Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules IP Addresses Not "Personally Identifiable"
yuna49 writes "Online Media Daily reports that a federal judge in Seattle has held that IP addresses are not personal information. 'In order for "personally identifiable information" to be personally identifiable, it must identify a person. But an IP address identifies a computer,' US District Court Judge Richard Jones said in a written decision. Jones issued the ruling in the context of a class-action lawsuit brought by consumers against Microsoft stemming from an update that automatically installed new anti-piracy software. In that case, which dates back to 2006, consumers alleged that Microsoft violated its user agreement by collecting IP addresses in the course of the updates. This ruling flatly contradicts a recent EU decision to the contrary, as well as other cases in the US. Its potential relevance to the RIAA suits should be obvious to anyone who reads Slashdot."
So on one end of the stick, you've got privacy advocates who hate Microsoft, who are thinking that collecting our IP addresses is wrong and violates our privacy.
There's more to it, though. Any sys admin could explain... Imagine trying to have a conversation with somebody by mail. They couldn't respond if they didn't take note of the return address, no? Fact of the matter is, for strictly technical reasons, use of the IP address is required.
But... For statistical and anti-abuse reasons, a log of IP addresses is kept (on any server, really). But don't get all pissy at microsoft for doing so. I mean, almost every site on the net keeps an http log, it's the default setting! The fact is, if you don't want them knowing who you are- I've got an idea- don't contact their servers.
You have a reasonable right to privacy, but you lose that right when you're in public. You don't get to get pissy when a store's security cameras capture your image. I rarely hear anybody complain about other people seeing you while you're at the grocery store. But the fact is: these small dings in privacy are neccessary to operate. You don't need to go in public. And you don't need to connect to somebody's server.
Now the real problem TM
An IP address DOES identify a computer- but not the way the judge thinks. My IP address identifies my router, which in turn owns 5 to 6 computers. With the wireless open, it could refer to the whole neighborhood, for all I know/care. They need to revise, an IP address identifies a NETWORK, but not neccessarily conclusively any particular computer.
So there's another level there. Not only is an IP address not good for identifying a person, but it's rather useless to discover a particular computer either. (Now, there are cookies and other tracking mechanisms, but they're not fool proof..)
But hey, at least this is a step in the right direction. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whose computer an IP address identifies, if the feds pick up on your ip they'll just take every machine in your house anyway.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Addresses aren't personal information! They point to a house or an apartment, not a person!
If this is true, I suppose addresses and license plates aren't personal either, they just identify cars and houses, it's not as though those things usually contain the same people. Or what about phone numbers, that really only identifies my phone, not me the individual. And when you stop to think about it, my email is really just a code so the mailserver knows where to put some bytes it receives, it doesn't really have anything to do with me.
Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!
A phone number identifies a phone, not a person.
A postal address identifies the location of a building, not a person.
An IP does not identify the user but it will identify that it's someone's computer doing to sharing (once you've a court order getting the User's details).
How so? If the precedent stands that IP address is not personally identifiable information, then how do you identify the user based on it (to the court's satisfaction?)
Think about it: according to this judge, an IP address identifies a computer (as others have pointed out, "network endpoint" would be a more correct term), not the person behind it. Although this makes it easier for the **AA to collect IP-address information, it also makes such information a lot less useful, because by itself it leaves a hole big enough to establish reasonable doubt. The IP address can establish what computer was used, but it does not prove that the defendant was the one operating the computer in that capacity. Especially in an age of botnets and malware, there's a lot of doubt here unless you can establish a stronger link, and the IP address won't help you on that score.
That leaves open the question: does this really strengthen the **AA, or does it actually hamstring their tactics? This may remain to be seen.
If all they have is a picture of your license plate, that doesn't prove you were driving. We should use this ruling as precedent to get out of automated tickets when there is no clear picture of your face.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Identifies a HOUSE!
Not personally identifiable? Right! No reasonable analogy?
The Judge needs a head check.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
IP address identifies "a" computer, but not "whose" computer... For all the RIAA/ISP/etc knows the IP address could've been spoofed. Similar to dropping a letter in the mail at the post office with a forged return address. RIAA can say the letter contains pirated copyrighted material and go after the person who owns the house address listed as the return address, but that doesn't meant they got the right person.
Yes, we do get to get pissy.
We just can't do anything about it other than choose not to shop there.
Because you are the owner of the computer.
They have never gone after a said individual, but the owner of a computer. Remember the case where the ladies kids were downloading all the crap. She wasn't responsible because she was the guardian of the children, she was responsible because she was responsible for the computer.
So if your room mate uses your laptop to download a bunch of music via your computer, you will be held responsible, until you can prove that your roommate had equal access and usage of the computer.