An IP Address Does Not Identify a Person, Rules Judge

[bearclaw99]

Well exactly...how could it

 

[benjammn]

but the pirate from Spongebob Squarepants?

 

[unksol]

To whoever it was who down-voted me, I ask you this: Do you really think that the RIAA or whoever won't try something along these lines?

Their argument would be something like this: If someone leaves their WiFi network open to all because they don't secure it, then they are basically leaving the keys to a nuclear bomb with a map of where to find the bomb right on their front porch. The owners of a WiFi capable network should be held accountable for their heinous disregard for our property should some delinquent(s) use this insecure WiFi network that is basically just a silver platter.

Do you really think that these @$$es won't try something like this? What if they do and we don't get lucky and have a reasonable judge at the head of the decision?

No. They won't. Because they can't and its illogical. You have every right to leave your wifi open for other people to use. You are responsible for yourself, not for others and no judge is going to rule that you should be, considering people can get on the internet many many other locations anyway.

They are infinitely more likely to argue that if the network were secure it had to be you, but the judge has already thrown that out as it could have been a guest and YOU are NOT responsible for THEM.

 

[guardianangel42]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]in which case, you can still get internal IPs/MAC addresses from a home router if the courts have access to them. So if it's someone that passes by with a laptop, you can figure out who the culprit is not. I'm sure if the courts have sufficient access, they at least have the MAC address then, can figure out what kind of device it is, what OS License is attached to it and find the culprit that way.Then there's that case of, if a friend comes over and borrows your stuff. Well, I think the owner or the person that allowed the culprit to use their stuff should be held accountable to a certain degree, too, maybe limited to a small fine, starting out at $100, then increasing for each offense.[/citation]

Internal IPs wouldn't work as an everyday DHCP Server found in most modern routers changes those out regularly. You're left with only a MAC address in such a case, which itself can be easily circumvented. There's just not enough available evidence short of finding the files on the computer (which is possible if the user hasn't defragged after deleting them or run some other sort of permanent deletion tool).

At that point you're investigating on a case by case basis, obtaining warrants and devoting manpower to recovering data and that's just not an efficient use of law enforcement assets. It would be akin to devoting homicide investigation-level resources to a shoplift.

 

[beoza]

I guess some of you have never heard of "Playing the devils advocate". blazorthon brings up a valid point, and whether you like it or not, this is the type of reasoning that these lawyers will think of, and possibly try to use. I applaud this Judge for using his brain in his ruling, he sounds like he actually did some research on the subject that was brought before him in this case. The problem with judges and politicians is not that they are all corrupt with regards to technology it's that they are uninformed on how modern technology actually works, so they give BS rulings and make even worse laws/regulations thinking they are making wise decisions.

I know some of you may have stopped reading where I said "The problem with judges and politicians is not that they are all corrupt...". Most of these mental midgets ARE corrupt! It starts at your local level, and goes all the way to the top of the food chain. Some of you probably stopped and down voted me at the first line.

 

[joeman99]

I am not a number, I'm a free man!

 

[becherovka]

[citation][nom]joeman99[/nom]I am not a number, I'm a free man![/citation]
So you are 157.186.145.15

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]shafe88[/nom]Instead of focusing too much on the people who do the downloading, why not go to the source and start focusing on the people who do the uploading. That's like putting a bucket under a leaky roof expecting it to stop.[/citation]
because it is a world wide net, and countries only have jurisdiction within their own borders. Most up-loaders, and people who do the ripping are overseas in countries that do not care about copyright law, so there is no way to stop the availability.

 

[house70]

In his ruling the judge referred to the porn specifically, making one believe that he might have had a beef with the plaintiffs.
However, this creates a good precedent to use in cases brought up by MPAA/RIAA, even if this was not the judge's intent. I am happy with the ruling because of that.

 

[techguy911]

There are many ways to hijack an IP at least the judge says an IP does not equal a persons identity which is true Wifi no matter what settings can be hacked in hours, a person can go to a website with malware and end up with a backdoor bot or trojan proxy allowing others access to his IP.
I see this every day cleaning malware from customers machines which are hidden with rootkits so having a good av does not help.

 

[Guest]

All I hear is the rationalizing about stealing IP and how people are happy that this ruling makes it easier. As someone who used to do the whole "warez" thing with a Usenet binary account, etc., I know what it's all about. There's a word for it: Theft. And, there's no compelling justification for it. You don't get to decide how much money record labels can make, or movie studios, or TV networks (that rely upon ad revenue to pay for content). You only get to decide if you're going to be a thief. That's on you. Make all the excuses you want, but you're taking someone else's work without paying for it.

 

[trumpeter1994]

OMG a judge who actually knows something about networking. I honestly think they should test them for their knowledge of computer systems and networking before they put them up to be the judge over a case involving it. Otherwise its like telling an English teacher to teach college math for a living.

 

[trumpeter1994]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]If someone has an open/unsecured network, should they be held more accountable than someone who has a password protected network, even if it's not AES encrypted, or if it is? These questions should be asked too.[/citation]
It's not illegal to have an unsecure network, so no. Its kind of like if you have a fenced in backyard and no lock on the gate. you can still charge somebody with trespassing on your property regardless of if the lock was there or not. You don't need the lock afterall and nobody is telling you that you have to get one, in the same way nobody is telling you that you have to secure your network.

 

[yolav0412]

Thank you

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]ImDaTruth[/nom]Make all the excuses you want, but you're taking someone else's work without paying for it.[/citation]

No I'm not, they still have it at the end of the day. They just didn't get to decide how much I would pay for it. They can innovate or die, just like all the other buggy whip makers out there. There is no reason that carefully crafted law should be used to prop up an industry that society is trying very hard to reform. They can change or they can go away and someone will take their place. End of story. The word "theft" is an antique, and if you insist on hiding behind it then enjoy life in the 20th century. The future is out there waiting for the rest of us that can cope with change.

 

[ithurtswhenipee]

[citation][nom]jacekring[/nom]Your an idiot, I am under no legal obligation to secure my wireless network. Just like I'm under no legal obligation to lock my door, or lock my car when I leave it parked. I am under no legal obligation to turn my vehicle off when I go into a store. Say I leave my car running, with the keys in the ignition and door wide open when I run into Wawa to take a massive dump on your face. Now someone comes along hops into my car and drives off. Well guess what I'm NOT at fault for THEM stealing my car! Theft is theft, I am not required by law to secure my property against theft.[/citation]

I would be careful with the car running analogy. In many states it is illegal to leave your car running like that. Unattended ignition or something like that in MN.

 

[Guest]

About time. Too many of these cases exist in our world today. The felony charges they file against people is like charging someone from stealing something, but the evidence video footage is BLANK!

 

[Marfig]

[citation][nom]jacekring[/nom]Your an idiot, I am under no legal obligation to secure my wireless network. Just like I'm under no legal obligation to lock my door, or lock my car when I leave it parked. I am under no legal obligation to turn my vehicle off when I go into a store. Say I leave my car running, with the keys in the ignition and door wide open when I run into Wawa to take a massive dump on your face. Now someone comes along hops into my car and drives off. Well guess what I'm NOT at fault for THEM stealing my car! Theft is theft, I am not required by law to secure my property against theft.[/citation]

He was actually formulating a question. Bringing something related into debate, if you will. Your reaction does make it look like you are the idiot, who can't even understand something as basic as when people are being assertive or are questioning.

Also, your example is wrong. Depending on the type of property you are liable if by action or inaction you facilitate theft. If you left your house door open, the insurance company may move against you if it is asked to cover for theft, for instance. If you left your gun in such a way that could be easily stolen, you may be hold responsible if that gun is later used to commit a crime. And many other examples.

It will always depend on the type of property and the laws in place. And don't expect for one moment that a law forcing people to secure their networks couldn't just be formulated. Internet access can be used to commit crimes. With this in mind, the legislative branch of a country may try to come up with means to make accountable those who allowed beyond what is reasonable that someone else took over their account and committed said crime.

Above all, don't think that with the constant spread of internet criminal activity (of which copyright infringement is just an example), governments will not eventually end up producing an internet that isn't all about Freedom anymore. Just like your civil liberties are conditioned by laws that more or less successfully try to moderate excess, your precious internet will one day. Make no mistake.

 

[rantoc]

Fun to see all those riaa/mpaa/media pr firm employed people in here trying to argue that an IP address actually is a person or that the owner of a wireless network is the criminal if someone hijacks it. Its like arguing that the airlines who got hijacked and rammed into the twin towers were responsible for what the hijackers did! Or that the postal service is accountable if someone send a bomb through it - It must defiantly be the postal services fault, not the bomber! What a bunch of poor PR firm employees who can't even think of something better to try to convince people their right!

As for the argument that copying a piece of music is theft. Copy yes.. Theft no - The owner still has the original and can still sell it. Its not like a car sales man who got his car on sale stolen without the possibility sell it... I don't say its legit to copy a music track but it should not count as a theft and it seems more and more judges in the free world understand that as claim after claim gets adjusted to lower and lower fines!

 

[DRosencraft]

This ruling is definitely tricky. You say that an IP Address cannot identify a person, then that makes a lot of internet crime more difficult to prosecute. I do see the point the judge is making, but think about it this way; you can say the same thing about your street address. Just because your name is on the check that pays for the house/apartment/condo/hotel doesn't necessarily mean you're the one who lives there.

What's the result? Chances are the end of this will be a similar to the example I gave. Investigators will need to get a warrant, and the warrant will allow for search/seizure of the house - or in this case any computers that can be attached to the IP Address - and look for edvidence that ties both the computer and illegal activity on it to a specific individual.

Final note to those who say there will never be a time without internet crime, that may or may not be the case, but that doesn't mean you stop trying to find a way to do it. You'll never get people to stop killing other people, or people to stop stealing, perverts from molesting children... go all the way down the line you can name any crime and the fact is most if not all are crimes you can only hope there is a way to stop once and for all. Does that mean we throw out the criminal justice system, abandon a police force and just forget about trying to protect people? It is annoying when we see these bad laws made, but I rather they come up with a bad idea we can tear apart than to not try to do anything. We sent them there to try to do something to protect us as the broader public. An attempt to do that every once in a while would be nice, even if it is flawed.

 

[Marfig]

Thank for you for your post, DRosencraft.

The only thing worse than watching lawyers trying to prosecute people on their IP address, is watching the extremists on the other side of this debate. As always the answer is in the middle, but it's hard to find those that are willing to argue intelligently.

It is exactly the rise of internet crime and these extremist positions that have been motivating government legislation. We have today much more stringent laws than we had in the past. And it won't get any better. Who do we have to blame? Ourselves of course! I would certainly not want to live in a country where it was ok for someone to illegally download content. And as much as I agree with this judge ruling, I also don't want to live in a country where people cannot be prosecuted for doing so. As much as it may pain some people, I defend we should actively seek for other ways to properly identify and prosecute anyone who commits this offense.

 

[Skippy27]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]... things that will change with ipv6[/citation]

Oh please do tell how that will be?

Just because there are many more IP addresses does not mean every node on a network will have an individual publicly addressable IP on it. You implying so, is just silly.

Home and business networks will not change. They will be given (or just using) one IP address and will use private, non-route-able IP's for their internal clients.

 

[STravis]

[citation][nom]unksol[/nom]No. They won't. Because they can't and its illogical. You have every right to leave your wifi open for other people to use. You are responsible for yourself, not for others and no judge is going to rule that you should be, considering people can get on the internet many many other locations anyway. They are infinitely more likely to argue that if the network were secure it had to be you, but the judge has already thrown that out as it could have been a guest and YOU are NOT responsible for THEM.[/citation]

Taking it a step further - I have every right to leave my gun out for anyone to borrow and commit a crime. Since I did not commit the crime and I don't know who borrowed the gun, oh well.

 

[STravis]

[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]There are many ways to hijack an IP at least the judge says an IP does not equal a persons identity which is true Wifi no matter what settings can be hacked in hours, a person can go to a website with malware and end up with a backdoor bot or trojan proxy allowing others access to his IP.I see this every day cleaning malware from customers machines which are hidden with rootkits so having a good av does not help.[/citation]

WiFi can be hacked in hours no matter the setting? You sir know not of what you speak.

 

[STravis]

[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]Fun to see all those riaa/mpaa/media pr firm employed people in here trying to argue that an IP address actually is a person or that the owner of a wireless network is the criminal if someone hijacks it. Its like arguing that the airlines who got hijacked and rammed into the twin towers were responsible for what the hijackers did! [/citation]

They may not have been held criminally responsible, but did you see the laws/regulations/changes that said event propagated? Considering the people involved and what this decision can mean broadly - and the type of lobbyists and money that's out there - I think this could be a bad things in the mid/long term.