Slashdot Mirror
Judge Allows Subpoenas For Internet Users
crimeandpunishment writes "A federal judge has ruled that the company holding a movie copyright can subpoena the names of people who are accused of illegally downloading and distributing the film. The judge ruled that courts have maintained that once people convey subscriber information to their Internet service providers, they no longer have an expectation of privacy."
... being an anonymous coward is the only way to protect my privacy?
Not sure if I agree with this or not. Subpoena's for information are generally thought to override any concern aside from providing the information requested (or, if an order to appear in court, than appearing in court). As a matter of privacy-rights, I think this judge is off his/her rocker. Seriously.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Er... how exactly do you get an internet connection from an ISP without giving them any subscriber information?
Is there such a thing as an anonymous ISP subscription?
That isn't really a reason. That's just, "There's no expectation of privacy because I said so." That's like saying you have no expectation of privacy in your home as soon as you are granted a mortgage.
1984 was written in 1947-48, when the Soviet Union was busily suppressing any kind of freedom in Eastern Europe. Orwell wasn't prescient, merely observant.
So... I convey my subscriber information to the Phone company... do I lose my expectation of privacy for making phone calls?
Don't download movies without paying for them?
Yes, yes, I know, there are far broader implications of the loss of privacy on the interwebs, and so forth.
However, my point still stands. Don't download movies you don't have permission to and this case never would have come up in this manner.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
When this happened to US Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork the politicians were so outraged they created the Video_Privacy_Protection_Act. After all it's unfair to pry into a persons privacy, like what movies they watch. That's the principal right? Or is it all different if it's "pirates" on the "internets"?
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
You can buy a house under a shell corporation and hide the owners of that if you want to put forth the effort.
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
I guess that judge would consider renting and leasing to also have no expectation of privacy. So anybody that's renting or leasing something, especially a home or car, is screwed. Heck, even having cable tv would make your entire viewing habits obtainable with that his interpretation.
IMO the judge is an idiot. To have ANY paid for service, you have to provide that information to the provider. In no way does providing information necessary to the provider a waving of rights to privacy other than the minor level done with regards to the information the provider needs, and then, only with regards to the provider.
Sorry, but I think we need to get rid of a lot of these judges that would rather screw the public than to be fair and just. I know in some places you can vote them out, and others, it's a till they die/retire thing. Are there any other means like yelling at politicians until they do something? (Maybe letting the individual judges know how you disagree with their B.S. might help, but I doubt those types would give a rodents donkey about the public and what it/they think.)
You're right.
Our current situation is more like a cross between 1984 and THX-1138. Neither story is spot on, but when you cross the two, you have a Consumer-driven economy where people buy worthless crap, only to toss it into the trash (1138). And the government spies on you via two-way CRTs to make sure you are doing your part (1984), or else they'll drag you in for reeducation.
It is the ultimate hell of Corporate-Government working together to suppress citizens. Like some new twisted form of Feudalism where the "Lord" is RIAA & Congress, while you are just a Serf required to "till the field" from 9 to 5, and then go out and buy shit, or else be jailed.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Three points:
First, I find it interesting, to say the least, that the plaintiff in this case isn't Disney, Columbia, 20th Century Fox, etc., but "Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co KG" a crapware movie distributor so obscure that Googling seems to 95% turn up links for this lawsuit. Wearing a tin foil cap, one could almost think they were acting as a front for the MAFIAA, much in the way that SCO was to some degree a front for Microsoft in its anti-Linux crusade. In the end, as we in the USA further lose our rights, the major studios will shrug and say, "It wasn't us, blame the Germans..."
Second point is that there seems to be a conflation of the concepts "Privacy" and "anonymity" not only in this thread but in the original legal documents.
Privacy = You may know who I am, but you don't know what I'm up to.
Anonymity = You may know what I'm up to, but you don't know who I am.
They're complementary terms, and both important rights, but for accuracy's sake we should be clear that, since the deed (file-sharing) is already known, just not the perpetrators, this is primarily a blow to anonymity.
Alternatively, given that it is accepted legal practice to refer to internet anonymity as "privacy of subscriber information," one can think of anonymity as a subset of privacy, "privacy of subscriber information" being one tine along with "privacy of home", "privacy of beliefs", "privacy of association," etc. Even so, treating this ruling as a generalized blow to privacy to some extent muddies and obscures what's going on, particularly the salient issue at hand: Should we be entitled to an expectation of anonymity/"privacy of subscriber information" on the internet?
Third, probably mentioned elsewhere by now, but here's the ruling. In point of fact, it's a mixed bag. While denying anonymity, it also says that jurisdiction may be a real problem for the plaintiffs.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
More specifically, Orwell was a Socialist who hated Fascism, but saw that unless people were very careful, Socialism could lead to a totalitarianism indistinguishable from the totalitarianism of Fascism. He was warning in both 1984 and Animal Farm: be careful lest what I advocate (Socialism) become what I hate (Fascism).
And his warnings were right on target. England hasn't become a SciFi distopia, but it has developed precursors: the panopticon, the frequent stories of people, even members of government, being hauled into police stations for policially incorrect speech. They're seriously talking about using military UAVs to hunt for speeders and litterers. It's not 1984 by a long shot, but that's clearly the direction England is currently heading: exactly the direction Orwell feared and warned about.
Here in the US it isn't nearly so bad, and comparisons to 1984 are still hyperbole, but nevertheless that sure seems to be the direction that we're headed. Only by vigorously defending your right to keep the goernment out of your daily life even if that means your neighbor can endanger you more than otherwise do we stop heading in that direction.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Actually IMO we're going more in the Brave New World direction. Tons of shoddy entertainment to keep people pacified, etc.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
" once people convey subscriber information to their Internet service providers, they no longer have an expectation of privacy"
" once people convey medical information to their health care providers, they no longer have an expectation of privacy"
" once people convey purchase information to their credit card company, they no longer have an expectation of privacy"
" once people convey voice data to their telephone company, they no longer have an expectation of privacy"