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

81–90 of 104 posts

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

#81

Post by jnorthrop »

rickmb wrote: post #76
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…

My intention was not to "pull a fast one." If you read my blog[1], which of late is mostly about privacy, I think you'll find I'm fairly neutral on the subject. Having said that there is all sorts of pseudo-anonymous or anonymous data that when combined with other data points become PII. I find this particular case interesting and am curious to hear what others think about it's implications beyond the piracy case.

An opposing example to this would be the recent ruling in Massachusetts, and why I found this one so interesting. The court there found that zip codes are PII[2].

[1] http://www.jnorthrop.me

[2] http://blog.martindale.com/massachusetts-federal-district-co...

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

#82

Post by danssig »

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.

It's probably easier to rob a bank with a pencil sharpener.

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

#83

Post by drzaiusapelord »

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...

Its a long accepted colloquialism. It also doesn't help that a lot of torrent sites openly embrace pirate crap as cutesy. I guess no one likes saying copyright infringement.

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

#84

Post by rprospero »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #75
rprospero wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I wasn't arguing the letter versus spirit in terms of the IP address. I was more arguing about piercing the corporate veil. By the letter of the law, the infringement may have been made by the company, but, by the spirit of the law, it's clearly made by the person.

However, I want to take your speeding car analogy a step further. The police have video of my car parked outside a murder scene during a murder. The murder was performed with my handgun. On the 911 tapes, the victim is shouting that he's being attacked by someone with my name (John Smith). The victim is someone I've previously stated that I intend to kill. The argument that none of those identify me aren't going to form a reasonable doubt unless I can also provide an alibi or implicate a different John Smith.

In the same way, the original poster has publicly stated their intention to start an open network for the specific intent of hiding their downloads. The MPAA has an IP address that shows that a download was made from the account that was purchased by a person intending to hide downloads. If they have server logs showing that other people use that network on a regular basis, they have a decent chance. As it stands, however, it's pushing the bounds of reasonable doubt, not to mention preponderance of the evidence, as needed for a civil case.

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

#85

Post by antonej »

jasonkolb wrote: post #5

I've often thought that if you really wanted to pirate something, just start an S-corp for ~$200 and put your cable account in its name. If you get sued, tell them to litigate until they're blue, the company is going under.

As a lawyer, I would never recommend this. Corporate plaintiffs would sue the individual(s) as well under the theory of "piercing the corporate veil." Given these facts, I think they would have a good chance of winning, but even if they lost, that's not the point. The real issue is attorneys fees. $100,000 in legal expenses is a rounding error to large corporations; for many individuals, it is their life savings

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

#86

Post by antonej »

jasonkolb wrote: post #11
mnutt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would likely be a case where a corporation would not protect you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil

What if the business's purpose is to provide an open suburban hotspot?

That would probably violate the terms of the broadband ISP service contract. No doubt people do this all the time and get away with it, but that doesn't mean the big guys wouldn't go ahead and enforce it in situations where it really matters.

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

#87

Post by antonej »

rickmb wrote: post #76
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…

Maybe not of the birthmark on your ass, but photos alone (without accompanying identifiers) are not protected as PII under US law.

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

#88

Post by antonej »

rickmb wrote: post #76
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…

Maybe not of the birthmark on your ass, but photos alone (without accompanying identifiers) are not protected as PII under US law.

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

#89

Post by antonej »

brudgers wrote: post #55

This may be a two edged sword. It also means that collecting data based on your IP is not an invasion of privacy. With IPv6 there is the potential for much finer grained assignment of IP addresses to such an extent that an IP address could become uniquely identified with an individual more readily than today.

Good point. Is it possible or probable that under IPv6, we could each have a "static IP for life"? Not that I'd necessarily want that...

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

#90

Post by antonej »

larrys wrote: post #39
jasonkolb wrote: post #5

I've often thought that if you really wanted to pirate something, just start an S-corp for ~$200 and put your cable account in its name. If you get sued, tell them to litigate until they're blue, the company is going under.

The strategy could work if done correctly and most certainly in the case of a mass lawsuit. If the corp is opened in a place that offers nominee owners or directors even better. Although there are most certainly legal ways that someone could figure out who to sue, in a mass lawsuit it would simply not pay to put the effort in to pierce the corporate veil of any individual when there were 1500 other targets. Despite w…

From the corporation's point of view, it would pay as an investment in deterrence. Companies fight money-losing legal battles all the time because they don't want to open the floodgates to thousands of others doing the same thing.
Post reply on HN