Ruling: IP address does not identify person

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by JoeD

UK. I've no idea about the US.

Also, I'm only assuming ISPs are now keeping that info, based on when the EU data retention laws went into effect (back in 2009), I'm not _certain_ they're actually implemented yet though. It may be ISPs are still fighting it or the UK dragged its feet putting into law here.

Sorry; I thought you were stating that US ISPs had a mandatory retention. Disregard.

[Shack70]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

That used to happen to me in college. I had a stalker-hacker who used to hack into my computer and change my passwords. He thought it was funny to lock me out of my own computer because I would have to come down to his room to get the new passwords. Lucky for me he wasn't malicious and just had a crappy sense of humor. If he'd wanted to he could have really screwed me over.

You mean that didn't make you more interested in him? It's funny the things we do when we are younger to get women to notice us

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

To a certain extent, true. If it were a criminal case, and the actor said, "my wireless is open" (and they always do), I would seize his computer and examine it. If he's telling the truth, I won't find the offending files. In that case, I cannot file charges. If he's lying, I'm probably going to find something. Maybe not, though; maybe he's really good. In that case, he gets away with it.

Let me pose another scenario (and this is one I've encountered many times). Three grown deadbeat adult children live with Mom, who is elderly, unfamiliar with technology and, quite frankly, a little senile. Who's name do you think all the utilities (including the internet) are in? So 85 year old mom is now responsible?

That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? It seems to boil down to a choice of two options: making people responsible for the use of the equipment they own, or making it effectively impossible to prosecute any pirate who has two brain-cells to rub together. I don't believe anyone is going to do a full forensic examination of a computer that someone thinks may have been used to illegally download a $10 movie onto; it wouldn't be a feasible use of resources for anyone. So we let the pirates get away with it.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by Shack70

It would be easier to hack your router password and change/remove the password

There is no one sitting youtside your house hacking your router it owuld be easier to just move to the next house and try again.

Tru Dat. A number of routers (of the cheaper variety) will grant administrative privileges to a wirelessly attached device. And of the people who protect their wifi signal, how many of them change the default password of the router itself? The default IP address (it's gonna be 192.168.X.Y, and X is probably going to be 0, and Y is probably going to be 1 or 2) and default Admin username and password of any basic router can be guessed in about 2 minutes. Once inside, I can make whatever changes I want.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? It seems to boil down to a choice of two options: making people responsible for the use of the equipment they own, or making it effectively impossible to prosecute any pirate who has two brain-cells to rub together. I don't believe anyone is going to do a full forensic examination of a computer that someone thinks may have been used to illegally download a $10 movie onto; it wouldn't be a feasible use of resources for anyone. So we let the pirates get away with it.

There's a saying in law enforcement: We only catch the dumb ones. If you want to get away with something on a computer (or anywhere else, for that matter), and you're really smart and really careful, you're going to get away with it.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

There's a saying in law enforcement: We only catch the dumb ones. If you want to get away with something on a computer (or anywhere else, for that matter), and you're really smart and really careful, you're going to get away with it.

Read a thing about a hacker that was caught because he left geo info in a photo he posted on the "pwnd" site. Whilst there may be some lucky enough to get away with it their entire life, I think even smart people will eventually make a mistake and it'll only take one.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by JoeD

Read a thing about a hacker that was caught because he left geo info in a photo he posted on the "pwnd" site. Whilst there may be some lucky enough to get away with it their entire life, I think even smart people will eventually make a mistake and it'll only take one.

I have been fortunate enough to catch (or assist in the "catching" of) a few people who were dumb enough to commit various crimes documented with geo-tagged photos (here's a tip - don't create fake "kidnapped" pics of your own children with duct tape over their mouths using a geo-tagged phone and send them to your estranged husband in an effort to squeeze "ransom" money out of him). You'd be surprised at the number of people who are entirely unaware that their phones can embed coordinates in their photos. Or forget that they turned geo-tagging on. But as time goes by, each little bit of technology becomes more mainstream, and then (most) people stop making mistakes with it, or become familiar enough with it to use it to their own benefit.

You're right; given enough rope, most people will hang themselves.

[Nahgem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never had an ISP supply me with a router; I don't think they've ever even asked if wanted one. They've sold/rented me modems, but it's always been up to me to get my own router and make sure it's properly set up and secured.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by Nahgem

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never had an ISP supply me with a router; I don't think they've ever even asked if wanted one. They've sold/rented me modems, but it's always been up to me to get my own router and make sure it's properly set up and secured.

Some providers (Verizon FIOS) now provide dual purpose modem/wireless router devices. Probably in an attempt to charge you more.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Shack70

You mean that didn't make you more interested in him? It's funny the things we do when we are younger to get women to notice us

Not in the least. For some strange reason it just made me rather irritated. He never could understand my "lack of a sense of humor."

Originally Posted by hrosvit

I have been fortunate enough to catch (or assist in the "catching" of) a few people who were dumb enough to commit various crimes documented with geo-tagged photos (here's a tip - don't create fake "kidnapped" pics of your own children with duct tape over their mouths using a geo-tagged phone and send them to your estranged husband in an effort to squeeze "ransom" money out of him). You'd be surprised at the number of people who are entirely unaware that their phones can embed coordinates in their photos. Or forget that they turned geo-tagging on. But as time goes by, each little bit of technology becomes more mainstream, and then (most) people stop making mistakes with it, or become familiar enough with it to use it to their own benefit.

You're right; given enough rope, most people will hang themselves.

I don't even...

Originally Posted by hrosvit

Some providers (Verizon FIOS) now provide dual purpose modem/wireless router devices. Probably in an attempt to charge you more.

This is what they do around here the the companies we've used. Currently though we've purchased both modem and router to keep from paying the rental fees.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Your IP connection, your responsibility to ensure its legal use. That's been the approach in the British courts, and it's one that I entirely agree with. To do otherwise is to give an open invitation to piracy (IMHO).

While wireless encryption techniques, hiding your SSID, MAC filtering, etc. are best practice and will usually keep you safe from the casual hacker or your neighbors, it is not proof against a dedicated hacker, organization or government intent on stealing your information, identity, or bandwidth. In most (but not all) cases, a risk analysis will reveal that the benefits of a minimally secured wireless LAN will far outweigh the risk.

I am a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), and I cannot say with certainty that my personal wireless system has not been compromised; only that it probably hasn’t. How then would the average person insure against misuse of his/her IP address? I, with my fancy certificate on the wall can’t!

In this case the Judge is right on.

[Annari]

With the right software a WPA2-PSK of 10 characters can be cracked in as little as 35 seconds...

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Annari

With the right software a WPA2-PSK of 10 characters can be cracked in as little as 35 seconds...

Yup! I base the probability of not being hacked on being a very small target, not on someone's inability to hack me. But I am very aware that it could happen to me too!

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? It seems to boil down to a choice of two options: making people responsible for the use of the equipment they own, or making it effectively impossible to prosecute any pirate who has two brain-cells to rub together. I don't believe anyone is going to do a full forensic examination of a computer that someone thinks may have been used to illegally download a $10 movie onto; it wouldn't be a feasible use of resources for anyone. So we let the pirates get away with it.

Perhaps it is the crux of the issue, in a black and white sense, though it's not so cut and dry. But, supposing it were, I would rather make it effectively impossible to prosecute any pirate than make people responsible for the use of the equipment they own. In fact, I would say the second option is ludicrous and that with two such severe options it's ludicrous to propose the second option be chosen. Otherwise, guilt would belong to the possessor of an item which would create a ridiculous, dangerous and scary precedent.

Let me illustrate using your words exactly. Suppose we do make people responsible for the equipment they own. If a person's car is stolen and used in a hit and run, it would be the car owner's responsibility. If someone broke into a house and stole a knife and then used that knife to murder someone, it would be the owner of the knife's responsibility.

In previous posts you've also alluded that you agree with the burden of proof being on the accused, not the prosecutors, since it would be "too expensive" for prosecutors to worry about it. This also strikes me as a ridiculous, dangerous and scary precedent. We are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. So the burden of proof lies with those trying to prove guilt, and if they can't, then yes, it should be impossible to prosecute pirates.

Consider this similar but extreme hypothetical example: Suppose there was a new wave in murders of people sneaking into houses, stealing knives, murdering with them, and then returning them to the house. Say the practice was extremely widespread. Now let's also suppose that, indeed, there was a wave of people using their own knives to murder people as well.

Now, suppose the police and prosecutors had no other evidence to go on, but somehow they could identify the exact knife used in each murder and which house it was located in. Should the burden of responsibility be on the owner of the knife? Since it was their knife, and they didn't guard it well enough, they should be convicted for murder?

Also, should the burden of proof be on the owner of the knife, since the police can prove nothing except that the person owned a knife that was used in a murder? Using this hypothetical example your only options would be to punish all the owners of the knives used to murder, even though many would be innocent, to make sure the guilty are punished, or to let even the guilty go free unless and until better evidence could be found. Which would you choose? I'm actually very interested to hear your choice Harry, if you'll make one and let us know.

As for me, it is better to let the guilty go free than the innocent go punished, if we must choose one. If we focus too much on "getting the bad guys at any cost" at the expense of punishing innocents then we have failed, in my opinion.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

... It would be like saying that nobody could ever be convicted for speeding unless it could be "proved" that they were driving the car at the time...

That is exactly the case in the US, that's why speed cams have to take a picture of the license plate AND the driver.