NY Judge Gary Brown

Originally Posted by jeffkro

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

Originally Posted by jeffkro

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

Originally Posted by lockdown571

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.

Originally Posted by cdru

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.

Originally Posted by jeffkro

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

Originally Posted by lockdown571

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.

Originally Posted by Zon2020

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.

Originally Posted by lockdown571

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.

Originally Posted by lockdown571

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.

Originally Posted by Zon2020

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

Originally Posted by Somewhatlost

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!!!

Originally Posted by Zon2020

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

Originally Posted by Zon2020

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

Originally Posted by Zon2020


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.

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.

Originally Posted by jeffkro


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

Originally Posted by Zon2020


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.

Originally Posted by Zon2020

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.

Originally Posted by jeffkro

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

Originally Posted by flocko

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

Originally Posted by Zon2020

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.

Originally Posted by Zon2020


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.

Originally Posted by Mfusick

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

Originally Posted by flocko

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

Originally Posted by Mfusick

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.