0341: "1337: Part 1"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
DragonHawk
Posts: 457
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:20 am UTC
Location: NH, US, Earth
Contact:

Re: "1337: Part 1" Discussion

Postby DragonHawk » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:29 pm UTC

dckx wrote:... University of Oregon ...

Not exactly the same thing as a private individual in a single-dwelling home. (Not that I'm disagreeing with you, mind you, but the courts might.)
By and large, you're not responsible for the misuse of your property unless you were complicit in that misuse.

Right, the hard part is proving that it wasn't you. Again, civil suit, preponderance of evidence. The copyright cartels don't have to prove it was you without a doubt, they just have to show more evidence than you do.
Ben'); DROP TABLE Users;--

GENERATION 42: The first time you see this, copy it into yοur sig on any forum and stick a fork in yοur еyе. Social experiment.

User avatar
dckx
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:36 am UTC

Re: "1337: Part 1" Discussion

Postby dckx » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:46 pm UTC

DragonHawk wrote:Right, the hard part is proving that it wasn't you. Again, civil suit, preponderance of evidence. The copyright cartels don't have to prove it was you without a doubt, they just have to show more evidence than you do.

But I don't have to! In order to get access to my HDD they'll need a court order, and to get one of those shiny little things, they will need to prove my complicity.

I myself have the added bonus of working as a private IT consultant, so I can make (here's that added bonus) the argument that the loss of hardware during an RIAA discovery would result in an undue financial burden due to its impact on my productivity. Double-bonus: I work in healthcare, ergo allowing unsupervised third-party access to my HDDs is a violation of federal law (under HIPPA).

~x

Edit: Update and further examples: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/14/1654230
Last edited by dckx on Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:07 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
DragonHawk
Posts: 457
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:20 am UTC
Location: NH, US, Earth
Contact:

Re: "1337: Part 1" Discussion

Postby DragonHawk » Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:51 pm UTC

dckx wrote:
DragonHawk wrote:The copyright cartels don't have to prove it was you without a doubt, they just have to show more evidence than you do.

But I don't have to!

You don't have to what?
In order to get access to my HDD they'll need a court order ...

When the copyright cartels go after someone, what they usually do is start with activity on file sharing networks. Given the P2P nature of such, this is often fairly straightforward to do. So now they have "illegal activity" associated with your IP address. They go to the ISP, who folds like a lawn chair and hands over their logs. So now they have further evidence that "illegal activity" was happening from your IP address. At this point, they sue you, saying, "Here is clear evidence the owner of this IP address is doing illegal things".

At that point, it's up to you to offer a defense. If your only defense is, "Neener neener, prove it was me", it's a fair bet you're going to lose the case.

Now, the defense, "My network is deliberately wide open as a public service; it could have been anyone" might actually fly. But it would depend on the judge and the jury, I think. Laws like the horrible DMCA try to put the burden on the operator in such cases anyway.
I myself have the added bonus of working as a private IT consultant, so I can make (here's that added bonus) the argument that the loss of hardware during an RIAA discovery would result in an undue financial burden due to its impact on my productivity.

If your hard disk is subpoenaed, you can indeed make that argument. The judge may decide you need to turn it over anyway, in which case, tough tootsies. Or the judge may buy your argument, but again, you're defending yourself here. If you refuse to offer any counter-evidence, you'll be in poor shape. Assuming you win the case, you could counter-sue the media mafia for damages after the fact, of course. But they don't care about that.
I work in healthcare, ergo allowing unsupervised third-party access to my HDDs is a violation of federal law (under HIPPA).

I assume you mean HIPAA. Good luck with that defense. I can't quote chapter and verse from that law, but most laws have plenty of provisions for investigations and court proceedings. Information uncovered during discovery not relevant to the case is almost always considered confidential.

Again, college != private individual.

There are two things you should know about the law:
  • The law doesn't have to be fair
  • The law doesn't have to make sense
Again, I'm not saying this is the way things *should* be, just that this is the way things *are*.
Ben'); DROP TABLE Users;--

GENERATION 42: The first time you see this, copy it into yοur sig on any forum and stick a fork in yοur еyе. Social experiment.

User avatar
dckx
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:36 am UTC

Re: "1337: Part 1" Discussion

Postby dckx » Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:12 pm UTC

DragonHawk wrote:
dckx wrote:
DragonHawk wrote:The copyright cartels don't have to prove it was you without a doubt, they just have to show more evidence than you do.

But I don't have to!

You don't have to what?
Pay any attention to grammatical context, apparently... sorry about that!
What I'd meant to say is that the owner of a WAP doesn't have to prove that it wasn't them who did the sharing in order to beat an ex parte discovery--the RIAA would just have to show that it's reasonable that it wasn't them [the WAP owner], and ergo the plaintiff lacks the evidence to warrant compulsory discovery.

Anyway, we've hijacked this poor thread enough.. =(

User avatar
muteKi
Angry is too weak a term. Try "Fluffy".
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:02 am UTC
Location: William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA

Re: "1337: Part 1" Discussion

Postby muteKi » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:34 am UTC




One of the main reasons that I am proud of this College and, I guess, the state as well (though the local guys don't like the college kids).
Image

nameless
Fooled you; My name is Inigo Montoya
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 3:12 am UTC

Re: "1337: Part 1" Discussion

Postby nameless » Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:29 am UTC

DragonHawk, I believe dckx was trying to say that unauthorized parties (like the RIAA's consulting firm likely will be) may not inspect the hdd of anyone that has healthcare data on them under HIPPA.

Anyway, I'm glad I just learned about airpwn, now to get a laptop with linux and 2 wireless cards and learn enough linux commands to use it. This could be a whole lot of fun at the library.....
Wayne Weiten wrote:Sexual intercourse is really a pretty simple activity. Most animals execute the act with a minimum of difficulty. However, humans manage to make sexual relations terribly complicated

User avatar
DearWinifred
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:25 pm UTC

Re: "1337: Part 1" Discussion

Postby DearWinifred » Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:07 am UTC

dckx wrote:
DragonHawk wrote:Right, the hard part is proving that it wasn't you. Again, civil suit, preponderance of evidence. The copyright cartels don't have to prove it was you without a doubt, they just have to show more evidence than you do.

But I don't have to! In order to get access to my HDD they'll need a court order, and to get one of those shiny little things, they will need to prove my complicity.

I myself have the added bonus of working as a private IT consultant, so I can make (here's that added bonus) the argument that the loss of hardware during an RIAA discovery would result in an undue financial burden due to its impact on my productivity. Double-bonus: I work in healthcare, ergo allowing unsupervised third-party access to my HDDs is a violation of federal law (under HIPPA).



You know, you'd think that wouldn't you...but it's not true. Financial hardship plays no role in discovery. Witness Steve Jackson games and Operation Sundevil. (Which, while a different type of discovery, is still discovery. And also the only case I could think of off the top of my head where serious financial damage was done, and that everyone would have heard of.)

As to HIPAA, in 2005, the Justice Department ruled that HIPAA statutes do not apply to individuals, only entities. The JD further opined that HIPAA was never designed to hide suspects or to obstruct from police investigations. That said, if you've got HIPAA data on your system, then your system should be HIPAA compliant, which means it should be running encryption so strong that it's not worth the effort to crack it, you should never be touching the open web with the system, there should be no applications installed that can't be run exclusively tunneled. Which sort of precludes file sharing, really. If you have HIPAA data on your system, and you're using that system to file share...you are in fairly serious violation of the statute, and your company would be held liable. Of course, no matter how strong your encryption is, a warrant can demand the passwords/sig keys.

However, before the court orders forensics folks to crack a drive, there has to be an enormous, enormous amount of data proving criminality. It cannot and has never been used in a civil suit, such as those brought by the RIAA. (To the best of my knowledge. I guess it would be better to say that amongst computer forensics experts, there has been no mention of the RIAA actually using a certified CFE.) The RIAA wins on intimidation, and because they pick on people who don't have the financial resources to stand up to them. See here for more data: http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa-v-thepeople.php


All of that said; the main reason I came to the forum was to beg, plead, give sad kitten eyes, whatever it takes, to get a print of this cartoon. I cannot tell you the sheer number of people who have sent it to me since it was first published. I really, really, really want a print...in the kitchen...next to the oven mitts. It's pure win. :)

User avatar
DragonHawk
Posts: 457
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:20 am UTC
Location: NH, US, Earth
Contact:

Re: "1337: Part 1" Discussion

Postby DragonHawk » Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:54 am UTC

DearWinifred wrote:That said, if you've got HIPAA data on your system, then your system should be HIPAA compliant, which means it should be running encryption so strong ...

You know, you'd think that wouldn't you. ;-) I'm no expert on HIPAA, but I know enough to know that implementation of that law is more about security theater than actual security. Some of the stuff I've seen pass HIPPA audits makes me shudder.

... the main reason I came to the forum was to beg, plead, give sad kitten eyes, whatever it takes, to get a print of this cartoon.

It's Creative Commons licensed. Bring a copy down to your favorite local print shop. :)
Ben'); DROP TABLE Users;--

GENERATION 42: The first time you see this, copy it into yοur sig on any forum and stick a fork in yοur еyе. Social experiment.

User avatar
DearWinifred
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:25 pm UTC

Re: "1337: Part 1" Discussion

Postby DearWinifred » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:10 pm UTC

DragonHawk wrote:
DearWinifred wrote:That said, if you've got HIPAA data on your system, then your system should be HIPAA compliant, which means it should be running encryption so strong ...

You know, you'd think that wouldn't you. ;-) I'm no expert on HIPAA, but I know enough to know that implementation of that law is more about security theater than actual security. Some of the stuff I've seen pass HIPPA audits makes me shudder.

... the main reason I came to the forum was to beg, plead, give sad kitten eyes, whatever it takes, to get a print of this cartoon.

It's Creative Commons licensed. Bring a copy down to your favorite local print shop. :)


HIPAA: Yeah, enforcement is a bit of a joke. I think there have only been 2 cases. Seriously. Two.

Creative Commons: Yes, well I was hoping that perhaps it was drawn on something like Bristol board, and was therefore bigger and wouldn't suffer image degradation of printing up a 72 dpi cartoon. :)

User avatar
DragonHawk
Posts: 457
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:20 am UTC
Location: NH, US, Earth
Contact:

Re: "1337: Part 1" Discussion

Postby DragonHawk » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:54 pm UTC

DearWinifred wrote:Creative Commons: Yes, well I was hoping that perhaps it was drawn on something like Bristol board, and was therefore bigger and wouldn't suffer image degradation of printing up a 72 dpi cartoon. :)

Ahhhh, I see. Well, email Randall. He's a pretty cool guy, he might be willing to sell/send you a high DPI version, if one exists.
Ben'); DROP TABLE Users;--

GENERATION 42: The first time you see this, copy it into yοur sig on any forum and stick a fork in yοur еyе. Social experiment.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests