6 ms·

IP address does not equal identity.

• coldtea 10y ago
  For the purposes of this discussion, and the "technical solutions" the grantparent asks for, it does.
  • Karunamon 10y ago
    It really shouldn't. An IP is just an endpoint which could be accessed by n physical people. Going much further down this road ends up in some rather unpleasant territory.
  • ythl 10y ago
    So what if that guy moves away and Comcast reassigns his IP address to some other customer?
    • coldtea 10y ago
      The guy did not do that in this court case, and for the purposes of this discussion. They did something else.
• pc86 10y ago
  Pedantry. They instituted a technical change with the sole aim of circumventing Facebook's attempts to block their access.
  • riskable 10y ago
    This is the same argument people are making against this ruling. It sets a very bad precedent. Arguing that an IP address is an identity "for this case" or "this argument" has the same fundamental problem. No, an IP address is not an identity and blocking an IP address is the physical world equivalent of putting up some traffic cones on a sidewalk. You can still get to where you want to go but you now have to "walk around" or "work around" as we call it in the digital world. The only "clear message" it sends is, "don't use that IP."
    • pc86 10y ago
      I'm not arguing that an IP address is an identity. I'm arguing that Facebook made it explicitly clear, both via a cease & desist letter as well as technical changes, that it did not want Power accessing its servers or its data, whether on their own or on behalf of Power users. > The only "clear message" it sends is, "don't use that IP." Are you saying with a straight face that anyone at Power thought it was a coincidence that suddenly they couldn't access Facebook from very specific IP addresses?
      • darkarmani 10y ago
        > I'm arguing that Facebook made it explicitly clear, both via a cease & desist letter as well as technical changes, that it did not want Power accessing its servers or its data, whether on their own or on behalf of Power users. Then it should stop authorizing Power to do so. Why would it let the credentials work for Power unless those credentials authorized Power access? That's the problem. The simple solution is 2-factor authentication. This is a solved problem. If you have "open access" of your web services and and access is non-disruptive, I don't know why this should be a criminal violation. It shouldn't be criminal just because it doesn't fit with your business model.
        • drewgross 10y ago
          If I tell you not to enter my house, and take no further steps to prevent you from entering my house, such as closing the door, it's still illegal for you to enter my house. If I tell you not to enter my business, and take no further steps for prevent you from doing so, it's illegal for you to enter (unless I have banned you for being a protected class). If I tell you not to ssh into a computer I own, and take no further steps to prevent you from doing so, it's still illegal. I think a lot of software engineers get so wrapped up in the technical side of security and dealing with anonymous and untraceable threats that they don't realize that for the most part, the law doesn't care about technical access control. It cares about social access control.
          • pc86 10y ago