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

71–80 of 104 posts

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

#71

Post by Alex3917 »

andrewpi wrote: post #69
Alex3917 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Common carriers can't be held criminally liable for what their users do, but they are responsible for the actions of their users in the sense that they need to turn over their records if served a subpoena, and may be legally required to keep certain records.

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

#72

Post by exim »

recursive wrote: post #70
exim wrote: post #50

There is no such a concept as "BitTorrent Pirate". Where do you get these?

It refers to someone who pirates media or software using bittorrent.

What I meant is that one can't pirate media or software. Call it copying or sharing without permission of an original author, but that has nothing to do with piracy, theft, murder, etc...

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

#73

Post by simcop2387 »

jstalin wrote: post #15
CWuestefeld wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how the judicial system works in the USA. It's a hierarchy, from the district courts to the circuit courts on up to the Supreme Court. Basically, decisions made at one level may be binding on that court and its "descendents", but that's as far as it goes. If you want a decision to reach nation-wide, it's got to be handed down by the Supreme Court.

On top of that, this is a decision by a magistrate, which is one step below a District Court judge, so it can be appealed to the District Court, then to an Appeals Court, then the Supreme Court. A magistrate's opinion, unfortunately, has no binding effect at all (on anything other than this case).

It does however have some help in setting precedent for arguing in those later courts, if both parties agree with the judge and don't pursue the matter further. It doesn't guarantee that it will be listened to but it does help later on.

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

#74

Post by m_for_monkey »

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.

    $ cat BigMoney > MyAccount

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

#75

Post by pbhjpbhj »

rprospero wrote: post #59
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you're saying judges are corrupt and dont care if they have proof or not?

No, it comes down to a question of the letter of the law versus the spirit. By the letter of the law, jasonkolb's proposal would work. However, jasonkolb's propsal clearly violates the spirit under which corporate protection was originally developed. Now, if you argue that the judge should follow the letter of the law, and ignore the spirit, remember that the first amendment protects the freedom of "speech" and the "…

Sorry but no. Interpreting an IP address as identifying a user isn't a matter of interpreting the spirit of the law it's simply making a factual error. Should an IP address be sufficient to allow a search to be made? Certainly in a criminal case.

It is similar to the case of catching a speeding car but not being able to identify the driver (except speeding isn't a tort). You can't assume the owner is guilty unless the law is drafted to make it so that a car owner is responsible for all authorised use of their vehicle.

Talking about the spirit of the law is considering the law makers intentions and how they would have drafted the details in the current technological background.

Even if you narrow down the guilty party to one of a small group you can't convict the whole group or even a random member of the group on that strength alone. That's not how European or USA law works (though there may be other crime, withholding evidence, harbouring a criminal and such that members of the party would be guilty of).

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

#76

Post by rickmb »

jnorthrop wrote: post #2

This is an important decision not only from a "piracy" perspective but from a "privacy" and "information security" view as well. Many US laws and regulations revolve around protecting personally identifiable information (PII). If this judge's conclusions stick then we have some freedom from having to protect IP addresses, which show up in just about everything we log and collect. That could be gigantic to those who d…

I came here expecting someone trying to pull a anti-privacy fast one. Nice try.

Just because an IP address alone is not enough to legally beyond doubt identify a person doesn't mean collecting IP addresses in combination with online behavior doesn't violate people's privacy.

These are two fundamentally different things. The only real way to identify someone is through things like DNA or fingerprints. Everything else is just an indication, it may not be enough to serve as evidence in court, but it's definitely personal.

The birthmark on my ass may not be unique, but it doesn't give you the right to collect pictures of it without my permission.

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

#77

Post by m0nastic »

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.

Every time I hear a story about this, I am reminded of one of my favorite things ever concerning German traffic cops and speed cameras:

http://boingboing.net/2008/10/27/german-traffic-cops.html

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

#78

Post by SamReidHughes »

exim wrote: post #72
recursive wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It refers to someone who pirates media or software using bittorrent.

What I meant is that one can't pirate media or software. Call it copying or sharing without permission of an original author, but that has nothing to do with piracy, theft, murder, etc...

So you mean nothing at all?

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

#79

Post by micaeked »

PiracyApologist wrote: post #67

Isn't this fact obvious to any hacker worth their salt? This doesn't gratify my intellectual curiosity (per the guidelines). Flagged. Please keep these articles on Slashdot/Reddit.

it's about a court decision. keeping track of what the legal camps think about tech is "gratifying my intellectual curiosity"

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

#80

Post by danssig »

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.

In Germany they have to get a picture of the driver and the license plate. There was a famous case where a UK driver was speeding and putting a dummy in the passenger seat [1]. He couldn't be ticketed for speeding because a dummy appeared to be driving his car.

[1] Germany has Napoleon compliant highways while the UK was much more interested in resisting anything from Napoleon.

Post reply on HN