Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identify a pirate

techspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identify a pirate

#41

Post by ninedays »

saagarjha wrote: post #11
notafraudster wrote: post #2

The court holds that the plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable evidence the defendant was the person using the computer. In this particular case, the defendant ran what amounts to lodging, was deposed, and it was immediately figured out it wasn't him. The complicating factor is that because his lodging was medical in nature, he was not able to hand over guest information. I mention this context because it's unlikely…

> I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL" Well, the question is whether I'm responsible for the use of my computer network. If someone hacks into it and starts using it without me noticing, am I responsible?

France managed to create a law for that specific reason. France decided that any owner of a connection is responsible for it. So if you invite friends over and they start to torrent movies or else, you will be responsible.

Re: US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identify a pirate

#42

Post by viraptor »

exabrial wrote: post #35
viraptor wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be trivial in that circumstance to blow away any kind of NAT Why do you think so? NAT can be used for IPv6 is exactly the same way it's used for IPv4.

IPv6 will _not_ have NAT be the default case... IPv4 NAT is the default for the vast majority of [home] routers, and offers a bit of privacy protection built-in.

This is true, but if the op meant what they wrote, then the default is irrelevant. If you keep a NAT, moving to IPv6 doesn't blow anything away.

Re: US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identify a pirate

#43

Post by zaarn »

ninedays wrote: post #41
saagarjha wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL" Well, the question is whether I'm responsible for the use of my computer network. If someone hacks into it and starts using it without me noticing, am I responsible?

France managed to create a law for that specific reason. France decided that any owner of a connection is responsible for it. So if you invite friends over and they start to torrent movies or else, you will be responsible.

Germany has recently reverted a law like this for Wifi. If you have an open wifi and someone torrents over it, then you're not liable for the illegal activity itself (though a court can force you to install filters and fine you if you didn't and it happens again).

Re: US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identify a pirate

#44

Post by PeterStuer »

Some IP addresses are more personal than others. What I mean is that yes, on it's own an IP address does not pinpoint persons, but devices. So it remains upon the complainer in the case of a copyright infringement case to present a further reasoning 'above the speculative level' that the by the IP identified device at the time of the infringement was under the control of the alleged infringer.

In this case they failed. That doesn't mean it will always fail.

If you're mobile ISP uses IPv6 for everything and assigned your mobile a static IPv6 address, then it will be harder to argue it wasn't you.

If you're Home router is provided and managed by your ISP, and it is configured to use DHCP Static Leases, then the local IP of your mobile phone (a fairly personal device) is close (not equal) to being equally as effective as a personal identifier as it's MAC.

If on the other hand you connected to an Open-Wifi set up by an amateur 4 NAT's down that does not keep logs, and you randomize your MAC every time you connect to a new network, it might be more difficult for tying an IP to your device without reasonable doubt.

In that last case if the pursuer wanted the open-wifi operator's operation could be made more difficult by DMCA complaints and leverage through the ISP's terms of service.

Re: US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identify a pirate

#45

Post by PeterStuer »

The article states that 'this is a win for privacy advocates and pirates'.

I'm not disagreeing, but I hope this will not re-open doors of trying to leverage this into getting IP addresses out of being privacy linked data in a privacy regulation context.

Re: US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identify a pirate

#46

Post by PeterStuer »

saagarjha wrote: post #11
notafraudster wrote: post #2

The court holds that the plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable evidence the defendant was the person using the computer. In this particular case, the defendant ran what amounts to lodging, was deposed, and it was immediately figured out it wasn't him. The complicating factor is that because his lodging was medical in nature, he was not able to hand over guest information. I mention this context because it's unlikely…

> I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL" Well, the question is whether I'm responsible for the use of my computer network. If someone hacks into it and starts using it without me noticing, am I responsible?

Assuming you live/operate the network in the US, it is grey, but your future operation of the open-wifi might be made more difficult.

Have a look here[1] of the potential actions that can be taken against you and your potential response to those.

In the end it will be a matter of how far you and the other party are willing to push this.

This will be different of course if it can be demonstrated that you intentionally ran the open-wifi to bamboozle or encourage illegal use. (because you advertized for or boasted about it in an online forum for instance).

[1]https://openwireless.org/myths-legal.html

Re: US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identify a pirate

#47

Post by PeterStuer »

zaroth wrote: post #15
saagarjha wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL" Well, the question is whether I'm responsible for the use of my computer network. If someone hacks into it and starts using it without me noticing, am I responsible?

No, unlike something like a firearm which you are legally required to secure and can suffer potentially criminal and/or civil liability if someone steals it and uses it to commit a crime, there is no such legal requirement to secure your network against outsider misuse. IANAL that’s just my personal understanding / belief. The key point would be the use would have to be unsanctioned and you were totally unaware. Once…

Have a look through your ISP's terms of use and you might find specific relevant statements there. Operating an open-wifi Internet access setup might be difficult if your ISP terminates your contract.

An example, this is from Verizon[1]

2. Use of your Service and Account and Compliance with Applicable Authority. You are responsible for all use of your Service and account, whether by you or someone using your account with or without your permission, including all secondary or sub-accounts associated with your primary account, and to pay for all activity associated with your account. You agree to comply with all applicable laws, regulations and rules regarding your use of the Service and to only use the Service within the United States (unless otherwise permitted by this Agreement).

3. Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, you may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means. For example, you may not provide Internet access to third parties through a wired or wireless connection or use the Service to facilitate public Internet access (such as through a Wi-Fi hotspot), use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). If you subscribe to a Broadband Service, you may connect multiple computers/devices within a single home to your modem and/or router to access the Service through a single Verizon-issued IP address, and if available through the Service, you may permit guests to access the Internet through your Service’s Wi-Fi capabilities. You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this Section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.

[1]https://www.verizon.com/about/terms-conditions/verizon-onlin...

Re: US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identify a pirate

#48

Post by squirrelicus »

ninedays wrote: post #41
saagarjha wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mention this context because it's unlikely you would be able to get out of being sued by saying "Well maybe it was my roommate LOL" Well, the question is whether I'm responsible for the use of my computer network. If someone hacks into it and starts using it without me noticing, am I responsible?

France managed to create a law for that specific reason. France decided that any owner of a connection is responsible for it. So if you invite friends over and they start to torrent movies or else, you will be responsible.

This seems strange. If someone uses my car for a malicious act, or uses my house's electrical connection to damage the grid, or something like that, I'm clearly not liable.

Re: US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identify a pirate

#49

Post by squirrelicus »

When I was 18 or so a dozen years ago I had two detectives show up at my door (USA). Apparently my neighbor, with whom we were friendly, had connected to our wifi in order to try to hide his solicitation of a minor (luckily an FBI agent). They just stopped by to let us know trouble might be headed our way during the investigation and court proceedings. It was strange. They just left. Don't know if they ever contacted my dad about it further, but I do know he confessed to the whole thing.

Re: US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identify a pirate

#50

Post by ninedays »

zaarn wrote: post #43
ninedays wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France managed to create a law for that specific reason. France decided that any owner of a connection is responsible for it. So if you invite friends over and they start to torrent movies or else, you will be responsible.

Germany has recently reverted a law like this for Wifi. If you have an open wifi and someone torrents over it, then you're not liable for the illegal activity itself (though a court can force you to install filters and fine you if you didn't and it happens again).

France managed to create a law for that case too. It can be refered as "lack of security". You are also responsible for having a connection that is supposedly secure. If that's not the case ("oh, I have no technical knowledge on how to enable password protection for my network"), you are responsible as well. There are exemples of companies that were fined because of this law.
Post reply on HN