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

61–68 of 68 posts

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

#61

Post by delecti »

anticensor wrote: post #39
onetimemanytime wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unless the law says "it's your internet connection and you're responsible for what happens" I doubt it matters that much. Standard of proof is much lower but still have to prove that x most likely downloaded the movie.

> unless the law says "it's your internet connection and you're responsible for what happens" Most subscription contracts have a clause to that effect.

That's a contract with the provider. I'm responsible to Comcast if my connection is used to download 17 TB of data on a metered subscription, even if I was hacked. That contract doesn't leave me responsible for anything except between me and Comcast.

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

#62

Post by delecti »

furi wrote: post #56
r3vrse wrote: post #4

It surprises me in a way that "big internet" (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast etc) and associated large enterprise interests have not been more staunch proponents of IPv6, at least for fixed consumer connections. It would be trivial in that circumstance to blow away any kind of NAT and the pseudo-anonymity/plausible deniabililty it provides and make client devices performing illegitimate activity directly identifiable. I wond…

How exactly would this work? It's my understanding the IP addresses have to be allocated in a somewhat uniform manner to make routing feasible so it looks like it would require you to give a block of IPv6 addresses to the customer's router for it to allocate to the attached PCs, phones and what not, which seems like it would take us back to chewing through the address space pretty quick and also not necessarily achie…

If ISPs gave every customer as many IPv6 addresses as are in the entire IPv4 space to distribute among their personal devices, and "every customer" amounted to the entire population of the world, that would use roughly 1 / (10^19) of the total space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6

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

#63

Post by [deleted] »

squirrelicus wrote: post #48
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.

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.

[deleted]

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

#65

Post by ThinkingGuy »

squirrelicus wrote: post #48
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.

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.

>If someone uses my car for a malicious act

Depends on the act. In the state of Georgia, at least, if a passenger in the car you're driving throws litter out the window, you're responsible (not that this particular law is ever enforced).

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

#66

Post by squirrelicus »

chronial wrote: post #53
squirrelicus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If someone uses my car for a malicious act [...] I'm clearly not liable. It is not that simple if you left your car unlocked. Leaving an unlocked car around with the key in the ignition is clearly a public danger.

Interesting. I've never heard this before. Id love to see some statutes or cases here, because it's not clear to me. This behavior isn't unheard of in my neck of the woods

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

#67

Post by chronial »

squirrelicus wrote: post #66
chronial wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone uses my car for a malicious act [...] I'm clearly not liable. It is not that simple if you left your car unlocked. Leaving an unlocked car around with the key in the ignition is clearly a public danger.

Interesting. I've never heard this before. Id love to see some statutes or cases here, because it's not clear to me. This behavior isn't unheard of in my neck of the woods

I can't help you regarding the US. I live in Germany and there's a law (§15 StVO) that says "The driver of a vehicle must take the necessary precautions to prevent accidents and disturbances to traffic when they exit the vehicle. Vehicles also have to be secured against unauthorized use."

I had a quick google and I found mentions that you will get fines for this. I did not find an example of something bad happening with an unlocked car.

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

#68

Post by furi »

delecti wrote: post #62
furi wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly would this work? It's my understanding the IP addresses have to be allocated in a somewhat uniform manner to make routing feasible so it looks like it would require you to give a block of IPv6 addresses to the customer's router for it to allocate to the attached PCs, phones and what not, which seems like it would take us back to chewing through the address space pretty quick and also not necessarily achie…

If ISPs gave every customer as many IPv6 addresses as are in the entire IPv4 space to distribute among their personal devices, and "every customer" amounted to the entire population of the world, that would use roughly 1 / (10^19) of the total space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6

That puts it into perspective, thanks.
Post reply on HN