Comments on: Cox screws up in porn case http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6234 p2pnet.net - reader powered Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:31:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6234/comment-page-1#comment-61767 Reader's Write Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:34:54 +0000 #comment-61767 What gets me about this story is that cox cable states in it's FAQ and online help that "they do not track sites" How would they be able to tell what the heck anyone is looking at or downloading if they weren't playing Peeping Tommy? What gets me about this story is that cox cable states in it’s FAQ and online help that “they do not track sites” How would they be able to tell what the heck anyone is looking at or downloading if they weren’t playing Peeping Tommy?

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6234/comment-page-1#comment-20118 Reader's Write Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:31:35 +0000 #comment-20118 Welcome to the age of electronic identification. This isn't the first case, and it won't be the last. Welcome to the age of electronic identification.

This isn’t the first case, and it won’t be the last.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6234/comment-page-1#comment-20077 Reader's Write Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:32:13 +0000 #comment-20077 In this case the police did ask for the address asssociated not with an IP but with an email address - Cox screwed up by lookiung up the wrong adress. In this case the police did ask for the address asssociated not with an IP but with an email address – Cox screwed up by lookiung up the wrong adress.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6234/comment-page-1#comment-20058 Reader's Write Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:51:16 +0000 #comment-20058 Ultimately, it's pretty damn difficult to truly prove anything in cases involving evidence that happened to be on a computer's hard drive. There can be clues that push you towards a person, but even these can be misleading (such as the evidence being under a person's profile on a Windows XP system). Ultimately, with a piece of evidence on a computer, you have to prove that the person in question is the person who did it. This means you have to prove they were the one behind the keyboard, or pushing the data from one computer to the other over a network, and on top of that, you've got to prove it wasn't a trojan of some sort, because that's actually a defense! However, in this case, they shouldn't have even made it that far. IP addresses can usually be traced back to an Internet account, but the whole process can be unreliable and it still provides no proof that the account holder is the one who did what they think was done. And one error at an ISP means that retrieving the potential evidence-carrying equipment will cost a lot of people their jobs from the lawsuits that ensue. This is the danger of acting like IP addresses provide any real evidence. The RIAA would do good to back off while they still can. As many suits as they've filed, the countersuits may actually destroy them financially to the point of no return. Ultimately, it’s pretty damn difficult to truly prove anything in cases involving evidence that happened to be on a computer’s hard drive. There can be clues that push you towards a person, but even these can be misleading (such as the evidence being under a person’s profile on a Windows XP system). Ultimately, with a piece of evidence on a computer, you have to prove that the person in question is the person who did it.

This means you have to prove they were the one behind the keyboard, or pushing the data from one computer to the other over a network, and on top of that, you’ve got to prove it wasn’t a trojan of some sort, because that’s actually a defense!

However, in this case, they shouldn’t have even made it that far. IP addresses can usually be traced back to an Internet account, but the whole process can be unreliable and it still provides no proof that the account holder is the one who did what they think was done.

And one error at an ISP means that retrieving the potential evidence-carrying equipment will cost a lot of people their jobs from the lawsuits that ensue. This is the danger of acting like IP addresses provide any real evidence. The RIAA would do good to back off while they still can. As many suits as they’ve filed, the countersuits may actually destroy them financially to the point of no return.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6234/comment-page-1#comment-20057 Reader's Write Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:42:16 +0000 #comment-20057 Sounds like Cox is about as bright as the RIAA when it comes to getting the wrong info on ISP's numbers. At least the Doom's are alive!!! Sounds like Cox is about as bright as the RIAA when it comes to getting the wrong info on ISP’s numbers. At least the Doom’s are alive!!!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6234/comment-page-1#comment-20036 Reader's Write Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:47:51 +0000 #comment-20036 What these people should have done (and info for anyone else who doesn't know this) is not be answering their "questions" during an interrogation. Go to any lawyers website and you will see that stated, even highlighted. By law you have the right to not answer their questions, and by law you have the right to have an attorney present. Which is what anyone should do whether you are guilty or innocent. The ONLY questions you have to answer to law enforcement are your name and address to identify yourself. The police are never your friend when this happens. They also like to have one good cop and one play bad cop, to trick you into talking. If they had any proof, they wouldn't need to be asking you any questions. The whole purpose of the interrogation is to get you to admit to something you didn't do. What these people should have done (and info for anyone else who doesn’t know this) is not be answering their “questions” during an interrogation. Go to any lawyers website and you will see that stated, even highlighted.

By law you have the right to not answer their questions, and by law you have the right to have an attorney present. Which is what anyone should do whether you are guilty or innocent.

The ONLY questions you have to answer to law enforcement are your name and address to identify yourself.

The police are never your friend when this happens. They also like to have one good cop and one play bad cop, to trick you into talking. If they had any proof, they wouldn’t need to be asking you any questions. The whole purpose of the interrogation is to get you to admit to something you didn’t do.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6234/comment-page-1#comment-20028 Reader's Write Wed, 14 Sep 2005 01:12:45 +0000 #comment-20028 First of all, you can't charge someone based on IP addresses... unless you pay more, they change all the time with mose ISPs... Second, WTF kind of ISP bothers to report people for stuff? If this kind of stuff is gonna happen, its the police that should investigate first, then ask the ISP for the persons identity... THEN before giving it to the police, the ISP MUST alert the costumer. Thats just how it must be! First of all, you can’t charge someone based on IP addresses… unless you pay more, they change all the time with mose ISPs…

Second, WTF kind of ISP bothers to report people for stuff? If this kind of stuff is gonna happen, its the police that should investigate first, then ask the ISP for the persons identity… THEN before giving it to the police, the ISP MUST alert the costumer. Thats just how it must be!

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6234/comment-page-1#comment-20021 Reader's Write Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:54:51 +0000 #comment-20021 //sarcasm mode on What !!! Ya mean identifying people by IP addy alone can be WRONG !!! I gotta go lay down now .... //sarcasm mode off A few more of these and maybe the providers that willingly give up user info to appease the "Fat Ones" just may think twice about the wisdom of their efforts. //sarcasm mode on

What !!!
Ya mean identifying people by IP addy alone can be WRONG !!!
I gotta go lay down now ….

//sarcasm mode off

A few more of these and maybe the providers that willingly give up user info to appease the “Fat Ones” just may think twice about the wisdom of their efforts.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/6234/comment-page-1#comment-20019 Reader's Write Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:26:16 +0000 #comment-20019 Which is why these 'fines' from the RIAA are unfounded.... Which is why these ‘fines’ from the RIAA are unfounded….

]]>