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."

Comments

Re:Geez too many links

[gEvil (beta)]

If you're interested in the most recent happenings in this case, then that would be the second link.

Re:Unreadable

[Dr. Eggman]

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.

Re:Am I the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA and follow the links.

The main argument is that all of his testimony is based on assuming the ISP and MediaSentry provided accurate information. MediaSentry and the ISP are not going to testify. In his deposition, the RIAA "expoert" stated he has no idea how MediaSentry or the ISP came to their conclusions. The cases sited require that the expert testimony start with verifiable facts, not with unverifiable information provided by third parties that will not even be in court.

Furthermore, the sited case law requires that the expert use peer reviewable methods. The RIAA's "expert" made up his own methods that have never been published or reviewed. So he can't be considered an expert by the court.

I kind of hope the judge refuses this motion. The RIAA's "expert" made enough errors in his deposition that he will be made a laughing stock on the stand.

Re:Is this the end of MediaSentry?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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?

1.Yes.

2. Yes.

Re:Am I the only one

[87C751]

I don't remember him specifically saying that a network card does not have an IP address, but I think I do remember him attributing IPs to computers. I do not consider this to be a mistake because there's no reason why we can't consider a single NIC to be part of a personal computer. Really, why make a distinction between the two unless there's more than one NIC on a single host? It does not affect the equation as far as NAT and other relevant aspects.

(note: I read the whole transcript)

You missed the part(s) where he continued to state that the public IP address identifies one, and only one, computer. Even after admitting the existence of NAT, he kept returning to this assumption.