Comments on: New IRMA Legal Action

By: Digital Rights Ireland » 23 Filesharers to be Identified - But Concerns Remain

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:04:35 +0000

[...] We’ve already pointed out that the procedure used to obtain user identities is unfair and the tactics which have been used by the record industry have been found to be illegal in other jurisdictions. Also, the approach taken by the music industry raises concerns about the proportionality of the damages they seek and the reliability of their evidence: * Most home networks are wireless these days, and most of those are unsecured. How can they tie the IP addresses they receive with any particular person? * Claims for lost income must be based on specific evidence of loss. Why have they never released their basis for calculating the claimed damages? [...]

By: SL

SL — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:29:18 +0000

“Let imagine a wireless network is used to view child pornography. When the authorities visit the “it wasn’t me but someone on my wireless network” isn’t going to hold much ground.”

Firstly, that’s a criminal rather than a civil matter. Secondly, it probably would hold ground since the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Most convictions are made using credit card data and forensic examination of hard drives, not logs of TCP/IP traffic.

Thirdly, it’s a hell of a lot harder to secure a wireless router than you think. MAC filtering is an ineffective security measure, and WEP has been badly broken. The only way to secure a router at present is to use WPA with AES encryption, and a computer generated passkey. Almost anything else is vulnerable to a dictionary attack.

By: Fishy

Fishy — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:59:44 +0000

Examples of previous cases where record labels have failed to pursue when the inability to tie wireless network’s IP numbers to a person has been raised.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20060727/1131227.shtml

By: Danny X

Danny X — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 01:33:55 +0000

Let imagine a wireless network is used to view child pornography. When the authorities visit the “it wasn’t me but someone on my wireless network” isn’t going to hold much ground. Securing an access point is the owners responsibility.

By: Fishy

Fishy — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:21:56 +0000

Failure to secure a network does not make you liable in court for the claimed losses of a third party.

By: Danny X

Danny X — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:27:12 +0000

The analogy might have been poor but the fact remains the same. Securing your wireless network is your responsibility.

By: Fishy

Fishy — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:15:55 +0000

That’s a poor analogy. If someone steals my car because I left the door open, I’m not charged with theft.

By: Danny X

Danny X — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:40:13 +0000

[code]Most home networks are wireless these days, and most of those are unsecured. How can they tie the IP addresses they receive with any particular person?[/code]

Someone steals you car because you have left the door wide open and the key in the ignition. Ignorance is no excuse. Your wireless network is your responsibility.