4 ms·

How exactly does one take an IP number and point a finger to the person who caused that transmission? If a computer can be hijacked by an undetectable virus fro

by smokeyj 15y ago

How exactly does one take an IP number and point a finger to the person who caused that transmission? If a computer can be hijacked by an undetectable virus from a Sony cd, can we really say for sure who caused any transmission from a PC? What if you framed your neighbors unsecured wifi? Or target someone's home? It's like a modern day witch hunt!

mcphilip 15y ago
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Whatever happened with that judge's ruling that an IP is not a person? Did it get overturned? http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/ http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-c...
- ryusage 15y ago
  Until the supreme court rules on it themselves, I'm pretty positive other judges are still free to make their own judgments on the matter.
wmf 15y ago
How exactly does one take an IP number and point a finger to the person who caused that transmission? Good thing that's not what the FBI is doing. can we really say for sure who caused any transmission from a PC? If a computer is seized from a teenager's bedroom and it has LOIC installed and it isn't malware-infested...
- SwellJoe 15y ago
  If a computer is seized from a teenager's bedroom and it has LOIC installed and it isn't malware-infested... Are you not bothered by the notion of a warrant being issued for search of your home and seizure of your computers based on nothing but an IP address? I'm extremely bothered by that, personally, because I know enough about networks to know how very shaky that "evidence" of identity is.
  - wmf 15y ago
    I'm more bothered by the idea that the architecture of the Internet would be turned into a "get out of jail free" card. Unless your attacker is completely incompetent, the only evidence you'll have is an IP address; if you can't use that then you have nothing.
    - SwellJoe 15y ago
      I hate to parrot quotes as an argument, but I feel like this one is appropriate here: "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - William Blackstone (various others have said it over the years with "ten" replaced by some other value, usually even higher than ten) Given that having your computers and data seized is already punishment for a lot of people, possibly significant and life-altering punishment, I think courts should be damned careful about allowing police to take that action. I've known people who's businesses have been destroyed by computer seizure. And I've known people who have only gotten their computers back years later (which effectively is the same as "never", because computers have a relatively short shelf life), despite no charges ever being brought against them. My business probably wouldn't currently be destroyed by the loss of all of my personal computers, but it would certainly be a very serious hardship, far beyond what I feel would be just punishment without a trial. And, seizure of all of my servers (including the ones where the backups are stored) probably would very nearly destroy my business and cost me tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost sales and data. A search is one thing, effective theft of my means of putting food on my table is something altogether different, and I think police ought to have to have a pretty damned good reason for taking away my livelihood for an indeterminate period of time.
  - starwed 15y ago
    Err, you do understand how warrants work, right? You don't get one by proving someone is guilty, but by showing there is probable cause. >The standard for a search warrant is lower than the quantum of proof required for a later conviction. The rationale is that the evidence that can be collected without a search warrant may not be sufficient to convict, but may be sufficient to suggest that enough evidence to convict could be found using the warrant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_States_of_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_States_of...

by smokeyj 15y ago

mcphilip 15y ago

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Whatever happened with that judge's ruling that an IP is not a person? Did it get overturned? http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/ http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-c...

ryusage 15y ago
Until the supreme court rules on it themselves, I'm pretty positive other judges are still free to make their own judgments on the matter.

wmf 15y ago

How exactly does one take an IP number and point a finger to the person who caused that transmission? Good thing that's not what the FBI is doing. can we really say for sure who caused any transmission from a PC? If a computer is seized from a teenager's bedroom and it has LOIC installed and it isn't malware-infested...

SwellJoe 15y ago
If a computer is seized from a teenager's bedroom and it has LOIC installed and it isn't malware-infested... Are you not bothered by the notion of a warrant being issued for search of your home and seizure of your computers based on nothing but an IP address? I'm extremely bothered by that, personally, because I know enough about networks to know how very shaky that "evidence" of identity is.
- wmf 15y ago
  I'm more bothered by the idea that the architecture of the Internet would be turned into a "get out of jail free" card. Unless your attacker is completely incompetent, the only evidence you'll have is an IP address; if you can't use that then you have nothing.
  - SwellJoe 15y ago
    I hate to parrot quotes as an argument, but I feel like this one is appropriate here: "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - William Blackstone (various others have said it over the years with "ten" replaced by some other value, usually even higher than ten) Given that having your computers and data seized is already punishment for a lot of people, possibly significant and life-altering punishment, I think courts should be damned careful about allowing police to take that action. I've known people who's businesses have been destroyed by computer seizure. And I've known people who have only gotten their computers back years later (which effectively is the same as "never", because computers have a relatively short shelf life), despite no charges ever being brought against them. My business probably wouldn't currently be destroyed by the loss of all of my personal computers, but it would certainly be a very serious hardship, far beyond what I feel would be just punishment without a trial. And, seizure of all of my servers (including the ones where the backups are stored) probably would very nearly destroy my business and cost me tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost sales and data. A search is one thing, effective theft of my means of putting food on my table is something altogether different, and I think police ought to have to have a pretty damned good reason for taking away my livelihood for an indeterminate period of time.
- starwed 15y ago
  Err, you do understand how warrants work, right? You don't get one by proving someone is guilty, but by showing there is probable cause. >The standard for a search warrant is lower than the quantum of proof required for a later conviction. The rationale is that the evidence that can be collected without a search warrant may not be sufficient to convict, but may be sufficient to suggest that enough evidence to convict could be found using the warrant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_States_of_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant#United_States_of...