Comments on: RIAA expert Jacobson: full text

By: Gordon

Gordon — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:15:06 +0000

I just recently stumbled upon this page, and found it fascinating. But what was really interesting were the comments and implications that the Jacobson’s analysis is totally unsound (”the law is messed up beyond repair”). Yes, it is possible somebody tampered with the Verizon logs, or altered the screenshot images. But that sort of thing is unlikely. All his assumptions (the Verizon logs were correct; nobody altered the screenshot image; the fact that the IP address in the IP packet header matches the IP address in the payload implies there isn’t a wireless router or gateway, etc.) seem entirely reasonable. Maybe somebody did something nefarious; maybe it’s part of a vast conspiracy by the government, or the mafia, or SPECTRE. But I doubt it. The *only* thing that casts doubt on the claim that this computer was used for file sharing is the fact that no evidence of the application was found on it. Granted, that’s a pretty powerful argument, but it’s the only one. Other things like potential tampering with Verizon logs is just silly.

In terms of Jacobson’s ability or quality of his answers (”my 15 year old niece can give a better description of how the internet works”), what’s he supposed to do when faced with such nonsensical questions such as “Did that connect to the internet directly or through another device’s MAC address?”. Faced with a lawyer who was both hostile and obviously clueless about networking, I think he did pretty well.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:09:13 +0000

Oh gfod this is rich. There are so many ‘flaws’ in the RIAA’s argument. If they win this case then the law is messed up beyond repair.

Seriously. They need to prove that 1. the ISP provided the correct information. 2. that the information provided by MediaSentry is correct 3. that the information provided by MediaSentry could not have been tampered with and that the data was not ’spoofed’. Oh god I am sure there is a long list of things that are so wrong with this I can’t even go into it further without writing an essay.

We need class action NOW!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:08:34 +0000

It would appear to me that Dr. Jacobson tried very hard to be clear and precise, as an engineer should be. My analysis of the evidence as stated in the answers is that he states that a) any one could have plugged into that ip address (specifically a lap-top), except b) on the computer that he examined the hard drive of, kazaa and mp3 files did not appear to be in existence nor any evidence in the registry of being deleted.
Obviously, somebody borrowed the defendant’s internet connection to check their e-mail, and their p2p application chucked out a few packets in the mix. The RIAA is just using up their *goodwill* on bad pr, which is going to make it much more difficult to get their new regulations passed- criminalising internet connection sharing. I suppose they’ll have to frame it as a HOMELAND SECURITY issue.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:36:44 +0000

According to RIAA members who sue kids and their computer neophyte grandmothers, if someones’s car is stolen and the car is used to rob a bank, the car’s owner is guilty of bank robbery and the bank may sue to recover the money.

Ditto if the car was never stolen but the car used in the bank robbery has a fake license plate number that led the police to an innocent party. Then, the innocent party is guilty of bank robbery.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:20:57 +0000

This Dr. Jacobson, if you can even call him a doctor, used so much double-speak, and convenient assumptions, it makes you sick:

“the we tied the IP to the defendant.” Well, no you didn’t. Based on the IP you provided Verizon for the time specified, Verizon provided you who owned the account that had the IP in question. Mr Jacobson assumed it was the account holder who did the file sharing. That may be all well and good in society, but in a court of law, we need more than assumptions.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 15:15:24 +0000

‘Yes. The internet registration authority, which is basically the governing body of IP addresses, has allocated three address ranges that are to be used internally only, they are not to show up on the internet, and the 192.168 is one of those blocks of addresses.’

if this was suppose to infer that any address’s outside of the reserved internal ranges cannot be used on an internal machine that is incorrect. An external address can be allocated internally it just might conflict with an external address, and a DHCP server would not hand it out, it would have to be set internally. It’s not safe, and it’s not smart. but who’s to say some virus/trojan wouln’t do such a thing?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:17:17 +0000

Remind me never to attend Iowa State University. My 15 year old niece can give a better description of how the internet works than this guy. If they are using methodology then I am safe war driving wireless access points, not that I wasn’t in the first place

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:02:58 +0000

This case is going downhill for the RIAA. They can’t even prove who was sitting behind the computer. The lawyer for the defendant is good.