If they would actually do their homework, not only would they not end up raiding the houses of the wrong people, but they'd also be expected to do some proper surveillance beforehand so that they'd know whether or not to expect resistance and what sort of resistance to expect.
Devil's advocate: But wouldn't that allow two people to game the system? One acts as the patsy, the other downloads GB's of child porn off the unprotected router, and both walk away scott-free.
There is a line of reasoning which makes the claim that it's better to let a guilty person go unpunished than to unjustly punish an innocent person. It's the basis of the idea of being innocent until proven guilty.
It's not like this is something new. Criminals have undoubtedly been trying to frame innocent people since the beginning of civilization. If a system of law enforcement can't punish criminals and avoid punishing innocent people who were framed, then that system of law enforcement is severely flawed.
However, since it is a fairly simple matter to triangulate on a wireless signal, it's a moot point in this situation anyway. Unless they do something rash (like, say, barging into the wrong house), there is no reason they shouldn't be able to locate the person who's actually downloading the stuff, so your Devil's advocate position doesn't really amount to much. If the police were competent at their jobs it would not take place as you described it.
But just for the sake of evening up the comparison between your Devil's advocate scenario and what actually happened - which is better:
Two people game the system and walk away scott-free; or One person games the system and walks away scott-free, meanwhile an innocent guy gets raided and assaulted by armed agents.
I think a more practical (ie: likely to actually happen) solution would be for router manufacturers to stop shipping products with an empty/trivial admin password... and then REQUIRE the user to set their own password as part of the setup process.
You're just agreeing with the police. Putting a band-aid on the symptom (cops raiding people because their unsecured routers were used by criminals) to make it go away lets everyone completely ignore the bigger problem (really making sure a guy is guilty before raiding his house).
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.
It's within anyone's rights to not do that, so maybe they can give that advice after a few heads roll over breaking down the door of someone who did NOTHING ILLEGAL. I mean, hey... what could possibly go wrong? It's totally unimaginable that he might react in self-defense to an unexpected violent break-in, right? No innocent people could ever be killed in a raid like this...
Whoever authorized this raid put both the law enforcement agents AND the innocent homeowner at severe risk. People could have died. Hold the bastard accountable. THAT is the advice that I want to see.
Every domain name ultimately comes from ICANN, which is located in California, and therefore if the US government tells them that they can't sell (well, rent) a domain to someone, they can't. That is one of the limitations of any centralized service: it has to abide by the laws under whose jurisdiction it operates. However, domain names are luxuries: any properly-configured* website can be accessed by its IP address rather than its domain name, and if your server is located outside the US, they can't actually shut you down unless your local authorities concur. You just won't have an easy-to-remember URL if they revoke your domain name.
*Not to imply that websites that can't are improperly configured, per se, only that it's possible to configure one properly such that it can be. Some fairly significant changes might have to be made... for instance, servers that host more than one domain would have to move everything to a single tree (e.g. 1.1.1.1/~site1/...).
No, my "worldview" (isn't the right word, but as it's the word you picked, we'll go with it) includes an expectation that when someone posts pictures online showing themselves in their house and the pictures are GPS-tagged with approximately the front yard of a typical residential dwelling place, it's a fair bet that they live there.
Considering that they work pretty well in moving vehicles (hence GPS mapping on smartphones), it's a fair bet that it held its fix right up to their front door.
I haven't been there in a while, but it was probably 6 months ago, maybe less. Then again, it might have only been on - ahem - certain boards. Maybe I'll check tonight.
It's no fun to have to play a game with kid gloves on.
It can be. And if it isn't, find a more skilled opponent.
On the other hand, Super Smash Bros. Brawl is wonderful in this aspect. Knowing advanced techniques is wonderful, and definitely gives a more skilled player the edge, however, the game system isn't overly complicated such that a noob or a casual player stands absolutely no chance.
That obviously doesn't apply to SSB Melee for the N64, then.
Um, are you unaware that you can look up the city records for any address and find out who owns the deed to the property? Google and/or the White Pages are useful tools too.
In other news, I have a picture of someone standing in front of the Eiffel Tower. The image meta-data indicates the person was in Paris at the time.
Well, I've seen pictures posted from someone's iPhone taken in their bedroom that contained the GPS coordinates of their house. Unlike the Eiffel Tower, their bedroom wasn't spectacularly distinctive. I'd never have known where they lived if it wasn't for the GPS metadata.
Furthermore, once notice is given, the material has to STAY DOWN to give the complaining party a chance to sue, or the safe harbor is lost.
Not exactly. The complaining party has 10 business days (14 days) to get an injunction to prevent the material from being reinstated; if they do not get the injunction in that time period, it must be promptly reinstated or the ISP actually becomes liable for damages if it is later found that the material did not in fact infringe on the complaining party's copyright.
A host then passes along the counter-notice to the person who filed the original notice. The works remain offline for 10 business days, after which, if no additional action has been taken by the filer, the works can be restored.
The copyright holder can petition the court for an injunction to prevent the restoration of the original works, but if it is not obtained within the time allotted, the works are restored to the site.
If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]
The speed limit laws make accounts for individuals passing each other on the highway.
No they don't. You are never supposed to exceed the speed limit. Passing lanes are to allow for passing slow-moving traffic, i.e. traffic which is moving slower than the speed limit. If you exceed the speed limit while passing, you are speeding.
Slashdot Mirror
A cloud-based solution to steal internet access? Seems a bit difficult...
Nobody said they don't have internet access already.
If they would actually do their homework, not only would they not end up raiding the houses of the wrong people, but they'd also be expected to do some proper surveillance beforehand so that they'd know whether or not to expect resistance and what sort of resistance to expect.
Devil's advocate: But wouldn't that allow two people to game the system? One acts as the patsy, the other downloads GB's of child porn off the unprotected router, and both walk away scott-free.
There is a line of reasoning which makes the claim that it's better to let a guilty person go unpunished than to unjustly punish an innocent person. It's the basis of the idea of being innocent until proven guilty.
It's not like this is something new. Criminals have undoubtedly been trying to frame innocent people since the beginning of civilization. If a system of law enforcement can't punish criminals and avoid punishing innocent people who were framed, then that system of law enforcement is severely flawed.
However, since it is a fairly simple matter to triangulate on a wireless signal, it's a moot point in this situation anyway. Unless they do something rash (like, say, barging into the wrong house), there is no reason they shouldn't be able to locate the person who's actually downloading the stuff, so your Devil's advocate position doesn't really amount to much. If the police were competent at their jobs it would not take place as you described it.
But just for the sake of evening up the comparison between your Devil's advocate scenario and what actually happened - which is better:
Two people game the system and walk away scott-free; or
One person games the system and walks away scott-free, meanwhile an innocent guy gets raided and assaulted by armed agents.
I think a more practical (ie: likely to actually happen) solution would be for router manufacturers to stop shipping products with an empty/trivial admin password... and then REQUIRE the user to set their own password as part of the setup process.
You're just agreeing with the police. Putting a band-aid on the symptom (cops raiding people because their unsecured routers were used by criminals) to make it go away lets everyone completely ignore the bigger problem (really making sure a guy is guilty before raiding his house).
Exactly my point...
No shit.
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router.
It's within anyone's rights to not do that, so maybe they can give that advice after a few heads roll over breaking down the door of someone who did NOTHING ILLEGAL. I mean, hey... what could possibly go wrong? It's totally unimaginable that he might react in self-defense to an unexpected violent break-in, right? No innocent people could ever be killed in a raid like this...
Whoever authorized this raid put both the law enforcement agents AND the innocent homeowner at severe risk. People could have died. Hold the bastard accountable. THAT is the advice that I want to see.
Every domain name ultimately comes from ICANN, which is located in California, and therefore if the US government tells them that they can't sell (well, rent) a domain to someone, they can't. That is one of the limitations of any centralized service: it has to abide by the laws under whose jurisdiction it operates. However, domain names are luxuries: any properly-configured* website can be accessed by its IP address rather than its domain name, and if your server is located outside the US, they can't actually shut you down unless your local authorities concur. You just won't have an easy-to-remember URL if they revoke your domain name.
*Not to imply that websites that can't are improperly configured, per se, only that it's possible to configure one properly such that it can be. Some fairly significant changes might have to be made... for instance, servers that host more than one domain would have to move everything to a single tree (e.g. 1.1.1.1/~site1/...).
No, my "worldview" (isn't the right word, but as it's the word you picked, we'll go with it) includes an expectation that when someone posts pictures online showing themselves in their house and the pictures are GPS-tagged with approximately the front yard of a typical residential dwelling place, it's a fair bet that they live there.
Considering that they work pretty well in moving vehicles (hence GPS mapping on smartphones), it's a fair bet that it held its fix right up to their front door.
Most likely it was the last fix made by the device from somewhere in the vicinity of their front door.
I haven't been there in a while, but it was probably 6 months ago, maybe less. Then again, it might have only been on - ahem - certain boards. Maybe I'll check tonight.
It's no fun to have to play a game with kid gloves on.
It can be. And if it isn't, find a more skilled opponent.
On the other hand, Super Smash Bros. Brawl is wonderful in this aspect. Knowing advanced techniques is wonderful, and definitely gives a more skilled player the edge, however, the game system isn't overly complicated such that a noob or a casual player stands absolutely no chance.
That obviously doesn't apply to SSB Melee for the N64, then.
Yes, but so is not having your SSN tattooed on your forehead.
Um, are you unaware that you can look up the city records for any address and find out who owns the deed to the property? Google and/or the White Pages are useful tools too.
In other news, I have a picture of someone standing in front of the Eiffel Tower. The image meta-data indicates the person was in Paris at the time.
Well, I've seen pictures posted from someone's iPhone taken in their bedroom that contained the GPS coordinates of their house. Unlike the Eiffel Tower, their bedroom wasn't spectacularly distinctive. I'd never have known where they lived if it wasn't for the GPS metadata.
And yet, those very risky actions become fairly safe, based on the sheer number of people doing it.
"Safe" in the same sense that statistically speaking nobody wins the lottery. Yet people still play...
Considering the proportion of people that have been on 4chan versus the people who'd publicly admit to it, it might be more helpful than you'd expect.
True, although Facebook has always stripped EXIF. 4chan didn't use to strip EXIF.
Facebook also compresses the images all to shit, too, although they recently made it possible to let people download a higher-quality version.
You cannot be forced to sign a legally-binding document, and a document which you were forced to sign cannot be legally binding.
I might as well also point out that 4chan strips the EXIF data from uploaded images for exactly this reason.
Anyone who's been to 4chan should know this.
But, here's what was in the WHOIS response, along with the other data. WnTF did this start happening?
Using what WHOIS service?
Neither DNSStuff or DomainTools give anything of the sort.
I'm guessing it started happening when you started using a WHOIS website that inserts shitty ads in its responses...
Good players can eat button mashers for breakfast.
All that means is that the button mashers can't have much fun if they have to compete against "good players".
If their domain(s) get shut down, http://184.107.161.242/ should still work. The technical workaround would be a couple of lines in your hosts file.
Furthermore, once notice is given, the material has to STAY DOWN to give the complaining party a chance to sue, or the safe harbor is lost.
Not exactly. The complaining party has 10 business days (14 days) to get an injunction to prevent the material from being reinstated; if they do not get the injunction in that time period, it must be promptly reinstated or the ISP actually becomes liable for damages if it is later found that the material did not in fact infringe on the complaining party's copyright.
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/06/03/7-common-questions-about-dmca-counter-notices/
A host then passes along the counter-notice to the person who filed the original notice. The works remain offline for 10 business days, after which, if no additional action has been taken by the filer, the works can be restored.
The copyright holder can petition the court for an injunction to prevent the restoration of the original works, but if it is not obtained within the time allotted, the works are restored to the site.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132
If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]
The speed limit laws make accounts for individuals passing each other on the highway.
No they don't. You are never supposed to exceed the speed limit. Passing lanes are to allow for passing slow-moving traffic, i.e. traffic which is moving slower than the speed limit. If you exceed the speed limit while passing, you are speeding.
At least, in my state.