Ruling: IP address does not identify person

[Ninjalawyer]

In the U.S., record companies and movie studios have promoted the technological fiction for years that you can identify a particular person by an IP address. They make that argument because it is necessary to do so legally; it's not enough to say that the account holder's IP was involved in infringement so the account holder is responsible, they are required to establish that the account holder actually infringed.

I don't usually agree with HarryT, but I wouldn't be opposed to having an account holder responsible if the penalties were restricted to reasonable fines rather than massive fines and criminal sanctions, and provided the person accused had some meaningful way to dispute the claim. Seems like a fairly reasonable compromise.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I don't usually agree with HarryT, but I wouldn't be opposed to having an account holder responsible if the penalties were restricted to reasonable fines rather than massive fines and criminal sanctions, and provided the person accused had some meaningful way to dispute the claim. Seems like a fairly reasonable compromise.

That's precisely my point. It's the ludicrous penalties that up the ante for everyone here. Make the punishment fit the crime - a low-level fine for a low-level misdemeanour - and perhaps there will be a greater level of realism in the whole affair.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm saying that the need for security should have been beaten into him with a large blunt instrument by whoever sold it to him. If it was, and he chose to ignore it, then it's his responsibility. It is wasn't, it's the responsibility of the supplier.

I recently had a second phone phone installed in my house and got an internet connection on it with the UK's largest ISP (British Telecom). I was very impressed by the emphasis on security that was stressed right from the very start of the ordering process.

This might just be a cultural issue. Where I live (can't speak for the rest of the country) security is never even mentioned. Most of the time they don't even come to install the cable/internet if the residence had been previously connected. They just send you a box with the modem, supplies (sometimes cables) and instructions. They only come if there is a technical issue...and they charge for that (they charge for those installs, too). Depending on the cost (install here was $40-$50 IIRC for a simple install) most people rather not have the company do it -the fees get rather high.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I don't usually agree with HarryT, but I wouldn't be opposed to having an account holder responsible if the penalties were restricted to reasonable fines rather than massive fines and criminal sanctions, and provided the person accused had some meaningful way to dispute the claim. Seems like a fairly reasonable compromise.

In theory, I am okay with a person being responsible for their own IP address. But in practice, I'm not sure it works. Additionally, do you not think this would have a chilling effect on the public availability of wifi? Obviously, some people may not think that this would be a bad thing, but I'm not sure I agree.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

In theory, I am okay with a person being responsible for their own IP address. But in practice, I'm not sure it works. Additionally, do you not think this would have a chilling effect on the public availability of wifi? Obviously, some people may not think that this would be a bad thing, but I'm not sure I agree.

Perhaps it's different where you are, but in these parts, free Internet access is generally locked down pretty hard with "net nanny" type restrictions on what sites can be access. You aren't going to be able to get to TPB, etc, from the local McDonald's.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I do. If you don't have the knowledge yourself, get it done by someone who does have the knowledge. We require training and certification before someone is allowed to drive a car. An internet connection is potentially a more "dangerous" thing to possess - should we not require responsibility from its owner?

So grandma should get a mcse designation before getting a wireless router. gotcha.

if you think that is absurd, so too is your professed level of culpability you attribute to her.

lock granny up with all the other kiddy-diddlers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

So grandma should get a mcse designation before getting a wireless router. gotcha.

No. Grandma's ISP should supply the router properly and securely configured. Do you disagree with that idea?

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps it's different where you are, but in these parts, free Internet access is generally locked down pretty hard with "net nanny" type restrictions on what sites can be access. You aren't going to be able to get to TPB, etc, from the local McDonald's.

Things are different here. I admit, I've never searched for child porn at a public wifi, but I doubt if I would have much trouble using BitTorrent at the local Panera. Or how about a Gnutella client that doesn't even require me to have a browser open, once I've accessed the network?

And, leaving for a moment the realm of copyrighted material, and going back to criminal matters, how about if I commit fraud from a public wifi? No netnanny is going to block a bank site or other financial institution.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No. Grandma's ISP should supply the router properly and securely configured. Do you disagree with that idea?

So then the ISP is responsible if someone hacks Grandma's network and downloads books/movies/recordings? That would be as entertaining as watching them go after AT&T.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

So then the ISP is responsible if someone hacks Grandma's network and downloads books/movies/recordings? That would be as entertaining as watching them go after AT&T.

That's what I would assume. AFAIK the ISPs here don't care about security.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

So then the ISP is responsible if someone hacks Grandma's network and downloads books/movies/recordings? That would be as entertaining as watching them go after AT&T.

If they can be shown to have been negligent in their provision of equipment then yes, I do think they should be responsible. But I've already said that my ideas of how the world should work don't bear a terribly close correlation with the way the world actually is. But I can always hope...

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

That's what I would assume. AFAIK the ISPs here don't care about security.

You are correct. And another thought; let's see the RIAA/MPIAA sue a couple ISPs based on IP logs. Then let's see how the ISPs drastically alter their practice of maintaining IP logs. After all, they're not obligated to maintain them for any specific time. They are hardly going to keep records (that they don't have to) which help the RIAA/MPIAA sue them. And then, once the ISPs start dumping logs after 48 hours, let's see how the police are basically unable to investigate any kind of crime related to the internet.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

You are correct. And another thought; let's see the RIAA/MPIAA sue a couple ISPs based on IP logs. Then let's see how the ISPs drastically alter their practice of maintaining IP logs. After all, they're not obligated to maintain them for any specific time. They are hardly going to keep records (that they don't have to) which help the RIAA/MPIAA sue them. And then, once the ISPs start dumping logs after 48 hours, let's see how the police are basically unable to investigate any kind of crime related to the internet.

I'm a little surprised to hear that there's no legal requirement for ISPs to keep records as there is (isn't there?) for telephone companies. One might imagine that ISP's records could be useful for all sorts of criminal investigations.

I think (but I'm open to correction if I'm wrong) that UK ISP's are required to keep records for a certain period of time - the figure of 6 months rings a bell.

[Shack70]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps it's different where you are, but in these parts, free Internet access is generally locked down pretty hard with "net nanny" type restrictions on what sites can be access. You aren't going to be able to get to TPB, etc, from the local McDonald's.

VPN coould bypass all those sites your locked out of

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If they can be shown to have been negligent in their provision of equipment then yes, I do think they should be responsible. But I've already said that my ideas of how the world should work don't bear a terribly close correlation with the way the world actually is. But I can always hope...

Actually, in terms of hope, I'm right there with you. I hope people don't trade copyrighted material. I hope people don't trade child porn. But when they do, I want to be sure the right person is held responsible, not the easy target. I don't want the RIAA/MPIAA to stop trying to prevent piracy; I want to see them do it the right way.

I used to be a supporter of the death penalty, but am not any longer. Not because I think it is revenge instead of justice, or because I am against state sponsored killings (although both of those have some truth to them). Mainly, I changed my mind because I am scared someone who is innocent will be executed (or more correctly, additional innocent people will be executed). I really believe that it is preferable that 10 guilty people go free rather than one innocent person be convicted. And I think that possibility is too great if we just use an IP address to determine guilt.