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."
Why do they insist on calling p2p itself illegal? Do they actually understand the law at all, or are they relying on public ignorance to keep them justified?
Wait....nevermind...
"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..."
Limewire is illegal? What other "p2p networks" are illegal? Good to see that the judicial system is finally wising up to those weasel-worded bastards.
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.
On one side we have a massive industry with an unlimited supply of lawyers (and public officials) and on the other side we have somebody who's obviously right.
Let's see which way this one swings.
[Although the phrase "Michigan's legislature and governor have backed the agency's position that an investigator's license was required" does make me cautiously optimistic - Let's get this one right, Michigan!]
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Gotta love that: "If we need a license, everyone that uses Limewire needs a license." Sorry, but the rest of the world isn't hired by the RIAA specifically to start legal proceedings based on the data they are collecting. There is a difference.
All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
when they're under oath. Right now they're speaking through their mouthpieces, who will say anything, anything at all, no matter how nonsensical it is. It will be hysterical when one of the actual crooks is actually required to testify under oath about his or her illegal conduct. I'm betting (a) they take the Fifth, and (b) the RIAA's whole litigation campaign goes down the tubes.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Nobody likes MediaSentry but they do make a compelling case. If you require a PI license in order to simply view logs of connections to your machine and to contact the people referenced in those logs then the law would be extended to a lot of other things.
If I not mistaken I thought the line between requiring a PI license and not is simply where the information exists... If you are using third parties or other people's hardware then a PI license if clearly warranted.
But on the other hand if all the information you're using is in-house then the license is simply not warranted or helpful.
I don't think it would serve the public good at all to require a PI license, particularly if all Network/System Administrators ended up requiring one.
It also wouldn't stop SafeNet/MediaSentry from operating the way they currently do.
It also, ostensibly, involves the chain of custody of evidence.
You can't exactly present a file called "IllegalDownloaders.txt" to a court of law and have it be proof. Yes, anyone can view the data that they collect(IPs, etc). So far, they have been using "We are a giant corporation! Of course we would not lie!" to vouch for the authenticity of their data. MediaSentry has never been through any sort of rigors whatsoever. It could be a seagull pecking at a number pad for all we know.
Everybody knows that the law wasn't written to apply to important people!(or their hired lackeys, unless a scapegoat is needed)
Good heavens, the commoners are getting quite out of hand. They'll be demanding perjury charges for false DMCA takedowns next!
Indeed, every search engine and Internet user would be required to have a private investigator license if MediaSentry needs one.
But not everyone using a search engine or collecting data from a p2p client are doing so for the purpose of presenting evidence in court.
Nice try.
By claiming that you shouldn't need a license to practice these types of claims, MediaSentry has essentially decided that any simple google search of a user should suffice as verifiable evidence. The reason the law was created, and the reason that the law exists is to make sure that the supposed evidence is actually legitimate. A private investigator is likely to do a real search into the evidence to see if it is legitamate, whereas a simple google search leaves no proof, but merely a statement of possibility. If someone were trying to deceive people who were spying on them, they might use a false IP address, and thereby throw off the untrained. This is why governments require a PI license, and why these ready, shoot, aim lawsuits aren't legally sanctioned. It's based on the idea that most of the time they'll get it right, not proof that they're right first.
IANAL, but AFAIK, anybody can collect that type of evidence already and testify in court, provided that they are doing it as private citizens doing it in the interest of Justice. What Media-Sentry is doing is different: they are acting as paid agents of the RIAA, investigating on their behalf and charging money for it, without the proper licenses. It's the same as with home renovation; you don't need any type of license to renovate your own home, but you do if you act as a contractor, doing it on other people's property and receiving payment for your work.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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
I'd lean towards your opinion, except for one thing: There are a multitude of things you can do on your own behalf, but once you want to sell your services, it's different. [see: prostitution]
Electricians, cosmetologists, lawyers all do things that you could many times do yourself. But if you want to sell yourself as an expert to others, there are licensing and other rules.
While SafeNet might only be using public information, but who's to say they aren't also illegally tapping into information they aren't supposed to? If they were licensed P.I.'s their licence would be at risk if they violated the rules. Risk of their professional license is another way to keep them straight, for things that criminal and civil law don't cover.
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.
Most of the information investigators collect comes from 'publicly available sources'. Safenet's argument is totally meaningless; there is no exemption for evidence gathered from 'publicly available sources'. They're just blowing smoke.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Yes! Just the other day, I wanted to take some kid's appendix out. But, the damn Nanny State government said I actually needed to have a medical license! What kind of fascist dictatorship are we living in, anyway?
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I've mentioned it elsewhere in this thread, but the ubiquitous use of the word "theft" in the context of p2p file-sharing is a slur, not unlike the use of the "n word" in reference to african americans.
It is used to denigrate the practice and practicers of p2p file-sharing (more often than not no matter what the material shared is).
Is there not some basis for a suit in that?
I would imagine there must be a legal reason why more partisan news sources don't use the term "towel head" in reference to people of arabic descent or "kike" in reference to people of jewish descent.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
This move seems more like a maneuver against the RIAA then a chance to catch Safenet doing something illegal. The impression I received from reading the article [beckermanlegal.com] you wrote concerning the RIAA's legal practices was that Safenet only made it to the stand a handful of times at most, and each time made no attempt to insist their methods met the relevant reliability standards.
It has not yet been deposed even once.
With that in mind, it seems like the RIAA lawyers are the ones presenting Safenet as legitimate investigators, and then dismissing the case once in possession of the desired name.
You are confusing the "John Doe" cases with the "named defendant" cases. In the "named defendant" cases the MediaSentry investigator is the RIAA's sole fact witness.
Putting Safenet under the spotlight puts their methods directly in question, and offers the chance to expose a part of the RIAA's own methodology that seems to much harder to achieve when directly dealing with the RIAA's suits and actions. All the same, criminal charges against Safenet for what they are doing specifically with technology and information might have unintended, negative consequences. Is the push to prosecute Safenet being put specifically into terms of it's actions as agent in the RIAA cases?
Of course it is. We don't know about their other illegal activities.
Downloading a file, verifying it's content, recording the IP address from which it came hardly seems illegal.
1. You might feel differently if someone accessed your hard drive under false pretenses. 2. Doing it without an investigator's license is certainly illegal. 3. It might even be illegal with an investigator's license, under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
All normal things that legitimate software might do.
It is software. You haven't persuaded me it's "legitimate".
>Safenet hands that information over to the RIAA, and the RIAA of course misuses that.
That, too. But Safenet and the 'expert' Dr. Doug Jacobson are partners in the misuse. Without being clear on the Michigan law, is it the last step, the releasing of that information to a client with the knowledge that it's going to be used in litigation, what specifically defines it as computer forensics and requires an investigator's license?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful