| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| IP Address is Not a Person, Judge Says https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6161 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Lenas [ Wed May 04, 2011 11:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | IP Address is Not a Person, Judge Says |
http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not- ... ys-110503/ Quote: A possible landmark ruling in one of the mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the U.S. may spell the end of the “pay-up-or-else-schemes” that have targeted over 100,000 Internet users in the last year. District Court Judge Harold Baker has denied a copyright holder the right to subpoena the ISPs of alleged copyright infringers, because an IP-address does not equal a person. Discuss? |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Thu May 05, 2011 12:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | IP Address is Not a Person, Judge Says |
It has implications far beyond file sharing and Intellectual property. Does/could this mean we can tie an Ip to a person for any other legal issue? |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Thu May 05, 2011 2:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm guessing RIAA is not going to be happy about this... |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Thu May 05, 2011 4:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IP Address is Not a Person, Judge Says |
Rorinthas wrote: Does/could this mean we can tie an Ip to a person for any other legal issue? I think this states rather clearly that you can't base anything on IP address alone. |
|
| Author: | Wwen [ Thu May 05, 2011 5:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The case in question is more the MPAA. The porn industry has been in on it recently. Cause, you know, who won't just settle when confronted with their weird kinky thing they like? |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Thu May 05, 2011 7:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IP Address is Not a Person, Judge Says |
Rorinthas wrote: It has implications far beyond file sharing and Intellectual property. Does/could this mean we can tie an Ip to a person for any other legal issue? Actually I wonder what precedent this holds for those camera speed traps. A license plate is also not a person. |
|
| Author: | Wwen [ Thu May 05, 2011 7:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Um, no. That's not what is being said. What is being recognized is that just because an IP may belong to a person, it doesn't mean that that IP is proof of that person doing something. A license plate is not analogous to an IP address. The plate is you more or less and I don't know about the states, but here in Japan the picture is your face in the car too. Someone can use your car you know about it unless it's stolen. A person may not know if their unsecured wireless internet is being stolen. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Thu May 05, 2011 9:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Actually, it does still set a precedent along those lines. You must prove that a person has done something, not that objects owned by or associated with the person were involved in the activity. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Thu May 05, 2011 11:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Corolinth wrote: Actually, it does still set a precedent along those lines. You must prove that a person has done something, not that objects owned by or associated with the person were involved in the activity. Great now maybe we can get rid of speed cameras. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Thu May 05, 2011 11:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Corolinth wrote: Actually, it does still set a precedent along those lines. You must prove that a person has done something, not that objects owned by or associated with the person were involved in the activity. Great now maybe we can get rid of speed cameras. That's why the courts declared photo-radar tickets invalid years ago in Canada. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Thu May 05, 2011 11:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Corolinth wrote: Actually, it does still set a precedent along those lines. You must prove that a person has done something, not that objects owned by or associated with the person were involved in the activity. Great now maybe we can get rid of speed cameras. Shhhh don't tell anyone my plan... |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu May 05, 2011 11:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Number 6: Welcome friend, I'm number 6. Number 15: I'm number 15. What number are you? Homer: I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you eve…oh wait, I'm number 5. Ha, ha! In your face, number 6! Number 6: Yeeessss... Well done. |
|
| Author: | shuyung [ Thu May 05, 2011 11:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I take my card and I stand in line To make a buck I work overtime Dear Sir letters keep coming in the mail I work my back till it's racked with pain The boss can't even recall my name I show up late and I'm docked It never fails I feel like just another Spoke in a great big wheel Like a tiny blade of grass In a great big field To workers I'm just another drone To Ma Bell I'm just another phone I'm just another statistic on a sheet To teachers I'm just another child To IRS I'm another file I'm just another consensus on the street Gonna cruise out of this city Head down to the sea Gonna shout out at the ocean Hey it's me And I feel like a number Feel like a number Feel like a stranger A stranger in this land I feel like a number I'm not a number I'm not a number Dammit I'm a man I said I'm a man |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Thu May 05, 2011 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This makes hackers pretty much immune, too, doesn't it? Can't get a warrant on somebody's computer if their IP isn't enough to suspect them of something. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Thu May 05, 2011 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: This makes hackers pretty much immune, too, doesn't it? Can't get a warrant on somebody's computer if their IP isn't enough to suspect them of something. This isn't true. If the government thinks you're a target then they are allowed to send in a death squad and shoot you. |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Thu May 05, 2011 3:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: This makes hackers pretty much immune, too, doesn't it? Can't get a warrant on somebody's computer if their IP isn't enough to suspect them of something. The ruling was with respect to a civil subpoena. A search warrant for a criminal investigation is a different animal altogether. IANAL, but my guess is that the ruling would not apply. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Thu May 05, 2011 3:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmm. I'm not cool with civil and criminal stuff being treated differently. That's basically "if government wants to accuse you of something based on this evidence, you did it. But other people have to have better proof." That's a terrible precedent. |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Thu May 05, 2011 4:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
While that might be nice, the fact remains that civil law and criminal law have always been separate affairs governed by different rules. And in any case, a judge can only rule on something actually brought before the court. So even if the judge were to agree that the rules governing search warrants for criminal investigations ought to follow the same rules governing a request for (expedited) discovery in a civil trial, he (she?) cannot rule on the latter since it isn't a matter before the court at this time. Regardless, the order wasn't entirely based on burden-of-proof/reasonable suspicion issues. It was actually as much about jurisdiction as anything. A search warrant has to name the specific people and/or places to be searched, and a given court unambiguously either does or does not have jurisdiction over those specific people/places. What the judge actually ordered was the he wouldn't grant the request for discovery until the plaintiff can name at least one specific defendant over whom the court held jurisdiction. In other words, he was unwilling to grant a subpoena for records that may not even fall under this particular court's jurisdiction. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Thu May 05, 2011 5:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmm. I guess that makes sense. I guess this is just another issue highlighting the silliness of treating IP infringement and hacking differently. Why is one information crime civil, and one criminal? It's a disconnect that I've never been satisfied with, so I guess that's one reason I often forget to look to the distinction when making those comparisons. |
|
| Author: | Wwen [ Thu May 05, 2011 8:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Lex Luthor wrote: Kaffis Mark V wrote: This makes hackers pretty much immune, too, doesn't it? Can't get a warrant on somebody's computer if their IP isn't enough to suspect them of something. This isn't true. If the government thinks you're a target then they are allowed to send in a death squad and shoot you. The feds don't need warrants anymore. Remember, we're in a post-9/11 world. To protect our freedoms we had to get rid of some of the more pesky ones that were a threat to our security. |
|
| Author: | Noggel [ Fri May 06, 2011 5:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: IP Address is Not a Person, Judge Says |
Hm, this is ever so slightly off-topic, but my curiosity was raised... How is it exactly that IP addresses are used to link to a person anyway? Let's say I'm a college student living in a house with 7 others, and we all use wi-fi over one connection. Seems like it would be hard to pin down any one person as a lawbreaker. I suppose there is only one name on the service agreement with the ISP, which might be an easy way out as far as assigning responsibility goes though hardly has much sense of fairness about it. In any case, I figure this has already been hashed out in courts, and was curious how it gets resolved. |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Fri May 06, 2011 5:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yours is the IP address they have. You're the one who gets sued. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri May 06, 2011 8:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Hmm. I'm not cool with civil and criminal stuff being treated differently. That's basically "if government wants to accuse you of something based on this evidence, you did it. But other people have to have better proof." That's a terrible precedent. Not really. A warrant already requires probable cause, whereas the burden of proof in civil matters is "preponderance of the evidence". In other words, you already need a higher standard of proof to search (to say nothing of convict), than you do to find a person civilly liable. Essentially, this is saying "IP addresses are not a preponderance of the evidence by themselves". If anything, that would make it harder to obtain a search warrant using them, because preponderance < probable cause. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|