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.
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.
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
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
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.