This seems to contradict precedent where it's been ruled that IP addresses cannot be proof of identity. It's exactly the same mechanism at work here: activity t

This seems to contradict precedent where it's been ruled that IP addresses cannot be proof of identity. It's exactly the same mechanism at work here: activity tied to some opaque numeric identifier is not evidence that a specific person is the party responsible for said activity. I don't expect the law to at all times be perfectly consistent, but this seems to be a pretty blatant contradiction.