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."
...how big is the school in question? I've been wondering recently whether the RIAA has ever gone after schools with big legal programs. Have they been avoiding a fight with students who might have a large number of friends training to be lawyers? I have visions of some professor who gets sufficiently aggravated that he assigns his entire class to bury the RIAA in legal briefs.
"Many computers can be connected to the Internet with identical IP addresses as long as they remain behind control points."
Yes, we all know this is true from a technical perspective. However, the RIAA is not as dumb as to ignore it. From the depositions in the Lindor case (posted earlier by NewYorkCountryLawyer) they are also relying on the fact that Kazaa (and workalikes) apparently include the local IP in the protocol. So if I'm behind my router, and my IP is 192.168.1.1, but my router's IP is 123.45.6.78, then the RIAA will see BOTH addresses and know whether there's some NATting going on with a pretty high degree of certainty. However, if Kazaa reports the local IP as 123.45.6.78 as well, then it's highly unlikely any more than a single computer is behind that IP.
Reading the report, the "expert" here appears to be completely ignorant of this fact.
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.
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." A back-door is not a "code" or a program, nor are botnets. Bots are, Trojan (Horses) are, and they can open back doors. Precision, please?
Do look at the expert's biography page on the site shilling his book. Plenty of asserted qualifications and certifications, although I don't see any formal degrees listed anywhere. It also asserts that "One final note Jayson was chosen as one of Time's persons of the year for 2006." (hint: so were you). The grammar in the bio is even worse than in the expert brief. Do a search for his name and you'll find precious little at all.
I'm not saying that the RIAA is doing due diligence; the Lindor briefs leave a lot in question (although less than most slashdotters would like). However, fighting back with equally specious and unresearched information doesn't seem to be a much better strategy.
I think the RIAAs point is that whoever runs that router (and, presumably, the network connection) is responsible for the traffic it passes.
Like a Red-light camera: they send the ticket to the owner of the car, not necessarily the driver. (Of course, in that case, the owner can simply prove it was not them, and provide the name of the driver, and the ticket will be re-assigned.)
I don't necessarily agree with this, but most ISP's have similar clauses in their TOS: You are responsible for whatever your equipment puts out/takes in over the network connection. I'm not sure what makes Starbucks (for instance) not liable if a wifi customer downloads kiddy porn, but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops. But I wish the 'immunity' applied to anyone.
The problem seems to be growing the awareness of these basic facts among the judiciary: cases like this can only help in that regard, I'd think. Those of the legal mind are fond of informing laymen that the law is complex and ever-changing and that only one who is properly trained could possibly comprehend its intricacies. I personally believe that the law is often more complex than it needs to be (and that is certainly no accident) but, okay, I'll buy that argument. As an engineer I cheerfully admit that the law is an arcane mystery, and I would certainly never set foot in court without proper representation.
However, the truth is that the global network and the technologies behind it are pretty goddamn complex as well, and change more often than the average trial lawyer changes his boxers. Gross oversimplifications and prevarifications regarding network technology, such as those pulled out of thin air by the RIAA's so-called "expert witness", have so far resulted in several severe miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately, while it is a necessity to have legal representation in a technical case, there seems to be no corresponding requirement that the legal beagles involved have a clue about technological underpinnings of said case. Given how successful the RIAA has been with the testimony of Mr. Linares, it's apparent that expert witnesses are of no help when the people making the legal decisions don't have the mental knowledge base to tell the wheat from the chaff.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
And I got news for you, that was heard in an RIAA conference room.
Only thing, they're not good listeners, as you may have noticed already.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Like a Red-light camera: they send the ticket to the owner of the car, not necessarily the driver. (Of course, in that case, the owner can simply prove it was not them, and provide the name of the driver, and the ticket will be re-assigned.)
Or, as in the case of Minneapolis' red-light cameras, the entire process is deemed unconstitutional because it presumes guilt rather than innocence.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
...I don't necessarily agree with this, but most ISP's have similar clauses in their TOS: You are responsible for whatever your equipment puts out/takes in over the network connection. That's a contract between the ISP, the customer, and no one else. I'm not sure what makes Starbucks (for instance) not liable if a wifi customer downloads kiddy porn, but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops. The person is, reasonably, a suspect.