Slashdot Mirror
NY Judge Rules IP Addresses Insufficient To Identify Pirates
milbournosphere writes "New York Judge Gary Brown has found that IP addresses don't provide enough evidence to identify pirates, and wrote an extensive argument explaining his reasoning. A quote from the judge's order: 'While a decade ago, home wireless networks were nearly non-existent, 61% of U.S. homes now have wireless access. As a result, a single IP address usually supports multiple computer devices – which unlike traditional telephones can be operated simultaneously by different individuals. Different family members, or even visitors, could have performed the alleged downloads. Unless the wireless router has been appropriately secured (and in some cases, even if it has been secured), neighbors or passersby could access the Internet using the IP address assigned to a particular subscriber and download the plaintiff's film.' Perhaps this will help to stem the tide of frivolous mass lawsuits being brought by the RIAA and other rights-holders where IP addresses are the bulk of the 'evidence' suggested."
Some of them are teachable.
Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
This still means that an IP address is sufficient for them to seize and search your computer hard disks and such, so if you have corroborating evidence there you'd still be fucked. It's just not sufficient in the absence of anything else.
Don't know why it wasn't in the writeup. This ruling was in the federal court for New York's East District, which I think (IANAL) means it is precedent there (but not necessarily elsewhere in the country)
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Right, because we should expect 100% of the US population to understand network security and know how to properly secure a wifi router. Makes perfect sense!
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Thank you Judge Gary Brown
AccountKiller
The standard for probable cause in the case of a search warrant is significantly lower than the standard for conviction.
It takes about 60 seconds to teach somebody to secure their wireless router. The only remotely time consuming part is getting them to believe that it's actually a smart idea.
I think you've got those backwards.
OK, listen, if you leave this unlocked then anyone who finds it can download anything. They can download child porn, illegal movies, terrorist documents, whatever, and it's all linked to you.
Well that sounds bad, better lock it up.
Right. OK, so the first thing you do is open your browser and go to one nine two dot one six ...
Wait, what's a browser?
Just double-click on the blue "E".
Got it. OK, I type in one nine two ...
Wait, not in the Bing search bar, you type it into the address field.
What's the address field?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
That depends. The parking ticket thing was standing between a city government and a revenue stream. That is known to be the most dangerous place to stand in all of existence.
I was in a private residence, they had no rights to order me to do anything, because I was not hindering their investigation, nor was I doing or involved in anything illegal. If the cops can go into any residence and order the occupants around and arrest people for not "not following orders" ... then I have a HUGE problem with that society. And you don't?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"It's not flawed at all, it's just a position you disagree with."
Actually, it is flawed, because automobiles are just about the only things for which the courts have upheld this idea... and there is very little doubt that they have done so for no reason other than that not doing so would interfere with their own branch of government's revenue stream, just as someone else mentioned. Otherwise they would have generalized the concept to other areas of the law... but they haven't.
In general, you cannot be held liable for other people's actions, even if they used something belonging to you in order to do it. Automobiles have been held to be an exception to that, but that's the important part: they are an exception, not the rule. So as an analogy it doesn't work.
"You're an accomplice in any illegal activity if you fail to take any steps to prevent it. "
Horsepucky. It just doesn't work that way. In most states -- maybe even all -- this is simply not true. There is no obligation on the part of a citizen to prevent others from committing crimes. It simply isn't a valid legal principle. I could stand by and watch a man shoot other people for no reason, and I am still not his accomplice. Not even remotely, in any area of the law with which I am familiar. I am not obligated by law to insert myself into the situation at all. Failing to do so might mean I was not a very nice person, but it does not make me a criminal.
The only exception to this of which I am aware is that some states have "Good Samaritan" laws that require you to help people under certain, specific circumstances. For example, in my state you are obligated to stop and help someone who is stuck in the snow in a remote area, because the chance of otherwise not finding help and freezing to death is so great. And to be honest, I am not convinced that even that law is completely Constitutional.
"There's plenty of legal precident to support my position, and only moral indignation to support yours."
No, there isn't. I know for an absolute fact that my state laws contradict every single thing you have stated here, the sole exception being the part about automobile liability. And I am pretty sure that most other states are similar.