Leaving Wi-Fi Connections 'Open' Can Be Costly - GoFuckYourself.com

Barefootsies · 08-09-2011, 06:00 PM

gideon rejoice

Quote:

One defendant named in a recent BitTorrent suit recently was ordered to pay $10,401 despite statements that he never downloaded or uploaded any of the porn studio's content. In the judgment, he acknowledged his negligence for not securing his connection.

That case, among others, is a cautionary tale for those who don't lock down their connections to the outside world, or even inside their home or office.

Take, for instance, the case of Doe No. 605, who is defending a porn BitTorrent copyright claim with 2,009 other defendants in a claim brought on by adult studio Third Degree Films.

Last week, Doe No. 605 asked a federal judge to quash a subpoena for his identity because he said he had no control over who accessed his Internet connection to steal content inside his home.

Doe No. 605 said that other roommates in his Ohio three-story home could easily been able to have access and download copyright-protected porn.

"The likelihood that an individual, other than Doe No. 605, infringed plaintiff?s copyrights is too great to support any correlation between Doe No. 605 and the alleged violation that plaintiff seeks to prove," Doe's motion to quash brief said.

But that defense is horse manure, some attorneys say.

Full Story

amateurcanada · 08-09-2011, 06:32 PM

Torture lol.

DBS.US · 08-09-2011, 06:51 PM

I only download from starbucks

gideongallery · 08-09-2011, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

gideon rejoice

Full Story

don't count on this type of precedent standing for too long

the eff has already started to take cases to stop this shit.

the copyright act doesn't have neglect clause in it

and the normal process is to define actual damages for the action caused by the neglect

since bit torrent never gives away a complete copy the only damage is the 1 lost sale from the download.

L-Pink · 08-09-2011, 07:22 PM

dipshit .... ^^^ ......

iamtam · 08-09-2011, 10:43 PM

the defense is soddi, which is pretty much the "two black youths" of the internet era. it doesnt stand up to the stink test. basically, let someone else run up a million dollars of long distance charges on your home phone, and then try to get out of that too. good freaking luck. plus these are civil suits, no beyond a reasonable doubt required here, just a preponderance of evidence. the soddi defence is a failure.

CurrentlySober · 08-10-2011, 01:43 AM

Although I lived in America for 7 and a bit years, I cant really rember the wi-fi process...

I'm guessing it must be different to the UK?

Over here, you get a 'hub' supplied that pumps out the wi-fi. Each hub has a code on the back of it... Mine for example is h82aG61bejs7

Now without that code, you cant log into the wifi... So unless you are actually in the house, with physical access to hub, and the code, you are automatically secure ?

Like I say, is a different system there, or am I being naive?

TorchWood · 08-10-2011, 02:06 AM

Nothing is secure, it takes a very little Linux knowledge and a script to crack nearly all Wifi networks... From what I've heard its in fact common practice amongst "hackers" to do this and use your internet connection to break the law. So even if you lock it, makes no difference.

*knock knock*
87 year old woman with arthritis answers the door... "yeeees"
"hello m'am, we have evidence that you have hacked the pentagon, you're under arrest"

CurrentlySober · 08-10-2011, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorchWood

Nothing is secure, it takes a very little Linux knowledge and a script to crack nearly all Wifi networks... From what I've heard its in fact common practice amongst "hackers" to do this and use your internet connection to break the law. So even if you lock it, makes no difference.

*knock knock*
87 year old woman with arthritis answers the door... "yeeees"
"hello m'am, we have evidence that you have hacked the pentagon, you're under arrest"

But the part I left out, is that in the UK, we need to stick our cocks in the back of the 'HUB' as a digital 'spunkerprint' before we download porn illegally...

IllTestYourGirls · 08-10-2011, 06:57 AM

wow his lawyer sucked.

chronig · 08-10-2011, 09:17 AM

As much as this case seems WRONG to charge someone 10k for having an open network

As much as it is possible to hack most wifi networks

Wouldn't it be nice if piracy really did fade back into the shadows?

_Richard_ · 08-10-2011, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorchWood

Nothing is secure, it takes a very little Linux knowledge and a script to crack nearly all Wifi networks... From what I've heard its in fact common practice amongst "hackers" to do this and use your internet connection to break the law. So even if you lock it, makes no difference.

*knock knock*
87 year old woman with arthritis answers the door... "yeeees"
"hello m'am, we have evidence that you have hacked the pentagon, you're under arrest"

wonder what justification would be used to waterboard an 87 year old woman

Lykos · 08-10-2011, 09:45 AM

I heard it,thats crazy

adultchatpay · 08-10-2011, 10:42 AM

Sue Starbucks too!

Quentin · 08-10-2011, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorchWood

Nothing is secure, it takes a very little Linux knowledge and a script to crack nearly all Wifi networks... From what I've heard its in fact common practice amongst "hackers" to do this and use your internet connection to break the law. So even if you lock it, makes no difference.

*knock knock*
87 year old woman with arthritis answers the door... "yeeees"
"hello m'am, we have evidence that you have hacked the pentagon, you're under arrest"

As the legal theory here goes, the difference between leaving your router wide open and having it hacked is that if you password protect your router, that is an example of taking "reasonable care," whereas leaving it wide open is not.

If you password protect your router, the hacker has to engage in an overtly illegal act just in order to access the wifi; as such, there's no way a court is going to say you were negligent in that scenario.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with theory of negligence being proposed here, just that under that theory, there's a big (and likely dispositive) difference between an entirely unsecured router and one that has been password protected and has to be compromised in order for illegal use of it by third parties to take place.

gideongallery · 08-20-2011, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin

As the legal theory here goes, the difference between leaving your router wide open and having it hacked is that if you password protect your router, that is an example of taking "reasonable care," whereas leaving it wide open is not.

If you password protect your router, the hacker has to engage in an overtly illegal act just in order to access the wifi; as such, there's no way a court is going to say you were negligent in that scenario.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with theory of negligence being proposed here, just that under that theory, there's a big (and likely dispositive) difference between an entirely unsecured router and one that has been password protected and has to be compromised in order for illegal use of it by third parties to take place.

the big problem is if you secure your WiFi then the lawyers argue that you must have done it because your WiFi was secure and you have to prove that it was hacked to get "away" with it.

The fundamental problem with the argument is that leaving your keys in your car is not the DEFAULT configuration, your car is sold to you without the keys in the ignition

you have to choose to change it from that default position when you negligently leave your keys in the ignition .

WiFi is set-up by default to be open, it not designed to be secure out of the box, hell most people will not even set-up a secure WiFi properly (use dictionary words instead of mixing in case and special characters)

ottopottomouse · 08-20-2011, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

wonder what justification would be used to waterboard an 87 year old woman

Be a waste of time anyway she wouldn't remember the answer to whatever you wanted to ask.

08-09-2011, 06:32 PM	#2
amateurcanada Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,766	Torture lol. __________________ be our partner - join nichepartners today will.assum.producer @ AmateurCanada.com / icq: 30146166 / facebook.com/will.assum / #amateurcanada

08-09-2011, 06:51 PM	#3
DBS.US Geo Cities Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: North Captiva Island, Florida USA Posts: 11,831	I only download from starbucks __________________ Make a Free Chaturbate White Label site in 34 minutes and be making money tonight

08-10-2011, 01:43 AM	#7
CurrentlySober Too lazy to wipe my ass Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: A Public Bathroom Posts: 38,622	Although I lived in America for 7 and a bit years, I cant really rember the wi-fi process... I'm guessing it must be different to the UK? Over here, you get a 'hub' supplied that pumps out the wi-fi. Each hub has a code on the back of it... Mine for example is h82aG61bejs7 Now without that code, you cant log into the wifi... So unless you are actually in the house, with physical access to hub, and the code, you are automatically secure ? Like I say, is a different system there, or am I being naive? __________________ My AI Handywork... My Dream Gal... XXX 👁️ 👍️ 💩

08-10-2011, 02:06 AM	#8
TorchWood Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Seville, Spain Posts: 45	Nothing is secure, it takes a very little Linux knowledge and a script to crack nearly all Wifi networks... From what I've heard its in fact common practice amongst "hackers" to do this and use your internet connection to break the law. So even if you lock it, makes no difference. knock knock 87 year old woman with arthritis answers the door... "yeeees" "hello m'am, we have evidence that you have hacked the pentagon, you're under arrest" __________________ icq: 641315070 icq: 641942104

08-10-2011, 06:57 AM	#10
IllTestYourGirls Ah My Balls Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Under the gold leaf ICQ 388-454-421 Posts: 14,311	wow his lawyer sucked. __________________

08-09-2011, 07:22 PM	#5
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	dipshit .... ^^^ ......

08-09-2011, 10:43 PM	#6
iamtam So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 1,211	the defense is soddi, which is pretty much the "two black youths" of the internet era. it doesnt stand up to the stink test. basically, let someone else run up a million dollars of long distance charges on your home phone, and then try to get out of that too. good freaking luck. plus these are civil suits, no beyond a reasonable doubt required here, just a preponderance of evidence. the soddi defence is a failure.

08-10-2011, 09:17 AM	#11
chronig Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,653	As much as this case seems WRONG to charge someone 10k for having an open network As much as it is possible to hack most wifi networks Wouldn't it be nice if piracy really did fade back into the shadows?

08-10-2011, 09:45 AM	#13
Lykos Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: World Posts: 31,027	I heard it,thats crazy __________________

08-10-2011, 10:42 AM	#14
adultchatpay Let's Make Money Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,784	Sue Starbucks too!