Slashdot Mirror
How To Frame a Printer For Copyright Infringement
An anonymous reader writes "Have you ever wondered what it takes to get 'caught' for copyright infringement on the Internet? Surprisingly, actual infringement is not required. The New York Times reports that researchers from the computer science department at the University of Washington have just released a study that examines how enforcement agencies monitor P2P networks and what it takes to receive a complaint today. Without downloading or sharing a single file, their study attracted more than 400 copyright infringement complaints. Even more disturbing is their discovery that illegal P2P participation can be easily spoofed; the researchers managed to frame innocent desktop machines and even several university printers, all of which received bogus complaints."
While entirely laughable, I'm glad this story is in the New York Times. Getting the Spanish Inquisition-esque ways of the these enforcement agencies out into the media is going to be one of the few ways to make it stop. Hopefully people (meaning the general public, and not just us here on /.) will soon realize just how ludicrous these methods are.
While I'm all for anything and everything that helps bring down the MAFIAA, sadly the case in this article is very weak. It only points out two things, both of which are already commonly known by almost everyone in IT.
1. IP addresses can be spoofed.
2. IP addresses assigned by DHCP will not always be assigned to the same MAC address.
Then there's a lot of hand-waving and implications that there's also all kind of other likely flaws in the methods used to find out who's participating in file-sharing.
The worst part of it though is how they throw in the whole thing of "we weren't actually downloading or sharing anything". No, they were just connecting to the tracker. And of course, everyone knows "pirates" commonly connect to torrent trackers to do nothing.
This bothers because if anyone were to point out how weak this case is in main-stream media, it could end up doing more harm than good.
We need some heavy ammo to shut them down, and I'm afraid this is not it.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
whoosh!
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Please don't confuse an RIAA investigation with a police investigation. The RIAA are not the police (yet....)
If I go outside every night wearing overalls covered in blood stains, dig holes in my front yard, and bury body sized bundles wrapped in garbage bags every night for a couple of weeks, I'll probably be investigated for murder.
You would be investigated, but if the only evidence presented at the case was the odd behavior you would be found not-guilty. The MPAA/RIAA use the odd behavior as not only the probable cause to investigate but also as the evidence to prosecute.
what logs are you referring to?
.iso) but that copyrighted files were being downloaded or explicitly 'shared'. I should not have to produce logs showing that there was NOT downloading. that's just absurd. the burden of proof should be on the accuser to show, without any doubt, that I participated in an 'illegal share'.
'home users' (even clueful ones) often don't keep 'logs' of AP activity. or, they simply roll-over and over-write log data, like a circular buffered log would do.
I keep intrusion logs from my firewall but that doesn't log ALL activity, just break-in attempts. and if you run an open AP that is outside your firewall (as is prudent to do) then there is no NEED to keep a log on that - its 'open' afterall. and if they want to get into your private LAN they need to jump thru your firewall just like any other traffic from the WAN would.
I have no logs other than simple unix syslogs (on my unix boxes) and some firewall logs intermixed (remote syslog). I would hope that simply NOT having 'logged all data' would not be held against me (?). home network users should not be held to ISP level logging and accounting standards.
my defense would be to compel THEM to show definitive data and not just that torrent was running (I could be grabbing the latest linux
if its mandatory that home users keep detailed logs, then this is a huge jump over what expectations we have right now about 'home computer users'. I wonder if expecting home computer users to be experts (keeping detailed logs to SHOW their innocence) is reasonable in the eyes of the court?
finally, if you run a home NAT then simply saying IP of a.b.c.d is just not enough. and most users do run some kind of NAT device in their home networks. its really hard to see how a single IP could back-point (so to speak) at the device that is being NAT-mapped.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
What? Conspire to subvert the legal system, and come close to perjury? I say, bring it on and let the jail terms fly.
Presumably, the EFF would vet their people, but I should think intentionally doing what you suggest might get you some kind of sanctions.
Then again, your cynicism might not be completely unfounded. Which, is a depressing thought.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This is slashdot... home of geeks... think outside the box a little, then re-read the parent post.
This entire thread is the sort of pure comedy gold that you'll never get at digg.
Now if only they could get rid of the big green splotches all over the pages.
A much easier way to frame someone for infringement. You will need; -the IP address of the target -a copy of what an infringement letter looks like (find them on the Internet) -software to alter or create a fake infringement letter Using the target's IP address, look up their ISP's snailmail address. Fake up your Infringement letter. Mail it to the ISP. Do this 3 to 5 times and your target will get booted from their ISP. ISP's do not check the validity of these letters.
Great idea.. now to just find a list of the home addresses of Federal judges, and their internet providers.. and some fsking way to figure out their IP addresses... and then.. we wait.
An interested party could figure out a judge's address. And when you've got that then you'd know who their potential local providers are. And once you know those you know the range of possible IP addresses. And once you've got that - brute force. Ping everyone. Any return ping gets a spoofed false positive. Or if you're of the 'nuke it from orbit' mindset, false positive the whole subnet.
Piece of cake. If someone were so inclined, that is. Not that I'd advocate anyone ever doing this, of course. Oh heavens, no.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
You were thinking that 3% was a low number? 3% of "tens of thousands" is hundreds of people. Not to mention, how are you measuring false positives? How do you know the people you're assuming are guilty actually are?
Apparently IP spoofing still works.
There. I just saved you 7 pages of walled text.
Ave Molech Setting
They don't need "fake" experts they just need "real" experts that emphasis points that they want heard and minimize points they don't. In an adversarial legal system each side does this; it's up to the jury to decide which expert is full of it.
Your point makes me wonder if in this day and age we don't need non-biased experts in the same way we need non-biased jurors. I would propose that each court district should have and online listing of which experts are needed, and volunteering to fill that need would fulfill one's jury service obligations.
We are all just people.