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 ; Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet What else do they know about you if you file share songs or movies? It seems they know whether or not you're using ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 56

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

  1. Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected Jammie
    Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

    What else do they know about you if you file share songs or movies?

    It seems they know whether or not you're using a wireless router and what
    the internal IP address is (192.168.m.n) according to this news article.
    http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html

    "The Charter IP address identified the night of the downloading was
    24.179.199.117, according to testimony from Edgar and Weaver. Had a
    wireless router been used, the internal private IP address assigned by the
    router would also have been detected by investigators, he claimed -- likely
    beginning with 192.168."

    So, they know your
    - Name & address you provided to the isp
    - IP Address assigned to you by the isp
    - Computer IP address assigned by the router
    - Songs or movies you share on your computer with limewire or bittorrent
    - Songs or movies you download with kazaa or azureus
    - ?

    What else do they know about you if you file share songs or movies?

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

    In article <8dOMi.57413$YL5.28113@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
    onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
    >
    > Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected Jammie
    > Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet


    NO, not at all.

    The fact is that the PUBLIC IP you use can be tracked and is recorded by
    the ISP. You run a service that shares files, or you just download them,
    the router does not block their ability to see you connect to their
    download site and track the number/content that you download.

    So, All the RIAA needs is your IP and they can get the rest from the
    ISP. They don't need to know your LAN (private) address to find you.

    when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
    needed.

    --

    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)

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

    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?

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

    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....

    Face it, if you break the law you don't have much to complain about.

    The person responsible for the internet connection is first, then the
    computer owner, and then you can guess if one person in the 5 will rat
    the others out.

    --

    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)

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

    On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:

    > 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....


    "On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
    Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
    from 'right outside her window.'"
    (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html

    So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
    her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
    attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
    took the stand for about 90 minutes."

    Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
    asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
    for the search warrant to see.

    Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
    file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
    computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
    partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid
    occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
    anyway.

    Would an additional PeerGuardian freeware firewall (in addition to the
    wireless router) also have provided basic protection to Jammie from Safenet
    eavesdropping?

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

    In article ,
    onesolution@sbcglobal.net says...
    > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:
    >
    > > 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....

    >
    > "On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
    > Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
    > from 'right outside her window.'"
    > (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html
    >
    > So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
    > her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
    > attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
    > took the stand for about 90 minutes."
    >
    > Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
    > asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
    > for the search warrant to see.


    So, a person that isn't guilty removes the drive because there is
    nothing to hide. A person that didn't even know it was happening removed
    a hard drive because of something they don't know about.

    > Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
    > file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
    > computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
    > partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid
    > occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
    > anyway.


    So, we're advocating that people the commit crimes should have wipe
    functions that trigger in case of a police action?

    > Would an additional PeerGuardian freeware firewall (in addition to the
    > wireless router) also have provided basic protection to Jammie from Safenet
    > eavesdropping?


    Fact, all that is needed is to know the public IP, no firewall will
    prevent that from being detected/seen by the download site.

    --

    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)

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

    OneSolution wrote:

    > But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?


    Depends on your country, the judge, etc... but if the ISP contract was
    signed by you, you're the first to get sued.

    In some countries, YOU then have to prove that it was somebody else...
    IANAL, YMMV, etc.

    > Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?


    In Germany a woman recently tried that defense. Got charged for aiding
    and abetting then, as the judge ruled that everybody who runs a
    wireless router can be expected to either learn about the risks or pay
    for somebody to configure it properly.

    Juergen Nieveler
    --
    This is a sample tagline. If it were real, it would be funny!

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

    On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:39:46 -0400, Leythos wrote:

    > So, we're advocating that people the commit crimes should have wipe
    > functions that trigger in case of a police action?


    Hi Leythos,
    I'm pretty sure she's guilty but that isn't the technical point I'm trying
    to get to. Let's assume, for now, that she is guilty. Now let's ask the
    question again which is basically what would have protected her?

    Whatever would have protected her is the same thing that protects you and
    me and everyone else from someone else snooping on our activities. Even
    legit activities. You wouldn't question why you lick and seal an envelope,
    would you? Or why a phone booth has a privacy door. Or why a voting booth
    has a privacy curtain. Or a bathroom door. Or ... well ... you get the
    point (I hope). There are legitimate reasons for desiring privacy even from
    snooping police.

    All I ask is what software or hardware or technique would have protected
    her from prying eyes?


    > Fact, all that is needed is to know the public IP, no firewall will
    > prevent that from being detected/seen by the download site.


    I think we've already established that there is a basic right in this
    country to be proven guilty which has a burden of proof which is MORE than
    just an ISP (otherwise why did the lawyer argue she "could" have had a
    wireless router and that mystery router "could" have been hacked)?

    Is there a firewall or other solution that would protect our privacy?
    Or is Leythos actually correct in that there is no software, hardware, or
    technique which gives you any better privacy than that open connection she
    apparently used?

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

    On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:19:56 -0700, OneSolution
    wrote:


    >
    >All I ask is what software or hardware or technique would have protected
    >her from prying eyes?


    Tor network is perhaps a thing that would keep the RIAA away in the
    first place - there would be too much work to trace down the public IP

    The P2P sharing itself however reveals a great deal of data so one
    must be quite careful and educated to use the anonymity network
    without any personal data beeing leaked...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28...ity_network%29
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_P2P


    ---
    rgds,
    Paavo Sild
    (NB! from address before @ is ROT13 encoded)

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

    On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:19:57 +0300, Paavo Sild wrote:

    > Tor network is perhaps a thing that would keep the RIAA away in the
    > first place - there would be too much work to trace down the public IP


    I never could get TOR to work. I'll try again but it's darn slow.

  11. Re: Would a firewall have protected


    "OneSolution" wrote in message
    news:8dOMi.57413$YL5.28113@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net...
    > Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected
    >

    The same question seems to be regularly asked each month, with similar
    answers being given. Check your newsfeed is working.
    "NO" is the answer you are looking for.



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

    X-No-Archive: Yes

    On Oct 3, 9:18 am, OneSolution wrote:
    > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:
    > > 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....

    >
    > "On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
    > Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
    > from 'right outside her window.'"
    > (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html



    They do not HAVE to be right outside your Window. You can make an
    antenna out of a Pringles can, or Nalley's Big Chunk Beef Stew can,
    and be able to hit wireless routers from quite a distance away. You
    can even BUY ready-to-use "cantennas" in some of the computer store,
    and in most countries, its LEGAL to use one, including the United
    States. Such antennas can be bought and used LEGALLY in America.

    I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
    boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
    many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
    wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
    Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
    post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
    Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
    GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
    arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
    someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
    bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
    Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
    security system to do it.

    So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
    then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
    and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
    are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
    states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
    break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
    to gain access to her wirelsss router.

    >
    > So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
    > her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
    > attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
    > took the stand for about 90 minutes."
    >
    > Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
    > asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
    > for the search warrant to see.
    >
    > Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
    > file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
    > computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
    > partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid


    I use encryption when going to Australian Customs, becuase one pieve
    of software that I use on my station, for making station IDs, and
    arching my talk show could be considred a "tool" for breaking copy
    protection under far more stricter DMCA-like laws in Australia. Alive
    WMAMP3Recorder could, sooner or later, be declared illegal the new
    Australian laws, becuase it can also be used to cirumvent DRM, which
    has recently become illegal in Australia. To prevent problems with
    Australian authorities, whenever I return to Australia from abroad, I
    keep that softwware encrypted and locked, so Australian Customs will
    not be able to open it or read it. As the saying goes "they cannot
    prosecute what they cannot read".

    > occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
    > anyway.


    Evidence Eliminator is the BEST of the bunch. That is what *I* use,
    when travelling, before taking any of my radio station's computer
    equipment through Customs, especially in Canada, England, Australia,
    or the United States, where it has become quite common for Customs
    agents in those countries to do on-the-spot foensic examination of
    hard drives. You NEVER KNOW what might be on your computer that could
    get you arrested in those countries, so I first bomb the equipment
    with Norton Ghost, and then have Evidence Eliminator scrub all the
    empty space. Despite some of their cheesy advertising, the software
    does everything the advertisting says it will do.


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

    X-No-Archive: Yes

    On Oct 3, 9:39 am, Leythos wrote:
    > In article ,
    > onesolut...@sbcglobal.net says...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:

    >
    > > > 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....

    >
    > > "On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
    > > Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
    > > from 'right outside her window.'"
    > > (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html

    >
    > > So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
    > > her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
    > > attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
    > > took the stand for about 90 minutes."

    >
    > > Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
    > > asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
    > > for the search warrant to see.

    >
    > So, a person that isn't guilty removes the drive because there is
    > nothing to hide. A person that didn't even know it was happening removed
    > a hard drive because of something they don't know about.
    >
    > > Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
    > > file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
    > > computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
    > > partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid
    > > occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
    > > anyway.

    >
    > So, we're advocating that people the commit crimes should have wipe
    > functions that trigger in case of a police action?


    Programs, such as Evidnence Eliminator, however, are LEGAL to purchase
    and use. So she would NOT have broken any laws, by using programs,
    such as Evidence Eliminator, KillDisk, or one of numerous other
    programs on the market sold for this purpose. I know that there have
    been calls in Britain to ban such programs there, but that would be
    hard to enforce, becuase most of the companies making these programs,
    except Evidence Eliminator, are based in Eastern European or Middle
    Eastern countries. In other words, if they did ban such programs in
    England, the makers of KillDisk, for example, would be NOT SUIBJECT to
    prosecution in Britain, becuase KillDisk is manufactured and sold from
    RUSSIA, that makes the authors of KillDisk, and their company, ONLY
    subject to RUSSIAN LAWS, and British law DOES NOT APPLY in RUSSIA.

    If she had used one of these programs, she could not be prosecuted for
    purchasing or using such software, under current laws.


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

    In article <1191537468.980076.55230@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.c om>,
    chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:


    > I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
    > boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
    > many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
    > wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
    > Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
    > post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
    > Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
    > GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
    > arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
    > someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
    > bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
    > Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
    > security system to do it.



    Well I am certainly going to take the word and actions of a live
    figure skating blogger when it comes to the law.

    >
    > So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
    > then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
    > and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
    > are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
    > states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
    > break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
    > to gain access to her wirelsss router.


    So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
    were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
    secede?


    >


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

    X-No-Archive: Yes

    On Oct 3, 11:19 pm, Paavo Sild wrote:
    > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:19:56 -0700, OneSolution
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    > >All I ask is what software or hardware or technique would have protected
    > >her from prying eyes?

    >
    > Tor network is perhaps a thing that would keep the RIAA away in the
    > first place - there would be too much work to trace down the public IP


    The way most Tor nodes work, that are NO LOGS that the RIAA can
    subpoena, and even if there WERE, most Tor nodes are OUTSIDE the
    United States, where American courts have NO JURISDICTION.


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

    X_

    On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
    > In article <1191537468.980076.55...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.c om>,
    >
    > chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
    > > I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
    > > boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
    > > many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
    > > wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
    > > Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
    > > post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
    > > Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
    > > GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
    > > arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
    > > someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
    > > bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
    > > Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
    > > security system to do it.

    >
    > Well I am certainly going to take the word and actions of a live
    > figure skating blogger when it comes to the law.


    Well, the admins at GoldenSkate and Figure Skating Universe that I
    have talked to about this have TOLD me that it is LEGAL for live-
    bloggers to hiijack nearby wireless access points, for sending back
    reports, as long as they do not crack any password or other security
    scheme to connect, and as long as they are not in Canada or England.
    They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
    are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
    TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this

    >
    >
    >
    > > So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
    > > then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
    > > and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
    > > are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
    > > states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
    > > break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
    > > to gain access to her wirelsss router.

    >
    > So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
    > were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
    > secede?


    I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
    U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
    Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
    Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.


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

    X-No-Archive: Yes


    On Oct 3, 12:38 pm, Juergen Nieveler
    wrote:
    > OneSolution wrote:
    > > But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?

    >
    > Depends on your country, the judge, etc... but if the ISP contract was
    > signed by you, you're the first to get sued.
    >
    > In some countries, YOU then have to prove that it was somebody else...
    > IANAL, YMMV, etc.
    >
    > > Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

    >
    > In Germany a woman recently tried that defense. Got charged for aiding
    > and abetting then, as the judge ruled that everybody who runs a
    > wireless router can be expected to either learn about the risks or pay
    > for somebody to configure it properly.



    As I had said already, its the computer crime laws of most
    jurisdictions. Outside of Canada, England, and a handful of U.S.
    states, if you have an unsecured WAP, this it is considered PUBLIC in
    the eyes of the law. Its so simple, if there is NO password,
    encryption, or other security scheme saying "keep out", then you
    CANNOT prosecute somoene who finds it and uses it, just for using your
    access point. While they COULD be prosecuted for downloading pirated
    music, if caught, they CANNOT be prosecuted JUST for using your
    unsecured wireless access point. Why do you think all those lists of
    open proxy servers exist on the Net? Because in most jursidctions it
    is LEGAL to find one of the list and use it, until such time as the
    put up the afforementioned security barriers.




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

    In article <1191540694.623285.301310@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
    chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:


    > They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
    > are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
    > TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this

    That isn't settled yet either way. Some places in the US have
    specific laws. I read a rather interesting paper a couple days that
    suggests it is illegal under the laws that regulate interception of
    radio communications (which this is in essence). You may (heck probably
    are) right, but it isn't all that settled.


    >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
    > > > then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
    > > > and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
    > > > are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
    > > > states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
    > > > break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
    > > > to gain access to her wirelsss router.

    > >
    > > So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
    > > were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
    > > secede?

    >
    > I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
    > U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
    > Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces. So America has 49 states,
    > Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.

    Of course that isn't anywhere near what you said. There are 49
    states in the Union with no qualifiers. Also no real reason to cut
    Hawaii out of the equation.

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


    "OneSolution" wrote in message
    news:9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@newssvr29.news.prodigy. net...
    > 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?


    http://www.dailytech.com/RIAA+Awarde...rticle9143.htm

    Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, as Thomas' loss is more formally known,
    was the first lawsuit of its kind to proceed before a jury as well as a
    landmark case that set precedent heavily favoring the RIAA in future legal
    battles. U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ruled that one could be guilty of
    copyright infringement merely by the act of making copyrighted songs
    available for download; as a result the RIAA did not need to establish that
    Thomas at her computer at the time her was accessed by investigators, nor
    did they need to prove that anyone actually downloaded the music she
    offered.

    >
    > For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the
    > house?
    >
    > Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?


    http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...estimony-.html

    "Trying to raise doubt among jurors, who said during jury selection they
    were not computer savvy, Thomas' attorney Brian Tober suggested his client
    was the victim of a zombie, a cracker, or a drone. He also suggested
    somebody using her wireless connection from outside her Brainerd, Minnesota,
    apartment window could have been responsible.
    Computer forensics specialist Doug Jacobson, of Iowa State University,
    testified that no wireless connection was used the night in question, based
    on IP data embedded in the Kazaa traffic. And Thomas never testified that
    she owned a wireless router. Tober never asked her."

    If you do much reading on this it's clear that she put up a pretty
    lame defense. One of her best hopes for an appeal is the ruling that the
    RIAA didn't need to prove that anyone actually downloaded music from her.
    Unless someone else is paying her legal bills she is well beyond the point
    where even if she wins she loses.

    TB



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

    chilly8@hotmail.com wrote:

    > X_
    >
    > On Oct 4, 3:59 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
    >
    >>In article <1191537468.980076.55...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.c om>,
    >>
    >> chil...@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>
    >>>I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
    >>>boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
    >>>many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
    >>>wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
    >>>Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
    >>>post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
    >>>Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
    >>>GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
    >>>arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
    >>>someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
    >>>bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
    >>>Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
    >>>security system to do it.

    >>
    >> Well I am certainly going to take the word and actions of a live
    >>figure skating blogger when it comes to the law.

    >
    >
    > Well, the admins at GoldenSkate and Figure Skating Universe that I
    > have talked to about this have TOLD me that it is LEGAL for live-
    > bloggers to hiijack nearby wireless access points, for sending back
    > reports, as long as they do not crack any password or other security
    > scheme to connect, and as long as they are not in Canada or England.
    > They ALLOW users to do this, becuase as far as admins at BOTH sites
    > are concerned, what the live bloggers are doing is LEGAL. I have been
    > TOLD that it is LEGAL in most places to do this
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>>So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
    >>>then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
    >>>and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
    >>>are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
    >>>states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
    >>>break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
    >>>to gain access to her wirelsss router.

    >>
    >> So which state did we kick out and I missed it? Last I heard there
    >>were 50 states. Did those crazies in Vermont actually get the state to
    >>secede?

    >
    >
    > I am looking at a road map of North America right now, and I count 49
    > U.S. states on the landmass of North America. 49 U.S. states, 31
    > Mexican states and 14 Canadian provinces.


    14 Canadian Provinces ?? LMAO ..

    > So America has 49 states,
    > Canada has 14 provinces, and Mexico has 31 states. Got it? Good.
    >


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