Florida Judge Rules IP Address Can't Identify a BitTorrent Pirate 158
An anonymous reader writes "Florida District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro has dismissed a lawsuit brought by Malibu Media against an alleged BitTorrent pirate. Though Malibu Media explained how they geolocated the download site and verified that the IP address was residential rather than a public wifi hotspot, the judge reasoned that the 'Plaintiff has not shown how this geolocation software can establish the identity of the Defendant....Even if this IP address is located within a residence, the geolocation software cannot identify who has access to that residence's computer and who would actually be using it to infringe Plaintiff's copyright.' Judge Ungaro's ruling is not the first of its kind, but it could signal a growing legal trend whereby copyright lawsuits can no longer just hinge on the acquisition of an IP address."
213923681-Gov-uscourts-flsd-434635-10-0
First (Score:3)
I run a hot spot from my router, open to all.
Re: (Score:3)
For at least the last 3 years, every court case I have seen that deals with this (and there have been more than a few) has ended with the same ruling. In both state and federal court.
And no wonder: it's physical fact. My wifi does not even identify my residence, much less me. I see other people logged in all the time. (To my open guest account, that is.)
At my last place of residence, I had my router (with a great signal) open to the
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
Traffic shaping. There's plenty of free software out there... you give yourself priority over all other traffic. They can use it for free but as soon as you hop on you get first dibs. Liability for what strangers do with your open wifi is another thing. Sure, you may eventually win in court but when the police haul you out of work on child porn charges how victorious will you feel when you finally get cleared 3 years later after spending your last dime on lawyers?
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying I think it should happen, just that it will.
Re:First (Score:4, Informative)
You do realise many routers on the market now offer virtual WiFi hotspots with QoS right? I mean out of the box mine came with the option of having an all singing all dancing SSID and another called Guest which will flow like molasses but none the less allow party goers to pull up wikipedia when drunk and arguing about pointless stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Have fun dealing with everybody trying to get free internet. My neighbor didn't lock his down, and once his internet started running like molasses, he checked and found six different people using his internet at the one time.
My router has a separate "guest" WiFi that I can limit the bandwidth on. I'm free from any lawsuit hassle if I open that up ...?
A competent Judge in Florida? (Score:5, Funny)
There has to be a blind squirrel involved somehow.
GeoLocation is not evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm connected to an ISP in Brisbane, Australia. But my ISP bought a block of IP addresses from someone else so most GeoLocation services tell me I'm sitting somewhere in France.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> most GeoLocation services tell me I'm sitting somewhere in France.
How would you prove them wrong? You could put marmite on your baguette, but marmite is also known in France. Perhaps put some marmite on your router?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't see a single jar of Marmite the whole time I was there.
Re: (Score:2)
I just pulled up one of these websites and it put me at about 20 miles off my actual location. Although it's not as bad as ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD, it's hardly very accurate.
A defense attorney could have a lot of fun with this. Perhaps a defense attorney already did and that's what led to this ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GeoLocation is not evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
I am reticent to block all activity except for known ports, as a lot of today's software requires me to run the stuff open so they can communicate with their home base.
I would be in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act if I were to reverse engineer the code to find out exactly what they wanted. So, in accordance of my understanding of the Terms of Compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was bought by the Copyright Holders, I run my wireless nodes that pass information subject to softwares governed by the DMCA wide open. I do not attempt to monitor, reverse engineer, or try to "break their codes". Like watching activity on the street, its not my issue with what other people are doing. Its been my experience that interfering in other people's doings is not very healthful.
The Copyright Industry has fought long and hard, spending countless resources to have law passed that makes ignorance of how one's stuff works as a condition of lawful compliance with their terms and conditions. We are now getting a lawfully compliant population who leaves every port on their system open because some copyright holder might want to use that port, closing it will cause the system to malfunction. Troubleshooting and repairing the malfunction is now defined by our Congress as being in violation of Copyright Law.
For my critical stuff, which I have not signed away any rights, I can still communicate securely, but for the commercial stuff, which I agreed to leave access wide open, I comply.
But as far as my wireless access points...
I HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEA WHAT IS GOING THROUGH IT.
Nor, do I feel I am lawfully allowed to know.
As far as I am concerned, I am running a public toilet.
Anyone is welcome as long as they don't come in and make a mess.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't used as evidence, it was used in the hope of getting the judge to issue a subpoena to the ISP, providing real evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
But, what "evidence" could the ISP provide? Nothing more than has already been established. Someone used the customer's IP address to download copyrighted material. Nothing more, and nothing less. Could be the guy who pays the bill, could be his kids, could be his spouse, could be a house guest, could be some kid out front of the house with a laptop. That seems to be what the judge has ruled.
Re: (Score:2)
In all those cases, the owner of the subscription should be at least questioned as a witness.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds fair enough, until a MAFIAA starts sending out thousands of subpoenas that all must be answered at the witness' expense. Each and every person must travel to a venue of the MAFIAA's choosing, just to be deposed? Huh-uh, that doesn't sound right to me.
Re:GeoLocation is not evidence (Score:5)
But it's still that guy's subscription...
So? If you use my golf clubs to beat a homeless man, that's on you, not me.
such activity still can violate the TOS of the ISP... and regardless of who was doing it, it can still be reasonably grounds for termination of service.
The service contract with the ISPs is at the ISPs discretion. 3rd parties can't dictate what the ISP does with your service.
If somebody was actually doing this without authorization and without his knowledge, then the person will hopefully take something positive from the experience and learn how to properly secure their own network so that it doesn't happen again.
Or better still he will continue to refuse to bow down to silly oppressive tactics, and will do what he wants with his wifi, instead of cowering in fear.
Re: (Score:2)
When buying golf clubs you do not usually agree to any kind of contract with anyone which states you can be held responsible for how those golf clubs get used. Such agreements are not unheard of in an ISP TOS.
Of course... but most ISP's do prohibit using their service to do things which happen to illegal in the s
Re: (Score:2)
Such agreements are not unheard of in an ISP TOS
But you are mixing civil and criminal responsibility. The ToS is a civil contract, you can't sign a civil contract to accept criminal responsibility for something.
A ToS assignment of responsibility basically amounts to little more than the ISP asserting that any expenses (ie financial damages) that arise from the use of your service account can be collected from you. That's it.
Of course... but most ISP's do prohibit using their service to do things which happe
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't suggesting they would convict you... I was suggesting that they would terminate your service. The onus still lays on the prosecution in court to prove that you actually did it... but by the time it even gets that far, the proof that it had happened at all will have long since already been presented, which was the justification for termination in the first place. Even if the prosecution fail to convict you (which may be likely, but is far from certain), you'll still have to switch ISP's, since th
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't suggesting they would convict you... I was suggesting that they would terminate your service.
Based on what, exactly?
They can't terminate your service based on the illegal activity you performed, because they cannot say you performed illegal activity.Innocent until proven guilty.
They can't terminate your service based on the illegal activity performed on "your account"; because again, that requires an actual court finding that something illegal actually happened.
The RIAA asserting it doesn't make i
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the evidence that showed, presumably, that the IP was used for that activity.... whether or not it was you who personally did it, it would be a violation of the ToS. If there is no evidence that the incident for which you might stand accused ever even happened on your IP, then there would have been no basis to ever begin to accuse you in the first place. You might not be guilty, but that doesn't mean that any actual evidence that it happened is meaningless, it only means th
Re: (Score:2)
all hell would break loose if they decided they "just" didn't want customers with Latino family names, for example...
Discriminating against race is illegal. If they decided they "just" didn't want customers who lived at addresses that were prime numbers though they could do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the evidence that showed, presumably, that the IP was used for that activity.... whether or not it was you who personally did it, it would be a violation of the ToS.
We're going in circles here. How would it be a violation of the ToS? There is evidence that a crime took place, yes. But that evidence is not "certainty". They do not KNOW that a crime took place, and they cannot legitimately determine that for themselves. They cannot invoke a clause that says they can act if a crime has taken place unt
Re: (Score:2)
All of what I've been suggesting is supposing that the evidence they have is actually sufficient to dictate that a crime had genuinely occurred. Whether somebody is actually found guilty of this crime or not is irrellevant. If they do not, then obviously they could not terminate on grounds of illegal activity since they do not have sufficient evidence to establish that it had ever occurred in the first place. But again, if they don't even have that, then it's improbable in the extreme that anyone would
Re: (Score:2)
It is entirely legal, albeit probably unethical and immoral, to discrimate against anybody for absolutely any reason at all, even race, religion, race, or sexual preference, as long as the reason is left unspecified.
And under certain circumstances, it can even be legal to specify such a reason when doing so falls under other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, etc. A church pastor, for example, can refuse to marry people who he or she believes do not faithfully practice the tenets of
Re: (Score:2)
It is entirely legal, albeit probably unethical and immoral, to discrimate against anybody for absolutely any reason at all, even race, religion, race, or sexual preference, as long as the reason is left unspecified.
Sure, but if you systematically disconnected everyone with a latino name (per the example cited); and were subsequently challenged on it, the odds are good that the court will 'ascertain' for itself the reason you were doing it, and find you guilty of racial discrimination even if you don't exp
Re: (Score:2)
If your wallet gets stolen, for example, you can clearly say that a crime has occurred
I certainly don't know your wallet has been stolen, and the fact that you claim its missing is scant evidence. Maybe you simply lost it and don't want to admit it. Maybe you left it somewhere and just innocently forgot. Maybe you hid it so you can make a fraudulent insurance claim.
I'd hesitate to leap to the conclusion that it was stolen; even if it was MY wallet that was missing, nevermind yours. Unless I was robbed at gu
Re: (Score:2)
Vux posts a couple posts down that "We're going in circles here."
Allow me to cut the circle here.
I have a contract with the ISP. Some third party comes along and tells the ISP that I'm doing something illegal. Evidence or not, why is it legal for the ISP to terminate my contract based on the unsubstantiated "evidence" that some third party submits to the ISP? In effect, I am being punished by my contract partner, because that third party wants me to be punished.
We see this on Youtube takedown notices rou
Re: (Score:2)
Well.... suffiicent enough to convince a court. In the initial accusation, there are two ways to really defend oneself: The first is to call into question that the evidence actually links to you. This is generally quite trivial in the case of illegally sharing copyrighted content, and there's no reason that I can see that anyone would ever actually be c
Re: (Score:2)
If the evidence is unsubstantiated, then presumably you will be capable of showing that when defending yourself... and obviously the ISP would not be able to cite illegal activities as grounds for termination. If, however, you accept the veracity of the evidence that they have insomuch as it links an IP which is associated with your subscription to the serv
Re: (Score:2)
You are still presuming that some third party has the right and/or authority to dictate what my ISP may or may not allow. We have arrived at the point we are at today, because the MAFIAA's of the world have bullied the world into believing that they have some kind of authority.
In an ideal world, where your rights are actually respected, the MAFIAA's would be required to present each and every case of "piracy" to a court before the court would issue a subpoena to the ISP to reveal any customer's identity.
Re: (Score:2)
Termination of the service because of illegal activities can be the ISP's own personal policy... nobody but them is forcing to abide by it but themselves. if, as I said, the evidence that alleged it was ever your subscribed line in the first place that the alleged crime took place using, then it makes sense to challenge the accusation against you on that basis.
Go ahead and sue your ISP
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal activity on an account not performed by the account holder or with their knowledge or consent is not grounds for termination in most contracts.
Re: (Score:3)
At the end of the day the ISP provides those IP addresses based upon time of use and with sufficient security to allow a bill in the tens of dollar range. Considering that this is the sole evidence in infringements that could result in penalties of hundreds of thousands of dollars any ISP providing this evidence should be forced to warrant the accuracy of this evidence to tune of at least one million dollars (get it wrong and they owe the defendant this for a false accusation) or clearly state that the inf
Re: (Score:2)
a lot of innocent neighbors... (Score:2)
Scribd sucks (Score:1)
Scribd is completely broken in browsers without javascript. Anyone got a link to the actual ruling?
Re: (Score:2)
X-Art Shakedown Failing? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is one of those cases where the settlement shakedown, even with the threat of publicly exposing one's porn viewing habits, has failed. Some more here: https://www.eff.org/cases/mali... [eff.org]. Maybe they will eventually give up the cause but I expect the X-Art lawyers to keep going in every other district and jurisdiction while there is still a buck to be extracted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if X-Art doesn't own those, who does? I'm... um... asking for a friend, you see...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
i know it's passe to read the article, but if you had, you wouldn't have even posted..
Malibu Media, which runs the site "x-art," files civil complaints in courts around the country. Each complaint accuses an anonymous Internet user of illegally downloading and sharing one or more of Malibu's movies. But the complaint goes further: Malibu attaches a list of other movies and files that Malibu accuses the user of copying illegally. Some of them have titles that are far more lewd and embarrassing than the titles of Malibu's own movies. But Malibu doesn't own the copyright in those other movies, and can't actually sue over them. There's no legitimate reason to attach that list of other titles to a complaint, because complaints in federal court are not the place for laying out evidence. They're just to initiate a case and let the other side know what the case is about. But adding some really embarrassing titles to a complaint and filing it on a public court docket ups the embarrassment factor and discourages innocent people from standing up for themselves in court. (It's not clear what those extra titles would add to a court case, anyway - most judges would bar them from being read to a jury.)
Sudden outbreak of common sense? (Score:5, Funny)
I mean of all places florida?
What about comcast wifi that offers hotspots to ot (Score:5, Interesting)
What about Comcast wifi routers that offers hotspots to other Comcast subs with there newer wifi routers being placed at homes. What do they show up as?
Re: (Score:3)
An airtight defense.
Re: (Score:2)
>> What about Comcast wifi routers that offers hotspots to other Comcast subs with there newer wifi routers being placed at homes. What do they show up as?
XFinityWifi has a separate IP range.
Re: (Score:2)
You're required to log in to use that feature, even if you're sitting in a van on the street. As such, it makes the tie back to an identity a bit stronger than an IP address alone would provide, and since they'd know it was a Comcast address, it'd be simple to at least subpoena whether it was the homeowner's account or not. If you were the guy in the van, you'd have to explain how your account got logged in at their wifi access point across town. If you're the homeowner, they'd have evidence that it was not
Comparable to... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that unless you pay for a fixed IP address, your IP address can change at any time. So you can have one IP address today and in an hour, day or a week have another.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it's not enough to show that somebody else could have used it.
You can show someone else used it all day long, in America, you are responsible for what happens if you leave your wifi completely unprotected.
You have to PROVE it was someone else, and you have to prove it was someone else specifically. 'Someone I don't know used my open wifi, it wasn't me!!' will be considered guilty for all practical purposes.
There is legal precedent for this already.
Re: (Score:2)
> There is legal precedent for this already.
In which jurisdiction?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, we're talking about civil suits here, where the burden of proof is "preponderance of evidence," not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as it is in a criminal proceeding. Even if you have an open WiFi hotspot, it's not enough to show that somebody else could have used it. In order to win with that defense, you'd have to show that somebody else probably did leach off your connection and download whatever it was.
It's common sense that if I wanted to download stuff illegally, I wouldn't do that at my own home where I can easily be found, but I would indeed leach someone else's connection. So it is more likely that the downloading wasn't done by the person who can be found easily.
Re: (Score:2)
However, as I pointed out in the text you quoted, this is a civil case, not a criminal one. Just making the ju
Don't get too excited. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know how this will eventually play out. They'll wind up amending the law to state that whoever the ip address is assigned to is prima facie liable and will have to prove their innocence. Loophole closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't guilty until proven innocent (or rich) already standard operating procedure over there in the USA?
Get excited, but in a bad way (Score:3)
You know how this will eventually play out. They'll wind up amending the law to state that whoever the ip address is assigned to is prima facie liable and will have to prove their innocence. Loophole closed.
Not just that, because the pro-privacy/freedom side is just gloating about how they keep getting wins, while the MPAA/RIAA/anti-privacy side is busy lobbying, any eventual amendment will likely be the worst possible amendment, with no input from the pro- side.
Re: (Score:2)
wouldn't they have done this with cars and red light or speeding camera tickets already?
Re:Don't get too excited. (Score:4, Funny)
"wouldn't they", nothin' Done and done. [jalopnik.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Judges just LOVE when 'clever' people try to find ways around the law. that guy is gonna get screwed so hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it seems that the judges couldn't do anything -- in the end they had to actually have police stake out his house [loweringthebar.net] in order to get any kind of submissible evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
That is an amusing site.
Re: In Australia (Score:2)
I swear I've learned more 4th hand about Aussie Law on Slashdot than any year in college!
So the way this site works, we get about *eleven* countries chipping in!
USA of course, Australia apparently, Germany, three Scandinavian countries, four people from China and Iran as AC, Britain, Ireland, and your choice of four more!
Re: (Score:2)
This is easy; in Australia the ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle.
In Canada it's even funnier - since the photo is of the rear of the car (and thus you can't see who's driving), photo radar is fined to the vehicle as a non-moving violation. Yup, same category as parking tickets and the like.
They literally don't care who was behind the wheel - your car was going too fast, you're the owner, you get the fine. Only difference is that you don't get demerits (since they don't even try to prove you were the driver).
Re: (Score:2)
A simple way would be after your ip is seen few times via logs your home is searched. To get your computer and other electronic or networked appliances back worth $100's or many thousands expect $20,000 in ongoing legal fees and related experts over many months, years.
With networking and remote access been built into more common household appliances y
Ruling good. STORY WRONG. (Score:5, Insightful)
The ruling is good. Let's enjoy that.
However, this is a HORRIBLE writeup. It suggests that "...IP-address evidence can't identify the person who actually downloaded the pirated file."
Under current US law:
1. There is no copyright infringement in downloading a file.
2. Files are. They just are. They are not "pirated files."
3. MAKING INFRINGING CONTENT AVAILABLE TO OTHERS is what is considered copyright infringement/distribution. THAT is why an IP address is important... if one SHARES and MAKES AVAILABLE A FILE. It takes a court to determine whether the actions constitute an actionable behavior.
I can't believe Torrentfreak got it wrong. At least they got the headline right. And this is a good ruling.
Hopefully fightcopyrighttrolls.com and dietrolldie.com won't make that mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ.
Please provide a source cite to a statute that indicates the act of "downloading" (feel free to
massage as appropriate; I am not splitting hairs) is unlawful.
As for the lawyer cited, he isn't a very good lawyer: "Fighting a subpoena that attempts to reveal your identity is a waste of money because you will reveal your identity by fighting it."
Lawyers that give advice on the Internet are not creme de la creme. Lawyers that give incorrect advice less so.
E
Re: (Score:3)
I beg to differ.
Please provide a source cite to a statute that indicates the act of "downloading" (feel free to massage as appropriate; I am not splitting hairs) is unlawful.
17 USC 106 [cornell.edu]:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords...
What you were referring to in your earlier post was the distribution right. That's farther down in the statute:
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
So, yes, you were right that uploading - or distributing copies - is infringement. But you're wrong, in that downloading - or making copies - is also infringement.
For example, check out 17 USC 117 [cornell.edu], which contains an exception under which copying is not infringement:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
This is a very important exception, because it (1) allows copying from a hard drive to RAM; or (2) copying to a backup dri
Re: (Score:2)
It really doesn't mean much if it hasn't been tested in court. If no one is prosecuting based on a law, and no court has upheld it, that means it may be against the law, based on your reading.
It doesn't mean you can be punished for it.
I used to have a PDF of a court decision on my desktop that, unless it has since been superceded, declared downloading illegal. That is, the law forbade it, and the law was correct. Sad thing is, that was re-imaged years ago. Perhaps the archives of NYCL have it.
If you fin
Re: (Score:2)
Someone's reading of a law does not matter. Yours in particular, given your ignorance about who decides what is actually illegal.
Beg your pardon, but wtf are you talking about? I was asked for a statute identifying copying as illegal. I linked to 17 USC 106, the statute identifying copying as illegal. Did you perhaps mean to reply to some other individual with your attempt at condescension? Or is this some sort of "the law can be wrong and therefore nothing is actually illegal until it has been upheld by the highest court" attempt at pedantry? Because if so, you're very wrong - first, statutes are prima facie constitutionally valid,
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. All you need to do is invent a mechanism for copying a thing you don't have. Perhaps a computer somewhere else that has a bunch of files that you don't have, but will make a copy for you if you ask. Arguing that you can ask for the copy to be made and not be responsible for the making of it is like arguing that you weren't speeding, you were merely pressing on the accelerator.
Re: (Score:2)
No seriously...
In most cases, you can't prove the copy on the disk is illegitimate.
You can legally record TV programs and radio/TV songs and transcribe books to text files.
A file sitting on the disk is not innately proof of a violation.
Sure- if it is still in theatres you might have an argument.
Re: (Score:2)
You're splitting hairs, too. :-P
If you illegally download a file, it's "pirated". You're saying it can't be proven sometimes. Granted. Facts and proof are different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is valid.
And once the file is renamed to "Naughty Cheerleaders Club.mp4"?
Or how about if I have multiple files titled, "Naughty.Cheerleaders.Club.PROPER.XXX.720p.WEBRiP.x264-TBP" but which all contain different data- one a picture of flowers, another a text file with a script for the empire strikes back, and another a video of some highschool cheerleaders?
And if a half dozen other people have access to my computer, then who do you fine?
I'm assuming none of these are criminal cases where the stand
Re: (Score:2)
This is a common error. The law doesn't have to spell out each and every possible method of infringement, just like they don't have to spell out each and every method of murder (with a gun, with an axe, etc). Did you make a copy? Yes. Did you have the permission of the copyright owner, or was it fair use, parody, etc? No? Then it doesn't matter if yo
lucky bastards (Score:3)
In my country the owner of the ISP account is liable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it applies for copyright infringement on peer to peer networks. Children, flatmates, visitors... anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's outlined here http://3strikes.net.nz/ [3strikes.net.nz]
A good analogy: the sniper (Score:2)
Two police officers are patrolling a street in Queens, NY.
A gunshot rings out. One officer falls, gasping, and dies in a pool of blood.
The detective investigating the case correctly identifies the house from which the gunshot came.
Do we simply look up the owner, arrest him and charge him with the crime? He is after all responsible for the house, so maybe 3-6 hours of violent anal dilation in jail will convince him to turn over the miscreant.
Or is a more nuanced question, such as whose finger was actually on
Re: (Score:2)
Headline makes it sound like a judge ruled on a point of fact.
Yes, first thought was I beg to differ, mine will pin point me.
Re:That needed a judge? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, if I were to sneak into your home, and run an ethernet wire to your modem, then attach a wifi router so that I could torrent from down the street, your IP address would definitely pin my activity on you? Cool - I'll be there Friday morning!
Re:That needed a judge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why even bother with a cable. It's not impossible to crack wireless networks.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, if I were to sneak into your home, and run an ethernet wire to your modem, then attach a wifi router so that I could torrent from down the street, your IP address would definitely pin my activity on you? Cool - I'll be there Friday morning!
You don't need to, I have a hot spot open to all, it's location makes it well used and I don't monitor it at all. Why? Just me trying to be helpful.
As for the pervert who might happen by, well one step at a time.
Re:That needed a judge? (Score:5, Informative)
You don't understand how torrents work then. Quite a few years ago a group of college students got the RIAA to send take down notices to a campus printer, router and several other pieces of electronics. IP addresses mean absolutely nothing unless you control the entire network from end to end.
Re: (Score:2)
http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/... [washington.edu]
When I said my IP address will pin point me, it was if it were a legal situation. I should of been more specific; I didn't RTA, just the headline. A whois of my IP address will always show the wrong city as well as the wrong county, no proxie just my connection.
PDF was a good read, while 6 years old it had this:
"We also attempted to frame two IP addresses for which no machines were associated; these IP addresses were not remotely pingable and we did not receive any complaints for these IP addresses".
Yet an
car analogy? (Score:2)
See it's like someone identifying your car in a crime. Doesn't prove you ere driving. Well, more like a crime that occurred in your garage and your car never actually left the garage.
Re:car analogy? (Score:5, Informative)
See it's like someone identifying your car in a crime. Doesn't prove you ere driving.
They didn't identify your car in the crime --- they identified a car that had your license plate on it. Someone else with a nearby/similar vehicle may have been "borrowing" your plate (with or without permission)
Re: (Score:2)
But located in your garage or driveway.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, just because your IP showed up in a torrent swarm doesn't mean you were actually distributing copyrighted materials at all. BitTorrent is not illegal. Downloading is not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone passing by your house or living near you could crack your wifi and do whatever they want. There is also the possibility that your computer becomes a part of someone's botnet, where they can control it from anywhere in the world.
This is what you get for storing your car outside the garage, with no locks on the doors, and the key in the ignition.
Re: (Score:3)
Sacrilege! The car analogy is always appropriate! Burn the AC Heretic! All we need do is make the analogy more out of this world; if someone 3d printed a copy of your car (license plates included), should you be liable for their crimes with the copy of the vehicle?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Houses are an entirely different analogy.
They can perhaps identify a particular household. Unless you live alone, that doesn't reasonably define a single person. It defines a number of people. How do you decide which party to sue?
Add mobile devices including laptops into the mix and a street address really doesn't tell you anything.
It's like you've got a bus full of hackers and perhaps one of them is your perp. You can't definitively pin the infraction on any single person on the bus. It could have been
Re: (Score:2)
For any particular crime, you can with in reason pin point it to the exact planet on which the criminal is on. I therefore suggest, we just charge everyone on that planet with the crime in the name of security. Or perhaps, just get a search warrant for the planet so we can identify the correct user. If we did this for every crime, it would solve everything.
Re: (Score:2)
For any particular crime, you can with in reason pin point it to the exact planet on which the criminal is on.
<Alien2> Ah crap.... they're on to us? We thought the dark side of the moon would be a safe place to conduct all our shady dealings.
* <Alien3> scrambles to wipe disk drives of evidence of Stuxnet1, Stuxnet2, and Stuxnet3 creation.