Slashdot Mirror
University of Michigan Student Wants SafeNet Prosecuted
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "An anonymous University of Michigan student, targeted by the RIAA as a 'John Doe,' is asking for the RIAA's investigator, SafeNet (formerly MediaSentry), to be prosecuted criminally for a pattern of felonies in Michigan. Known to Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth — the agency regulating private investigators in that state — only as 'Case Number 162983070,' the student has pointed out that the law has been clear in Michigan for years that computer forensics activities of the type practiced by Safenet require an investigator's license. This follows the submissions by other 'John Does' establishing that SafeNet's changing and inconsistent excuses fail to justify its conduct, and that Michigan's legislature and governor have backed the agency's position that an investigator's license was required."
SafeNet/MediaSentry defended their actions by claiming their company simply "records public information available to millions of users. If private investigator licenses were required to do what MediaSentry does, every user on Limewire and other illegal p2p networks would be required to have a license. Indeed, every search engine and Internet user would be required to have a private investigator license if MediaSentry needs one."
What a bunch of cocks. Don't they understand that it's the combination of collecting the information and presenting it in court that is the issue here?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Our company runs LegalTorrents.com - completely legal P2P distribution as a service to Content Creators.
Anyone who falsely claims the P2P = illegal, you can simply send them a link to our site as a counter example. Oh yeah, and Jamendo, and BitTorrent, and many, many others.
If private investigator licenses were required to do what MediaSentry does, every user on Limewire and other illegal p2p networks would be required to have a license. Indeed, every search engine and Internet user would be required to have a private investigator license if MediaSentry needs one.
First, let me say- Uhh... no.
Here's the requirements, and some of them are quite interesting. Like:
A person, firm, partnership, company, limited liability company, or corporation shall not engage in the business of furnishing or supplying, for hire and reward, information as to the personal character of any person or firm, or as to the character or kind of business and occupation of any person, firm, partnership, company, limited liability company, or corporation and shall not own, conduct, or maintain a bureau or agency for the purposes described in this subsection except as to the financial rating of persons, firms, partnerships, companies, limited liability companies, or corporations without having first obtained a license from the department.
Hmm....
Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
Two questions, Mr. Beckerman: First, is there some court proceeding in progress which is likely to require one of the crooks to testify under oath?
There are many. In UMG v. Lindor we had noticed MediaSentry's deposition, and were awaiting rulings on our document subpoena from the Magistrate Judge, when the RIAA made a motion to drop their case. However, the case is pending at this time. There are plenty of other cases in which MediaSentry's deposition can and should be taken. E.g., Andersen v. Atlantic, Atlantic v. Boyer, Elektra v. Torres, Arista v. Does 1-27, Arista v. Does 1-17, LaFace v. Does 1-5, to name a few.
Second, assuming they do take the fifth, and the "evidence" upon which all of the cases are based is wiped out, won't SafeNet just hire some people with investigator's licenses to continue the farce? Or is there some reason that a legitimate, licensed investigator would refuse to participate?
I don't know.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Scott Moulton gave an excellent talk about Computer Forensics professionals needing Private Investigator (PI) licenses at Defcon 16. Basically the Private Investigator lobby has been pressing state legislatures to classify computer forensics as PI work. This does little to guarantee that the public is protected against poor/shoddy computer forensic work, and it does everything to increase the number of dues-paying members to the PI licensing body.
The law may be making the online community happen, in this instance, where it is causing the RIAA grief. But on the whole, laws like the Michigan law are not good for the computer forensic and computer security community.
Scott Moulton's talk at Defcon 16: http://defcon.org/html/defcon-16/dc-16-speakers.html#Moulton
Pretend I said something meaningful or insightful here.
The law is pretty clear here, it's a bad argument on SafeNet's part.
Section 338.822
(b) "Computer forensics" means the collection, investigation, analysis, and scientific examination of data held on, or retrieved from, computers, computer networks, computer storage media, electronic devices, electronic storage media, or electronic networks, or any combination thereof.
(e) "Investigation business" means a business that, for a fee, reward, or other consideration, engages in business or accepts employment to furnish, or subcontracts or agrees to make, or makes an investigation for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to any of the following:
(i) Crimes or wrongs done or threatened against...or any other person or legal entity.
(viii) Computer forensics to be used as evidence before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee.
Section 338.823
(1) A person, firm, partnership, company, limited liability company, or corporation shall not engage in the business of professional investigator for hire, fee, or reward,
It basically all comes down to the fee requirement and evidence to be used in front of a court.
Under the common law, it is only possible to sue for defamation of an individual or corporation, not an object or generic group. This is why it is perfectly safe for you to say things like: "Lawyers are all liars and thieves." Saying that about a particular lawyer would be defamatory, if false, but you cannot be sued for the same statement about lawyers as a group. It is only possible to sue for defamation of a generic group if a state has made specific provision for doing so. The only exception that I know of are the food defamation laws that the agricultural industry has persuaded about a dozen states to pass. These which create civil liability for claiming that a perishable food product or commodity is unsafe for human consumption.