MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Ruling: IP address does not identify person

hrosvit · 05-04-2012, 11:54 AM

As a bit of background, I am a police officer, and specifically, a forensic computer examiner. A large portion of my work is identifying traders of illegal files online, serving search warrants on their residences, seizing their computers and examining them, and filing appropriate charges. IN A CRIMINAL CASE, if I can't put a specific human being behind the keyboard (by means of an admission, internet history, other files, etc.), no one gets arrested.

I realize that civil cases have a different burden of proof. I am, by no means, an expert at civil law. However, there has to be some method of identifying an actor. Saying "someone used your internet connection to trade copyrighted material" does not come anywhere close to establishing resposibility. You can say that a person is being negligent if he fails to secure his network. I don't agree that this is grounds for conviction, but I'll let that go for now. Even if you secure your network, it is not a very complex task to hack a protected wireless network. So if your network is hacked, are you still responsible?

I have personally experienced (more than once) receiving incorrect subscriber information from internet service providers for IP logs (and no, they are not obligated by law to maintain logs for any specific amount of time). So, without corroborating evidence, merely the fact that an ISP provided subscriber information is nowhere near sufficent for conviction.

And what about deliberately open networks? If I go to Panera, or Starbucks, or McDonalds, or the public library, and download copyrighted material, does that mean the RIAA/MPIAA/whomever can now go after McDonalds? For a while, the city of Philadelphia was planning to install a free wireless network for the entire city (boy, is that a terrible idea). In that case, if I had been anywhere in Philadelphia downloading copyrighted material, can the city be held responsible for the act? Or, more in depth, do you know who actually owns the network at most McDonalds? AT&T; they own more than 100,000 free public wireless networks in the US. Why? To get mobile users off their cellular network, and onto wifi, thereby reducing the load on their cellular network. So, if I download copyrighted material at McDonalds, can AT&T be held responsible? I'd actually like to see the RIAA/MPIAA/Publishers go after AT&T. Obviously, this wouldn't happen, but it would be entertaining to watch.

The bottom line is that although piracy is bad, and we should attempt to pursue it and stop it, this is not a viable solution. IP address does not equal bad guy.

05-04-2012, 11:54 AM	#42
hrosvit Moron Posts: 333 Karma: 3113890 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Southwest PA Device: iPad 3, Galaxy Note 2, Nook ST	As a bit of background, I am a police officer, and specifically, a forensic computer examiner. A large portion of my work is identifying traders of illegal files online, serving search warrants on their residences, seizing their computers and examining them, and filing appropriate charges. IN A CRIMINAL CASE, if I can't put a specific human being behind the keyboard (by means of an admission, internet history, other files, etc.), no one gets arrested. I realize that civil cases have a different burden of proof. I am, by no means, an expert at civil law. However, there has to be some method of identifying an actor. Saying "someone used your internet connection to trade copyrighted material" does not come anywhere close to establishing resposibility. You can say that a person is being negligent if he fails to secure his network. I don't agree that this is grounds for conviction, but I'll let that go for now. Even if you secure your network, it is not a very complex task to hack a protected wireless network. So if your network is hacked, are you still responsible? I have personally experienced (more than once) receiving incorrect subscriber information from internet service providers for IP logs (and no, they are not obligated by law to maintain logs for any specific amount of time). So, without corroborating evidence, merely the fact that an ISP provided subscriber information is nowhere near sufficent for conviction. And what about deliberately open networks? If I go to Panera, or Starbucks, or McDonalds, or the public library, and download copyrighted material, does that mean the RIAA/MPIAA/whomever can now go after McDonalds? For a while, the city of Philadelphia was planning to install a free wireless network for the entire city (boy, is that a terrible idea). In that case, if I had been anywhere in Philadelphia downloading copyrighted material, can the city be held responsible for the act? Or, more in depth, do you know who actually owns the network at most McDonalds? AT&T; they own more than 100,000 free public wireless networks in the US. Why? To get mobile users off their cellular network, and onto wifi, thereby reducing the load on their cellular network. So, if I download copyrighted material at McDonalds, can AT&T be held responsible? I'd actually like to see the RIAA/MPIAA/Publishers go after AT&T. Obviously, this wouldn't happen, but it would be entertaining to watch. The bottom line is that although piracy is bad, and we should attempt to pursue it and stop it, this is not a viable solution. IP address does not equal bad guy.