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

Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 104 posts

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#61

Post by RobAtticus »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #13
Rudism wrote: post #4

I believe this is similar reasoning to why a lot of states have made red light cameras and speed cameras illegal. The owner of the car is not necessarily the person who was driving at the time, and it was the driver (not the car) who broke the law.

Here in New Jersey, they've arrived at a compromise. The person in whose name the car is registered is responsible for the fine. But it's only a fine, with no points on your record.

I believe that's the case in Maryland, and was under the impression that's how most of these things work. I guess they figure since the only punishment is monetary, if you weren't actually the driver you can figure out pretty easily who was (usually your son/daughter/spouse) so you can get paid back (or ground them, etc).

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#62

Post by rbanffy »

jasonkolb wrote: post #52
rbanffy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make the ownership graph sufficiently complicated (as in enough companies crossing enough international jurisdictions through enough shared-ownership layers) you'll be: 1) invulnerable to lawsuits 2) the coolest person in the whole internet

You should see what the ownership graphs of most multinationals look like. I did an analysis of JP Morgan at one point and I kid you not the list of companies in small type with no formatting took 10 pages to print out. For all the people who are saying that this is hacking the legal system you are correct. This is routinely done and I recommend you spend some time reading up on it, because it is fascinating. For exa…

> I recommend you spend some time reading up on it

I work for a portal that was recently acquired. The company who acquired the portal is, in part, owned by the same companies that own the telco that sold the portal, but the composition is different. I'm not even sure there are no cycles in the graph - it's perfectly possible some of the entities involved own themselves.

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#63

Post by mhb »

andrewpi wrote: post #25
mhb wrote: post #7

Does this reasoning work when I don't want to pay for the pay-per-call calls I made on my phone?

No, its different there since you enter into a contract with your telephone provider where you agree to pay for them.

Right. So it seems like the solution to this is going to be that the law will change so that the IP address owner is responsible for the use of the IP address.

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#64

Post by aneth »

jasonkolb wrote: post #52
rbanffy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make the ownership graph sufficiently complicated (as in enough companies crossing enough international jurisdictions through enough shared-ownership layers) you'll be: 1) invulnerable to lawsuits 2) the coolest person in the whole internet

You should see what the ownership graphs of most multinationals look like. I did an analysis of JP Morgan at one point and I kid you not the list of companies in small type with no formatting took 10 pages to print out. For all the people who are saying that this is hacking the legal system you are correct. This is routinely done and I recommend you spend some time reading up on it, because it is fascinating. For exa…

I would love to see that list of JP Morgan entities.

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#65

Post by rbanffy »

mseebach wrote: post #48
rbanffy wrote: post #43

If this doesn't create a push towards IPv6, I don't know what will...

That won't change anything. The subpoena will still be for the person who pays the bill at a location where multiple devices may be connected. I doubt that judge will give a subpoena to go look for a computer with a given MAC address at a location. But those worried can just change MAC address every few days.

When you are not behind a NAT, an IP can uniquely identify a device which, in turn, can, most likely, uniquely identify its owner.

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#66

Post by Monotoko »

evincarofautumn wrote: post #34
waqf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well now, it depends. If I let someone use something of mine that is licensed and restricted by the government because of the potential for misuse, such as a gun or prescription medication, then I am responsible inasmuch as I helped them circumvent government licensing. If I lend someone an easily obtainable item such as a pencil sharpener or a cat, and they commit a crime using it, I don't see how I'm responsible. T…

A hundred people are now idly trying to figure out the feasibility and logistics of robbing a bank with a cat. I would go so far as to say that, in addition to the legal obligation to not violate a government license, you also have an ethical obligation to provide reasonable protection against theft, misuse, &c. Yet somehow it seems strange to apply that logic to network devices.

Bahaha, I sure was :)

Re: Judge: An IP-Address Doesn’t Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate)

#69

Post by andrewpi »

Alex3917 wrote: post #24
eli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is an Internet Cafe responsible for what all its patrons do? Is Verizon responsible for everyone who buys bandwidth from them?

I believe that common carriers are forced to comply with certain rules, so in a sense yes.

I think you have it backwards: one of the benefits of being treated as a "common carrier" is that you aren't responsible for others misusage of your service, since you are required to be open to the public.
Post reply on HN