Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Security Expert's Quest For Reliability
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In the ongoing case of UMG v. Lindor, Ms. Lindor has now moved to exclude the trial testimony of the RIAA's 'expert' witness, Dr. Doug Jacobson. Jacobson is the CTO and co-founder of Palisade Systems, Inc, and a teacher of internet security at Iowa State, but in his February 23rd deposition testimony she argues he failed to meet the reliability standards prescribed by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Groklaw and Slashdot communities participated in both the preparation of the deposition questions, and the vetting of the witness's responses."
Could T real FA please stand up?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I know how the RIAA can achieve reliability - it's easy, really. All they need to do is...
Wait, what am I doing? On second thought, they can kiss my skinny pasty-white nerd ass.
That it required two very large combined communities to refute this sham expert. Still, that makes me hopefuly that mechanisms like this might rescue part of our judicial system from the money game.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Is this good, bad, or other?
Did Slashdot really do some legal stuff? And what does that have to do with Linux?
I think it's good to see not only someone continuing to fight back, but that we can make a difference as a technical community (hopefully).
/2cents
2cents I also think that the RIAA and everyone from them can fornicate themselves with an iron stick.
I can see the troll/flamebait mods coming already.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
What's so difficult to read? Different colors? Anyways, it basically says that some lawyers in new York are in an ongoing battle with the RIAA (via UMG) and a recent "expert" is being questioned on the grounds that they did not meet a certain standard to an expert witnesses, set forth by case precidence. It also states that Slashdot and Groklaw participated in formulating questions asked of the 'expert' as well as analysis of it's response.
Demented But Determined.
...you have uncovered with the expert witness. He does a lot of "umm...dunno, don't recall..dog ate my homework" etc. for a PhD.
If this motion is granted, could this be the end of the RIAA's use of Media Sentry?
If this court makes this ruling (and while IANAL, I would grant this motion!), could this be grounds for challanging all future MAFIAA supenas?
Am I the only one who does NOT despise Jacobson? I thought he held up fairly well in that deposition under the pressure of some of Mr. Beckerman's more irrelevant questions - for example, the ones targetting his vocabulary, or the ones about why he didn't produce imaginary documentation detailing an absense of evidence.
There are plenty of weak points in the RIAA's case as a whole. One could attack the chain of identity leading to the defendent - is the infringing activity traced to the correct IP, and is the IP at that time actually the one that belonged to Ms. Lindor, and can we be reasonably sure the activity took place on her computer, and we don't even know that she was the one at the computer so would she even be liable... The chain of identity is probably the best weak point in their case, but you could also argue that the damages are negligable and fight the absurd statutory fee, or that perhaps no uploading took place and the torrent was all seeded one way.
There are a number of legitimate arguments to be made, but the point I'm getting at is I don't see how the deposition of Jacobson attacked any of them sufficiently to prove or disprove his competence as an expert witness. Slashdot was quick to point out the minor screw-ups in his testimony, but many of those statements were perfectly fine in the context of explaining the technology to a layperson. Some of the "holes" in his argument were so unlikely that I would not even consider them reasonable doubt in a criminal case. Do you really think someone actually decided to frame the woman by filesharing wirelessly and changing her MAC address and internal NAT mappings to mask the presence of a wireless router? I don't.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Your summary really does help. It's not just the different colors. It was one of the most impenetrable articles I've read here in a while. Perhaps not surprisingly, since I assume that the submitter is in fact a lawyer and has very little experience writing plain English.
The submitter may also want to hold off on TFA-linking world record attempt too. This is Slashdot, we seldom read one linked FA. Asking us to read, like 10 of them, just isn't going to happen.
Since you obviously have evidence for your well-considered conclusion, I don't see why you don't give the RIAA a call and offer your services. I suspect they'll be looking for someone pretty soon.
To be fair, several of them were either links to previous stories in this case on Slashdot, or links to previous stories on this case from other sources... I think the second link was the only new one.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
The summary was horrible. I spent a couple minutes just trying to figure out what the case was about and trying to figure out who Ms. Lindor was and gave up.
"From what I read, it didn't sound like they explored the whole mac address / ip address relationships and spoofing enough. Anyone that could present her mac address to the network DHCP server would likely get the same IP that her computer last acquired. If she is in the habit of using it to check email then turn it all off again, that would open up the question to who else might be using her mac address."
Well I'm sure it's buried in all the PDFs (make note that HTML can be searched faster) but generally in broadband connections the lease times are longer and when one does renew, one usually gets the same number as before.
"Since you obviously have evidence for your well-considered conclusion"
Well I don't know about the other AC, but from were I stand, so far the truth of the matter hasn't been proven either way (otherwise we wouldn't be here discussion the issue). The problem however with slashcourt is that innocence or guilt has been predetermined (apparently our court doesn't have a 'presumed innocence' clause). If slashdot is going to be that "expert witness" that the legal system is suppose to tap into? Then it's going to have to be held to a higher standard than the one it's demonstrated so far.
It's still very much news for nerds, stuff the matters. The the RIAA cases deal with an activity that many of us have participated in the past, present or future, and regardless of your opinion of the state of copyright law. It's important to know how one might respond if served.
More importantly though, these cases indirectly impact many other activities, many of which I think the great majority of the community feels are not unethical, which involve limits of copyrights, security, DRM, etc.
And speaking as somebody who's a US citizen who knows a fair amount as an amateur about the law and constitution as written documents, these cases, as well as the SCO entries, are certainly educating me greatly about how the law is actually practiced outside of my personal reading of it. Routine trial motions are relevant when they deal with something that is important to track, especially when most of the community doesn't know what's a routine motion and what isn't. I personally hope that at the very least everybody from the US learns from these, since being able to describe with accuracy and detail the problems we have with the current state of the laws is the only way that all the letters, e-mails etc to legislators are going to have any measurable impact.
I don't see what the problem with his testimony is. He stated exactly what he was looking for, and exactly what he found within those parameters. Frankly, the defense attorney grilling him was being a complete dick for the most part by repeatedly asking him to verify something out of his area that he was never supposed to investigate. He freely admitted that any identification of who that IP address belonged to was not done by him, and he had no way to verify it; his testimony was about what IP was being used for filesharing, not who that IP belonged to.
Really, I'm surprised the defense isn't begging for him to be put up on the stand; from what I read I'd say that his testimony does more for the defense than the prosecution:
1) He states that the file was sent to that IP, but there is no way to know what computer actually received it. (helps with reasonable doubt)
2) He states that from the information obtained from her hard drive, that computer (or hard drive, at least) is definitely not the one used for file sharing. (The way this damages the prosecution's case should be obvious.)
The only problems I've seen anyone have with his testimony are that he's relying on the data he's given to be accurate (HTF else is he supposed to operate?), that he made a few minor errors in his testimony - i.e. mixing up some terms (this happens to people, and unlike a written deposition he cannot go back over it for mistakes before sending it in), and that he is inaccurate with some of what he says while trying to explain complex technical details to a layperson (everything taught to laypeople is like this; generally correct, even if not correct in specifics).
Going over his testimony, I did not see anything he actually did wrong; everything he stated was correct and he drew no conclusions that were not supported by the data he was given.
While such a "in limine" motion might be all day lawyer routine motion business as usual...
/. report worthy IMO.
THIS special one is very important for the overall cause in the greater war.
If it will be granted, then would that mean that RIAA can pack in with their methodology since they have nothing else to offer which comes even close to evidence usable in a real Court of Law
That's why THIS routine motion is
And Ty (the lawyer that made it) was so smart to not cite any other case in his letter as example why their motion should be granted.
He cited cases and used quotes that were made by those 2 NY judges that are responsible for this case too!
By his own admission Dr. Jacobson fails on every count.
We all know there are huge holes in analyzing the evidence. Ms. Lindor can not call an expert to dispute Dr. Jacobson's testimony because his methodology has not been published. it has not been subject to peer review. There has been no formal analysis of the reliability. And his methods have not gained enough acceptance for anyone else to be familiar with them. If Ms. Lindor can not call her own witness she is denied due process. The RIAA may as well just use voodoo science.
If Dr. Jacobson's methodology had been subject to peer review, there would be peer-reviewed articles analyzing the details brought up in the deposition such as IP spoofing, malware, the Kazaa protocol, and MediaSentry.
The motion to exclude brings up a couple other huge problems with Dr. Jacobson's testimony. It's not that Dr. Jacobson is a bad guy or that he is somehow incompetent. The problem is that Dr. Jacobson can not draw any 'expert' conclusions in the legal sense. NewYorkCountryLawyer always puts the word 'expert' in quotes when he mentions Dr. Jacobson. I think that's because Dr. Jacobson is not legally an expert.
Real simple,
1) Don't refute testimony, case goes to court, defendant wins but has to pay own lawyer fees because it is assumed that UMG filed the case in good faith
2) Refute testimony, force UMG for dismiss with prejudice, defendant gets lawyer fees paid for by UMG because case was not filed in good faith (witnesses did not have enough evidence to file case).
Seems like if I were defendant (or even defendant's lawyer), I would prefer 2. UMG has more money to pay lawyer than defendant.
the problem with it is that he has NO clue about the stuff he was designated by RIAA to testify about.
= umg_lindor_070426MTRtoMagisInLimineJacobson )
Having no clue about what you testify as an expert is what makes it inadmissible.
Defendant's lawyer explains it this way:
Although Dr. Jacobson proposes in the report to testify as to "the procedures used
and results obtained by MediaSentry," he displayed utter ignorance as to those
procedures at his deposition. He admitted that he does not know what processes,
procedures or software were used by MediaSentry. (T 31). He does not know if the
methods used by MediaSentry have ever been "tested by any testing body." (T 42). He
does not know if MediaSentry's methods have ever been subjected to any form of peer
review; as far as he know, MediaSentry itself is not peer-regulated. (T 42, 43). He does
not know if MediaSentry's methods have been published. (T 42). He does not know if
there is a known error rate in MediaSentry's methods. (T 43). He does not know of any
standards and controls over MediaSentry's methods (T 43). He does not know if
MediaSentry's methods have generally been accepted in the scientific community. (T
43). In evaluating all of the reports and materials generated by MediaSentry (including
the screenshots, system logs and user logs that are attached to the complaint and
supposedly form the basis of its allegations) and the purported data contained in those
documents, Dr. Jacobson assumed that they were accurate. (T 43).
Clearly, the scientific reliability of MediaSentry's methods and materials can only
be established by expert testimony.
[...]
In summary, Dr. Jacobson is not qualified to opine about whether the uploading
and downloading alleged in the complaint actually occurred or who is responsible for it if
it did.
( http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename
HTH
Your comment makes no sense. He was not "supposed to investigate" anything; he was "supposed to" testify about the investigation that was done three (3) years earlier.
As to whether he was "out of his area", he probably was... but that's not my fault, that's his, for pretending to be something he's not, and it's the RIAA's, for inducing the man to pretend to be something he's not. While I may have been asking him things he couldn't answer, they were not irrelevant to his report and his proffered testimony; they were directly relevant to what he falsely claimed.
I'm sorry to have to tell you that your knowledge of law is quite limited. There is no "prosecution"; this is a civil case. There is no concept of "reasonable doubt" in a civil case.
Yes his testimony is helpful to defendant. But this is not a game; this is a federal trial where one side is suing someone for tens of thousands of dollars. Under clear standards of law his testimony is inadmissible and must be excluded. I would be a pretty dumb lawyer if I allowed the RIAA to bring this guy anywhere near a courtroom.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Which would you think shows bad faith more:
1) "The prosecution's own expert witness says the defendant's computer was not used for filesharing, but they brought this case anyway."
2) "Well, we removed all evidence due to technicalities. The prosecution couldn't have known this would happen until after the suit was filed."
Your comment makes no sense. He was not "supposed to investigate" anything; he was "supposed to" testify about the investigation that was done three (3) years earlier.
You're arguing phrasing here; when I said he was supposed to investigate something, I obviously meant that the investigation was for later testimony given the context.
As to whether he was "out of his area", he probably was... but that's not my fault, that's his, for pretending to be something he's not, and it's the RIAA's, for inducing the man to pretend to be something he's not.
I still don't see where he pretended to be something he's not. He never claimed to have internal knowledge of how the IPs were traced to a particular person (or, if he did, I missed that part). I am only saying that I don't think he's as much at fault as the masses are claiming he is; the lawyers are the ones who decided to not bring in testimony from the people who did the rest of the investigation. As long as he doesn't claim he knows for certain anything outside what he himself investigated, and only says "that other stuff is just what I was told", I don't see why that is supposed to make him look bad.
I'm sorry to have to tell you that your knowledge of law is quite limited.
I never claimed it wasn't. I'm not a lawyer and never claimed to be one.
There is no "prosecution"; this is a civil case. There is no concept of "reasonable doubt" in a civil case
Fine then, how about "claimant"? As for "no reasonable doubt" in civil cases, I did know that - I was not using it as a legal term, but instead as an easy way to reference that it helps the defense. Maybe I didn't have the specific legal terms correct, but everyone knows what I meant. You could've been nice and simply corrected me, but instead you attack my position based on nitpicking terminology.
Yes his testimony is helpful to defendant. But this is not a game; this is a federal trial where one side is suing someone for tens of thousands of dollars. Under clear standards of law his testimony is inadmissible and must be excluded. I would be a pretty dumb lawyer if I allowed the RIAA to bring this guy anywhere near a courtroom.
Perhaps. As I said before, I am not a legal expert, and don't know almost anything of this case beyond this particular deposition. I was only commenting that his testimony helped the defense's case more than the prosecution's (yeah, yeah, terminology - see above). Perhaps it is better to exclude his testimony altogether - I do not know enough about the case as a whole to determine that - that's why my title was "Why exclude?" -- it's a question.
Are you aware that some of the words Mr. Beckerman ask him about are in the Code of Ethics of the organization he claims certification membership in?
I thought not.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Then when I correct your misuse of legal terms, you say
You could've been nice and simply corrected me, but instead you attack my position based on nitpicking terminology.Sorry I'm not as
nice as you are.Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
- Jacobson found no evidence of music or filesharing on the hard drive.
- Jacobson was forthright about his testimony and that he only testified as to what the plaintiff requested.
- The defendant's lawyer was being a dick--not Jacobson.
The only real question I have is why is UMG continuing the suit? The evidence doesn't support their case as described by their own expert witness. The defendant should be thrilled to have the oppositions expert testifying on their behalf.This was the first time in 25,000 cases that the RIAA's expert was deposed.
The RIAA says he is their only witness to copyright infringement.
They used the same expert in all the cases.
And it turns out his testimony would be inadmissible at trial.
I think that's pretty important and not at all "routine".
In fact in 32 1/2 years of working in the litigation field, I've never even heard of anything quite like this.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Personally, I don't think that letting him near a courtroom would make you a dumb lawyer - I think it would make you dumb, PERIOD.
Even without any technical knowledge - just analyzing his statements using logic - there are so many inconsistencies in what he says that it is impossible to conclude that he has any "expert" knowledge even within the field he's claiming to be an expert in
Now - if you have any domain knowledge regarding the technical issues themselves, it's even worse. I wasn't laughing while I read the deposition - my jaw was sitting on my lap, and it stayed there during the whole read. I haven't read worse fiction since I tried to read
And, not being a lawyer (dumb or otherwise), NYCL, I'm sure you'll correct me if my summary is wrong, but this is what I get out of it:
1) The facts he is supposed to be testifying about are not, as far as the court is concerned, facts, because they have not been established via any known, vetted, and peer-reviewed procedure generally agreed upon by practitioners in the area.
2) Since there are no facts to testify ABOUT, his testimony is invalid/inadmissable and a waste of time.
3) Since his testimony is inadmissible, UMG has no expert testimony - they have no "facts" that can be used to identify Ms Lindor.
4) Since they cannot identify Ms Lindor, there is no basis for the suit.
5) Since the "facts" used in ALL cases by the RIAA are collected in the same manner, granting this motion would have the effect of preventing the same methods being used in any OTHER cases
How's that?
As a lawyer I've done the legal research on this point: there is no law requiring you to click every link.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
His testimony is inadmissible because it totally fails the "reliability" tests established by Daubert and Fed. R. Evid. 702. I have never heard of an expert failing so miserably.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Which is better? a) let the expert witness testify because you know he's no expert and will only make the side he's trying to help look stupid, or b) show beforehand that he's not competent, and on that basis don't let him testify. Oh, and use this in court to demonstrate that the RIAA doesn't vet their "experts". The grandparent is thinking a) is maybe the better course of action. I'd definitely go with b). Why wait to demonstrate their stupidity? So you can make them look even dumberer? When you've beat someone in a chess game but they won't resign, do you finish them as quickly and simply as you can, or toy with them? You finish them quick. If you mess around, there's always the chance you'll make some horrible mistake, and lose. Messing around sure isn't going to make your chess play look more brilliant.
The big "dick" part I saw was this:
Q. Have you formed an opinion as to whether Marie Lindor personally uploaded any copyrighted files to anyone?
A. The computer whose IP address has been identified as being registered to Ms. Lindor has been shown to have made songs available, copyrighted material available to the internet community through peer-to-peer software.
What kind of crap answer is that? The "expert" could've just said "no". Everything else in that deposition makes it painfully clear the expert simply hasn't enough info to say one way or the other whether the defendant committed the particular crime. But what does the expert do? Barfs out a spurious accusation. His answer made about as much sense as this: "Q: Do you have an opinion about whether Ms. Lindor exceeded the speed limit?" "A: A car once registered at a street address once occupied by Ms. Lindor has been shown to have exceeded the speed limit" as if people never change addresses or cars, or sometimes let others drive their cars, or have their cars or license plates or identities stolen, or have to straighten out incorrect records, typos, or are recorded by poorly designed or maintained equipment that gives inaccurate measurements, etc. So, no, I don't agree with the GP that everything the expert said was correct or factual. That was a "dick" answer that expert gave. Why the heck didn't he just answer "no"?!? And that is just one of many real problems with his answers.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Well, If he was the same expert witness used in many cases, could this in some way give ground for appeal on the other cases? (IANAL)
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
Some here just don't seem to realize that you are used to making a valid referral as a confirmation for what you present in the courtroom as fact. They should realize this is very similar to the process of the creation and presentation of academic and scientific papers as well as a well done and well referenced business proposal.
Have you ever thought about how effective it might be if a judge and jury could be assisted in their decision making by computers with just the evidence from the case in it comletely with hyperlinks and and a search function? Once cited unless denied relavent case decisions are part of the evidence, correct? Would be amusing to have all those RIAA court failures and withdraws for ready viewing to judges and juries. Of course I could see the RIAA lawyers objecting to this "it would be highly prejudicial against our case if the jury sees those citations and realizes that not a single one of them shows our client as the 'winner' of the case" and of course they would seek permission to approach the bench to make that objection, not wanting the jury to hear it. Slashdotter on jury duty for a pornagraphy case: "ok, let's review the evidence".
Please make a reference to this idea in your records as well as the fact that this AC, barring prior art, assigns the idea of computer software which gives only specific case related evidence access to juries while barring access to games, the internet, etc as being given to the public domain and therefore should be no patent issued to anyone for it. Please note that the previous request to add to your records is a Pro Bono request, I can't afford to pay you for it and of course you are under no obligation to do so.:) It may also be irrelevant since you or other lawyers may have previous prior art in the idea itself even if no actual code been created.:)
MediaSentry is the software that detected the sharing of files and provided the initial IP address that was used to subpoena the account information. It's list of files available and the IP address of the computer that was sharing them is central to the case. In Florida, drunken driving cases have been thrown out because the manufacturer of the breathalyser wouldn't disclose the source code or internal workings. I think the defendant should have a right to inspect the MediaSentry source code. Otherwise they could A) purposely make it output certain (or random) numbers or B) have a bug in their application that would lead to improper identification. I don't think this guy even actually used MediaSentry, he was simply provided with logs from MediaSentry that were accumulated by someone else.
His report states the following:
He can't do that. It's impossible. there is no way he can use those materials to prove that a computer owned by the defendant was used. Throughout his deposition he gives misleading and weasly answers. "I'll show the defendant's computer was used", yet he cannot and in fact found no evidence on her hard drive. He's getting paid by the RIAA, but his duty as an expert is to give his accurate interpretation of the evidence. We've all seen on TV (and in the SCO vs. IBM litigation) that some experts will say anything for money. This appears to be another case of that. He not only makes "technical" mistakes in attempting to describe it to a layperson, he makes glaring errors and omissions to further his client's case.
His report has this error shortly after his credentials:
He doesn't mention NAT or proxy servers at all. There can actually be many computers sharing a single public IP address. NAT (Network Address Translation) is when one computer or device separates two networks. On one side of the device, computers can have different addresses. When they want to communicate to the other side of the device, they use the device as a gateway. The NAT device then uses it's own IP address on the other side. There can be many computers on the "internal" side, but they all look the same to computers or devices on the other side of the NAT device. Imagine you live in a house with two friends, Joe and Moe. Joe gets a subscription to Scientific American and Moe gets a subscription to Playboy, but they only fill out the address. When the mail comes, you give Joe the Scientific American and Moe the Playboy because you know they requested them. The magazines only know someone at your address has a subscription. Even though there are three people living at that address, the magazines can't tell.
Proxy servers can also be used to mask the final destination. Think of it almost as a post-office box. Many people can rent PO boxes from one address. They come to that address to get their mail, then they take it home to their personal address. The place with the PO Boxes might not even have your personal address, like a proxy server might not store logs. This is especially the case when someone with nefarious intent got you to install something on your computer without your knowledge to make it act as a proxy s
Dude, you're an asshat.
Right out of my Analytical Troubleshooting Techniques class,
which is unfortunately not taught anymore.
I use no sharing software of any kind, other than on my local (private) network,
which is only for data not media, but but I would definitely want your services
if anything like this bogus lawsuit happened to me!
Former geek, now I can rest...
> "He can't do that. It's impossible. there is no way he can use those materials to prove that a computer owned by the defendant was used."
By that I think he meant that he could demonstrate that she did not have a wireless router, and therefore that the computer belonged to her. Yes, a friend could have come by and plugged in, but ruling out wireless squatters as a scapegoat is a significant achievement for the plaintiff.
> "His report has this error shortly after his credentials: [...] He doesn't mention NAT or proxy servers at all."
That's like saying Newton's laws of motion are errors because of relativity. There are different levels of detail we can go into when discussing these things, and since he started with a postal analogy I think it's safe to say that NAT, proxies, etc., are a little bit beyond the scope of this introductory explanation. If you want to say he was imprecise or generalizing, fine, but he was not "wrong".
> "The expert that did the DNA test didn't save the results because they didn't show you were the father [...]"
Why on Earth should the expert for the plaintiff be required to save the results of the test? Let him do whatever the hell he wants to with his test, if he has no further use for it then he can throw it out for all I care. I have my own copy of the test results and the source material after all.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Wow. I've never seen anyone stand up to NYCL like that before. Well done, friend.
NYCL, we appreciate the fight your putting up against the RIAA on behalf of all the victims of its meritless lawsuits, but that doesn't give you an immunity to criticism. If you were not in the position you're in now, I think you might find that more people would have the guts to call you out for your somewhat inflammatory debating tactics
Ah, that was a fun part of the deposition. Yes, Mr. Beckerman was right to call him out on that and ask him repeatedly for an answer. The downside was that he did the same thing at other times when Jacobson was actually answering a malformed technical question as best as he could, and it didn't produce the result Beckerman was looking for.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
"Er, I believe that's incorrect. I too can't say for sure as I have no familiarity with kazaa, but it would seem to go against common sense to duplicate an external IP address in the payload of the packet, as that information is easily available to the receiver in the normal IP header. Furthermore, I think everything said about this in the deposition suggested that the kazaa data did contain the internal IP address, or else the entire matter would not be relevant. I would expect Jacobson to get this part correct more than any other, because it is directly related to his use of MediaSentry, whereas some other networking details might be outside his domain of work with the RIAA."
Well the protocol is proprietary and it has been partly reverse-engineered, so I'd be careful with the "common-sense" aspect until one understands the methadology behind the entire protocol.
His testimony in the Lindor case will wind up burying him in every case where the defendant has the ability to fight back, which sadly is almost never the case.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
That's a good point. I hadn't thought of it before. It is indeed a part of my training to produce citations to authority for what I am saying. (And I don't understand objecting to that : (a) those who want to read further click the link; (b) those who don't, don't.)
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Why would anyone want an attorney that played all warm and fuzzy with the other side. Do you think they should have went to a day-spa before the deposition so that they could bond a little more. I bet he didn't even bring flowers and candy! My god, it looks like he put his client's interests above the interests of a scam/expert witness!
Mr. Rizz, I humbly submit that if you were a defendant in a case brought against you for mulitple thousands of dollars, you would be rightly pissed off if the attorney that you were paying for gave free-passes to the plaintif and their claims against you. All I can say about your diatribe is that it's pretty lame.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
There are a few commenters who are missing the point of the motion, which is what the article is about.
Thanks for reminding them.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Thanks jgoemat. Good analysis of some of the fallacies in this guy's underlying reports.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Thanks edward2020. And you were a lot more polite than the comment you were responding to.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
There are a few commenters who are missing the point of the motion, which is what the article is about.
This is Slashdot. Of course there are! And most of the rest didn't even read the summary, let alone TFA.before you discredit this organisation for having such a bad apple among them;
In his CV and in the other papers he does not mention who the certifying body is/was.
its just one line on page 21
XIII. Professional Activities
2004 Certified Computer Forensic Examiner
2001-present Member InfraGard
I'm willing to bet with you, if it is the organisation you mentioned, they will be really pissed about his incompetence when it comes to propper procedures in forensic examinations. So please don't give this organisation a bad name without forensicly sound evidence that he is one of them
But he will be deposed tomorrow in another case, I guess he can answer the question who certified him, if renewals of certification are mandatory and so on. And he can hopefully answer this time exactly how many reports he had written for RIAA so far. Last time he was not sure how many exactly (~200)
I'm pretty sure that this is the first case out of those 25,000 that's actually made it to trial.
No sig today...
why is that part you refer to prove that NYCL is a dick?
/. discussions are a bit questionable. But using THIS deposition as an example for his behaviour here is as wrong.
This expert has a CV spanning over dozends of pages.
In the moment questioner found out he claimed to not know the meaning of something he is asking him about his educational background.
Questions about educational background seems to be routine business when deposing "experts". See the millin deposition in canada for example where MediaSentry president was the RIAA expert.
NYCL did not asked Jacobson those questions about his education at the beginning. So at this point in the depositon where NYCL got the alleged feeling something about an answer makes no sense was the right time to ask his educational background.
a handful of questions about his educational background isn't what I would call being a dick
A. No, "inculpated." Would you please define that for me.
Q. Do you not know what the word "inculpated" means?
A. That's correct.
Q. Are you familiar with the word "exculpate"?
A. No.
Q. What is your educational background?
A. Computer engineering.
Q. Well, which school did you attend? Did you get a Bachelor's degree?
A. Yes.
Q. What school?
A. Iowa State University, science and technology.
Q. When did you graduate?
A. With which degree?
Q. When did you get your Bachelor's degree?
A. 1980.
Q. Do you have any other degrees?
A. I hold a Master of Science in electrical engineering.
Q. When did you get that?
A. 1982.
Q. Any other degrees?
A. A Doctor of Philosophy, Ph.D., in computer engineering.
Q. When was that?
A. 1985.
Q. And you are associate professor at Iowa State University?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you do not know what the word "exculpate" means?
A. That's correct.
__ finishing of the question complex you claim make him a Dick.
But you and others are right. NYCL attitute in
You are so full of shit.
You use a phrase like "reasonable doubt" when talking about a legal issue and then essentially claim you didn't mean it in a legal sense, that in effect it's just a coincidence that it happens to be a legal term? Please. And then you call the guy "a dick" for doing exactly what is required to effectively represent his client, and yet you whine and complain and try to bullshit when he points out the flaws in your thinking?
Do you think they should have went to a day-spa before the deposition so that they could bond a little more.
Give 'em time. Everybody's just sniffin' butts to get to know each other. Let them call the first three week "extension", and then it's off to Steamboat Springs! For a little some...uh..."discovery"...yeah...Mmmm, baby.
To you, NYCL, I shall be grateful that people stand up to a system that, to me, has no remaining trust whatsoever, so much so to render written law almost useless. However, I will always find it very disturbing to think that we must plead for our lives to people have a gun to our heads, and pray they abide by the written rules that they themselves created for our "benefit". Only by their "mercy" we aren't just farting into the wind with our expensive arguments. They have the weaponry to take it or leave it.
That said, I can only quote the late, great JC:
"May you have the income of a Republican and the sex life of a Democrat!"
What?
"There is no "prosecution"; this is a civil case." - NYCL
"There is no concept of "reasonable doubt" in a civil case." - NYCL
Based on the level of your reading comprehension I can see why you might interpret the transcript in the way that you do.
When this case is over would it be practical to create some sort of inexpensive "template" people could use in cases where this witness was involved?
it is not yet at the trial stage yet.
last time I checked its still in the discovery phase. (or something like that, since the judges order that discovery ends 60 days after hdd inspection and it is a bit doubious if he interprets those "drafts" as a deadline setting point. And on the "rate a judge" website I stumbled accross, he is described as fair, but not as a judge that is tough in enforcing deadlines)
it was the Santangelo case was 5 seconds before trial, with preperation dates set, when RIAA caved in. The lindor case is theorethicaly far awa
So if RIAA want to keep their game running and make sure that their "expert" will not be burned they can now stipulate to a dismissal if they want to prevent damage that will shut down all their othr running and future cases if the "expert" gets judicially discredited as useless for the cases!
At least someone else got what I was trying to say.
I said he never corrected me because he never said what the correct terms were.
Where, in either one of those statements, did he actually tell me what the correct terms to use were? Pointing out errors is not the same as correcting them.
How much of this is down to the industry practice?
They ask if he is in a professional body, but all he has is a doctorate in computing, and training in forensics, which puts him head and shoulders above others in the field in terms of qualifications.
He's an engineer, he did what they ask of him.
I'm surprised there wasn't a more structured procedure for the examination of the disk, I know if I was billing the RIAA for my time I'd be sure to send them long documented lists of things checked for, even if the check turned out negative, and bill them for each printout of relevant settings.
But I'm not sure what beyond that could reasonably be expected. I don't think the field has quite reached the level of forensic pathology, not least IT is a rapidly moving target, and thus not only the tools and techniques, but also the things being looked for move rapidly. Where as in forensic pathology there are a few more constants, and more established and formal procedures.
Actually, I hadn't read his original report, and did not know he was making this claim (I don't recall this being in the deposition either, but I could have just missed it - it was a long document). This is the first time I've even seen this brought up here and directly referenced. From the deposition I assumed that there was no way that either this guy, or the lawyers, would make such a claim since it is so obvious from his testimony he couldn't back it up.
As for the rest of your comments, read Workaphobia's post above (no need to waste space saying the same things he already said).
And in civil trials, it's referred to as the plaintiff. And, actually, in criminal court (where 'prosecution' is the appropriate word) the government is required to share any evidence it collects with the defendant, even if it doesn't plan to use that evidence itself.
But this is all irrelevant, and kind of pedantic of me. What is important here is that Dr. Jacobson, through his own admissions, can't be used as an expert witness. The RIAA should have known this, and found someone with a better (and peer-reviewed) methodology long before now. The problem is they've been lax - too many people, scared by the amount they could be sued for, settle out of court.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
The system can threaten everybody, but it can't actually carry out against everybody. If every person who has traded a file on a P2P network was sent to jail today, there wouldn't be enough of a population in the US to actually run the prisons, farms, and... um... prison-related manufacturing firms.
Yes, I know, this is a civil, not a criminal matter. But remember, they can't take it from everybody - there's not enough cops in the world to arrest all the non-cops in the world.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Better hope we can defend ourselves against this. Could we classify Britney as such?
What?
Beckerman Your efforts are heroic in my eyes. While the plight of the people being targeted by the RIAA is not a story or game, I can picture that deposition in a "Based on a true story" Grisham movie. It was that compelling to me. Thank you for pursuing this and seeking the help of these communities. We are some of the only folks who see it happening, and only bringing this knowledge forward can help stop this madness. Cheers.
Ruling out a wireless router would be beneficial to the plaintiff, but I don't think he did. He specifically noted that her computer was setup for DHCP. My wireless router can be setup for DHCP also. It seemed from his deposition that he may have been referring to metadata transmitted to Kazaa that said the computer knew its public internet IP address, but applications can discovery that through a NAT and specifically some applications using the Kazaa network do that. Also it could have been someone plugging in to her connection even without a wireless router.
My main problem is that one of his conclusions, that he says he will prove in court, is that Ms. Lindor's computer was used to distribute the songs, yet he cannot prove that and he knows it. It's like the scene of a murder where you have just a pool of blood and a missing butcher knife. An expert could attest to the fact that a murder took place because so much blood was lost, but they couldn't prove that the butcher's knife was the murder weapon without finding it or the body. The person could have been shot or stabbed with a different weapon for all they know and the butcher knife could have been taken to throw them off.
I agree with you a bit here that he doesn't have to go into that great of detail, but his statement is wrong. Every device connected to the internet does not necessarily have a unique public IP address. I think this would be akin to him saying that objects can accelerate to superluminal velocity according to Newton. Not only can he not prove that a NAT wasn't used, he can't prove that it was Ms. Lindor's computer, yet he claims to be able to.
I think you're right here. In a perfect world, an expert would be independent and simply report all of his findings, but I don't think that is required for civil cases in the United States. It seems all right to me since they are willing to concede that the hard drive didn't have any file sharing software or MP3s on it.
> "Ruling out a wireless router would be beneficial to the plaintiff, but I don't think he did. He specifically noted that her computer was setup for DHCP. My wireless router can be setup for DHCP also."
He ruled out NAT by showing that a kazaa packet from her external IP address contained an internal IP address (in the data payload of the packet) that matched. If NAT had been present, it would have been translating her public IP address to a private one in the range of 192.168.1.x (for instance) and the addresses would not have matched. Because most consumer routers (and indeed all the ones I've ever used) do not allow you to disable NAT, and we disregard such absurdities as the notion of Ms. Lindor hacking her firmware, the absence of NAT proves (at least to my satisfaction) the absence of any router on her home network, including wireless ones.
DHCP has little to do with the equation. If she were directly connected to her ISP with no layer-three device in-between, she would probably still be using DHCP to obtain an IP address.
> "It seemed from his deposition that he may have been referring to metadata transmitted to Kazaa that said the computer knew its public internet IP address, but applications can discovery that through a NAT and specifically some applications using the Kazaa network do that."
Because the internal and external IP addresses matched, there was no internal lan segment - just a connection between her computer and her ISP.
> "Also it could have been someone plugging in to her connection even without a wireless router."
Absolutely, but because we may now assume it would have to be a wired connection, that severely limits Ms. Lindor's ability to lay the blame on random strangers.
> "I agree with you a bit here that he doesn't have to go into that great of detail, but his statement is wrong. Every device connected to the internet does not necessarily have a unique public IP address. I think this would be akin to him saying that objects can accelerate to superluminal velocity according to Newton. Not only can he not prove that a NAT wasn't used, he can't prove that it was Ms. Lindor's computer, yet he claims to be able to."
But Newton's laws DO say that you can accelerate to superluminal velocities. There's no bound on speed in the Newtonian world. If Jacobson is "wrong" to claim that everyone on the internet has an IP address, then high school physics teachers are all spreading utter misinformation when they teach F = ma. If we accept via the argument above that there is no NAT, and we also accept that the original information generated by MediaSentry and Verizon are all accurate (big ifs, of course), then the offending computer must have been plugged in to her physical connection. Because it was her residence, it is reasonable (but not absolutely sound) to conclude that it was her computer.
> "It seems all right to me since they are willing to concede that the hard drive didn't have any file sharing software or MP3s on it."
The issue I had with this was that Jacobson was being blamed specifically for not documenting evidence that did not exist. He found that the hard drive did not contain file sharing software, but the defense somehow wanted more from that - they wanted the prosecution to produce evidence detailing exactly how the incriminating evidence was absent. This is of course absurd because it is sufficient to say no evidence was found.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Do you actually spend time to check that foe list periodically to see if it has new additions? I think you need a healthier hobby, like making hats out of tin foil or posting skeptical comments to stories about the moon landing.
Ray, I know you mean well, and I'm glad that you post here.
Having said that, you have to stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being an RIAA troll. This is Slashdot; people will argue with you for the sake of argument. That doesn't mean they're on some sinister agency's payroll, though. You'd even "foe'd" me once after calling me one. I'm not. I'd just disagreed with you on some point or another, but I probably hate them more than you (since it's your job to keep things on a professional level and I'm not so bound).
Again, thanks for contributing real content to Slashdot. Please don't cheapen it, though, by slinging names at everyone who argues with you. Want to see real trolling? Let people figure out that they can get a rise out of you. That will definitely draw them out.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
UMG (http://new.umusic.com/flash.aspx) is the primary group suing this person. Some of their artists include
Beautiful South
Cardigans
Def Leppard
Texas
Peter Gabriel
Razorlight
Sheryl Crow
By buying CDs or digital tracks by these artists, you are helping to fund this lawsuit. Please stop!
UMG's artist lists can be found at:
http://new.umusic.com/Artists.aspx?Index=0
http://new.umusic.com/Artists.aspx?Index=1
http://new.umusic.com/Artists.aspx?Index=2
http://new.umusic.com/Artists.aspx?Index=3
http://new.umusic.com/Artists.aspx?Index=4
http://new.umusic.com/Artists.aspx?Index=5
Oh, and save your fingers with the usual responses that I see like
"I wouldn't even p2p that stuff"
"Thank gods they all suck too much for me to listen to"
etc.
Obviously hundreds of thousands of people HAVE bought this music, and these are the ones that you need to educate. If you are one of these people, please stop supporting terrorism!
This comment deserves to be seen! I've been posting here for a lot longer than /. has been covering RIAA issues in the depth it does now, and yet I was _still_ accused of being an RIAA troll by NYCL just because I argued with him.
Dismissing a person's arguments just because you think they represent someone is dangerous at best, and just labelling everyone who disagrees with you as an RIAA troll will lead to a lot of useful information and discussing being missed.
Having said that, you have to stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being an RIAA troll. This is Slashdot; people will argue with you for the sake of argument. That doesn't mean they're on some sinister agency's payroll, though.
I will consider what you are saying, and take it to heart.
But this AC wasn't "disagreeing" with me, he was trying to discourage people from reading and participating:
nothing to see here. Move along.Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Me? Questionable?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The problem was not so much as his testemony about the HD & his findings, as he was also supposed to testify about the process of identifying the IP address & ownership of the account using the IP address. Because he had no information about how the IP address was obtained, he can't testify to it's accuraccy - thus the questions reguarding failure rate etc. Because he doesn't know how the IP information was stored by the ISP, he can't testify to the accuracy of linking the customer's computer to the IP address at the specific time in question.
IIRC, he could theoretically testify reguarding the contents of the HD, but there again, I do not believe he used any approved forensic methods to make any determinations reguarding the contents. If not, again, he fails the standard of generally accepted methodology.
In short, he's supposed to be in for 3 things - explaining how the RIAA got the IP address, how the address was tied to the PC, and finally how the HD showed evidence of the files. According to the rules governing evidence & experts, he can't testify for the first 2, & the third one is at best debatable - with it actually giving more weight to the defense than to the RIAA. In that situation, he shouldn't be there at all because he's worthless for 2/3 of the job & a loose cannon on the last one.
Holy crap! Did someone on Slashdot just make an actual proper-sounding analogy? (Too bad it didn't mention a comparison to cars or an unlocked front door...)
I agree 100%.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
Thanks, broKenfoLd. Much appreciated.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Thank you, AC. Nice to see someone who reads.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Defend your position, but treat those who disagree with you as if they were valued colleagues so long as they keep from being overly rude.
Ignore trolls and flamebait. Respond only if they say something you know is wrong and that most people won't realize is wrong. If you do respond to a troll, keep your response short and to the point.
I would apologize if I believed I was wrong. I have done so in other posts in the past. However, nothing you have said has made me believe that my comment was wrong; in fact your comments have done nothing but solidify my belief on that issue.
As for my choice of terminology, would you have preferred "jackass" instead? "Prick"? "Asshole"? I had a comment about how you acted according to the transcript, and chose the least rude and insulting word that I felt adequately conveyed my thoughts on the matter.
While many other people on Slashdot may give you a free ride just because you're "on our side", I choose not to. Refute my claims, accept them, or ignore them; but do not make me out to have nothing valid to say just because I called you out on dickish behavior when others dared not do so.