Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
If I may be allowed to insert a reply to the above question, I would recommend the US standard of evidence.
You have to provide a judge with information providing a "probable cause" of a crime. Then a warrant can be issued for a search. Mere activity cannot be construed as probable cause, as you cannot determine what the activity comprised of.
Relevant example. I download a torrent of a movie. My IP address shows a large block of activity. Is it probable cause? No, as I could have downloaded, say, My Man Godfrey (1936), which is Public Domain in the US, or a friend's attempt at making a movie. or I may have used the torrent to download from a legitimate, for pay, site (think HULU, or maybe I want to watch the local news daily from my old hometown, via Slingbox). All legitimate, all high bandwidth. So activity alone is not adequate. Now if you want to track both IP addresses, prove that the only data the sending site is infringed information, or sucessfully seize the sending IP sites connection records, showing that illegal information was transmitted to my IP address, THEN you have "probable cause" for your warrent. Not until then. That's why the RIAA/MPAA haven't actually won a case past appeal.
High standard? Absolutely. Does this allow crime to exist? Absolutely. But that's the price you pay for a free society. The other choice is the knock in the dark and the disapperance. Which is precisely what we are talking about for internet access in the new French Law.
|
right. that method, while imperfect, seems a lot more reasonable than the proposed hadopi method.