nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC
| reply to bentman78
Re: uh huh
and if this guy defends himself, I don't know if he will be able to pick a jury with smart people like you.... the prosecution will pick dumb people who will believe the logs, and won't be able to comprehend that someone could have masked the MAC or IP address... |
|
bentman78
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
| this is one of my fears as well. I think we will only see more cases such as this in the future.
My feeling is this:
there will be more and more cases of what the media calls "cyber-crime" and "hackers" (I hate the term myself, the media misuses it) that will breech our headlines and our courts. Unfortunately most people don't have a good understanding of the technologies involved. This goes for jurors, judges and especially lawyers who seem to be stifling innovation at best in my opinion. Basically you have people judging without being truly aware of all of the implications involved, security, copyright laws or otherwise.
What I guess I am trying to say is this guy won't get a fair chance because a majority of the people involved don't really know what a MAC/IP address even is let alone being aware of MAC spoofing, cracking WEP keys (I am aware this guys AP was unsecured) or anything else more advanced than "surfin' tha net'. This goes for the lawyers as well, and I seriously doubt a technical expert will be consulted on this case to verify the defendants arguments. Is it likely someone sat in his driveway and use his connection? No. Feasible? certainly, and you might not even have to be that close. I pick up peoples AP's from across the street, it's weak but I can get it.
The problem is our judicial system isn't prepared for the next phase in society that will become highly technical. This goes for our patents system as well and there needs to be revisions soon as more and more cases such as this show up. If this man is found guilty on the pretense that "we have logs", he possibly could have downloaded stuff, he should be responsible for his open AP it will set a new precedence for future judgements in this case. I am certainly no expert in law, I just can't see where the MPAA has the evidence or what the defendants rights are. I noted somewhere down the thread that property can't be seized in a civil case, then it turns criminal and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" kicks in, is this true?
Might I also bring up the case in Tampa where the man was found guilty of "hacking" by using someones access point that wasn't his? Many people supported him being charged with a crime because he was using a connection that wasn't his. How is this any different. Should this guy in Cincinnati or where ever be responsible because someone used his connection. According to the case in Tamps he shouldn't....where does the line end and where does it begin? |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
| reply to nonner9
agree. would pick the dumb that think anything in ISP logs is 100% proof. but it is also possible that a WAP crashes and resets to defaults AFTER it was set up securely without the operator knowing anything about it. wasn't using mine for a bit as wasn't working from home and kept getting emails from Charter sayign ASF or whomever and MPAA were saying I was trading shit. Updated the FW and moved do another subnet so if it defaults again there's no access from it. But it is quite a plausible defense and if it's true I hope he wins. |
|
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to bentman78
said by bentman78  :I noted somewhere down the thread that property can't be seized in a civil case, then it turns criminal and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" kicks in, is this true? No. But it is a separate civil procedure to get a judgement against property. That is you can lose a civil suit, but if you refuse to pay, the winner has to go back into court to get a judgement to seize the losers assets.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page |
|
Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC
| reply to nonner9
said by nonner9 :and if this guy defends himself, I don't know if he will be able to pick a jury with smart people like you.... the prosecution will pick dumb people who will believe the logs, and won't be able to comprehend that someone could have masked the MAC or IP address... I'm pick dumb people as well, and I would act very dumb myself. Dumb people would be more willing to believe your wireless network was 'hacked' and computer nerds took advantage of you. Not to mention, everyone of them would put themselves in your shoes as a dumb computer illiterate who is being rail-roaded by a huge, wealthy interest group. |
|
