Tufts Tells Judge, We Can't Tie IP To MAC Addresses

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Protesting that Tufts University's DHCP-based systems 'were not designed to facilitate forensic examinations,' but rather to ensure 'smooth operations and to manage capacity issues,' the IT Office at Tufts University has responded to the subpoena in an RIAA case, Zomba v. Does 1-11, by submitting a report to the judge (PDF) explaining why it cannot cross-match IP addresses and MAC addresses, or identify users accurately. The IT office explained that the system identifies machines, not users; that some MAC addresses have multiple users; that only the Address Resolution Protocol system has even the potential to match IP addresses with MAC addresses, but that system could not do so accurately. For reasons which are unclear, the IT department then suggested that the RIAA next time send them 'notices to preserve information,' in response to which they would preserve, rather than overwrite, the DHCP data, for the RIAA's forensic benefit."

Comments

Re:hehe

[drspliff]

How long until it makes law?

We were recently required to explicitly keep something like 6 months worth of call data records (although we keep many years worth already due to customer requirements) so that wasn't such an issue.

However, if ISPs (and universities or other large organisations) were suddenly required to keep track of all IP allocations for 6 months or more it'd cost a bucket load to implement.

Remember, kids...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember kids: Just because an IP address doesn't necessarily identify a person doesn't mean that copyright infringement is OK.

Re:What, me change MAC address? I wouldn't do that

[huge]

People should understand that MAC address is no more permanent than IP address is.

Unfortunately they don't.

Re:And the judge understood it?

[meringuoid]

I suppose in the US you have judges with clue. In the UK it's fuddy duddy old men in wigs who go "What is this 'internet'?"

You mean judges who know meaningless jargon when they hear it, and want all terms of reference used in their courtroom to be clearly defined.

What, exactly, legally speaking, is a 'website'? Where does one 'website' end and another begin? How does a 'site' differ from a 'page', if at all? Is a 'forum' part of a 'website', or only attached to it? Is there, as the media often says, a 'file sharing website' called 'BitTorrent' on which pirates trade music? What exactly is this 'Web' thing anyway, and how is it distinct from the 'Internet', if at all?

A lot of terms bandied about in common parlance regarding Internet services are very vague, and I'm glad to hear of judges demanding that they be defined clearly and unambiguously when in court.

Re:You don't have a loghost?

[sgbett]

And, of course, nobody has *ever* spoofed a MAC Address ....

Re:Be honest

[tooyoung]

How many kids have any clue whatsoever on how to do this? I'd wager most CIS and IS students don't even know how to do it

True, but I bet that most CIS and IS students know that you CAN do it. Then it becomes a simple matter of googling. The key here is that anyone who has taken a bAIX networking course has enough knowledge to dispute evidence crucial to the RIAA's case. The fact the RIAA is able to continually present this evidence in a court room tells me that
1. Judges and juries do not know enough about the technology that they are ruling on.
2. The RIAA's experts are deliberately misleading the judges and juries. This is not ethical and should have consequence.

Re:You don't have a loghost?

[MoeDrippins]

Spot on. The lack of clue within the RIAA is mindnumbing.

I suspect the RIAA knows EXACTLY what the technical facts are. But if they can still sue w/o having those get in their way, so much the better! (For them)

Remember this is law, not logic.