent their methods are. All they have is an email that says they "saw" the user download some content they own. They could have made it up, they could have terrible methods for detection. I believe there was one case where a university student managed to get DMCA notices sent to several campus printers IP addresses.
4. And most importantly, the ISP KNOWS most of the complaints are total BS. I personally saw at least 25% of the complaints that came in were against IP addresses that didn't have customers on them... or belonged to network devices we owned.
The entire premise that someone can connect to a torrent and then say that every IP address that their software tells them is connecting to that torrent is a pirate is asinine. There's a simple solution to your problem media industry... stop price gouging. Work WITH and not against netflix, pandora, and the like. Make it easier to pay you than it is to pirate... and the pirate community will die. Humans follow the path of least resistance. It's illegal to run red lights, but people still do it all the time, because it's easier than stopping. How do they really stop people from red lights? Take them out and put in a round-a-bout.
Re:To be fair.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because we should expect 100% of the US population to understand network security and know how to properly secure a wifi router. Makes perfect sense!
Re:To be fair.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because we should expect 100% of the US population to understand network security and know how to properly secure a wifi router. Makes perfect sense!
Also, this. [neowin.net]
And WEP vulnerabilities (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people still have WEP only routers. My parents are some of those people. They are not tech people, they bought a router back in the day when WEP was all you got. It still works so they won't get a new one.
They aren't the only ones either. While I don't see a whole lot of APs from my house, of the ones I do see two are WPA1, two are WEP, none (except mine) are WPA2.
And if we want to start to make it illegal to have bad security, well then we first need to start with door locks. Residential houses always have shitty locks. They are just regular ass locks from Home Depot that are vulnerable to bumping, ice picking, have no key control, and so on. You can get better locks no problem, they just cost a whole lot more so people don't bother.
However if you want to say "You have to buy a new router any time the old ones are found to have security issues, otherwise you are liable for any breakins," then I think you also have ot say "You have to buy better locks, otherwise you are liable for any breakins."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:To be fair.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It takes about 60 seconds to teach somebody to secure their wireless router. The only remotely time consuming part is getting them to believe that it's actually a smart idea.
I think you've got those backwards.
OK, listen, if you leave this unlocked then anyone who finds it can download anything. They can download child porn, illegal movies, terrorist documents, whatever, and it's all linked to you.
Well that sounds bad, better lock it up.
Right. OK, so the first thing you do is open your browser and go to one nine two dot one six ...
Wait, what's a browser?
Just double-click on the blue "E".
Got it. OK, I type in one nine two ...
Wait, not in the Bing search bar, you type it into the address field.
What's the address field?
Re:To be fair.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for helping to prove my point to the parent. A computer science degree and 20 years of experience isn't enough of a qualification to help teach someone how to secure their wireless router, you also need to be an insufferable douche. Not everyone can do it like you can. Those "regular people" out there don't have a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, yes. Between the buttons you can press to do it automatically, the instructions in the box that make it dead easy, the fact that you usually have to do it to even get it to work at all, and the fact that millions of people around the country would be happy to do it for a few bucks, I think it's reasonable.
It's a bog-simple procedure with potential consequences for not completing. We expect people to do their taxes, and this is substantially easier, quicker, and cheaper than that. In any case it's
Re: (Score:2)
We expect them to be able to operate a motor vehicle safely and keep it in good repair
Because if they don't someone could get killed; who's going to die if my grandpa doesn't set up a WEP key?
compute their taxes,
Because someone has to pay for the government to operate. For the record, there's no law that says you have to "compute [your] taxes" - you are more than welcome to send the IRS a check for however much you like. Just know if the amount you send isn't sufficient, you will be held accountable.
maintain their home
Again, because if you don't someone could get killed.
keep themselves and their family and pets in good health
Uh, yea, obviously not
Re: (Score:2)
If someone steals your car and crashes it into a bus full of children you're not criminally liable. You're unlikely to be found liable in a civil court for wrongful death, depending on jury.
If you lend someone your car and they crash it into a bus full of children then you're not criminally liable unless you are found to have known that it was likely the crash would occur. Say, if your friend were drunk or didn't have a license at the time. I think you're still unlikely to be found liable for wrongful de
Re: (Score:2)
>>> home subscriber... to be accountable for the activities of other people who use the services in his home
Agreed.
And while we're at it, if a visitor knifes another visitor while in your home, YOU should be held responsible for assault because it's your house and kitchen knife. You get the 10 years in jail while the killer walks free. (No wait... I think I find a flaw in your "I am responsible for all activies in my house" logic.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not unreasonable for a home (ie, non-commercial, not another ISP, etc) subscriber to a subscription service such as Internet to be accountable for the activities of other people who use the services in his home. As a parent, I'm held responsible for the activities of my children. I see no reason why I, as an ISP subscriber, should not be also accountable for what people do with a network connection that I pay for. If I don't trust someone to do things that I don't want them to, I shouldn't be letting them on my network.
It's not unreasonable to say that since you signed the contract with the ISP, you are responsible to the ISP for the use of that service. If you are allowed 10 GB of downloads plus extra data at $10 per GB, and I download 100 GB at your home, then the ISP can come to you for the money. You may then sue me to recover the money.
However, if the service is used for copyright infringement or more serious crimes, that has nothing to do with the contract between you and the ISP. If you had quit the contract but
Re: (Score:2)
Not flaming here. However, how can you be sure that your visitor using his own device is not doing something illegal? The answer is that you can't know, especially if you, like the vast majority, are not a computer expert. It's too easy to hide a process that is sitting around cracking passwords or downloading movies.
And that doesn't even take into account the fact that even a reasonably secured access point is crackable in a reasonable time frame, mac addresses are generally trivially spoofable, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they can't prove that it was you in the car, then yes. I've always thought that it's ridiculous that you're basically punished before you even see a judge. The cop should have to provide actual evidence before being able to dish out punishment (although they'd need to stop you to get your name to begin with).
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fair point.
But you do realize that your opinion puts you personally on the hook for $150k per song fines if someone else uses your IP address.
The judge is basically saying, "IP address is not a finger print, not a unique identifier".
I don't follow the rules as much as I used to, because the rules are no longer as fair and reasonable as they were 30 years ago. You may have heard that the average citizen commits 3 felonies a day now without being aware of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup.
Which is why I don't let my kids friends connect to my wifi, even when they ask nicely. I have no problem if they want to use the family computer, however.
Like I said... I'm a hard-ass.
That said... I'll agree that an IP address is not a fingerprint... but it does identify the home subscriber, and I really don't see a problem with subscribers to services being held res
Re: (Score:3)
As for people who didn't have permission, that would constitute unauthorized computer access, and is also a criminal offense.
True. But it would never come to that, since the law is a lazy evaluation system and bails out after finding the first perpetrator and the the first offense: the subscriber, and whatever heinous thing the subscriber is accused of. In that case, "someone else did it" becomes just an ineffective defense, and the prosecution gets what it wants anyway: a conviction.
Justice? That's not t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And as for people who run unlocked wireless routers and let anybody in the neighborhood utilize their bandwidth, I have zero sympathy.
I think the grey area is in the unlocked wireless routers. These are often/usually provided pre-configured by the ISP, and the user might not ever change the settings. The ISP's are securing them (at least Verizon FIOS does in my area) but an average user that adds their own wireless access point may not know all the ins and outs of configuration. I applaud the judges ruling as it does require a bit more investigation before allowing lawsuits that are IMHO frivolous and intended to annoy and intimidate ra
Re: (Score:2)
If I don't trust someone to do things that I don't want them to, I shouldn't be letting them on my network.
If ISPs did this, no one would have interest. If an ISP was fined for every time someone else transferred bomb threats, child porn, or copyrighted material; they would go out of business by the next day. You are forgetting the only real different between the Internet and a home network is scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I see no reason why I, as a passenger, should not know how to build a 747 from scratch."
Re: (Score:2)
I see no reason why I, as an ISP subscriber, should not be also accountable for what people do with a network connection that I pay for.
Here is a relevant anecdote that a friend of mine in the security research community gave me: the police were investigating a child pornography case, and the determined the address of the person paying for an Internet connection that had come up during that investigation. When the police showed up, a pair of old ladies who were barely able to operate their computer were living there; they did not fit the profile for that crime, and there was no evidence of child pornography in their home.
Down the blo
Re: (Score:2)
And as for people who run unlocked wireless routers and let anybody in the neighborhood utilize their bandwidth, I have zero sympathy.
I'm glad to hear you say that! When I let myself into your home while you are at work, you just accepted all the blame for anything and everything I do!
After all, people who can't properly secure their front door or windows such as yourself, we have zero sympathy for."
Perhaps you should fix that problem and install a 6" 40 bolt security door, and cement all your fragile shaterable glass windows up. Such lax security on your part would require you to turn yourself in to the police after I let myself in, ta
Unlocked wireless is courteous and neighborly (Score:2)
for people who run unlocked wireless routers and let anybody in the neighborhood utilize their bandwidth, I have zero sympathy.
Before showing contempt for those who run open wireless nodes, please read what Bruce Schneier writes [schneier.com] about the courtesy of sharing network access.
I'm just a hard-ass who follows the rules
Perhaps you follow some set of rules that you picked up somewhere, but there is no compelling foundation in law or ethics for requiring restricted access on network nodes.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, I don't typically allow visitors to connect to my wifi just because they are in my home. They are welcome to use the family desktop computer, however.
Second, it "ending on my doorstep" as it were, would only be an issue if I were giving permission to people to do stuff that they shouldn't be anyways. I don't... so it won't. If somebody hacks into my network without my consent (which I don't consider a very plausible scenario, but I address it for sake of completeness), I will file a pol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)