Re: Ignorance of the Law.... in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r8503967 en Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:47:01 EDT Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:47:01 EDT Re: Oliphant's Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8570311 Kaltes :
said by oliphant5 See Profile:
Oh please. Save your fiction for the Saturday Evening Post.


It takes a big man to admit it when they are wrong, and I figured you weren't, so it looks like I was right (again).

If that is the best you can do as far as a response, I guess you can't come up with anything of substance. I hope you learned your lesson. As Apu says in the quickie-mart: "Thank you, come again."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8570311 Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:20:04 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8561422 BosstonesOwn : ahhh yeah what kaltes says.... damn thats alot of legal stuff.
--
This package does not contain a winner...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8561422 Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:51:49 EDT Re: Oliphant's Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8554956 oliphant5 : Oh please. Save your fiction for the Saturday Evening Post.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8554956 Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:07:55 EDT Oliphant's Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8553502 Kaltes : There are so many basic things about the law that you do not understand, oliphant, that I can not begin to educate you on the subject. In addition, I find it more fitting to allow you to remain in the ignorance you so cherish. If you really believe that 'I am just trolling to get my post count up,' then you are so far gone that not even a psychologist could help you out of the mental mess you've gotten yourself into. Your comments are not merely ignorant, they are beyond insanity.

#1. You fail to understand the difference between criminal law and civil law. The topic of this article is a criminal law, yet you incessantly attempt to misapply aspects of civil law. You continue to do this even after I have corrected you and shown you the error of your ways.

#2. You fail to understand what a 'term of art' is. This is such a basic concept in the legal world, that your failure to grasp it would, of course, lead you into a morass of improper reasoning.

#3. You fail to understand that a document released by the US Copyright office is not the law, and 'prosecutors' are not bound to even so much as look at it. I already gave you a response on this, which you ignored.

#4. You fail to understand what negligence means, even in a civil context. Any moron can find the elements on google: duty, breach, causation, damages. For some reason you have become obsessed with one aspect of one of those elements. The following statement illustrates that you actually have no clue as to what the negligence test really is: ""which duty is the required component for the reasonable care standard for both civil and criminal negligence"" -oliphant. Did you learn the law by sniffing glue and then hallucinating about it?

#5. You fail to understand how utterly moronic this quote from you truly is: ""REASONABLE CARE CAN BE APPLIED TO ANY LAW A DA SEES FIT UNLESS A STATUTE EXPLICITLY EXEMPTS SOMEONE FROM A DUTY OF REASONABLE CARE IN THAT SITUATION"" -oliphant. In case ANYONE ELSE is reading this topic, I will state that simply: a DA has no discretion over the mens rea standard for any law. Period.

#6. You fail to understand that 'reasonable steps' does not equal 'reasonable care'. The words used are different. This concept might be hard for you to grasp, so I suggest you call your 1st grade english teacher to confirm that, in fact, different words in the english language mean different things.

#7. You fail to understand that criminal negligence is a very rare thing, arising only when a statute specifically states that the negligence standard will be used. You seem to think that all criminal laws include this standard. This is yet another example of a situation where you have made outlandish assumptions about the law instead of educating yourself. I ALREADY told you that the default mens rea is recklessness.

#8. You fail to understand that if a user of this forum relies on your horrible legal advice/opinion and makes a bad choice which results in harm, you could be exposed to prosecution for THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW. Unlike typical forum fodder, the law in most cases involves RIGHT AND WRONG answers, and people who give WRONG answers can be held accountable. Attorneys may face malpractice, and non-attorneys may face THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW. Since you: (1) put forth legal opinions and analysis and (2) have acted in such a fashion as to attempt to pass yourself off as a reliable source, you are potentially exposing yourself to prosecution should any user actually believe you and act in reliance based on what you say.

The law is serious business. You might want to consider refraining from making legal arguments/conclusions/opinions until you are better informed. Good day.

disclaimer: no reader should rely on my posts as legal advice, and readers should seek the counsel of an attorney if they have any particular questions about the law.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8553502 Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:20:43 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8550103 oliphant5 : First you bring up the DMCA and that ISPs have safe harbor and I show you that they do only if they show reasonable care in controlling their users. You rewrite the law thinking no one will bother to check. I quote you the summary provided by the U.S. Copyright Office...which is USED BY PROSECUTERS in interpreting the intent of the DMCA... clearly stating that ISPs have the duty (reasonable care) to control their users...you again ignore it.

Reasonable care isn't a different "art". Different art. What pseudo-intellectual drivel. The legal duty is the same standard...what would a reasonable person have done that you didn't do. Whether it's civil or criminal...THAT standard of what would a reasonable person have done in that situation is the same.

Here is the Webster's Law Dictionary definition of Reasonable Care since you are obviously or intentionally confused as to what Reasonable Care is.

said by Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.:


Reasonable Care
n : the care that a reasonable man would exercise under the circumstances; the standard for determining legal duty - syn: due care, ordinary care


Reasonable steps to implement a policy in order to avoid trouble is the duty (which duty is the required component for the reasonable care standard for both civil and criminal negligence) ISPs must complete if they wish to avoid trouble under the DMCA...now I'm sure you will ignore that clause...you've done it multiple times thus far. And as I stated before...ANY LAW can include reasonable care requirements...that's what reasonable care being part of COMMON LAW is.

Criminal negligence does IN FACT use the exact same reasonable care standard and no amount of your revisionist history or term redefining can change that.

Again...since you have so much trouble following along.

REASONABLE CARE CAN BE APPLIED TO ANY LAW A DA SEES FIT UNLESS A STATUTE EXPLICITLY EXEMPTS SOMEONE FROM A DUTY OF REASONABLE CARE IN THAT SITUATION which neither the DMCA or any other of their anti-piracy laws have.

If you can produce an explicit exemption clause of all duties of reasonable care in this new law...so be it...I'll agree with you. If you can't (just like you can't for the DMCA..in fact the DMCA explicitly requires reasonable care) then I'll know you are just trolling to get your post count up.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html

And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8550103 Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:34:49 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8549476 Kaltes : ""it's up to the DISCRETION of the prosecutor which is exactly how the U.S. Copyright Dept. has interpreted the DMCA law in these guidelines for prosecutors""

- That document from the copyright office was not released as a guideline for prosecutors. In fact, this new Act is not even a copyright violation, so the copyright office would have nothing to say about it.

""There is no mandate that EVERY instance be prosecuted""

- Exactly right, but you then ASSUME that prosecutors will act perfectly in every case. Prosecutors are not supposed to be abusing their discretion to send 25 year olds to jail and not 70 year olds, given the same set of facts. If the law is being enforced at all, then the prosecutor can not merely turn a blind eye to grandma.

- If however, the law is NOT BEING ENFORCED, as is the case with one portion of the NET act, then why pass the law at all?? ASHCROFT is supposed to be throwing p2p users in federal prison, but thus far he has REFUSED to do so. Pretty nice guy, eh?

- You can't simply claim that prosecutors are all-knowing people who will be able to magically determine who is guilty and who is not. They are human like you and I, and they simply don't know for sure. In the case of THIS proposed law, given the subject matter of this article (the hacking) prosecutors will truly have no idea, thereofre youre argument that prosecutors can somehow pick out the truly guilty persons and only send THEM to federal prison, is preposterous.

""while you choose to ignore the reasonable care requirement of the DMCA, the UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE hasn't. Since you obviously missed it...I'll quote them AGAIN for ya: "...must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers"""

- I hate to repeat myself here, but that little quote does not say REASONABLE CARE. As I said before, reasonable care is a term of art, and the WORD reasonable does not mean reasonable care. "Reasonably implement" refers to a good-faith requirement, not an objective burden. Your problem is that you are using the COMMON LANGUAGE definintions for LEGAL TERMS. You can't do that, it isn't how the law works.

- I don't have trouble understanding what 'reasonably implement' means, but evidently you do.

""So under any law (since negligence and criminal negligence are part of COMMON LAW), a person can also be liable or found having contributed to a criminal act (negligence or criminal negligence) simply by not taking REASONABLE CARE""

- You quoted a case after googling some terms, congrats. Too bad this paragraph of yours that I have quoted here is NOT what the case said. It is merely your own incorrect conclusion. You don't even understand what reasonable care really is. Anyone can quote a case, the hard part is figuring out what that case MEANS. Thats what you learn in law school.

""As for the duty component of negligence""

- Like I said before, over and over, THIS CRIMINAL LAW DOES NOT USE A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD. Negligence is a civil tort that has nothing to do with criminal law, unless a criminal law expressly states that the negligence standard is to be used. The default is recklessness.

If you want any more lessons from me, I'm going to have to charge you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8549476 Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:22:23 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8545620 oliphant5 :
quote:
"The failure of a service provider to qualify for any of the limitations in section 512 does not necessarily make it liable for copyright infringement"


Does not NECESSARILY...which is my whole point. While some complain that this NEW law will be used to haul off grandma...it's up to the DISCRETION of the prosecutor which is exactly how the U.S. Copyright Dept. has interpreted the DMCA law in these guidelines for prosecutors and every law is treated the same way.

There is no mandate that EVERY instance be prosecuted, whether it's the DMCA, Title 17 violations, or any other law no matter how much fiction you produce...and while you choose to ignore the reasonable care requirement of the DMCA, the UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE hasn't. Since you obviously missed it...I'll quote them AGAIN for ya.

said by U Copyright office:
...must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers


What part of REASONABLY IMPLEMENT do you have trouble following?

As for the reasonable care (or lack thereof) and negligence precedence...here it is

said by Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works (1856) 11 Ex. 781:
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done.


This is the key phrase "The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done.

So under any law (since negligence and criminal negligence are part of COMMON LAW), a person can also be liable or found having contributed to a criminal act (negligence or criminal negligence) simply by not taking REASONABLE CARE...that is, doing what a REASONABLE person would have done that would have lead to the prevention of the crime. Reasonable care provisions don't have to be written into every statute.

As for what is reasonable...again, it's descretion
said by Carlson v. Chochinov (1947):
the ideal of that person exists only in the minds of men, and exists in different forms in the minds of different men. The standard is therefore far from fixed as stable. But it is the best all-round guide that the law can devise.


As for the duty component of negligence (duty to take reasonable care) I would argue that just like a gun owner has a duty to take reasonable steps to secure their firearms, a computer owner has a duty to take reasonable steps to secure their computer. What's reasonable? That's for a jury to decide as all-round guide of what reasonable care is, is determined by a jury...and what jury is going to string up a grandmother? Given that, what DA is going to waste his/her resources bringing up granny in front of a jury just to get bitch slapped by that jury and the media backlash that follows.

--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html

And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8545620 Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:31:02 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8545364 garagerock : sweet! moderation city! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8545364 Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:53:12 EDT msg deleted http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8544477 anon : deleted by a moderator]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8544477 Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:28:58 EDT msg deleted http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8544432 anon : deleted by a moderator]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8544432 Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:08:12 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8544342 Kaltes : oliphant......

""Before you keep quoting the content of the DMCA, perhaps you should actually read it first. ""

Actually, I know more about section 512 of the DMCA than you'll ever know. You might be able to read it, but you don't understand what it means. I do. That is because I have a law school education and you don't. I'm not telling you aren't qualified to make any point, but you should have enough common sense to know when you are out of your league. In addition, you should not try to argue ABOUT THE LAW with someone who actually has an education. What, do you start arguing with your doctor about his diagnosis too? Google can only take you so far. Copy/pasting the opinions of people who DO know what they are talking about doesn't mean YOU understand what they are saying. Since you insist on attacking me personally, as well as claiming that you are something of an expert on the law when it is obvious that you aren't, I am not going to give your ignorant arguments the respect that the other posters on this forum deserve. If you stop posting ignorant and/or childish comments, I would be more than happy to refrain from belittling them.

""Sure sport...just like Title 17 gave everyone fair use rights that weren't overshadowed by the newer DMCA. No law is set in stone.""

The DMCA did not alter fair use rights under Copyright law. The anti-circumvention aspects of the DMCA simply granted copyright holders additional rights separate from their copy-rights. You just read a website that gave second-hand opinions about the DMCA and you're over here thinking you're an expert, lol. Are you actually trying to claim that this proposed act TARGETS ISPs? No, that would be stupid, because #1 ISPs would use their lobbying strength to kill the bill and #2 this is a criminal law, so who is held CRIMINALLY responsible at the ISP? It is very obvious from the article that the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act does not apply to ISPs. Your suggestion to the contrary, is NONSENSE.

""There IS NO SAFE HARBOR when it comes to providers not taking reasonable care to stop infringement. And reasonable care isn't exclusive to the DMCA guy.""

- Im sorry, but I didn't see the words 'reasonable care' anywhere in section 512 of the DMCA, why don't you copy/paste an example for me? I would especially like to have you show me where it says that an ISP loses safe harbor when the ISP does not take (your words) "reasonable care to stop infringement".

""It's also REQUIRES that...LIKE I SAID providers (insert CO quote)""

- Sorry, but what the copyright office says is not law. Congress determines what the DMCA requires, not the copyright office, unless specifically authorized to do so by Congress, which is not the case for section 512. This is yet another misunderstanding you have that a legal education would have resolved.

- I'd also like to point out that #1 the copyright office didn't use the word reasonable care #2 reasonable care is a term of art. Keep looking for that 'reasonable care' quote you owe me, lol!

""So contrary to what you just claimed...the DMCA EXPLICITLY makes ISPs liable for their users infringement if they don't take reasonable steps to stop it...just like now home users would have to take REASONABLE steps to stop it.""

- This really demonstrates how utterly ignorant of 512 you are, you couldn't be more wrong. Using the SAME copyright office document YOU QUOTED, allow me to QUOTE RIGHT BACK: "The failure of a service provider to qualify for any of the limitations in section 512 does not necessarily make it liable for copyright infringement"

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8544342 Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:07:21 EDT msg deleted http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8542298 anon : deleted by a moderator]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8542298 Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:03:07 EDT msg deleted http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8542043 anon : deleted by a moderator]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8542043 Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:43:07 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8539721 oliphant5 :
said by Kaltes See Profile:
What you are talking about it totally unrelated, and in addition the DMCA already gives ISPs safe harbor from liability/prosecution regarding infringements of their users!


Sure sport...just like Title 17 gave everyone fair use rights that weren't overshadowed by the newer DMCA. No law is set in stone. And WTF are you talking about safe harbor. There IS NO SAFE HARBOR when it comes to providers not taking reasonable care to stop infringement. And reasonable care isn't exclusive to the DMCA guy.

If you had bothered to actually read Article II of the DMCA you would see that their immunity only extends to things like system caching, transporting of other's data, search technologies.

It's also REQUIRES that...LIKE I SAID providers

said by US Copyright Office:
must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers


- United States Copyright Office Summary of the DMCA of 1998. »www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf

Before you keep quoting the content of the DMCA, perhaps you should actually read it first.

So contrary to what you just claimed...the DMCA EXPLICITLY makes ISPs liable for their users infringement if they don't take reasonable steps to stop it...just like now home users would have to take REASONABLE steps to stop it.

If ignorance is bliss you must be on cloud nine.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html

And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8539721 Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:51:21 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8539627 Kaltes :
said by oliphant5 See Profile:
Again...no one is going to haul off grandma...but they will go after say a web hoster who after being told to remove files or cut access to a infringing user simply ignores the demands of the state.



You really can't get anything right, can you? Did you even READ the news post? What you are talking about it totally unrelated, and in addition the DMCA already gives ISPs safe harbor from liability/prosecution regarding infringements of their users!

Sheesh, just stop posting until you know what you're talking about! You're just spewing nonsense now because you want to get the last word.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8539627 Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:40:57 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8539404 oliphant5 : No but if you have a gun in that unlocked car and someone takes it and kills someone with it, you can bet you will be held as criminally negligent.

They can just as easily transfer this idea of contributory negligence to someone who due to their own carelessness permits their computer to be used for a crime...but it would have to be blatant or a DA would never bring the case...for instance, the owner is also involved in illegal file trading then claims only some of the files were his, or he owned a server and let his friends use it...and they used it to trade files or make files available (which is why ISP's and web hosting companies will shut you down your site immediately if you post copyrighted files in your webspace...because they too are liable both civilly and with this law, criminally).

Again...no one is going to haul off grandma...but they will go after say a web hoster who after being told to remove files or cut access to a infringing user simply ignores the demands of the state.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8539404 Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:15:38 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8539203 Kaltes : A few comments:

""That bullshit excuse doesn't cut it if you are caught with someone elses drugs"" - garagerock

- If you are arrested for possession of those drugs, and you claim that those drugs aren't yours, and you don't know how they got there, AND THE JURY BELIEVES YOU, then you will, in fact, be found not guilty. So yes, it is a valid excuse.

""Do you have trouble reading? REASONABLE care."" - oliphant

- Where does it say in the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act that you have a duty of reasonable care to secure your PC, OR ELSE? If you think that reasonable care applies to EVERYTHING in life, you are dead wrong. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and it is very clear that you know just enough about the law to make outlandishly wrong statements like you have been doing.

- THE DUTY OF REASONABLE CARE is relevant to a civil suit for negligence, not a criminal law punishing willful violations of intellectual property law. WILLFUL violations do not use the negligence standard. Stop spewing misinformation on these boards.

""You're the fool who thinks there should be complete immunity in a case in which negligence permits your property to be used for criminal action."" - oliphant

- So if you leave your car door unlocked, and a guy steals your car, then uses it to muder someone in a drive-by shooting, because your negligence permitted your property to be used for a criminal action, you should be found guilty of murder? If geniuses like yourself, oliphant, ran our society, people would indeed be getting the death penalty for unlocking their car door. The problem with you is that you don't THINK about what you say before you say it, so you spew nonsense that has more to do with your own resentment of the world than it does with a thoughtful policy argument.

""Potentially the world could end tomorrow. With your brilliant logic, why do anything today because of "what ifs" tomorrow."" - oliphant

- Ponder this: You are a legislator. You ignorantly and NEGLIGENTLY propose/pass a law that results in a man being given the death penalty for leaving his car door unlocked. Your own law is then applied against you, since your negligence caused the death of a man who merely left his car door unlocked. You are subsequently put to death for your negligence.

- That is what happens when you don't THINK before you make policy. People like you are incompetent to lead.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8539203 Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:57:26 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8529695 oliphant5 : Do you have trouble reading? REASONABLE care. If you have a firewall up or have taken other basic measures then you aren't going to be gone after. You should actually READ the thread before replying to it.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8529695 Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:42:04 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8529474 BosstonesOwn : even if the safe guards are taken there is bugs in software. what happens if they get by your firewall??

go to jail ?? come on. They need to waste money on other things like getting broadband to the masses.
--
This package does not contain a winner...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8529474 Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:19:47 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8525494 garagerock : My point was, and continues to be, that if you are ignorant of "intellectual" property that's someone elses handiwork on your computer, you are liable. Period. You cannot, under the premise of law, state "I didn't know it was there". That bullshit excuse doesn't cut it if you are caught with someone elses drugs, someone elses dirty money, weapons, etc. (Unless you work for government :))

Some poor bastard who gets pulled over in his car and the cops find marijuana seeds in the ashtray, even if they weren't his, goes to jail. Why is this any different?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you didn't know it was illegal, you should take safeguards to ensure that this kind of material doesn't end up on your computer. It's that simple.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8525494 Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:25:22 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8524730 BosstonesOwn :
said by oliphant5 See Profile:
You're the fool who thinks there should be complete immunity in a case in which negligence permits your property to be used for criminal action.

Potentially the world could end tomorrow. With your brilliant logic, why do anything today because of "what ifs" tomorrow.

You cry of grandmas going to prison when that's not going to happen. Use your brain. What DA is going to bring up a case against some grandmother? Geez. Such paranoia...I'm surprised you can make it outside.


Dude think about some of the world and things like this will make more sense. The problem is the hackers. Sure the people should secure thier pc. Maybe the people making the pc should include a firewall ??

What your using sn't your brain. If some one gets by your firewall and implants stuff there for you to be sent to jail how would you like it. And don't say ohh then it's my fault for not securing my system because you would be flat out lieing. Admit it you don't think of the way the world works. not every one should have to be a security expert to use thier pc's there is other people to blame.

And my anaolgy was fine and to the point.

If some one hijacks your system and causes it to down say ebay you would say that you should go to jail ??? And talk the trueth not some half assed attempt to save face.
--
This package does not contain a winner...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8524730 Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:20:52 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8519144 oliphant5 : You're the fool who thinks there should be complete immunity in a case in which negligence permits your property to be used for criminal action.

Potentially the world could end tomorrow. With your brilliant logic, why do anything today because of "what ifs" tomorrow.

You cry of grandmas going to prison when that's not going to happen. Use your brain. What DA is going to bring up a case against some grandmother? Geez. Such paranoia...I'm surprised you can make it outside.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html

And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8519144 Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:00:58 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8517090 Kaltes :
said by oliphant5 See Profile:
No one is saddling grandma with prison. So dramatic. You obviously need to get hooked on phonics as you seem incapable of comprehending the written word.


oliphant you're just stooping to personal attacks because I pointed out your complete and total ignorance of the way the law really works, embarrassing you.

potentially, grandmas and grandpas COULD get nailed by this act if it becomes law, if hackers use their PCs to distribute camcorder movie rips. that is exactly what this news item is about: a draconian law attempting to hold people to account for things beyond their control.

if our democracy was in the hands of you, oliphant, and DSL Oberst, grandpas and grandmas would indeed be going to jail.

Im shocked that any of you can react with anything other than disgust and contempt for this proposed law. the movie industry is effectively bribing politicians into using massive amounts of public law enforcement money (OUR MONEY) to throw people into prison for DARING to endanger movie profits!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8517090 Sun, 16 Nov 2003 03:15:16 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8517067 Kaltes :
said by DSL Oberst See Profile:

Very well, if the users are not to have responsibility, who should be responsible for the security of a user's machine?


How about making the HACKER the one responsible for the wrongdoing. Can't identify/locate the hacker? Tough. Don't punish the innocent party just because you want to punish SOMEONE.

If someone broke into your garage and stole your car, then used it to rob a bank, how would you like being thrown in jail for bank robbery, simply because you didnt go out of your way to constantly update the security on your garage?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8517067 Sun, 16 Nov 2003 03:04:56 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8516823 TheHelpful1 : Just HAD to do that huh?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8516823 Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:59:00 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8516820 TheHelpful1 : This reminds me of a worm story i read elsewhere. Over in britain i think, this guy and his wife were sitting in another room when the child-daughter comes from the computer room saying theres something weird on the screen.

Father comes in and theres kiddie porn on the monitor. Long story short - wife blames husband, takes daughter away, calls police on husband. Turns out a worm put on his computer through outlook left a backdoor open and someone was using his HDD to store their stuff. In the court case, a thorough review of his PC showed he was telling the truth. But his wife still doesnt believe him and he has to fight to rebuild his life because of a computer worm.

This is good that he was exonorated, but it opens a bad door for real pedophreaks. Same with this law. Illegal to have the file/movie, but what if you didnt put it there or even knew it was on your pc?

Question 1 - how likely is it that the hacker will put the file in the same shared directory that you have for kazaa/etc?
Question 2 - if he put it in another, unshared p2p folder and the media companies still found it - arent they guilty of hacking your network and compromising your secure data?
--
"Not that you would, but you could"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8516820 Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:58:11 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8516224 Desdinova : It seems to me that it might be interesting for someone to hide a film or two (maybe 1984 or Brazil) on Valenti's and Ashcroft's computers and then see how everything turns out.

Of course I also wonder if Arlen Spector ever got a speeding ticket and how THAT was handled, but I clearly have too much time on my hands. *grin*]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8516224 Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:02:30 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8512341 oliphant5 : No one is saddling grandma with prison. So dramatic. You obviously need to get hooked on phonics as you seem incapable of comprehending the written word.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8512341 Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:16:13 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8512304 str7 : It's not because you're machine is secure that you won't necessarily get hacked, just like it's not because you're car is "secure" that it will not be broken into (or home or whatever).

As an analogy, say that getting into a car to deposit 1 pound of drugs was easy to do and something that happened every day. Add to that those cars would be put on a list easily available to everyone (who could then call to say you have drugs in your car). In such a context, would a law that says if the police finds 1 pound of drug in your car make you instantly guilty regardless of circumstances of drug dealing, facing a 250000$ penalty and years of jail be well-thought? I don't think so.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8512304 Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:11:50 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8511071 DSL Oberst :
said by Kaltes See Profile:

Very well said. I am glad to see that at least one other forum user here is shocked at how accepting most of the posters here are of saddling grandma and grandpa with the risk of federal prison simply because they aren't computer security experts.

All those same posters are sitting back armchair-quarterback/general style making legal commentary when they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.


See my reply post to BosstonesOwn.
Very well, if the users are not to have responsibility, who should be responsible for the security of a user's machine?
That is truly the question at stake here, as that is the questions this entire bill is based on.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8511071 Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:31:02 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8511063 DSL Oberst :
said by 2kmaro See Profile:
My advice: make sure that as part of the jury selection your lawyer asks prospective jurors if they've ever had a virus or trojan on their computer. Those that reply NO for any reason, excuse with cause!


Heh. That's a good idea.
I don't know if you meant it to be humourous, but I certainly find it to be so.
:)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8511063 Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:29:02 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8511054 DSL Oberst : Edited for directly applicable content.

said by BosstonesOwn See Profile:
What your basiclly stating would push 3/4 of the american population back into the stone age of computing when people say the hell with this I can get a 250 k penalty just for leaving my computer on.


Basically, you are stating that the user should not be responsible for the computers they own.
Ok, no problem.
Simply point out to me who should be responsible for the security of your computer other than yourself and I will be more than happy to lay that responsibility at that person/entity's feet.

What if that person were myself?
How would you feel if I were responsible for the security of your computer?
If the user does not take responsibility, that responsibility will be given by the government to someone else - along with the authorization to do what they deem necessary to make it secure.
Anyone who thinks about it sees the implications.

The airline safety isn't up to snuff? Give the responsibility and authority to the FAA.
The industries are polluting the environment with waste and won't police it themselves? Give the responsibility and authority to the EPA.

The computer users won't take the responsibility to make their own computers secure? Give that responsibility and authority to...whom? Create a new agency?
Probably not. They'd give it to an already existing one.
Perhaps the Secret Service? Oh yeah, they investigate computer crime with draconian tactics...how would you like them to be responsible for security of your system?
Or the Department of Homeland Security?
I'll take my own responsibility, thank you.

Freedom = responsibility for your actions and property
Denying responsibility for your actions and property = the government giving someone else authority over you

Think on it.

said by BosstonesOwn See Profile:
Then all those federal machines and goverment machines that have been used to send out these movies will also be at risk. Your hard earned tax dollars going to pay the mpaa's attorneys and put some loot in their pockets.


No problem, make the federal and state governments responsible for their systems! That's called giving government "accountability".

said by BosstonesOwn See Profile:
For god sakes man this is like some one stole your car and committed a bank robery killing 2 people and you getting the sentence for it while the killer/robber gets away free and clear.


Extremely bad analogy.
A better analogy is, I'm driving my car and the bank robber dives into my back seat while I'm stopped at the stoplight. Then, instead of stopping the car and getting out, I go ahead and drive on home with the robber in my backseat, allowing him to make a getaway. Why? Hey - I'm not responsible for what goes on in my car.

said by BosstonesOwn See Profile:
You think one way not thinking about the consequences. If your machine is "rooted" and used for this how would you enjoy being a$$raped by a big prisoner named bubba while you scream your not guilty.


Solution: Make it so people can't "root" my machine. By whatever means necessary.

If you don't like my solution, I suggest coming up with your own that is viable.
And all you have to do is figure out who should be responsible.
:)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8511054 Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:27:39 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8509575 Kaltes :
said by BosstonesOwn See Profile:

For god sakes man this is like some one stole your car and committed a bank robery killing 2 people and you getting the sentence for it while the killer/robber gets away free and clear.


Very well said. I am glad to see that at least one other forum user here is shocked at how accepting most of the posters here are of saddling grandma and grandpa with the risk of federal prison simply because they aren't computer security experts.

All those same posters are sitting back armchair-quarterback/general style making legal commentary when they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

The fact is that we live in a democracy and those are OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES sitting in Congress deciding this proposed law. We have the right and the responsibility to assert our interests in the form of phone calls, letters, and our vote, etc.

This ACT is nothing more than the MPAA trying to get the US TAXPAYER to foot the bill for securing the MPAA's business model! Don't let them do it!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8509575 Sat, 15 Nov 2003 06:27:14 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8508969 2kmaro :
said by DSL Oberst See Profile:

A: "That depends on whether the owner of the computer is responsible for keeping his computer secure from hackers who attempt to hack it.

According to my provider, via their Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), I am responsible for said security and all things on it and how they are made accessible (or not). From the Cox HSI AUP:
said by CurrentCox HSI AUP:

9. Security You are solely responsible for the security of any device connected to the Service, including any data stored on that device. Cox recommends that you take appropriate security precautions for any systems connected to the Service.

11. Viruses, Trojan Horses, Worms and Denial of Service Attacks Software or other content downloaded from the Service may contain viruses and it is your sole responsibility to take appropriate precautions to protect your computer from damage to its software, files and data. ...


I strongly suspect that language much like that is in every ISP's AUP or Terms of Service agreement.

My advice: make sure that as part of the jury selection your lawyer asks prospective jurors if they've ever had a virus or trojan on their computer. Those that reply NO for any reason, excuse with cause!
--
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Supreme Court Justice Brandeis (Olmstead vs US, 1928)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8508969 Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:42:46 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8507937 Urzumph :
said by oliphant5 See Profile:
why not also blame the ISP, or name Microsoft as an accomplice for having the vulnerabilities in the first place?


Good idea, then we can hand them in and collect our bounty from them :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8507937 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:53:44 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8507536 str7 : The difference is that in this case you can be in the know in regards of the law while not doing a single thing to be in infraction of the law, yet BE in infraction of the law.

Just look at the latest wave of virus and it's not hard to see how computers can get compromised (because of Windows flaws).

This would affect anyone that runs a server. Heck, even a big game company (Valve) got hacked by a mischievous hacker.

If the Nasa can be hacked, so can anyone.

The problem here is that someone can be unaware that an infringing movie sits on his computer. Even if that person knows the law, that person can't act lawfully since they do not know that the file is on their computer.

It got nothing to do with not knowing the law.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8507536 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:06:40 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8507510 Bumpin1ohm :
said by AthlGrond See Profile:
said by Kaltes See Profile:
No I'm fairly certain you DON'T understand, this isn't an ignorance of the law issue, is an ignorance of the fact that you ARE IN VIOLATION of the law.
I'm aware that you are not aware that he is aware that they aren't aware.

Glad I could help clear that up.
no matter how slow i read that... still couldnt follow...
--
Line Stats: 1536x768 || Cisco Modem/Router || 5 Static IPs || 5 Pop3/webmail Email Accounts || Usenet Access || No Bandwidth limitations or Blocked ports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8507510 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:03:16 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8506907 BosstonesOwn : What your basiclly stating would push 3/4 of the american population back into the stone age of computing when people say the hell with this I can get a 250 k penalty just for leaving my computer on.

Then all those federal machines and goverment machines that have been used to send out these movies will also be at risk. Your hard earned tax dollars going to pay the mpaa's attorneys and put some loot in their pockets.

For god sakes man this is like some one stole your car and committed a bank robery killing 2 people and you getting the sentence for it while the killer/robber gets away free and clear.

You think one way not thinking about the consequences. If your machine is "rooted" and used for this how would you enjoy being a$$raped by a big prisoner named bubba while you scream your not guilty.

If this gets by may god have mercy on any one and every one who owns a computer. As 75% of the us will be going back to the abacus basiclly.
--
This package does not contain a winner...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8506907 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:47:23 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8506607 DSL Oberst : I believe I will answer this in a running dialog format, as that works out better than lengthy explanations.

Q: "Is it fair that the computer's owner be prosecuted and face $250,000 if they didn't put the movie on the computer, had no knowledge it was there and had to take special measures to delete it from the computer?"

A: "That depends on whether the owner of the computer is responsible for keeping his computer secure from hackers who attempt to hack it.

If the answer is yes, the owner is responsible, then the owner must take all necessary steps in order to prevent hackers from usurping his machine. If this means that the owner must actually learn how to make his computer secure, so be it. Failure to do so is his responsibility and thus he is liable for all penalties that will occur due to that failure.

If the answer is no, then it must be determined what entity is responsible for keeping the owner's computer secure, and punish them for not doing so. If this means that a regulatory agency needs to be created to ensure such security, so be it.

Either way, someone is responsible for preventing such occurrences. That someone needs to be determined and the burden of responsibility placed on them; the responsible party will then bear the brunt of penalties assessed for failing to keep to the law."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8506607 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:08:53 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8505428 oliphant5 : Then seeing as it's not a civil tort and rather a criminal case...all this is moot. You will never be able to judge a law as to HOW it will be used, UNTIL it is used.

No DA is going to waste time with a case he/she won't win...especially after the defense loads the jury with mindless AOLers.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html

And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8505428 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:38:57 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8505377 AthlGrond :
said by Kaltes See Profile:
No I'm fairly certain you DON'T understand, this isn't an ignorance of the law issue, is an ignorance of the fact that you ARE IN VIOLATION of the law.
I'm aware that you are not aware that he is aware that they aren't aware.

Glad I could help clear that up.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8505377 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:31:31 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8505012 Kaltes : 1st of all we are talking about GUILT here not liability.

the issue here is that you will end up with a criminal defendant sitting there saying "I'm Innocent I tell you!!! INNOCENT!" up against the equivalent of caught-red-handed evidence. The defendant's argument that he was hacked will be viewed as a far-fetched attempt to escape punishment, and the jury will just decide the case based on sympathy:

if they like the defendant, he wins, if they don't like him for any reason, off to federal prison he goes.

Of course if the whole hacking defense is recognized as a valid defense, you will hear it in EVERY CASE, even the ones where the defendant truly intentionally broke the law. Then either the jury will always give the defendant the benefit of the doubt (which will make the law pointless, since EVERYONE can claim to be HaX0R3d and get off) or they will risk throwing innocent people in federal prison.

The whole situation is a stupid mess best avoided by peeing on this law (and heck Feinstein too while we are at it) then burning it and scattering the ashes into the ocean.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8505012 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:42:54 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8504941 Kaltes : No I'm fairly certain you DON'T understand, this isn't an ignorance of the law issue, is an ignorance of the fact that you ARE IN VIOLATION of the law.

Usually both issues are the same, because for sane, normal laws people are usually only ignorant that they are breaking a law because they are ignorant of the law itself. This is a different case, however.

If you knew anything about the law I could just tell you to look at the difference between factual impossibility and legal impossibility to understand the distinction that you have managed to confuse, but since you don't know the law I will try to dumb it down to an analogy:

It would be VERY EASY for a hacker-type to take a compromised computer, cause that computer to violate the law, then clean up after himself and call in an anonymous tip. Then Joe Blow ignorant AOL user has police bust down his door before he can so much as sign on and hear "you've got mail". Mr. Blow DIDN'T KNOW he was in violation of the law, even though (thanks to MPAA commercials or something) he knew about the law itself. This law is effectively forcing the unwashed computer-illiterate masses to secure their own computers and vigilantly police their computers OR FACE FEDERAL PRISON. Guess what: THEY AREN'T CAPABLE.

Would this scenario be likely? Probably not, but the POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE inherent in this law is significant enough that the whole thing should be scrapped.

Besides, screw hollywood, they havent even proven that these crappy pre-release crappy camcorder rips even harm their business, and they already have corrupt senators lining up to throw Americans into federal prison for it???]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8504941 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:33:40 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8504704 oliphant5 : If he didn't do it...then he isn't liable. Some hacker would be the one making the file available.

Blaming the computer's owner...well, why not also blame the ISP, or name Microsoft as an accomplice for having the vulnerabilities in the first place? A hacker is using someone else's computer to commit a crime...the computer's owner can't be responsible for the criminal acts of others.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network »www.theanimenetwork.com/index.html And something pretty good from the Cooler »elev.ru.orebro.se/ru0369/HAHAHAHA.MPG]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8504704 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:04:36 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8504703 garagerock : I'm fairly certain I understand. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for 85 year old grannies who end up getting arrested for being drug mules, why would it not apply to this issue as well?

I'm not saying the penalty is fair; in fact, it is ridiculous. It is a copy of a crappy movie, whoopee!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8504703 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:04:24 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8503967 str7 : I'm not sure you understand the topic...

It seems that it is easy to hack onto a computer and then put the movie there for grabs, without the computer's owner even knowing that the movie is on his computer. To boot, the hacker puts the movie in directories that use characters that Windows XP can't delete. So even if the computer's owner finds out the movie is there, he won't be able to delete it easily either.

The article poses the question "Is it fair that the computer's owner be prosecuted and face $250,000 if they didn't put the movie on the computer, had no knowledge it was there and had to take special measures to delete it from the computer?" (since saying your computer was hacked doesn't seem to be a valid defense in court)

The question ain't whether you know the law or not...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8503967 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:31:43 EDT Re: Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8503620 oliphant5 : Like Steve Martin and the IRS...two words that will get you out of any IRS situation.

"I...forgot."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8503620 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:42:41 EDT Ignorance of the Law.... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8503586 garagerock : Come on, you know the old adage.

Besides, since they can't police themselves, they have to have a legal apparatus to police all of us.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8503586 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:38:12 EDT