Author said "Perhaps a lot of the John Doe defendants thus named are, in fact, guilty! I certainly don't want to take the position that anyone who doesn't deny their guilt is guilty — but we shouldn't assume that they're innocent, either."
This is where everyone should have stopped reading. Yes, Mr. Haselton, you are supposed to assume the defendant is innocent, just as the court is supposed to assume he is innocent until it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. An IP address does not identify a person. Period. Mass John Doe lawsuits are an abuse of the discovery process so that copyright troll lawyers can get thousands of names and addresses in order to send settlement letters that amount to nothing short of extortion. As has been shown time and time again, it is not profitable for the lawyers to take any of the cases to court, but getting people that may or may not be innocent to pay a few hundred to a thousand dollars without putting up any fight is extremely profitable. The judge's reasoning for denying the request was to stop these parasites from abusing the legal system into assisting with an extortion scheme. This was stated almost verbatim by Judge Birss QC in his scathing response to the ACS Law fiasco.
Mr Haselton, I award you no points, and may Dog have mercy on your soul.
The "good that it does" is provide the appearance that he did everything in his power to setup the network in such a way that he would qualify for ISP protections in the event that someone used the network for nefarious purposes. As long as he does what he can, he can't be held liable for anything. No matter what security measures you use, someone determined enough can defeat them. Sure it would be a hassle to have to deal with the FBI, but if you've done nothing wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to fear.
Agreed. There isn't enough contrast, especially in the embedded links in the stories. You can barely tell where to click to follow a story to the source.
Agreed.
It's awfully convenient that in the wake of all the bad PR AT&T has been getting about their network not being able to handle the iPhone traffic and that their service is very poor outside of major metropolitan areas, that Apple would "accidentally" make an error in how they display their signal strength so that users would see a stronger signal than they really had...
I call shenanigans!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure this was feature and not a bug...
Author said "Perhaps a lot of the John Doe defendants thus named are, in fact, guilty! I certainly don't want to take the position that anyone who doesn't deny their guilt is guilty — but we shouldn't assume that they're innocent, either." This is where everyone should have stopped reading. Yes, Mr. Haselton, you are supposed to assume the defendant is innocent, just as the court is supposed to assume he is innocent until it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. An IP address does not identify a person. Period. Mass John Doe lawsuits are an abuse of the discovery process so that copyright troll lawyers can get thousands of names and addresses in order to send settlement letters that amount to nothing short of extortion. As has been shown time and time again, it is not profitable for the lawyers to take any of the cases to court, but getting people that may or may not be innocent to pay a few hundred to a thousand dollars without putting up any fight is extremely profitable. The judge's reasoning for denying the request was to stop these parasites from abusing the legal system into assisting with an extortion scheme. This was stated almost verbatim by Judge Birss QC in his scathing response to the ACS Law fiasco. Mr Haselton, I award you no points, and may Dog have mercy on your soul.
The "good that it does" is provide the appearance that he did everything in his power to setup the network in such a way that he would qualify for ISP protections in the event that someone used the network for nefarious purposes. As long as he does what he can, he can't be held liable for anything. No matter what security measures you use, someone determined enough can defeat them. Sure it would be a hassle to have to deal with the FBI, but if you've done nothing wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to fear.
Agreed. There isn't enough contrast, especially in the embedded links in the stories. You can barely tell where to click to follow a story to the source.
Agreed. It's awfully convenient that in the wake of all the bad PR AT&T has been getting about their network not being able to handle the iPhone traffic and that their service is very poor outside of major metropolitan areas, that Apple would "accidentally" make an error in how they display their signal strength so that users would see a stronger signal than they really had... I call shenanigans!