NY Judge Gary Brown - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 83 Old 05-03-2012, 08:51 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 233
Google him.

Awesome. Finally some common sense in the face of the "Six Strikes" rule.

That is all.
assassin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 83 Old 05-03-2012, 09:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lespurgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: California
Posts: 2,455
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Yep, I've had a few things re-instill a bit of faith in our legal system lately.
lespurgeon is offline  
post #3 of 83 Old 05-03-2012, 09:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I like and applaud the decision. Finally some sanity.


But I also have no sympathy for people who leave their wireless network completely unsecured. Get what they deserve.
Zon2020 is offline  
post #4 of 83 Old 05-03-2012, 09:58 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

I like and applaud the decision. Finally some sanity.


But I also have no sympathy for people who leave their wireless network completely unsecured. Get what they deserve.

But that same unsecured network may actually be a defense in the future.

Very interesting.
assassin is offline  
post #5 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 04:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeffkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
WPA has been cracked do to some loophole in router settings. Having a "secure" network doesn't mean somebody else is not using it.
jeffkro is offline  
post #6 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 06:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lockdown571's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

WPA has been cracked do to some loophole in router settings. Having a "secure" network doesn't mean somebody else is not using it.

This. A layperson shouldn't be held liable if someone with the expertise breaks into their network. The layperson has violated NO ONE'S rights.
lockdown571 is online now  
post #7 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 08:16 AM
Senior Member
 
cdru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

WPA has been cracked do to some loophole in router settings. Having a "secure" network doesn't mean somebody else is not using it.

WPA hasn't been cracked in this instance though. WPS (Wifi Protected Setup) is what was broken, or more appropriately, susceptible to brute force attacks. And all of the WPA vulnurabilities that I've read about can eliminated by disabling QoS or using AES over TKIP for encryption.
cdru is offline  
post #8 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 08:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Diverge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockdown571 View Post

This. A layperson shouldn't be held liable if someone with the expertise breaks into their network. The layperson has violated NO ONE'S rights.

exactly, the average person doesn't even know what the different types of security are, or mean. The average geek knows not to use WEP, but yet they still include it as a security feature in routers.
Diverge is offline  
post #9 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 08:25 AM
Senior Member
 
mo0sic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdru View Post

WPA hasn't been cracked in this instance though. WPS (Wifi Protected Setup) is what was broken, or more appropriately, susceptible to brute force attacks. And all of the WPA vulnurabilities that I've read about can eliminated by disabling QoS or using AES over TKIP for encryption.

Yeah and the average consumer is going to do this? If it isn't turned on by default the setting isn't going to get changed.
mo0sic is offline  
post #10 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 08:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

WPA has been cracked do to some loophole in router settings. Having a "secure" network doesn't mean somebody else is not using it.

You make it sound like it's simple. It's not. And if you use an appropriate passphrase (the standard recommends a 20 random character one) and don't use Wi-Fi Protected Access to set up your router, even WPA is basically secure. WPA-2 is even much better.

And any security professional will tell you that even using WEP or having a password of "password" will eliminate 99% of the problems, even as essentially useless as we would consider them. It's no different than car thieves. When there is a ready supply of unlocked cars/networks available, there's no point in messing with the locked one.

But the real problem is not the rare person who is victimized by some determined hacker, but the idiots who leave their wireless wide open. When the kid next door piggybacks your wide open network to share pirated movies and music, or the neighborhood perv uses it for kiddy porn, don't come to me for sympathy when the police break down your door.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lockdown571 View Post

This. A layperson shouldn't be held liable if someone with the expertise breaks into their network. The layperson has violated NO ONE'S rights.

While I agree with you IF the person took reasonable security steps and a hacker circumvented them, that's the very rare case with home networks. The problem is people who don't even turn on any rudimentary security, which is why I said "But I also have no sympathy for people who leave their wireless network completely unsecured. Get what they deserve. "

It's negligent and irresponsible for you to leave your network unsecured so that anyone can piggyback your system to conceal their attack on mine.
Zon2020 is offline  
post #11 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 08:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lockdown571's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

While I agree with you IF the person took reasonable security steps and a hacker circumvented them, that's the very rare case with home networks. The problem is people who don't even turn on any rudimentary security, which is why I said "But I also have no sympathy for people who leave their wireless network completely unsecured. Get what they deserve. "

It's negligent and irresponsible for you to leave your network unsecured so that anyone can piggyback your system to conceal their attack on mine.

If content providers are really worried about this, then they should solve this issue PRIVATELY, not by using the government's poor understanding of technology to abuse people's rights. For instance, your contract with Comcast could stipulate that all wireless broadcasts of its service must be encrypted. They could even have there own technicians do this for you when they come to your house to configure your router.

As Judge Gary Brown suggested, pinpointing specific persons using IP addresses is tenuous at best, so the force of law should not be used to punish individuals in these cases. So, content makers/providers need to stop abusing the court systems and figure out private solutions via contracts and other means to mitigate this problem.
lockdown571 is online now  
post #12 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 08:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lockdown571's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Let me rephrase. Content providers are ultimately just businesses. They're going to do what generates the most revenue to the extent that law allows. What needs to happen is lawmakers need to make laws and set precedence on what sort of suits are reasonable in order to the protect the rights of the nation's citizens. So, judges need to say "hey, IP address does not equal person" and "hey, you can't just sue someone because they're dumb and don't secure their wifi" (also, I'd seriously like to know how many judges and lawmakers know the difference between WEP and WPA2).

If these sorts of laws were passed, our rights would be protected and content providers would find more reasonable ways to protect their intellectual property.
lockdown571 is online now  
post #13 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 09:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockdown571 View Post

If content providers are really worried about this, then they should solve this issue PRIVATELY, not by using the government's poor understanding of technology to abuse people's rights. For instance, your contract with Comcast could stipulate that all wireless broadcasts of its service must be encrypted. They could even have there own technicians do this for you when they come to your house to configure your router.

As Judge Gary Brown suggested, pinpointing specific persons using IP addresses is tenuous at best, so the force of law should not be used to punish individuals in these cases. So, content makers/providers need to stop abusing the court systems and figure out private solutions via contracts and other means to mitigate this problem.

I think all those content suits should go away, but I will tell you that people have had search warrants issued and their computers seized because someone was using their network to share kiddy porn. You really don't want to be left in the position of defending that by arguing that it wasn't you that was using your network.

Read the second entry in this blog: http://www.lawtalkingguys.com/cybercrime/

It happens with some frequency.
Zon2020 is offline  
post #14 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 09:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockdown571 View Post

Let me rephrase. Content providers are ultimately just businesses. They're going to do what generates the most revenue to the extent that law allows. What needs to happen is lawmakers need to make laws and set precedence on what sort of suits are reasonable in order to the protect the rights of the nation's citizens. So, judges need to say "hey, IP address does not equal person" and "hey, you can't just sue someone because they're dumb and don't secure their wifi" (also, I'd seriously like to know how many judges and lawmakers know the difference between WEP and WPA2).

If these sorts of laws were passed, our rights would be protected and content providers would find more reasonable ways to protect their intellectual property.

Actually, what constitutes "negligence" and where the standard of care should be set is rarely defined statutorily and changes continuously as technology and conduct change. But it is going to be decided soon in court http://www.technewsdaily.com/3772-su...ing-wi-fi.html
Zon2020 is offline  
post #15 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Somewhatlost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: some small blue-green planet thingy...
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

But I also have no sympathy for people who leave their wireless network completely unsecured. Get what they deserve.

I completely agree, people who share are obviously evil monsters...
where would society be if people just went around sharing things with each other? society as we know it would break down...
if Hollywood has taught us anything its that sharing = bad, people should take ownership over everything they can and never share anything with anyone else...

we should all be doing more to put an end to this nefarious sharing epidemic...

FOR ALL YOU PARENTS OUT THERE, I implore you, when your little ones have friends over, and they attempt to share a toy, or anything really, JUST CALL THE COPS!!!
let them all spend the night in jail, that will help teach them that sharing is bad, and that no good will ever come from people going around sharing stuff all willy nilly like...

we need to stop this whole sharing thing before society as we know it comes crashing down... next thing you know we might end up with people actually trying to help their fellow humans out, just for the good of humanity... and we really don't want that... we must stomp out all sharing now!!!

NOTE: As one wise professional something once stated, I am ignorant & childish, with a mindset comparable to 9/11 troofers and wackjob conspiracy theorists. so don't take anything I say as advice...
Somewhatlost is offline  
post #16 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 03:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somewhatlost View Post

I completely agree, people who share are obviously evil monsters...
where would society be if people just went around sharing things with each other? society as we know it would break down...
if Hollywood has taught us anything its that sharing = bad, people should take ownership over everything they can and never share anything with anyone else...

we should all be doing more to put an end to this nefarious sharing epidemic...

FOR ALL YOU PARENTS OUT THERE, I implore you, when your little ones have friends over, and they attempt to share a toy, or anything really, JUST CALL THE COPS!!!
let them all spend the night in jail, that will help teach them that sharing is bad, and that no good will ever come from people going around sharing stuff all willy nilly like...

we need to stop this whole sharing thing before society as we know it comes crashing down... next thing you know we might end up with people actually trying to help their fellow humans out, just for the good of humanity... and we really don't want that... we must stomp out all sharing now!!!

Well, that was mildly entertaining. Not sure what it had to do with the discussion, but entertaining nonetheless.
Zon2020 is offline  
post #17 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 04:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Somewhatlost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: some small blue-green planet thingy...
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Well, that was mildly entertaining. Not sure what it had to do with the discussion, but entertaining nonetheless.

it is simple really...
you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

But I also have no sympathy for people who leave their wireless network completely unsecured. Get what they deserve.

and as we all know, an unsecured wireless network is sharing your wireless network with all of humanity (and anyone/thing else in range), and we all know that sharing is inherently evil...
"sharing" is just another word/concept that those evil freeloaders use to justify their piracy...

NOTE: As one wise professional something once stated, I am ignorant & childish, with a mindset comparable to 9/11 troofers and wackjob conspiracy theorists. so don't take anything I say as advice...
Somewhatlost is offline  
post #18 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 05:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jeffkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post


You make it sound like it's simple. It's not. And if you use an appropriate passphrase (the standard recommends a 20 random character one) and don't use Wi-Fi Protected Access to set up your router, even WPA is basically secure. WPA-2 is even much better.

And any security professional will tell you that even using WEP or having a password of "password" will eliminate 99% of the problems, even as essentially useless as we would consider them. It's no different than car thieves. When there is a ready supply of unlocked cars/networks available, there's no point in messing with the locked one.

But the real problem is not the rare person who is victimized by some determined hacker, but the idiots who leave their wireless wide open. When the kid next door piggybacks your wide open network to share pirated movies and music, or the neighborhood perv uses it for kiddy porn, don't come to me for sympathy when the police break down your door.

While I agree with you IF the person took reasonable security steps and a hacker circumvented them, that's the very rare case with home networks. The problem is people who don't even turn on any rudimentary security, which is why I said "But I also have no sympathy for people who leave their wireless network completely unsecured. Get what they deserve. "

It's negligent and irresponsible for you to leave your network unsecured so that anyone can piggyback your system to conceal their attack on mine.

You are not responsible for the criminal acts of others basically under any circumstances.
jeffkro is offline  
post #19 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 05:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,376
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 771
Quote:


Earlier this week, New York Magistrate Judge Gary Brown issued a landmark ruling in one of the many mass-********** lawsuits for copyright infringement, calling the lawsuit a waste of judicial resources for insufficient evidence to identify copyright infringers, reports TorrentFreak.

The copyright holders were launching their claims with just an IP address. The copyright holders use that IP address ask the courts for a subpoena, which they then use to ask Internet service providers to hand over personal details about alleged offenders.

But Judge Brown points out that the person listed as the account holder by an ISP isn't typically the individual who downloaded the copyrighted material. Or put differently; an IP-address is not a person, says TorrentFreak.

Other judges have pursued similar arguments, but Judge Brown put a finer point on it:

Thus, it is no more likely that the subscriber to an IP address carried out a particular computer function - here the purported illegal downloading of a single pornographic film - than to say an individual who pays the telephone bill made a specific telephone call.

His findings could have a wide-ranging impact. Judge Brown urged other judges to dismiss similar cases in the future.

For those who want to know

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #20 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 05:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post


You are not responsible for the criminal acts of others basically under any circumstances.

Sorry, but that is not an accurate statement.

And in this case the liability is based on your own act in leaving your network unsecured, so it's also irrelevant.
Zon2020 is offline  
post #21 of 83 Old 05-04-2012, 06:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jeffkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post


Sorry, but that is not an accurate statement.

And in this case the liability is based on your own act in leaving your network unsecured, so it's also irrelevant.

The judge disagreed with you. If someone downloads a movie at Starbucks, the riaa can't sue Starbucks.
jeffkro is offline  
post #22 of 83 Old 05-05-2012, 04:26 AM
Advanced Member
 
flocko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

Sorry, but that is not an accurate statement.

And in this case the liability is based on your own act in leaving your network unsecured, so it's also irrelevant.

So , based on that theory .... If I leave my key's in my car and someone steals it and I call the police to report the theft the officer say's " sorry we cannot take your report or help you due to the fact that the key's were in the car" . No they can't and don't do that !

Now , does leaving your key's in your car make you stupid . Yes, yes it does . But it does not negate the fact that the theft occurred and is illegal .

Just because something is not locked ( security to the nth degree ) doesn't mean it is legal to steal it .

I must say , quite an interesting debate / subject here
flocko is offline  
post #23 of 83 Old 05-05-2012, 11:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Zon2020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

The judge disagreed with you. If someone downloads a movie at Starbucks, the riaa can't sue Starbucks.

No, the issues are entirely different. The case had nothing to do with what we are discussing regarding liability for failing to secure your network.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flocko View Post

So , based on that theory .... If I leave my key's in my car and someone steals it and I call the police to report the theft the officer say's " sorry we cannot take your report or help you due to the fact that the key's were in the car" . No they can't and don't do that !

Now , does leaving your key's in your car make you stupid . Yes, yes it does . But it does not negate the fact that the theft occurred and is illegal .

Just because something is not locked ( security to the nth degree ) doesn't mean it is legal to steal it .

I must say, quite an interesting debate / subject here

We're not talking about criminal liability (although there are negligent homicide and reckless endangerment criminal laws that might also apply), but if you leave your keys in the care in your driveway, your 4 year old )(or another kid) gets in and starts it up, and it backs out and over another neighborhood kid, you most certainly WILL be liable for negligence. If you leave a loaded shotgun in the yard and the kids start playing with it and one gets killed, you most certainly WILL be liable for negligence.

Did your conduct violate the reasonable standard of care? Yes.
Was it the proximate cause of the injury? Yes
Was it reasonably forseeable? Yes

Your negligence lead to the injury and you will lose the suit.
Zon2020 is offline  
post #24 of 83 Old 05-05-2012, 11:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
whiteboy714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post

You make it sound like it's simple. It's not. And if you use an appropriate passphrase (the standard recommends a 20 random character one) and don't use Wi-Fi Protected Access to set up your router, even WPA is basically secure. WPA-2 is even much better.

And any security professional will tell you that even using WEP or having a password of "password" will eliminate 99% of the problems, even as essentially useless as we would consider them. It's no different than car thieves. When there is a ready supply of unlocked cars/networks available, there's no point in messing with the locked one.

But the real problem is not the rare person who is victimized by some determined hacker, but the idiots who leave their wireless wide open. When the kid next door piggybacks your wide open network to share pirated movies and music, or the neighborhood perv uses it for kiddy porn, don't come to me for sympathy when the police break down your door.



While I agree with you IF the person took reasonable security steps and a hacker circumvented them, that's the very rare case with home networks. The problem is people who don't even turn on any rudimentary security, which is why I said "But I also have no sympathy for people who leave their wireless network completely unsecured. Get what they deserve. "

It's negligent and irresponsible for you to leave your network unsecured so that anyone can piggyback your system to conceal their attack on mine.

Some people really have no idea how to do this. ie. My parents. Sure its easy for us to say "google your router" or something of this nature. But you can't just expect people to be any sort of tech savy because they have a router in their home.
whiteboy714 is offline  
post #25 of 83 Old 05-05-2012, 11:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeffkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zon2020 View Post


No, the issues are entirely different. The case had nothing to do with what we are discussing regarding liability for failing to secure your network.

We're not talking about criminal liability (although there are negligent homicide and reckless endangerment criminal laws that might also apply), but if you leave your keys in the care in your driveway, your 4 year old )(or another kid) gets in and starts it up, and it backs out and over another neighborhood kid, you most certainly WILL be liable for negligence. If you leave a loaded shotgun in the yard and the kids start playing with it and one gets killed, you most certainly WILL be liable for negligence.

Did your conduct violate the reasonable standard of care? Yes.
Was it the proximate cause of the injury? Yes
Was it reasonably forseeable? Yes

Your negligence lead to the injury and you will lose the suit.

How about let the parents be responsible for their own kids
jeffkro is offline  
post #26 of 83 Old 05-05-2012, 05:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,376
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 771
if someone stole your car and got a speeding ticket should you have to pay for the ticket?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #27 of 83 Old 05-06-2012, 02:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Prosecuting people based on IP-address usage is just going to cause people who are downloading content illegally (or illegal content) to actively try to use other people's internet connections (either open networks, or by hacking WEP/WPA protected networks where possible) to avoid being traced themselves isn't it?

The judge in this case appears to have made the (in my view totally correct) decision that it is impossible to tie an IP address to a person. Rights holders need to find other ways to protect their content and/or revenue.
sneals2000 is offline  
post #28 of 83 Old 05-06-2012, 04:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
flocko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 707
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

if someone stole your car and got a speeding ticket should you have to pay for the ticket?

Apparently , yes .... if you left your keys in the car when it was stolen . Some here believe that is willful neglect
flocko is offline  
post #29 of 83 Old 05-06-2012, 07:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 22,376
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by flocko View Post

Apparently , yes .... if you left your keys in the car when it was stolen . Some here believe that is willful neglect

That's BS and people are stupid.

Leaving your home unlocked does not mean it's your fault if someone goes into your home and steals something.

Let's say they steal a car and crash it- or get a speeding ticket.

Or they steal a pipe and go assault someone...

Or steal your internet connection and download a copyrighted media...

None of it is your fault. It's the criminal fault. You are only responsible for your own actions in a criminal case.

In a civil case someone would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you were neglectful- for instance loading a gun and letting a child play with it.

Leaving your home unlocked, or leaving your internet unlocked is not neglect.

There is parts of the country people never lock their doors ever. How is locking your internet any different ?

Since when can the law say you must lock your car or your house?
Personally I have not done this before- Did I break the law or do something wrong?

The whole idea makes no sense.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #30 of 83 Old 05-06-2012, 11:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jeffkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

That's BS and people are stupid.

Leaving your home unlocked does not mean it's your fault if someone goes into your home and steals something.

Let's say they steal a car and crash it- or get a speeding ticket.

Or they steal a pipe and go assault someone...

Or steal your internet connection and download a copyrighted media...

None of it is your fault. It's the criminal fault. You are only responsible for your own actions in a criminal case.

In a civil case someone would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you were neglectful- for instance loading a gun and letting a child play with it.

Leaving your home unlocked, or leaving your internet unlocked is not neglect.

There is parts of the country people never lock their doors ever. How is locking your internet any different ?

Since when can the law say you must lock your car or your house?
Personally I have not done this before- Did I break the law or do something wrong?

The whole idea makes no sense.

Plus it would a lot more data friendly world if people allowed guest accounts for people traveling on through. Smart phone data limits are for stink right now so it would be a benefit to everyone to have more open access points. I personally have to try to get my podcasts from open access point whenever I can to try to stay under my verizon cap. It's very frustrating that we are building our society around the criminals instead of Joe citizen.
jeffkro is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off