Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
They're checking the IP's of infringing file transfers. It's not a sure-fire method, so it is entirely plausible for someone to explain to the agency or judge that "my wireless access point got hacked." Of course, the plausibility of that declines a little bit when you've gotten a registered letter saying "we think you're a pirate" and your IP still racks up gig after gig of infringing traffic.
|
I would have thought continuing to download gigs of stuff on a protocol that you know is monitored when you are on your final warning would make a network hack even more plausible. Guilty people would either switch to another protocol that isn't monitored, or encrypt their traffic after the first warning. They would only continue as before if they didn't see the warnings.