What is Digg?153 Comments
- decipherd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+71Or just stick a pin in the reset button when you get that knock on the door ;-)
- dkarlson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+55I party because of your unprotected wlan all the time.
- fernando26, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53I don't think they knock at the door, they mail you a letter telling you you're getting sued, don't they?T
here are MANY people who have gotten sued and have wireless routers (if they don't some crafty ones may even rush out to buy one and set it up) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+50Couldn't they just detect your network security status before knocking?
- tnwake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36I've always wondered why no one tried that defense.. but I also figured the RIAA would say that it's the person's responsibility to secure their network or else be held liable for anything that goes across it.
- ricree, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35Or even better, just use WEP. It is pretty crackable, so you still have the "it wasn't me" excuse, but it looks like you made a good faith effort to protect yourself.
- flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33isn't that kind of the same as saying "By leaving your keys in an unlocked car, you are responsible for someone stealing it and using it to commit a robbery?"
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33I've used this same defense against the MPAA (a year or two ago). It worked. I didn't even have to tell my parents after I wrote my defending letter to our ISP. They wrote back saying they realized it was a misunderstanding and I never heard from them again..
MPAA had tracked all of my brother's family guy downloads and they listed each one to our ISP. I was pretty scared there for a few days before they backed off.. - fortressgame, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29listen, suing is extremely expensive. if they have a chance of not winning, they will just drop it.
- pvtjohndoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27I've had three unsecured wireless routers with modified firmware running at max power for almost 2 years now. Every teenager within a mile of here has probably already used my connection for downloading illegal music...
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Foolishly I did too. I named my kids 802.11B and MIMO.
- anachronaut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21"Actually, there was a Digg story saying someone did use this defense and the RIAA dropped the case."
Yeah. It's the story you're replying to, oddly enough... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19With things like Aircrack around, this defense should technically work on any network using WEP.
I cracked my neighbor's WEP key after sniffing a weekend's worth of packets. (sshhh... don't tell anybody...) - Devious1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20That would hinder wireless AP's. No one wants that liability, let's hope that never happens.
- doctorcaligari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16The precedent was set for this back in the 90's when cordless phones became popular. You could go up to a house, and use their phone signal if your phone matched theirs (and theirs was off the base and not in use). If the owners got a bogus charge that month, they would contest it and the phone company would eventually drop it (after a fight), because they couldn't prove the owners actually made the call.
This is a great defense, because Joe Sixpack sitting on the jury doesn't know how to encrypt his Wi-Fi network either. If the encryption isn't fit, you must acquit. - Doghound, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19"Couldn't they just detect your network security status before knocking?"
-h4x0r1ng
I don't know about where you live, but everywhere I have lived in the last 4-5 years (apartments and condos) has had at least 4 wireless networks up and running. Now, I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that would make it quite difficult to determine which one is yours. - flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20@h4x0r1ng:
They cant get your personal information until they file a John Doe suit on the IP. And as soon as they get your personal information, you get notified.
They would need to send a VAN to your house to try and find your wireless. - tokyomonster, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25Waste of comment space, dugg down. Seriously, why do people bother with this "old" *****?
- flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@mrASSMAN:
You are probably describing those MPAA cease and desist letters. A lot of people got those from downloading via torrents, or sharing on IRC. Most isps simply gave their customers a warning. Some people got termed. But either way, its much different from a real lawsuit. - flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@zybch:
You misunderstood. Resetting the router would set it to its default (unsecured) state. There is no way for anyone to know that it wasnt always in that default state and accessible by the world. - shakin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15That's why I use my neighbor's wireless router.
Ok, not really, but it would be trivial for anyone to do. If I wanted to download music or software that's probably what I'd do. They'd never trace it back to you, especially if you hop around on two or three networks. Pirates are probably doing that right now, and my neighbors don't deserve to be sued for it. - tokyomonster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14What? They would have to subpoena my router and analyze logs to figure that out...that, or sit outside of my window and monitor the state of my network.
Or, even if they could look at logs of when your router was secured, they can't prove what router you were using, so keep a spare that was never secured, and when they ask for one, give them that one. - oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15They aren't doing it for the money.
They are purposely fishing to create enough lawsuits to scare the casual filesharer into not sharing music. They have admitted that they are no longer going after only the "big fish" but also people who only share small amounts. Small shares = small damages.
It's not about the money. - SeBBBe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Im fully willing to share :-) I dont mind, I have plenty of bandwidth to spare.
Oh and yeah, I love when other people have unprotected networks too. Why dont we all, so we all can have internet access pretty much wherever we are? *dreams* - flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20To whoever modded me down, I'm not sure what part of my comment you disagreed with.
1. My ip is 68.228.71.148 and I am behind a linksys wireless router. Go ahead and check to see if my wireless is encrypted. Let me know what you find.
2. They cant get your address until they file a lawsuit, so it would be impossible for them to drive to where your router is to check your wireless settings.
3. Because the suit is civil, you get notified when your personal information is released. - LHopi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Yeah, but that article doesn't explain how you can get more cheerleaders to come in your house...
/have to RTFA to understand joke - Rorrim, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15You see, saying "This is old" is redundant to those who already know, and annoying to those who don't.
Don't you see - it's a lose/lose situation! - itsmrdumass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10If that's the case, then every public library with free wi-fi is in trouble.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I think half the people responding in this thread have no clue about what they're talking about.
First off, this is a civil suit. There is no "jury", and the "Feds" will not waste time seizing your computers because you shared a few MP3s. Keyword: shared, which brings us to our next point in a moment. If you run Tor and someone does something questionable while your machine is an exit node, sure, but then they'll see you have Tor and won't be able to do ***** to you.
These suits are filed for people who share, not people who download. Download all you want, they don't care about you. They only care if you share this material with others. If you use easynews.com, you can download through SSL, and they don't keep logs at all whatsoever.
Anyone with technical know how can fight the RIAA by simply asking them to prove it was you. They won't be able to. All they have is an IP address and a supposed time you were sharing the material. Simply state that you were not home during that time, and that you have a wireless router. Also inform the judge that logs can be forged and manipulated, and that you would like to see further evidence that it was actually your machine that initiated the download. Chances are your ISP has no logs about that specific event (they don't log everything, you know).
It's not entirely difficult to fight these things - people are just scared when they know they're guilty and bend over. Even if you are guilty, follow the above paragraph and you're guaranteed to get off scott free because they will then see it will take time and money to fight you. - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Flameboy - the symbol for ≠ (does not equal) is !=
In other words,
≠ = !=
=! != != - ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Doesn't matter when your router was "secure" or not. WEP has already been hacked and can be broken in a matter of minutes, and the software to hack a WEP key is publicly available on the internets using the google.
- cogitocogito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9So does this defense also get me off the hook if someone on my ip downloads or distributes kiddie porn, threatens the prez, etc.? (or just chats with buddies in Pakistan, browses some odd sites, or otherwise gets me on the no-fly list?) /scary times
- ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8These guys aren't knocking on your door and seizing with a warrant anyway, they're just naming you in blanket lawsuits and expecting you to cough up cash.
- omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Doesn't anybody use the Chewbacca defense anymore?
- neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Plausible deniablity FTW!
- TheWriteGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Is it even the owner's LEGAL responsibility to secure their wireless network?
If a court eventually concludes it is, then what about other liabilities on the owner's part: Should every owner of a wireless network hold a license? (Like a radio operators license.) Do we need to take a licensing test?
Things could easily spiral out into a huge legal mess. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You fail to understand basic NAT. Your computer does not appear as 192.168.1.2 on the internet. It (and every other PC behind your router) appears as whatever IP the ISP has assigned you. If you were to be sued by the RIAA, it would be for activity by a *routable* IP. They can't even *tell* you're behind a NAT-capable router.
In the simplest terms, they track your router's IP, not your PC's IP. - bshep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7When you use a router your computers MAC address is not visible to the world. In fact even if you didnt have a router, your MAC address is usually stripped after the first hop. So the IAA's dont really have anything on you other than your IP, and if they are really really crafty they may be able to do fingerprinting on your machine to figure out what OS you run.
In other words MAC spoofing wont make you more anonymous, but if you spoof many many MACs you may be able to convince the court that many different people use your WLAN and that it was them who did the piracy.
Also changing your MAC in windows is pretty trivial: Adapter Properties->Configure->Advanced Tab->Locally Administered MAC Address ( this name may be different depending on your card, on some older models its not available) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7What an odd article. It links to another artcile where experts specifically say NOT to do that.
Chances are, the RIAA did not drop the lawsuit only because of this "defense". Of coruse, this article doesn't give a whole lot of actual news about the case.
All I know is, people who actually know what they are talking baout all STRONGLY advise against this, both for just regular activities, and in case you get sued. They know that that alone is NOT a defense. (You are legally responsible for your network, and since this is a civil case, you have the burden of proof if you make this defense.) - flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Just keep in mind, that these civil suits only require a preponderance of evidence.
They might not be able to PROVE for sure, but they could make the case that it was PROBABLY you doing the filesharing. - Steve95613, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I recently got an email from Comcast, informing me that the MPAA had claimed I have violated the DMCA, just by D/Ling a .torrent file.
They are watching us....oh no!
X-Men 3 was lame anyway, IMHO - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Doesn't matter when your router was "secure" or not. WEP has already been hacked and can be broken in a matter of minutes, and the software to hack a WEP key is publicly available on the internets using the google."
The Google.
Upmodded for trying to slip that one in! - TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6In any case, they would be suing you for something that happened in the past, before they check your wireless security. So you could always say you just read an article about security and enabled it
- pap3rw8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6yea, if said torrents are of infringing content. the BSa nabbed me this fall for some torrenting and managed to get my isp to suspend my account.
didn't get sued though. - redrighthand, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I had the same argument when the Feds raided my buddies house where I was living.
- SeBBBe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I use an unprotected wlan, party because of this.
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/06/wireless_security_cheerleader_defence/
- zaqintosh, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10This is stupid. If they knock on your door, they seize EVERYTHING.
The "I have an unsecured wireless router" defense isn't going to work when they find 10 gigs of mp3s on your drive, and no CDs on your bookshelf. - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Good advice. I've been running my router open for a while now. I feel like the risks of closing it up are greater than the risks of leaving it open these days.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8NO. Its all about the money.
The RIAA have figured they can make more from suing people who can't afford to fight back rather than developing new talent and selling CDs -
Show 51 - 100 of 153 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is