Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet - Firewalls

This is a discussion on Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet - Firewalls ; Why would you even need to change MAC address? It is all unique. How would they trace it? On Oct 7, 7:45 am, Slacker wrote: > On 6 Oct 2007 18:55:21 GMT, Juergen Nieveler wrote: > > > The MAC ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 56 of 56

Thread: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

  1. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued bythe RIAA Safenet

    Why would you even need to change MAC address? It is all unique. How
    would they trace it?

    On Oct 7, 7:45 am, Slacker wrote:
    > On 6 Oct 2007 18:55:21 GMT, Juergen Nieveler wrote:
    >
    > > The MAC usually can be changed ;-)

    >
    > Is this the recommended procecedure for "anonymous" public hot spot?
    >
    > 1. Find public hot spot (usinghttp://www.wififreespot.com)
    > 2. Turn off your wireless transmitter & go to that public hotspot
    > 3. Change your MAC address to DEADBEEFCAFE (using MacMakeUp freeware)
    > 4. Change your PC name (My Computer, Properties, Computer Name)
    > 5. Change your login ID (create one for this session only)
    > 6. Set up your (encrypted?) sandbox (sandboxie or truecrypt freeware)
    > 7. ??? anything else ???
    > 8. Start your browser sandboxed or on an encrypted disk
    > 9. When done, turn off your wireless transmitter again.
    > 10. Return all settings back to normal (non hotspot settings)
    >
    > Are we safe if we follow these ten easy hotspot steps?



  2. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    "zcarenow@yahoo.com" wrote:

    > Why would you even need to change MAC address?


    Because:

    >It is all unique.


    Somebody who knows your MAC and has access to the wifi gear at the
    hotspot could trace your whereabouts.

    > How would they trace it?


    Anybody with access to the WLAN-router can see what devices are
    connected. If you're in a small cybercafe that runs their own
    equipment, that would probably mean it's just the technical staff there
    who can do that.

    If, however, the hotspot technology is provided by a large ISP (The
    Cloud, Fon, T-Com, whatever...), they could simply collect every new
    MAC that hooks up to one of their Wifi devices in a huge database which
    would allow them to say "The machine with that MAC was seen in the
    Starbucks in London-Heathrow at X o'clock on the Yth December, and was
    next seen in a deli in New York in January".

    Juergen Nieveler
    --
    SENILE.COM found . . . Out Of Memory . . .

  3. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

    Leythos wrote:
    > In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
    > onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
    >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
    >>
    >>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
    >>> needed.

    >> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
    >>
    >> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the house?
    >>
    >> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

    >
    > No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
    > from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
    > records....
    >

    I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
    copyright infringers in any jurisdiction that I know of.

    Can you substatiate your spurious claim?

  4. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

    anthonyberet wrote:
    > Leythos wrote:
    >> In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
    >> onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
    >>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all
    >>>> that's needed.
    >>> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
    >>>
    >>> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the
    >>> house?
    >>>
    >>> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

    >>
    >> No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
    >> from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
    >> records....

    > I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
    > copyright infringers in any jurisdiction that I know of.
    >
    > Can you substatiate your spurious claim?


    Apologies for the typos. I have fat-finger syndrome today.

  5. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued bythe RIAA Safenet

    I understand what you're saying. What if someone sends a virus or
    downloads an illegal software, etc from the Wi-Fi spot and then takes
    off. He leaves that Wi-Fi spot. They can trace it when that person is
    there, but not a 'hit and run' right? I would think someone who was
    going to do no good wouldn't stick around at that Wi-Fi spot once he
    does his deed quickly.

    On Nov 16, 3:49 am, Juergen Nieveler
    wrote:
    > "zcare...@yahoo.com" wrote:
    > > Why would you even need to change MAC address?

    >
    > Because:
    >
    > >It is all unique.

    >
    > Somebody who knows your MAC and has access to the wifi gear at the
    > hotspot could trace your whereabouts.
    >
    > > How would they trace it?

    >
    > Anybody with access to the WLAN-router can see what devices are
    > connected. If you're in a small cybercafe that runs their own
    > equipment, that would probably mean it's just the technical staff there
    > who can do that.
    >
    > If, however, the hotspot technology is provided by a large ISP (The
    > Cloud, Fon, T-Com, whatever...), they could simply collect every new
    > MAC that hooks up to one of their Wifi devices in a huge database which
    > would allow them to say "The machine with that MAC was seen in the
    > Starbucks in London-Heathrow at X o'clock on the Yth December, and was
    > next seen in a deli in New York in January".
    >
    > Juergen Nieveler
    > --
    > SENILE.COM found . . . Out Of Memory . . .



  6. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    "zcarenow@yahoo.com" wrote:

    > I understand what you're saying. What if someone sends a virus or
    > downloads an illegal software, etc from the Wi-Fi spot and then takes
    > off. He leaves that Wi-Fi spot. They can trace it when that person is
    > there, but not a 'hit and run' right? I would think someone who was
    > going to do no good wouldn't stick around at that Wi-Fi spot once he
    > does his deed quickly.


    The problem is more a privacy issue - somebody can built up a profile
    of your movements...

    For the police to catch a culprit, they'd have to watch the networks of
    multiple ISPs and get notified if the right MAC shows up, then send a
    patrol car to arrest everybody at that location... difficult, but
    doable in an anti-terror background.

    Juergen Nieveler
    --
    If the enemy is in range, so are you.

  7. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    In article <5q6vlqFub8avU1@mid.individual.net>, nospam@me.invalid
    says...
    > Leythos wrote:
    > > In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
    > > onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
    > >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
    > >>> needed.
    > >> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
    > >>
    > >> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the house?
    > >>
    > >> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

    > >
    > > No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
    > > from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
    > > records....
    > >

    > I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
    > copyright infringers in any jurisdiction that I know of.
    >
    > Can you substatiate your spurious claim?


    Is it against the law to pirate media?

    Is it against the law to provide pirated media?

    Can you say no to BOTH of those? If you answer YES to either then you
    have reason for a warrant.

    --

    Leythos
    - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
    - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
    drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

  8. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued bythe RIAA Safenet

    Sure, i understand. From what one true hacker posted, he would
    dedicate one of his old laptops to "experiment" and not for anything
    else. He would use this laptop at any Wi-Fi spot to "experiment" on.
    He would also format his drive occasionally. His laptop was a 'hot'
    one. I suspect he meant not his originally.

    > The problem is more a privacy issue - somebody can built up a profile
    > of your movements...
    >
    > For the police to catch a culprit, they'd have to watch the networks of
    > multiple ISPs and get notified if the right MAC shows up, then send a
    > patrol car to arrest everybody at that location... difficult, but
    > doable in an anti-terror background.
    >
    > Juergen Nieveler
    > --
    > If the enemy is in range, so are you.



  9. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

    Leythos wrote:
    > In article <5q6vlqFub8avU1@mid.individual.net>, nospam@me.invalid
    > says...
    >> Leythos wrote:
    >>> In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
    >>> onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
    >>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
    >>>>> needed.
    >>>> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
    >>>>
    >>>> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the house?
    >>>>
    >>>> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?
    >>> No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
    >>> from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
    >>> records....
    >>>

    >> I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
    >> copyright infringers in any jurisdiction that I know of.
    >>
    >> Can you substatiate your spurious claim?

    >
    > Is it against the law to pirate media?
    >

    No

    > Is it against the law to provide pirated media?
    >

    No

    > Can you say no to BOTH of those?


    Yes.

    If you answer YES to either then you
    > have reason for a warrant.
    >

    Right. Just as long as that is clear.

  10. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

    anthonyberet wrote:
    > Leythos wrote:
    >> Is it against the law to pirate media?
    >>

    > No


    .....if and only if the information contained therein is not copyright or
    intellectual property.

    >> Is it against the law to provide pirated media?
    >>

    > No


    This is incorrect. Since the definition of pirated media is material
    which is obtained in breach of copyright or IP law, you are inevitably
    breaking the law if you supply it.

    > If you answer YES to either then you
    >> have reason for a warrant.

    > Right. Just as long as that is clear.


    ..... hmm....

  11. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    anthonyberet wrote:

    > Leythos wrote:
    >> In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
    >> onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
    >>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
    >>>> needed.
    >>> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
    >>>
    >>> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the
    >>> house?
    >>>
    >>> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

    >>
    >> No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
    >> from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
    >> records....
    >>

    > I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
    > copyright infringers in any jurisdiction that I know of.
    >
    > Can you substatiate your spurious claim?


    I search warrant is not needed except in criminal cases. in civil cases, a
    subpoena is used to "confiscate" the equipment holding the "proscribed
    materials" and its then imaged. now, if a civil case goes against the
    defendant, then information gained from that civil case can be used to
    obtain a warrant for further searches (as well the previously testified
    info presented in the civil case can also be used in the criminal courts).

    it rather depends on which court system was used first: civil or criminal.
    if criminal first, then yes, a warrant is required for search and seizure
    of equipment/drives/etc (unless there is sufficient probable cause to go in
    without a warrant first).

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
    numbered!
    My life is my own - No. 6

  12. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    luvtopost wrote:

    > Sure, i understand. From what one true hacker posted, he would
    > dedicate one of his old laptops to "experiment" and not for anything
    > else. He would use this laptop at any Wi-Fi spot to "experiment" on.
    > He would also format his drive occasionally. His laptop was a 'hot'
    > one. I suspect he meant not his originally.


    I really wish you guys would not use the term "hacker" to describe a
    script-kiddie or a cyberpunk (either of which are clearly criminal elements
    on the net).to do so means you are falling right into the very same trap
    the news media has (its an old rule, tell a lie big enough, for long
    enough, and eventually everyone will believe that its true).

    It didn't help that hollywood boilstered this criminal image of hackers.

    anyway, I know a few hackers personally. a lot of them are pretty quiet,
    extremely intelligent engineer types then build and create new technologies
    (apple anyone?).

    anyway, it isn't that hard to keep an eye on a server to see if the same MAC
    address shows up from on the net (its part of the packet headers that
    define not only the IP, but the machine behind a NAT/firewall. this is why
    they call it a "Media Access Control" header. btw, you can read more about
    MAC addresses here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address


    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
    numbered!
    My life is my own - No. 6

  13. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued bythe RIAA Safenet

    On Nov 22, 5:07 pm, Technomage Hawke
    wrote:
    > anyway, it isn't that hard to keep an eye on a server to see if the same MAC
    > address shows up from on the net (its part of the packet headers that
    > define not only the IP, but the machine behind a NAT/firewall. this is why
    > they call it a "Media Access Control" header. btw, you can read more about


    This is incorrect. MAC addresses are used to address frames inside
    ethernet networks. As most LAN are ethernet nowdays you'll find them
    there. However, a MAC address is not part of the routed IP packet. In
    other words, once you cross the router the MAC address from the
    original frame which arrived at the router is not visible anymore.

    If your computer wants to send an IP packet into the internet, all it
    knows in the beginning is the IP address of the default gateway to use
    as the IP address is not part of its own LAN. It finds the MAC address
    of this gateway inside your LAN using ARP. Once it knows the MAC
    address is puts the IP packet for the internet server into an ethernet
    frame addressed to the MAC address of your router (aka default
    gateway).

    The router receives the ethernet frame, takes out the IP packet and
    decides how to route the IP packet. If the router is connected via
    ethernet to the next hop it will do exactly the same thing again: it
    uses the IP address of the the default gateway on your internet
    connection. It finds the MAC address of this next hop with ARP. Now
    the router puts the IP packet into an ethernet frame with its own MAC
    address as source and the next hop's MAC address as destination.

    This continues like this but usually you'll find other protocols in
    between, e.g. ATM. The important thing: the MAC address is only valid
    and used inside the ethernet network. The MAC address will not be send
    out with the IP packet. The MAC addresses will change with every hop.

    If the MAC address of a device is somehow exposed to the internet it
    is only because it was added somewhere in the IP payload, i.e. into
    the contents of the IP packet. But this is application dependent.

    Gerald

  14. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

    Mark McIntyre wrote:
    > anthonyberet wrote:
    >> Leythos wrote:
    >>> Is it against the law to pirate media?
    >>>

    >> No

    >
    > .....if and only if the information contained therein is not copyright
    > or intellectual property.
    >
    >>> Is it against the law to provide pirated media?
    >>>

    >> No

    >
    > This is incorrect. Since the definition of pirated media is material
    > which is obtained in breach of copyright or IP law, you are inevitably
    > breaking the law if you supply it.
    >
    >> If you answer YES to either then you
    >>> have reason for a warrant.

    >> Right. Just as long as that is clear.

    >
    > ..... hmm....



    Perhaps you or Leythos could refer me to a case anywhere in the world
    where a warrant has been used to enter a person's home and examine their
    computer, because they were suspected of infringing copyright on p2p
    systems on a non-commercial basis?

    I think you will find that copyright infringement is a civil matter, not
    a criminal one, pretty much everywhere.

    In my country, raids have been made under fraud legislation (the Oink
    case, which is unlikely to fly in court), and under trading and tax laws
    when companies have been producing or supplying pirate videos, but not
    for simple copying without agreement.

    In the US, the RIAA has been subpeonaing ISPs to get user details, and
    then sending the users letters to demand financial penalties or face
    civil court. Some have gone to court, and the courts have ordered the
    PCs be examined, but that is hardly the same thing.

  15. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being suedby the RIAA Safenet

    Technomage Hawke wrote:
    > anthonyberet wrote:
    >
    >> Leythos wrote:
    >>> In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
    >>> onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
    >>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
    >>>>> needed.
    >>>> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
    >>>>
    >>>> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the
    >>>> house?
    >>>>
    >>>> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?
    >>> No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
    >>> from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
    >>> records....
    >>>

    >> I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
    >> copyright infringers in any jurisdiction that I know of.
    >>
    >> Can you substatiate your spurious claim?

    >
    > I search warrant is not needed except in criminal cases. in civil cases, a
    > subpoena is used to "confiscate" the equipment holding the "proscribed
    > materials" and its then imaged. now, if a civil case goes against the
    > defendant, then information gained from that civil case can be used to
    > obtain a warrant for further searches (as well the previously testified
    > info presented in the civil case can also be used in the criminal courts).
    >
    > it rather depends on which court system was used first: civil or criminal.
    > if criminal first, then yes, a warrant is required for search and seizure
    > of equipment/drives/etc (unless there is sufficient probable cause to go in
    > without a warrant first).
    >

    Yes that sounds more like it. I am not aware of the criminal justice
    system having been used in the first instance.

  16. Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    anthonyberet wrote:
    > Bollocks!


    you proclaim this, yet the case law already exists AND is being used.

    don't you have anything to support this claim of "Bollocks!"?

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
    numbered!
    My life is my own - No. 6

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3