Ruling: IP address does not identify person

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Based on his IP address the police pays TerryH a visit, impounds his computer and discovers some 300 illegally downloaded movies on his hard drive. TerryH has two teenage children, a daughter and a son. In the police officer's mind that explain the variety in downloaded movies.
TerryH claims, rightfully so, absolutely no knowledge about the downloaded movies. He points to his secure setup, the passwords, no broadcasting of SSID, MAC filtering etc all so that his children will not make illegal downloads. Hence, TerryH is arrested since he has to be the culprit being the owner of the IP address.

So here's a question- have you spoofed his hostname? If not, then he could pull his router's system logs (if the defense can get access to them, which is unlikely in some jurisdictions), point to the fact that "someone else" was logged in via wifi and was downloading the torrents, and when none of his hardware has that hostname he arguably gets off.

Course, that depends upon how computer-savvy the judge and jury are, and if the prosecution allows him access to the hardware to get the router's system logs. Down here, most defense attorneys barely get access to the prosecution's case folder, much less the actual evidence.

We also have so few judges that the docket is perpetually overcrowded, don't seem to have the budget to hire more, and a history of predatory District Attorneys.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What if your IP is found to have downloaded some illegal files yet you did not do it. The authorities come knocking on your door and take away your computer. You need your computer for work. You can't do your work. Can you sue for damages?

Probably the same thing that happens to people who can't get work because their background check shows they're an ex-con.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by teh603

So here's a question- have you spoofed his hostname? If not, then he could pull his router's system logs (if the defense can get access to them, which is unlikely in some jurisdictions), point to the fact that "someone else" was logged in via wifi and was downloading the torrents, and when none of his hardware has that hostname he arguably gets off.

I have to enter a plea of ignorance, I'm simply not computer savvy enough to know what a spoofed hostname involves. My whole point was that if the owner of the IP address in the law's eyes are considered responsible (the gist of the dialog between HarryT and myself) then once they have found what they need, they won't go any further. Police organizations are no different from any other large scale bureaucracy, they will stop working the moment they can avoid doing anything more. They are more concerned about being caught doing something incorrect rather than achieving beyond the parameters of their task masters.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What you appear to be supporting is a scenario in which nobody could EVER be prosecuted. A carte blanche for piracy. 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.

Not really. I forget who it was who got a 50 billion dollar fine or something equally silly (Jammie Thomas?), but an IP address wasn't the only evidence they had. They had a hard disk, the same username or email address used in various different places, probably some other stuff too.

An IP address is only a starting point, it should never be relied on as absolute proof because it is too easy to fake and too easy for innocent people to be trawled up along with the pirates. Look at what happened with ACS Law if you don't believe that one.

The only reason the corporations are pushing for an IP address to be proof of wrongdoing is because they know it will be cheaper for them if it is all automated. We already have guilt upon accusation for terrorism, we really don't need it for any other offences.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by teh603

So here's a question- have you spoofed his hostname? If not, then he could pull his router's system logs (if the defense can get access to them, which is unlikely in some jurisdictions), point to the fact that "someone else" was logged in via wifi and was downloading the torrents, and when none of his hardware has that hostname he arguably gets off.

One of the problems with router logs is that the cheaper the router is (like most people own), the less comprehensive the logs are. Some only keep the DHCP client list - machines that are currently attached. And even if he has invested in a router that maintains historical logs, much of the memory is volatile and will disappear when power is lost to the router.

[Dickybow]

Okay,I'm atm a "person of interest" in a case where a teen girl claims that I "forced" her to email pics of drugs and her body from 2900 miles away.First let me state that the only pics I got were of illegal drugs which were unsolicited.I never received any nudes nor asked for any.The girl originally said she was 19 but I got a text from her supposed mother saying " don't ever contact my 13 year old again". Police came to my home and seized my PC tower w/o a warrant claiming they had probable cause.It has been in property room for 1 month until I called Internal Affairs.Now all of a sudden they check it out from property room to scan it.Is that a good thing that they took so long or a bad thing.I should also mention that I'm a high functioning autistic person.

[DiapDealer]

Ummmm. I'm thinking you might want to get some official legal counsel in your situation... rather than relying on the opinions of anonymous internet peeps.

[keeska]

So here's a question- have you spoofed his hostname?

Which hostname? The one which the user sets on their machine and which never leaves that machine when using tcp/ip? Or the one which is returned when you send an ip address to to a DNS (name) server?

The hostname is never sent outside of the machine except for some proprietary protocols between machines. Those protocols are not used for web browsing, downloading files, etc. on the internet.

Whatever hostname you set is not relevent to internet traffic.

[keeska]

he could pull his router's system logs (if the defense can get access to them, which is unlikely in some jurisdictions), point to the fact that "someone else" was logged in via wifi

There is no way to determine if a machine connected to your wifi is the legitimate machine you think it is or is someone spoofing that machine by looking at logs. That is how she/he got onto the network in the first place - impersonating the legitimate machine so that the router could not determine it was an imposter.

About the only way to tell is to turn off the legitimate machine and see if the connect goes away.

[RichyRich]

It's also possible for your computer to be hacked and videos to be inadvertly streamed or torrented by simply clicking the wrong link and accidentally installing a virus or trojan. Many people barely understand how to work their computers, much less keep it updated or to know what not to click.

And sadly, routers aren't equipped for blocking all torrents because there are many different torrent clients that use different ports. Also, for many years, routers came with no encryption enabled and people don't always upgrade too quickly to the latest router because even a wireless B network is faster than many ISP speeds.

[Davidwtc]

Personally, I don't buy the traffic camera analogy, in part because I don't buy into traffic camera enforcement. In my jurisdiction, traffic camera enforcement is a civil, not criminal, fine. So, there is a lesser standard of proof and possibly no right to remain silent. The fines are also relatively small, so there is no public outcry and little incentive for legal challenges.

In the case of the decision in question, the issue involved a motion to issue subpoenas to obtain IP addresses from third party providers of Internet services and John Doe motions to quash. The court noted that based upon recent history, it was estimated that only 30% of the eventual offenders were the actual IP address owner. That would seem to support a finding that an IP owner's identity should be protected, because that identity is, more likely than not, not the offender. That was not the basis of the court's ruling, however.

Actually, the ruling allowed the requested discovery, but only as to the first-named John Doe defendant in each of four complaints. The magistrate denied the "swarm joinder" of hundreds of others, because (1) of abusive litigation tactics by the plaintiffs and (2) the swarm joinder appeared to be an attempt to avoid multiple filing fees. The information that the magistrate permitted to be discovered was limited and to be provided under seal (confidentially) to the court, not the plaintiff, to be provided to counsel at a status conference.

The abusive litigation tactics constituted a refusal of the plaintiff's to receive evidence of innocence of the IP owner, instead demanding $2900 in settlement with no discussion. this was after the defendant John Doe offered up his or her computer for examination as proof of innocence.

The decision is an interesting read.

[morriss003]

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).

If someone steals your car from your driveway and drives it into the side of a building are you responsible, if you left your keys in the car? If someone breaks into your house and steals a gun and shoots someone are you responsible because your gun was not in a safe? What if you open a plastic bag of peanuts on an airplane and someone has an allergic reaction? Should you have informed everyone on the plane that you were about to open a bag of peanuts? Am I my brother's policeman?

[Kumabjorn]

About the gun.
If you live in the UK, as HarryT does, the answer is affirmative. Your gun, your responsibility. I know that is a bit hard to fathom for those living under the Second Amendment.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

About the gun.
If you live in the UK, as HarryT does, the answer is affirmative. Your gun, your responsibility. I know that is a bit hard to fathom for those living under the Second Amendment.

I would hope that if someone in the UK owned a gun which was stolen and used for murder, the gun owner could go to prison for a crime that boils down to "not taking proper care of a gun," possibly with an "with disastrous results" addition, rather than "murder." (Also, I doubt the UK convicts someone who owns an axe, whose neighbor stole it and used it to kill someone else.)

Does the UK convict people for other people's crimes on the grounds that the actual perpetrator isn't available, and this person is definitely responsible for part of the events?

[nogle]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I would hope that if someone in the UK owned a gun which was stolen and used for murder, the gun owner could go to prison for a crime that boils down to "not taking proper care of a gun," possibly with an "with disastrous results" addition, rather than "murder." (Also, I doubt the UK convicts someone who owns an axe, whose neighbor stole it and used it to kill someone else.)

Does the UK convict people for other people's crimes on the grounds that the actual perpetrator isn't available, and this person is definitely responsible for part of the events?

The gun is a red herring as there is a licensing and registration process. Substitute "knife" for "gun".

[plib]

Originally Posted by nogle

The gun is a red herring as there is a licensing and registration process. Substitute "knife" for "gun".

The "youf" in London and elsewhere have been doing that quite effectively in the last few years.