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.

(Boing Boing)   IP≠ID   ( boingboing.net) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

13886 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2014 at 9:08 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-23 09:14:25 AM  
7 votes:
Don't celebrate yet. While this is a perfectly sensible and technically accurate ruling, you know damn well that if the "wrong people" keep winning too many of these engagements the industry will just buy off - sorry... "lobby" - a few extra politicians and ram legislation through that makes a subscriber financially liable for all infringement on their subscribed service regardless of who actually commits the infringement.

Never underestimate the power of entrenched wealth and legalized political corruption. These asshats have way too much to lose to let common sense and basic fairness under the law stop them. Especially since working harder and producing a better product is certainly out of the question.
2014-01-23 08:31:00 AM  
6 votes:
Should be a hero tag.

/Always makes me nervous when judges are making decisions on technology they don't understand.
2014-01-23 09:02:06 AM  
5 votes:
About god damned frigging time.  Now let's hope the next court in line isn't presided over by bought and paid for Hollywood actors.
2014-01-23 09:02:11 AM  
4 votes:
funnycatwallpapers.comView Full Size
2014-01-23 10:59:18 AM  
1 vote:

Primitive Screwhead: Cortez the Killer:

There's no place like home!

That's where my hosts file redirects all those bad poo-poo heads.
The list must be three miles long by now a.abv.bg adserver.abv.bg adv.abv.bg bimg.abv.bg ca.abv.bg www2.a-counter.kiev.ua track.acclaimnetwork.com accuserveadsystem.com www.accuserveadsystem.com achmedia.com aconti.net secure.aconti.net www.aconti.net #[Dialer.Aconti] am1.activemeter.com/

yada yada
2014-01-23 10:17:23 AM  
1 vote:

skozlaw: I don't think you know what you're talking about. In your example, you're talking about the IP of a device that has a default outbound route for sources and destinations without NAT rules. In a company of a thousand people, that's just a device their traffic passes through.

This is the same legal system that decided a company with a monopoly on the consumer OS market wasn't being anti-competitive by bundling its software on said OS.  Does it defy logic?  Sure.  Yeah, logic is such an awesome ally when you're in a courtroom, especially when you're in front of a judge who still has a secretary print out e-mails.  FFS we have a Drug War where cops can basically arrest cash and prosecutors can open cases against material objects so you really think this makes a difference in the long run?

It's not that I don't know what I'm talking about; it's that your incredulity is preventing you from anticipating the pants-on-head derpy behavior of people who really don't know what they're talking about.  A great many of whom influence rulings on court cases.  Also, you're taking this way too personally.  I'm not saying you're stupid; I'm saying you're unable to think like someone stupid.

Granted, IP=ID was struck down, yay.  But notice how few people here are relaxed about it.  Your neckbeard is really showing here in a complete inability to wrap your head around the human side of the equation in favor of embracing your own confident understanding of the technology.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you're not a lawyer.

Sooner or later IP=ID might cross the desk of a corrupt judge or, far more terrifying, a very old and stupid one.  And when that happens, yes, you really will get arguments this asinine.  I mean, yeesh, the telcos routinely make ridiculously hypocritical and irrational arguments in court hoping the judges are too stupid to understand the underlying technical concepts so I really wouldn't sit back and rest assured that logic will prevail in the long run.  They pay their lawyers a lot; they wouldn't waste their time bringing in arguments anyone with an even basic understanding of IT would instantly recognize as fundamentally flawed if they didn't like their chances that they'll eventually get a judge that's dumb enough to buy it.  As for IP=ID, a prosecutor wouldn't defend an idea so broad and dangerous if they didn't intend to abuse the hell out of it, and given their affinity for other overly broad laws it's a sucker's bet they wouldn't have fun with this one.
2014-01-23 09:54:33 AM  
1 vote:
But is P=NP?
2014-01-23 09:38:47 AM  
1 vote:

MadMattressMack: You realize there's a HUGE difference between the burdens of proof in civil and criminal litigation? For a criminal investigation you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt while civil is you just have to prove it's likely.

skozlaw: So your theory is they're going to kick down the door, bust in and randomly pick some schmuck to throw in front of the DA with virtually no evidence when the alternative is to pass a bit of work off on somebody else while building a virtually airtight case?

Calm down and pay attention.  That's why this ruling is so important.  If IP=ID ever becomes a thing, then the prosecution gets a free slam dunk because the IP is the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  And with that kind of leverage they'll bust who they want, not who did it per se, because the objective is a successful prosecution, not actual justice.  The reason to go through the logs would be to establish a case but IP=ID eliminates all that tedious work.

The confusion here isn't what's actual proof but the legal definition of proof.  What's legal and what's just are two very different things, though I consider it very lucky that they coincide for today and IP=ID was struck down, at least for a day.
2014-01-23 09:26:13 AM  
1 vote:

skozlaw: Only if that office has a network managed by complete morons. If the cops came in today and said to me that somebody from our office was doing that and they needed to know who it would take me all of 15 minutes to provide that information because we have logs of all basic network activity going back 180 days. And that's assuming the culprit was smart enough to dodge the web filter so I couldn't just look it up in that.

I think you have a very inaccurate idea of how law enforcement operates.
2014-01-23 09:24:59 AM  
1 vote:

Cortez the Killer:

There's no place like home!
2014-01-23 09:22:41 AM  
1 vote:

Carn: It shows your IP as, looks like we've got our child rapist.

2014-01-23 09:18:42 AM  
1 vote:
I posted this with a better IP address.
2014-01-23 09:15:09 AM  
1 vote:
It scares me that a decision based on such an obvious fact causes me to sigh with great relief.
2014-01-23 09:10:44 AM  
1 vote:
It shows your IP as, looks like we've got our child rapist.
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.