Slashdot Mirror


Oklahoma Security Expert Attacks RIAA Claims

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A group of Oklahoma University students has made a motion to vacate the ex parte order the RIAA had obtained compelling the university to turn over their names and addresses. In support of their motion was the expert witness declaration (PDF) of a computer security and forensics expert who essentially attacked the entire premise of the RIAA's lawsuit, characterizing the declaration upon which the RIAA based its motion as 'factually erroneous' and 'misleading.' Among other things he pointed out that 'An individual cannot be uniquely identified by an IP address,' and that 'Many computers can be connected to the Internet with identical IP addresses as long as they remain behind control points.' The students are represented by the same Oklahoma lawyer who recently obtained a award for $68,000-plus in attorneys fees against the RIAA in Capitol v. Foster."

13 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Sad thing is... by Hsensei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No matter who comes out on top only the lawyers win. :/

    --
    ~
    1. Re:Sad thing is... by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is to be hoped that some of those students are going to BE lawyers one day, and all this lawyer hatin' conveniently ignores that many lawyers are idealists and work pro bono for good causes.

      I delight in seeing young people use the system to fight for their freedoms.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Sad thing is... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Countersuits are one way to deal with this. Though, I imagine most people just want to get everything over than enter another legal battle. Litigation is never a good solution to anything. It should always be a last resort. Unfortunately the RIAA doesn't see things that way.
      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  2. Oh come on by Token_Internet_Girl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Many computers can be connected to the Internet with identical IP addresses as long as they remain behind control points" Did the MAFIAA really think someone would overlook this point? Anyone with a class in Internet 101 knows that routers assign one IP address to represent whatever computers are attached to it. I'm glad their having their asanine package of BS handed right back to them.

    --
    Sure baby, I'll give you my phone number...in Hex
    1. Re:Oh come on by jfclavette · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe you should retake that Internet 101 class then. There are a few routers out there that assign different IP adresses to different 'computers.' In fact, that was pretty much the whole point of routers before NAT showed its ugly face.

    2. Re:Oh come on by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've got a Cisco 2600 series router that begs to differ with you.

    3. Re:Oh come on by fredklein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ARGH. Shudda previewed.

      the driver (the guilty party) can't be identified

      It's reasonable to assume that, since it's YOUR car, YOU are the driver.

      Just like, if YOUR specially autographed baseball bat was used to beat someone to death, it's reasonable for the cops to assume YOU did it. It's YOUR bat.

      If you have evidence to the contrary (like you know who was really driving the car, or you lent your bat to a friend), then you can present it.

      You can't accuse anyone of doing something illegal and prosecute them unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is guilty.

      Firstly, YES, you can. The whole point of 'prosecuting' some one is to have the trial to DETERMINE if they are guilty or not. There are plenty of people who are prosecuted and found 'Not Guilty'.

      Secondly, Traffic Fines (speeding, running red lights) are not treated as 'crimes' per se. They are often counted as 'Administrative fees' and such, in order to get around legal loopholes, such as "the accused has a right to face their accuser in court".

      Do I agree with this? No. But that's the way it is.

  3. Re:A little oversimplified... by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did you read the same brief I did? Because your quotes don't match with what is in the PDF file.

    Also, some of this is really atrocious. Early in the report it cites an example of someone downloading child pornography sitting in a car by "hacking" a wi-fi network. Only at the end of the report does it admit that the network was unsecured. If you connect to 'linksys' are you "hacking" that network? Would you use that term No. No "hacking" (in any reasonable sense) is going on.

    Here's what I see in the PDF: "An example of the dangers of open networks is the case of Walter Nowakoski. Nowakoski connected to unsecured home networks and used the bandwidth via unencrypted wireless networks to download child pornography. This is an example of criminals using networks of others to commit crimes so that the innocent are victims twice - once for the theft of their own network resource and then when they are wrongly accused for the illegal activity."

    Is the "expert" a native English speaker? "Botnet, Trojan, and Back Door are example of malicious codes..." Aside from the grammatical atrocities, I have never heard of my fellow software engineers referring to software programs as "codes."

    Not to be picky, but if you're going to comment on the man's grammar, at least have the courtesy to quote him correctly. He conjugates the verb correctly, saying "... are examples of malicious codes..."

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  4. Re:Heard in an RIAA conference room ... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And it's not just us, there have been many experts who've said the same. I think it's about time that someone with like this guy offer expert testimony to those who have been victimized by the MAFIAA.

    I don't hold out any hopes that the MAFIAA will listen or even care. The aim here is to establish legal precedent in a court of law that says the MAFIAA, when they use spurious technical evidence to try to extort thousands of dollars from people, doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. It doesn't matter whether they agree or not. All that matters is that judges know the truth and that truth gets added to the patchwork quilt of established law that is legal precedence.

  5. Re:Winning argument in a Minnesota court? by digitalchinky · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Are you so thick headed you cannot comprehend the greater purpose behind the humble red light camera - or how they work? Do you not understand the basic logic that if people stopped running red lights, then there would be no fines handed out, fewer accidents, thus no money in the guise of 'thinly veiled tax revenue'? I expect you would respond with all the fringe situations in which you think you have no choice but to run a red light - police are people too - explain your valid reason and you might even find they retract the fine, or suck it up and pay because you broke a law for the common good of society.

    Red light cameras are not just slapped at any and every intersection, generally they are only in areas that are more accident prone, or places with very high traffic flow. They are neither free to own or operate, over their lifetime very few will pay for themselves in the fines they are able to inflict.

    It is ludicrous to think these things are revenue generators. They exist to keep people, apparently like you, in line so that others can be safe.

    Now what would you say if your 'helmetless' sister died from preventable head injuries suffered because some moron ran a red light and legged it, never to be found? Morbid, yes, but it's all just revenue until it's too late right.

  6. Re:Winning argument in a Minnesota court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Their purpose is to make money, pure and simple. When these vigilantes start forgoing their fees, I'll start believing they're doing it for the good of the public. Right now, they're performing this "service" for the good of their bank accounts.

  7. why hasn't a judge censured the RIAA for this? by DragonTHC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    why aren't judges protecting the people?

    The law is not really in the RIAA's favor here.

    The RIAA has shown a history of fradulent law suits.

    Why aren't people countersuing for malicious prosecution?

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  8. Re:Lawyers and technology don't mix well.. by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ummm few things:

    1) Where did you get the idea all universities have tons of IPs? Some do, some don't. Also, a class B might seem like a lot, but if you've got 50,000 students, 20,000 departmental computers and servers, and you dole the IPs out in subnets to different departments (so they aren't 100% utilized) you start feeling the crunch more than you might think. Where I work we've got two class Bs (as we were in on the Internet game fairly early) and network operations has already begun working on renumbering the network to try and reclaim unused IPs. We haven't had to implement NAT on any campus level (though there are tons of little ones that random people run) but it is not something out of the question. Take a larger university with less IP space, you'd have little choice.

    2) NAT has other uses such as cloaking the activities of individual computers. You'll see places use NAT just for that, they don't want individual activity being traced based on IP. So they get a many-to-many NAT set up. You have say a couple hundred routable IPs with a couple thousand non-routable IPs behind them. The router picks out which public IP you get randomly, or round-robin, or whatever. Thus it ends up being impossible to figure out what is happening.

    3) Who says the university runs the NAT? You telling me you don't think students stick routers in their dorms? You telling me that you don't think they do that, and turn on unsecured WiFi (especially since many universities have extremely poor or non existent WiFi)? I know for a fact they do, because we always have problems with this on our campus.