Interesting article over at the beeb... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12275913 The prosecution apparently tried to argue that allowing access to a network connection was enough to secure a conviction where your IP address had been flagged as one potentially used for downloading illegal material. The judge apparently was un-moved by this claim. It looks to me as if using an IP address to secure a conviction is dead. Now, I am no fan of piracy or copyright abuse, but I am against the heavy handed and vague tactics apparently allowed by the Digital Economies Bill used to track and convict those downloading illegally.
http://torrentfreak.com/acslaw-cant-take-the-pressure-quit-chasing-file-sharers-110125/ Basically they've been told there a bunch of scamming gimps. And for once British law works.
No, he thought because he's a lawyer and he thinks every grievance should be settled through the courts, that a bunch of nerds who know nothing about the law were going to go up against him, a professional lawyer, in court, and lose terribly. That's probably what made it so juicy, how could he lose against a bunch of self-reps or cheap one horse town lawyers? No doubt it surprised him that some people make use of all methods of retaliation, even if they're not directly sponsored by the law. Once again this tells the world what the world should already know: Do not **** with geeks.
You would have to prove that the owner knowingly did so in order to make them a party to the act. Also consider public wifi hotspots. Is McDonalds, Starbucks, and every other company or organization that provides wifi access liable for what users download over it?
Of course they are (by this guys logic) BUT, you honestly expect companies to go after companies? No, No. They'll go after the end-users and those without multi-billion pound legal departments.
Some people live in a bubble of privilege and can't make the paradigm shift. That is how the USSR and the US got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan. Who would have thought that insurgents who don't have fighter jets and tanks would just fight dirty with car bombs? Who would have thought they'd hack those sophisticated remote drones with a laptop and $50,-- of software? Similarly, this lawyer just got a taste of the real world. There are no wigs there, and people speak a very different lingo that he doesn't understand. Deserves all he gets, IMO. He cynically tried to extort people who are naive to computers and the law. But in geek world, if you abuse technology, technology abuses you right back. Bit-Tech T-shirt?
Most lawyers I know are quite arrogant and like to use big latin words, but they tend to be mostly all talk. This guy doesn't seem any different. (not saying all lawyers are like this, but I've yet to be disproven)
By the point of view of these guys you are incorrect. IIRC, HADOPI law and the new UK digital millennium law also makes you guilty of any infringement that was made on your IP address even if it was used by someone else, you enabled the act.
From the article linked in the first post: Let's face face it, 95% of the population is clueless when it comes to anything technology-related, so can people be reasonably expected to keep a wireless network 100% secure (this is of course ignoring the fact that no wireless network can be 100% secure)? I'm sure if you go out into the street and ask a person at random what AES encryption or MAC filtering was then they wouldn't have a clue what you're talking about. For most people, they rely on the routers that are provided by their ISPs to be pre-configured with the necessary security protocols (which I can tell you isn't always the case - most O2 routers I've seen come pre-configured with WEP security). Then you also have people who buy a router off the shelf in PC World for whatever reason, with no security whatsoever. So, would you say it is fair that people are held liable for whatever other people do with their Internet connections just because they don't have a networking qualification? Or should everyone who owns a wireless router be sent on a 5-day course to get them up to speed? Even then, the system gives no leeway for wireless networks which have been hacked (possible with even the more advanced forms of security like not broadcasting the SSID and MAC filtering). Using a crude analogy, would you also say that the owner of a gun should be charged with murder just because someone stole the gun from their home and shot someone with it?
