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
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!
Could this decision be referenced to disqualify the IP as evidence when the MAFIAA goes after someone based on IP addresses they got from WhateverMediaSentryIsCalledNow?
Seems logical to me. An IP address no more identifies a person than a house address identifies one. It's tying those two together for investigative purposes that should be illegal without a warrant.
I am 192.168.0.1!
No, I am 192.168.0.1!
No, I am 192.168.0.1!
No, I am!
I am!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
It is true that an ip address identifies a computer or possibly, as another poster pointed out, a router behind which could be many computers, but that fact is largely irrelevant to file sharing litigation. The plaintiffs in those cases do not have to have ironclad evidence that it was the defendant sitting at the computer sharing the files. Instead, the plaintiffs merely have to show that it is more likely than not (aka preponderance of the evidence, 50% + 1) that it was the defendant.
Thus, if the defendant lives at home and only rarely has guests that use his or her computer, it's very likely that a jury will accept that it is more likely than not that the defendant was the one who shared the files, not a guest or an unauthorized user of the wireless network, especially if the files are found on the defendant's hard drive. More complex situations come closer to the line, of course, but in most cases it's fairly clear who the most likely culprit was.
But, even if the defendants live in an apartment with a communal computer or network shared equally by multiple long-term residents, all of whom use the same file-sharing user account, it is not necessarily up to the plaintiff to prove which specific defendant shared the files. A long standing rule in tort law from the case Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80 (1948) establishes that where the plaintiff can prove that multiple defendants were negligent, the burden shifts to the defendants to prove which one actually committed the injury. It is quite possible that the file sharing case plaintiffs will be able to successfully argue that it is up to the various users of a computer to prove who actually shared the files or else they will all be jointly liable. This is especially likely if it can be shown that all of the defendants were aware of the file sharing program and the infringing nature of the files.
private static String getRuling(LitigationObject individual, RichLitigationObject evilCorporation) throws NYCLException {
if(individual.sues(evilCorporation)) {
return "IP address is not personal identification";
} else if(evilCorporation.sues(individual) {
return "IP address is personal information";
} else return "Please submit amount available to donate to my election campaign";
}
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
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
If the court ruled that IP addresses aren't personally identifiable, then couldn't some crafty lawyer argue that it can't be used to personally identify any defendant? I can hear the courtroom defenses now... "I didn't download and share 10 million hours of music, your honor. The computer located at 10.187.13.37 did."