If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Torrent Freak)   Florida judge rules that IP addresses are not equivalent to social security numbers   (torrentfreak.com) divider line 137
    More: Obvious, Internet Provider, IP addresses  
•       •       •

6615 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2014 at 1:14 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-25 01:52:22 PM  

impaler: mayIFark: Not true. I don't believe ISP's use DHCP, but even if they do, your computer never logs on to that. It is your modem that does, and that is always on.

That depends if your modem is performing NAT, or just passes IP traffic through.

All modems I've had don't do NAT, and my Wifi router gets an IP through DHCP. This was true with both Comcast and Time Warner.


But his point was that if your Wifi router stays on all the time, then it'll hang on to an IP address for a long time, if the ISP doesn't force renewal.

It's all irrelevant, though - the plaintiffs in these cases go to the ISP and say "who had this IP address at this time" and they point to the subscriber (once ordered, hopefully). No one cares who had it the day before.
 
2014-03-25 01:53:42 PM  

impaler: mayIFark: Not true. I don't believe ISP's use DHCP, but even if they do, your computer never logs on to that. It is your modem that does, and that is always on.

That depends if your modem is performing NAT, or just passes IP traffic through.

All modems I've had don't do NAT, and my Wifi router gets an IP through DHCP. This was true with both Comcast and Time Warner.


Most ISPs use DHCP to deter servers by making running server software more difficult (albeit only slightly in most cases.) Ask for a static IP and they'll generally either refuse, or refer you to their business bundles at a higher price.
 
2014-03-25 01:54:33 PM  
I think the hardest burden o prove is that most people are "intelligent". Once you clear that hurdle, it's uphill from there.
Wasn't there some cases a while back that copyright holders were suing some unfortunate schlubs who shared files that were legally obtained, but had names similar to some shiat they had the rights to? But they still maintained damage jad been done.
Truth be told, Many of the movies out there are not worth watching, just the effluvia of an indusrty bent on perpetuating its perceived relevance.
How many times have you gone to a movie, plonked down moeny for a "feature" that is tasteless at best, and if you want a coincession item, have to pay robbery prices for a pack of Skittles? I know it's how the venue "makes" its money, but damn, a bad business practice is just that.
Why pay exhorbitant fees to see a movie that's a crock?
I'd like to know of a way to hold theatres liable, and providing recompense of at least the ticket price, for a movie you find bad.
If I like a movie, I'll pay to see it on the big screen.But otherwise, I can delete it. 2 hours of my life is not worth wasting to see many of these films.
Good thing I've cracked most neighbors networks around me using Backtrack Linux. And not a single one has MAC filtering on. I keep my access point open, but the Mac filtering gets them. Plus, most people are too "busy" to implement it. Both IPV4 and V6
 
2014-03-25 01:54:45 PM  

Theaetetus: StrangeQ: Theaetetus: Barfmaker: But in the case of the red light camera, that car is most definitely owned by the plate owner and it's quite reasonable to assume that he knows who is driving his car at any given time. It's going to be almost never that someone is randomly driving your car.

An IP address is widely sharable, even inadvertently but often on purpose and for good, legitimate reasons. Such as a Starbucks but also many smaller businesses, hotels, public spaces.

But, on the other hand, the IP address is also tied to a particular modem or gateway at a particular time. Such as Starbucks' modem, smaller businesses' modems, hotels' modems, public spaces with free Internet provided by some organizations' modems, etc. There's some one point those communications are going through, and someone with control over that point... hence, equivalent to ownership of the car, even if you rent or loan your car out freely to others.

And if I steal your car, go out and run every red light in town, and then politely park it back in your driveway, what then?

Do you think you could suggest that as a response to a handful of red light tickets, and that, if they didn't have your face in the picture, you could get every ticket dismissed?

Because hopping on someone's secured wifi really isn't that difficult for someone that knows what they're doing.

Neither is turning on logging.


For the people that know what they're doing.  The average Facebook internet user isn't going to have a clue.
 
2014-03-25 01:54:50 PM  

Theaetetus: And, even better than the car, your router can log each and every packet to/from that NATed IP or MAC address - so you know exactly when they started sharing "Sexy Librarians 14".


No they don't.

On models where the stored log is limited to 128 entries,

And those models don't log legitimate traffic.
 
2014-03-25 01:55:14 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: phenn: ecmoRandomNumbers: How many people actually use a VPN? I've been using one for over a year, and I think it's worth every penny.

Not to sidetrack, but do you subscribe to a service or roll your own?

A service. Their software has a built-in kill switch that shuts down all network activity if you, for some reason, lose your connection to the VPN.


Interesting. I've been looking around for one so I can get to regional content, but they are all so flipping slow. Using a free version of SafeIP for the moment, but I'd really like to find one more reliable and speedy. That, I'd be happy to pay for.
 
2014-03-25 01:56:13 PM  

StrangeQ: Theaetetus: Barfmaker: But in the case of the red light camera, that car is most definitely owned by the plate owner and it's quite reasonable to assume that he knows who is driving his car at any given time. It's going to be almost never that someone is randomly driving your car.

An IP address is widely sharable, even inadvertently but often on purpose and for good, legitimate reasons. Such as a Starbucks but also many smaller businesses, hotels, public spaces.

But, on the other hand, the IP address is also tied to a particular modem or gateway at a particular time. Such as Starbucks' modem, smaller businesses' modems, hotels' modems, public spaces with free Internet provided by some organizations' modems, etc. There's some one point those communications are going through, and someone with control over that point... hence, equivalent to ownership of the car, even if you rent or loan your car out freely to others.

And if I steal your car, go out and run every red light in town, and then politely park it back in your driveway, what then?  Because hopping on someone's secured wifi really isn't that difficult for someone that knows what they're doing.


Absent proof that your car was, in fact, used without your knowledge during that time period, the judge would probably find you as the car owner liable for at least some of the tickets. They certainly wouldn't get dismissed based solely on your assertion that you didn't know who was driving your car that wasn't stolen, which is not an unreasonable position.
 
2014-03-25 01:56:51 PM  

impaler: Theaetetus: And they even provide their ID, in the form of a MAC address. And, even better than the car, your router can log each and every packet to/from that NATed IP or MAC address

MAC addresses can be spoofed.


This. IANAE but it seems to be that if you were identified by your MAC address you could easily argue that since MAC is not in any way unique or tied solely to your computer, that MAC address alone is insufficient as evidence.
 
2014-03-25 01:57:24 PM  

impaler: Theaetetus: And, even better than the car, your router can log each and every packet to/from that NATed IP or MAC address - so you know exactly when they started sharing "Sexy Librarians 14".

No they don't.

On models where the stored log is limited to 128 entries,

And those models don't log legitimate traffic.


OMG, that's it. From now on, I'm not responding to people who cherry pick one sentence from my posts when the post they're quoting contains an answer to their point.It's not just a waste of time, it's disingenuous.
 
2014-03-25 02:05:33 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: Some one hacked my wireless network and downloaded infringing material.

Really.

Honestly.

Prove it didn't happen!

Plus, there is like, 20 people that know my password and use it.


And you'd be responsible since you're letting them use it.
 
2014-03-25 02:06:13 PM  
This is like the 50th time this ruling has been made, all over the country. FTFA:

"The ruling is crucial as it's another unique order confirming that an IP address alone is not enough to launch a copyright infringement lawsuit."

Another order. But, still, thanks subby: it helps to list them all in your motion to dismiss when you get a crap subpoena.

/pirates a lot
//only ever been subpoenaed for stuff I didn't DL
///all have been tossed
 
2014-03-25 02:07:41 PM  

Theaetetus: Also, just to forestall accusations of being a pro-copyright shill


I'm not a pro copyright shill, I just so happen to show up in every single thread about the issue arguing the MPAA/RIAA position?
 
2014-03-25 02:15:52 PM  

phenn: ecmoRandomNumbers: phenn: ecmoRandomNumbers: How many people actually use a VPN? I've been using one for over a year, and I think it's worth every penny.

Not to sidetrack, but do you subscribe to a service or roll your own?

A service. Their software has a built-in kill switch that shuts down all network activity if you, for some reason, lose your connection to the VPN.

Interesting. I've been looking around for one so I can get to regional content, but they are all so flipping slow. Using a free version of SafeIP for the moment, but I'd really like to find one more reliable and speedy. That, I'd be happy to pay for.


I don't know what you consider "slow." I live in a rural area so my DSL is 6Mbps, which is fast enough to get Netflix in medium HD. On downloads, I don't feel that the VPN slows me down at all, but if I were used to 100Mbps, I'm sure I'd notice a bottleneck in the service.
 
2014-03-25 02:17:38 PM  
I disagree with Theaetutus contention that copyright holders will not throw in the towel. At the end of these type of lawsuits are legalized extortion. They are legalized extortion because the technically astute user is always going to have the upper hand, so the only way for the lawsuit to succeed is to shift the burden of proof from the copyright holder to the alleged infringer. His instance that "Congress is going to do something" is misplaced. Everything in the law right now from SCOTUS (see Windsor Trombley, etc.) and Congress is to make it harder to sue not easier. Courts in particular are going to find ways to toss these suits when they can. So over the long haul whatever the legal merits of the claims the underlying business model of shaking people down is not going to be profitable. It's also, FWIW, seen as increasing sketchy within the legal profession itself as has been well documented over at Popehat. I'll make one final point. No judge in a criminal case (as opposed to a civil one) would ever accept an IP alone as meeting the particularity requirement under the 4A. Cops know they have to show more than that these days, such as showing that the network wasn't open and that it's not a group house or something similar. As the civil law catches up it only going to become more and more expensive for copyright holders to litigate these issue.

So in the long run my view is that the copyright holders will throw in the towel. The financial incentives to vindicate their rights simply won't exist except at the margin or outlier case.
 
2014-03-25 02:17:57 PM  

Theaetetus: impaler: Theaetetus: And, even better than the car, your router can log each and every packet to/from that NATed IP or MAC address - so you know exactly when they started sharing "Sexy Librarians 14".

No they don't.

On models where the stored log is limited to 128 entries,

And those models don't log legitimate traffic.

OMG, that's it. From now on, I'm not responding to people who cherry pick one sentence from my posts when the post they're quoting contains an answer to their point.It's not just a waste of time, it's disingenuous.


No you said the router CAN log. As if it's an option.

This goes directly to your other point where "anyone can easily detect if someone's hijacking their wifi."

No, they can't even do that.
 
2014-03-25 02:19:38 PM  

BullBearMS: I'm not a pro


Your amateur opinion is noted.

/isn't it annoying when people quote out of context?
 
2014-03-25 02:20:42 PM  

impaler: Theaetetus: impaler: Theaetetus: And, even better than the car, your router can log each and every packet to/from that NATed IP or MAC address - so you know exactly when they started sharing "Sexy Librarians 14".

No they don't.

On models where the stored log is limited to 128 entries,

And those models don't log legitimate traffic.

OMG, that's it. From now on, I'm not responding to people who cherry pick one sentence from my posts when the post they're quoting contains an answer to their point.It's not just a waste of time, it's disingenuous.

No you said the router CAN log. As if it's an option.

This goes directly to your other point where "anyone can easily detect if someone's hijacking their wifi."

No, they can't even do that.


Go quote the entire post, including the part where I answer this. Then I'll respond.
 
2014-03-25 02:26:11 PM  
If I may interject in here, while Theaetetus may say some rather absurd things on other topics, in this particular thread he's being very polite and reasonable. His thought process isn't complete, as his profession is law and not technology, but there's nothing unsound about his arguments, and he's not advocating a controversial personal opinion here, but trying to explain how things are likely to fall from a legal point of view - something he's more qualified than many to speculate on.

It is entirely likely that a legislative response will indeed ignore valid technical issues, and put a burden of proof back on the defense rather than on the prosecution (where it should be), as we've seen it before. He's not saying he agrees with that, just that it's likely to happen.

TL;DR, don't jump him because you don't like what he's said on other topics.
 
2014-03-25 02:28:28 PM  

mayIFark: Not true. I don't believe ISP's use DHCP, but even if they do, your computer never logs on to that.


Right, they employ a guy to sit there 24/7 typing in IP addresses every time someone connects. Brilliant!
Of course they use DHCP, and no one needs to "log onto that".

Good for this judge.  An IP is handy to ID things that want to be found. Otherwise, not so much in the reliable department.

/Network engineer
//Amused by this thread in ways you can't imagine.
 
2014-03-25 02:31:01 PM  

Theaetetus: OMG, that's it. From now on, I'm not responding to people who cherry pick one sentence from my posts when the post they're quoting contains an answer to their point.It's not just a waste of time, it's disingenuous.


Look, you may be a decent attorney, but you're not a very good geek.

There are simply not that many different brands of router out there in common use, and each brand tends to go with a slightly different address. Once I'm on your network, it's child's play to figure out what kind of router you have, and there's about a 98% chance that you didn't change the default user name and password combo of "admin". Once I'm in, I can do whatever the fark I want.

Hell, let's make my hacking life simpler- all I need to do is find a network named "2Wirexxx". That means AT&T U-Verse, and that means that the password is 10-digit numeric. Not even alphanumeric, just numeric. If I wanted to crack that, it would be child's play. And now I'm on your password-protected home network, doing whatever I want. And when you're in front of a judge and jury, trying to explain how it wasn't you downloading first-run movies, the lawyers from the RIAA and MPAA will ask the jury how someone just happened to have the one number out of a billion- A BILLION!- that would let them on your network.
 
2014-03-25 02:31:12 PM  

worlddan: I disagree with Theaetutus contention that copyright holders will not throw in the towel. At the end of these type of lawsuits are legalized extortion. They are legalized extortion because the technically astute user is always going to have the upper hand, so the only way for the lawsuit to succeed is to shift the burden of proof from the copyright holder to the alleged infringer. His instance that "Congress is going to do something" is misplaced. Everything in the law right now from SCOTUS (see Windsor Trombley, etc.) and Congress is to make it harder to sue not easier.


While I agree with the first part, I don't agree with the second... First, we're talking about two groups - the big, legitimate copyright owners (and their industry organizations); and the small copyright trolls like Prenda Law and Righthaven. Congress (and individual states) has taken steps to curb the latter, but has done nothing against the former... and consider how both Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset lost all of their appeals, including being denied cert by SCOTUS.

 Courts in particular are going to find ways to toss these suits when they can. So over the long haul whatever the legal merits of the claims the underlying business model of shaking people down is not going to be profitable. It's also, FWIW, seen as increasing sketchy within the legal profession itself as has been well documented over at Popehat. I'll make one final point. No judge in a criminal case (as opposed to a civil one) would ever accept an IP alone as meeting the particularity requirement under the 4A. Cops know they have to show more than that these days, such as showing that the network wasn't open and that it's not a group house or something similar. As the civil law catches up it only going to become more and more expensive for copyright holders to litigate these issue.

So in the long run my view is that the copyright holders will throw in the towel. The financial incentives to vindicate their rights simply won't exist except at the margin or outlier case.


Yes, to the abusive troll extortion letters. Not to the legitimate copyright owners like Sony or Capitol Records. Basically, the small "give us $5k or we'll expose a list of porn titles we're claiming you stole" letters will go away, as they should, but the "you distributed thousands of copies of the new Batman movie, so here's your lawsuit" complaints won't.  And the big guys are going to be the ones pushing for Congress to change the law to presume control and/or ISPs to change their ToS to waive defenses. They're going to have the leverage with the ISPs, too, particularly with the new priority carrier backroom deals coming out, and I really wouldn't expect Comcast to go to the mat for pirates.
 
2014-03-25 02:33:26 PM  

Gonz: Theaetetus: OMG, that's it. From now on, I'm not responding to people who cherry pick one sentence from my posts when the post they're quoting contains an answer to their point.It's not just a waste of time, it's disingenuous.

Look, you may be a decent attorney, but you're not a very good geek.


Why did you quote a post in which I say I'm not responding to people who are cherry picking from my post rather than responding to my actual arguments? Did you really think that would get a legitimate response from me?

Go quote what you're arguing against. It's only polite.
 
2014-03-25 02:37:03 PM  

Carousel Beast: If I may interject in here, while Theaetetus may say some rather absurd things on other topics, in this particular thread he's being very polite and reasonable. His thought process isn't complete, as his profession is law and not technology, but there's nothing unsound about his arguments, and he's not advocating a controversial personal opinion here, but trying to explain how things are likely to fall from a legal point of view - something he's more qualified than many to speculate on.

It is entirely likely that a legislative response will indeed ignore valid technical issues, and put a burden of proof back on the defense rather than on the prosecution (where it should be), as we've seen it before. He's not saying he agrees with that, just that it's likely to happen.

TL;DR, don't jump him because you don't like what he's said on other topics.


Thanks. Although I would disagree that my profession isn't technology... I was an engineer for 10 years before shifting to this, and I'm not on the litigation side of things - I  only deal with technology now. ;)
 
2014-03-25 02:37:13 PM  

Theaetetus: Gonz: Theaetetus: OMG, that's it. From now on, I'm not responding to people who cherry pick one sentence from my posts when the post they're quoting contains an answer to their point.It's not just a waste of time, it's disingenuous.

Look, you may be a decent attorney, but you're not a very good geek.

Why did you quote a post in which I say I'm not responding to people who are cherry picking from my post rather than responding to my actual arguments? Did you really think that would get a legitimate response from me?

Go quote what you're arguing against. It's only polite.


Because your actual arguments are not what I wanted to discuss. I wanted to discuss your lack of technical prowess.

See where the network engineer up there said he was amused by the thread? Same thing. You're talking about the law, and that's fine. That's good, that's what you know.

I'm telling you why that's the wrong conversation to have.
 
2014-03-25 02:40:36 PM  

Theaetetus: Go quote the entire post, including the part where I answer this. Then I'll respond.


Reread the quote. You didn't answer it.
 
2014-03-25 02:42:28 PM  

Gonz: Theaetetus: Gonz: Theaetetus: OMG, that's it. From now on, I'm not responding to people who cherry pick one sentence from my posts when the post they're quoting contains an answer to their point.It's not just a waste of time, it's disingenuous.

Look, you may be a decent attorney, but you're not a very good geek.

Why did you quote a post in which I say I'm not responding to people who are cherry picking from my post rather than responding to my actual arguments? Did you really think that would get a legitimate response from me?

Go quote what you're arguing against. It's only polite.

Because your actual arguments are not what I wanted to discuss. I wanted to discuss your lack of technical prowess.


Then quote me saying something showing a lack of technical prowess. For example, your earlier post was about how easy it was to crack into a home network. Go quote me saying it was difficult. I'll wait. Probably a long time, since I never said that.

And if you  can't quote me, then stop trying to put words in my mouth. As I said, it's disingenuous.

If the issue is that you haven't figured out how to use the quote button or to copy and paste, please let me know. I am always happy to help those who lack technical prowess in such matters.
 
2014-03-25 02:44:01 PM  

Theaetetus: Yes, to the abusive troll extortion letters. Not to the legitimate copyright owners like Sony or Capitol Records. Basically, the small "give us $5k or we'll expose a list of porn titles we're claiming you stole" letters will go away, as they should, but the "you distributed thousands of copies of the new Batman movie, so here's your lawsuit" complaints won't.


Yes, I agree with that but I also view the "thousands of copies" person as the outlier and frankly from a public policy point of view I don't have any sympathy for such a person. My concern is for the little guy.
 
2014-03-25 02:44:09 PM  

impaler: Theaetetus: Go quote the entire post, including the part where I answer this. Then I'll respond.

Reread the quote. You didn't answer it.


Seriously, why is it so impossible for you and Gonz to actually quote the person you're responding to? Is it because you know that, if you do, people will be able to read both parts and see how you're trying to twist their words?
Tell me, because I really would like to know why you insist on quoting out of context, even when repeatedly asked to stop.
 
2014-03-25 02:45:43 PM  

Theaetetus: Then quote me saying something showing a lack of technical prowess.


OK.

Theaetetus: And they even provide their ID, in the form of a MAC address. And, even better than the car, your router can log each and every packet to/from that NATed IP or MAC address


Theaetetus: MAC addresses can be spoofed.

But not with another MAC address on the same network, because then the router will not know where to send them.

 
2014-03-25 02:46:43 PM  

Theaetetus: impaler: Theaetetus: Go quote the entire post, including the part where I answer this. Then I'll respond.

Reread the quote. You didn't answer it.

Seriously, why is it so impossible for you and Gonz to actually quote the person you're responding to? Is it because you know that, if you do, people will be able to read both parts and see how you're trying to twist their words?
Tell me, because I really would like to know why you insist on quoting out of context, even when repeatedly asked to stop.


I reread your quote. I don't see it being answered. Why don't you just post what I quoted and your answer, because I can't read your mind.
 
2014-03-25 02:49:14 PM  

worlddan: Theaetetus: Yes, to the abusive troll extortion letters. Not to the legitimate copyright owners like Sony or Capitol Records. Basically, the small "give us $5k or we'll expose a list of porn titles we're claiming you stole" letters will go away, as they should, but the "you distributed thousands of copies of the new Batman movie, so here's your lawsuit" complaints won't.

Yes, I agree with that but I also view the "thousands of copies" person as the outlier and frankly from a public policy point of view I don't have any sympathy for such a person. My concern is for the little guy.


Likewise, but I don't think Congress feels the same way... They haven't reduced the statutory damages levels, for example, or provided any mitigation for non-commercial infringement - nor have the courts accepted those arguments when raised.

The extortion letters are losing ground because, frankly, the plaintiffs in these cases are not very sympathetic. Prenda's a bunch of fraudsters apparently using forged signatures on their legal documents, and Righthaven sued over stuff they didn't actually own. The X-art people in this article are similarly listing a bunch of stuff they don't own, namely because X-art is so tame that threats of exposure aren't all that threatening.  I could even see the RIAA/MPAA folks helping write legislation  against copyright trolling, because they don't want to be associated with them... but at the same time, that legislation would have tons of carve outs for the big studios. And that's something that we really want to avoid.
 
2014-03-25 02:50:37 PM  

impaler: Theaetetus: impaler: Theaetetus: Go quote the entire post, including the part where I answer this. Then I'll respond.

Reread the quote. You didn't answer it.

Seriously, why is it so impossible for you and Gonz to actually quote the person you're responding to? Is it because you know that, if you do, people will be able to read both parts and see how you're trying to twist their words?
Tell me, because I really would like to know why you insist on quoting out of context, even when repeatedly asked to stop.

I reread your quote. I don't see it being answered. Why don't you just post what I quoted and your answer, because I can't read your mind.


Prove you reread my quote: copy and paste it here. Otherwise, go away and stop trolling me.
 
2014-03-25 02:56:56 PM  

Ex-Texan: I think the hardest burden o prove is that most people are "intelligent". Once you clear that hurdle, it's uphill from there.
Wasn't there some cases a while back that copyright holders were suing some unfortunate schlubs who shared files that were legally obtained, but had names similar to some shiat they had the rights to? But they still maintained damage jad been done.
Truth be told, Many of the movies out there are not worth watching, just the effluvia of an indusrty bent on perpetuating its perceived relevance.
How many times have you gone to a movie, plonked down moeny for a "feature" that is tasteless at best, and if you want a coincession item, have to pay robbery prices for a pack of Skittles? I know it's how the venue "makes" its money, but damn, a bad business practice is just that.
Why pay exhorbitant fees to see a movie that's a crock?
I'd like to know of a way to hold theatres liable, and providing recompense of at least the ticket price, for a movie you find bad.
If I like a movie, I'll pay to see it on the big screen.But otherwise, I can delete it. 2 hours of my life is not worth wasting to see many of these films.
Good thing I've cracked most neighbors networks around me using Backtrack Linux. And not a single one has MAC filtering on. I keep my access point open, but the Mac filtering gets them. Plus, most people are too "busy" to implement it. Both IPV4 and V6


Lol, you think MAC filtering is a real security feature.
 
2014-03-25 03:00:29 PM  

Theaetetus: BullBearMS: I'm not a pro

Your amateur opinion is noted.

/isn't it annoying when people quote out of context?


It's much more annoying when you show up in every single thread on this topic to argue the RIAA and MPAA's position while whining about people noting that you are a very obvious shill.
 
2014-03-25 03:00:44 PM  

Theaetetus: But, on the other hand, the IP address is also tied to a particular modem or gateway at a particular time.


In the literal sense of the term, this is correct. However, in the sense in which you are using it (that an IP fixes a particular computer owned by some known person to a particular model or gateway at some particular time) is not provably correct. It is merely often correct.

MAC spoofing, though, works more like my local parking garage. You park in a spot, walk down to the lobby, and purchase a ticket for the (hopefully correct) spot number. The security truck occasionally trolls through with their list of unpurchased spots and tickets people in unpaid spots. However, the ticket corresponds to the spot, not the vehicle. There's no check upon leaving the garage -- the system merely flushes the log of daytime ticket spots at 10pm. This means that there's no check to see if a given car left and a new car arrived later and parked in an already-purchased spot. This new car corresponds to a MAC spoof. It takes on the identity of a machine that has already established a spot in the network. The network doesn't check that the MAC corresponds to the correct machine, merely that there is a machine in that spot (IP) corresponding to that ticket (MAC).

So if I'm parked in the spot 118, and there's a ding on my driver's side door, I can subpoena who purchased the ticket for 117 (which was empty when I came to drive away), but I have no reasonable basis to conclude that vehicle dinged my door. I can't prove, and the log provides no evidence either way, whether that car was still there or had been replaced by a spoofer when the ding occurred.
 
2014-03-25 03:01:16 PM  

ds615: mayIFark: Not true. I don't believe ISP's use DHCP, but even if they do, your computer never logs on to that.

Right, they employ a guy to sit there 24/7 typing in IP addresses every time someone connects. Brilliant!
Of course they use DHCP, and no one needs to "log onto that".

Good for this judge.  An IP is handy to ID things that want to be found. Otherwise, not so much in the reliable department.

/Network engineer
//Amused by this thread in ways you can't imagine.


I don't know how it is done, but I'd imagine there can be something in between DHCP and manual labor. Such as assign an IP when a new customer joins and shift them with an algorithm once in a while. Would be more secure for them.

/What the heck is a Network engineer?
//I'm familiar with the concept of dialing 7 digits and someone in India answering it, but never heard them being referred as network engineer
 
2014-03-25 03:02:09 PM  

impaler: Theaetetus: Then quote me saying something showing a lack of technical prowess.

OK.

Theaetetus: And they even provide their ID, in the form of a MAC address. And, even better than the car, your router can log each and every packet to/from that NATed IP or MAC address

Theaetetus: MAC addresses can be spoofed.

But not with another MAC address on the same network, because then the router will not know where to send them.


Somebody doesn't understand the physical layer at all.
 
2014-03-25 03:02:30 PM  

Theaetetus: impaler: Theaetetus: Go quote the entire post, including the part where I answer this. Then I'll respond.

Reread the quote. You didn't answer it.

Seriously, why is it so impossible for you and Gonz to actually quote the person you're responding to? Is it because you know that, if you do, people will be able to read both parts and see how you're trying to twist their words?
Tell me, because I really would like to know why you insist on quoting out of context, even when repeatedly asked to stop.


Because I'm on mobile, and it's a colossal PITA to load up the full site, go to the post I want to quote, cut it down to just those words, and then reply.

My only other option is to quote everything, which puts up a wall of text, and that's just rude. Ain't nobody want to see that.

I'm not trying to twist your words, I'm just telling you that you aren't as spun up on tech as you are the law.
 
2014-03-25 03:08:54 PM  

Theaetetus: Prove you reread my quote: copy and paste it here. Otherwise, go away and stop trolling me.


I can copy and paste your quote without reading it. That doesn't prove I read it. What good does that do?

I don't see what I quoted being answered. YOU say you answered it. And you think it's my responsibility to paste your answer? I JUST TOLD YOU I CAN"T FIND IT?

WTF?
 
2014-03-25 03:10:22 PM  

This text is now purple: Theaetetus: But, on the other hand, the IP address is also tied to a particular modem or gateway at a particular time.

In the literal sense of the term, this is correct. However, in the sense in which you are using it (that an IP fixes a particular computer owned by some known person to a particular model or gateway at some particular time) is not provably correct. It is merely often correct.


Oh, I'm not using it in that way. As I said above, it's tied to a modem or gateway, which may be NATting for a whole pile of computers.

MAC spoofing, though, works more like my local parking garage. You park in a spot, walk down to the lobby, and purchase a ticket for the (hopefully correct) spot number. The security truck occasionally trolls through with their list of unpurchased spots and tickets people in unpaid spots. However, the ticket corresponds to the spot, not the vehicle. There's no check upon leaving the garage -- the system merely flushes the log of daytime ticket spots at 10pm. This means that there's no check to see if a given car left and a new car arrived later and parked in an already-purchased spot. This new car corresponds to a MAC spoof. It takes on the identity of a machine that has already established a spot in the network. The network doesn't check that the MAC corresponds to the correct machine, merely that there is a machine in that spot (IP) corresponding to that ticket (MAC).

So if I'm parked in the spot 118, and there's a ding on my driver's side door, I can subpoena who purchased the ticket for 117 (which was empty when I came to drive away), but I have no reasonable basis to conclude that vehicle dinged my door. I can't prove, and the log provides no evidence either way, whether that car was still there or had been replaced by a spoofer when the ding occurred.


Yep, I don't disagree with any of that. As I said, it may be a successful defense for a jury, but it's unlikely to get you a dismissal pre-trial, particularly not if the law changes to presume control over communications traversing the gateway by the owner unless proven otherwise: the burden will be on you, as the guy now parked in 117, to prove that it wasn't you who was parked there before.
 
2014-03-25 03:11:21 PM  

impaler: Theaetetus: Prove you reread my quote: copy and paste it here. Otherwise, go away and stop trolling me.

I can copy and paste your quote without reading it. That doesn't prove I read it. What good does that do?

I don't see what I quoted being answered. YOU say you answered it. And you think it's my responsibility to paste your answer? I JUST TOLD YOU I CAN"T FIND IT?

WTF?


You quoted one sentence in a post, Sparky. Quote the entire post. This shouldn't be a difficult concept for you to understand.
 
2014-03-25 03:11:55 PM  
In the long run there is only one identifying number that matters - your NSA hash code.
 
2014-03-25 03:14:05 PM  

Gonz: Because I'm on mobile, and it's a colossal PITA to load up the full site, go to the post I want to quote, cut it down to just those words, and then reply.

My only other option is to quote everything, which puts up a wall of text, and that's just rude. Ain't nobody want to see that.

I'm not trying to twist your words, I'm just telling you that you aren't as spun up on tech as you are the law.


Uh, okay. Since you can't quote anything in specific that you disagree with, then I'll just thank you for your general opinion and wish you a good day.
 
2014-03-25 03:15:29 PM  

lilbjorn: In the long run there is only one identifying number that matters - your NSA hash code.


Now, now... Fifty dollar WiFi routers have unbreakable security and there is no way that hackers or the NSA could possibly break into yours and do whatever the hell they like without your knowledge or consent.

I was told this by an MPAA RIAA shill of Fark, so it must be true.
 
2014-03-25 03:18:31 PM  
Theaetetus:
Likewise, but I don't think Congress feels the same way... They haven't reduced the statutory damages levels, for example, or provided any mitigation for non-commercial infringement - nor have the courts accepted those arguments when raised.

But in essence that's where the courts are going; they are just getting there through the back door. Do you really doubt that this case would have gone forward if the person had been accused of wholesale redistribution? The court's are doing their usual wink 'n' nod. They are not saying that one can't bring a case for non-commercial infringement, they are simply finding convenient legal excuses that just so happen to negatively impact the business model of those who are shaking down the small guy. I agree that it would be better if Congress fixed this problem simply for the sake of both honesty and legal efficiency.  But I think if Congress does nothing then over the long run the court system will evolve such that truly egregious cases will go forward and truly minor cases will fall by the way side.

Why do I think this? Because in my view this whole area is nothing more than a replication of what we see in the debt collection business. If the person has minor debts and the person defeats a motion for summary judgement the debt collector crawls back into the woodwork because it isn't financially profitable to spend more money pursuing a trial than can be collected. OTOH, if the debt is big (100K) then the debt collector will fight and go to trial. Over time I see a similar system evolving in copyright infringement cases--the truly nasty infringes will get nailed and the piddly stuff will fall by the wayside.   Maybe I'm too optimistic but that's my view.
 
2014-03-25 03:18:40 PM  

impaler: Theaetetus: Pfff, anyone  can detect if their wifi is being hijacked. Most people don't bother looking or don't know how.

Anyone can perform open heart surgery. Most people don't know how.


I know what you're saying, and I completely agree, but...

cdn.abclocal.go.com
 
2014-03-25 03:22:20 PM  

Theaetetus: You quoted one sentence in a post, Sparky. Quote the entire post. This shouldn't be a difficult concept for you to understand.


Why don't you just quote the sentence that you claim answers it? That's the logical thing to do. Not have me repost a wall of text and fling your fingers around claiming "somewhere in there."
 
2014-03-25 03:26:56 PM  

worlddan: But in essence that's where the courts are going; they are just getting there through the back door. Do you really doubt that this case would have gone forward if the person had been accused of wholesale redistribution? The court's are doing their usual wink 'n' nod. They are not saying that one can't bring a case for non-commercial infringement, they are simply finding convenient legal excuses that just so happen to negatively impact the business model of those who are shaking down the small guy.


But see Thomas-Rasset and Tenenbaum... They were the small guys, doing non-commercial infringement, and got smacked down hard. The difference between those cases and these are the plaintiffs, who, in those cases, actually did own the copyrights in question. But they did the same Capitol v. Doe fishing expedition, for example, until they could find the owner of the corresponding computer and account.

I agree that it would be better if Congress fixed this problem simply for the sake of both honesty and legal efficiency.  But I think if Congress does nothing then over the long run the court system will evolve such that truly egregious cases will go forward and truly minor cases will fall by the way side.

Why do I think this? Because in my view this whole area is nothing more than a replication of what we see in the debt collection business. If the person has minor debts and the person defeats a motion for summary judgement the debt collector crawls back into the woodwork because it isn't financially profitable to spend more money pursuing a trial than can be collected. OTOH, if the debt is big (100K) then the debt collector will fight and go to trial. Over time I see a similar system evolving in copyright infringement cases--the truly nasty infringes will get nailed and the piddly stuff will fall by the wayside.   Maybe I'm too optimistic but that's my view.


Quite possibly... It's sort of a free market solution to trolling, and supports the "don't bother responding to threatening letters" tactic. The counterargument is that, due to the $750-150k statutory damage range, the debt we're talking about is going to be around $20-40k per song, possibly higher for movies, and while they might not go after someone sharing one work, after five or six, that starts getting pretty valuable.
Tenenbaum was only 30 songs, and Thomas was 24, for example. I'd call them "piddly", but they were still major targets.
 
2014-03-25 03:28:10 PM  

impaler: Theaetetus: You quoted one sentence in a post, Sparky. Quote the entire post. This shouldn't be a difficult concept for you to understand.

Why don't you just quote the sentence that you claim answers it? That's the logical thing to do. Not have me repost a wall of text and fling your fingers around claiming "somewhere in there."


Because I want you to prove to me that you're not just a troll and that you  can actually quote someone without cutting any context out. At this point, you've got no credibility, so why should I waste time on a troll?
 
2014-03-25 03:30:36 PM  
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report