Slashdot Mirror
Judge OK's MediaSentry Evidence, Limits Defendant's Expert
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the judge has denied the defendant's motion to suppress the MediaSentry evidence for illegality, holding that MediaSentry's conduct did not violate any of the three laws cited by the defendant. The judge also dismissed most of the RIAA's objections to testimony by the defendant's expert, Prof. Yongdae Kim, but did sustain some of them. In his 27-page decision (PDF), Judge Davis ruled that Prof. Kim could testify about the 'possible scenarios,' but could not opine as to what he thinks 'probably' occurred. The court also ruled that, 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case, the Court excludes Kim's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant's Internet account through an unprotected wireless access point. Similarly, because Kim explicitly testified that this case
does not involve any "black IP space," or any "temporarily unused" IP space ...., he is not permitted to opine at trial that hijacking of black IP space or temporary unused IP is a possible explanation in this case.' Dr. Kim was also precluded from testifying as to whether song files were conspicuously placed in a shared files folder or were wilfully offered for distribution. The judge also precluded him from testifying about Kazaa's functioning, but it was unclear to me what the judge was precluding him from saying, because the offered testimony seemed to relate only to the question of whether the Kazaa-reported IP address precluded the possibility of the device having been run behind a NAT device."
I'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained. Then again, since apparently it's now OK to snoop on other computers for purposes of obtaining evidence to use against someone, perhaps I'm just a bit slow to recognize that this is the dawn of a whole new industry!
Is there a jury involved in a situation like this, or is a judge looking at possible testimony and then deciding which of that testimony he (himself) is allowed to hear vs which he (himself) isn't?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
if by snoop you mean connect to a program that the user willfully loaded and interact with that program in it's normal manner of operation then yes people can do that.
assuming otherwise is as silly as the "if you are a cop you are not allowed to enter this site" disclaimers that used to be all over the internet
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Simple. Change this:
The court also ruled that, 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case, the Court excludes Kim's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant's Internet account through an unprotected wireless access point.
To this:
The court also ruled that, 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case, the Court excludes Kim's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant's Internet account.
Then a demonstration. Take a PC into the courtroom and hook it to a cablemodem. Then tell the guys at Defcon to give the judge a live demonstration of pwnage.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.