Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected Jammie
Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

What else do they know about you if you file share songs or movies?

It seems they know whether or not you're using a wireless router and what
the internal IP address is (192.168.m.n) according to this news article.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html

"The Charter IP address identified the night of the downloading was
24.179.199.117, according to testimony from Edgar and Weaver. Had a
wireless router been used, the internal private IP address assigned by the
router would also have been detected by investigators, he claimed -- likely
beginning with 192.168."

So, they know your
- Name & address you provided to the isp
- IP Address assigned to you by the isp
- Computer IP address assigned by the router
- Songs or movies you share on your computer with limewire or bittorrent
- Songs or movies you download with kazaa or azureus
- ?

What else do they know about you if you file share songs or movies?

In article <8dOMi.57413$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected Jammie
> Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet

NO, not at all.

The fact is that the PUBLIC IP you use can be tracked and is recorded by
the ISP. You run a service that shares files, or you just download them,
the router does not block their ability to see you connect to their
download site and track the number/content that you download.

So, All the RIAA needs is your IP and they can get the rest from the
ISP. They don't need to know your LAN (private) address to find you.

when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
needed.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
> needed.

But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?

For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the house?

Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

In article <9HOMi.57415$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>
> > when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that's
> > needed.
>
> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
>
> For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the house?
>
> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
records....

Face it, if you break the law you don't have much to complain about.

The person responsible for the internet connection is first, then the
computer owner, and then you can guess if one person in the 5 will rat
the others out.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
> from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
> records....

"On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
from 'right outside her window.'"
(http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html

So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
took the stand for about 90 minutes."

Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
for the search warrant to see.

Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid
occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
anyway.

Would an additional PeerGuardian freeware firewall (in addition to the
wireless router) also have provided basic protection to Jammie from Safenet
eavesdropping?

In article <DiPMi.138$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>
> > No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
> > from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
> > records....
>
> "On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
> Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
> from 'right outside her window.'"
> (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html
>
> So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
> her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
> attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
> took the stand for about 90 minutes."
>
> Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
> asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
> for the search warrant to see.

So, a person that isn't guilty removes the drive because there is
nothing to hide. A person that didn't even know it was happening removed
a hard drive because of something they don't know about.

> Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
> file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
> computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
> partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid
> occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
> anyway.

So, we're advocating that people the commit crimes should have wipe
functions that trigger in case of a police action?

> Would an additional PeerGuardian freeware firewall (in addition to the
> wireless router) also have provided basic protection to Jammie from Safenet
> eavesdropping?

Fact, all that is needed is to know the public IP, no firewall will
prevent that from being detected/seen by the download site.

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

OneSolution <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> But they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?

Depends on your country, the judge, etc... but if the ISP contract was
signed by you, you're the first to get sued.

In some countries, YOU then have to prove that it was somebody else...
IANAL, YMMV, etc.

> Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?

In Germany a woman recently tried that defense. Got charged for aiding
and abetting then, as the judge ruled that everybody who runs a
wireless router can be expected to either learn about the risks or pay
for somebody to configure it properly.

Juergen Nieveler
--
This is a sample tagline. If it were real, it would be funny!

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:39:46 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> So, we're advocating that people the commit crimes should have wipe
> functions that trigger in case of a police action?

Hi Leythos,
I'm pretty sure she's guilty but that isn't the technical point I'm trying
to get to. Let's assume, for now, that she is guilty. Now let's ask the
question again which is basically what would have protected her?

Whatever would have protected her is the same thing that protects you and
me and everyone else from someone else snooping on our activities. Even
legit activities. You wouldn't question why you lick and seal an envelope,
would you? Or why a phone booth has a privacy door. Or why a voting booth
has a privacy curtain. Or a bathroom door. Or ... well ... you get the
point (I hope). There are legitimate reasons for desiring privacy even from
snooping police.

All I ask is what software or hardware or technique would have protected
her from prying eyes?


> Fact, all that is needed is to know the public IP, no firewall will
> prevent that from being detected/seen by the download site.

I think we've already established that there is a basic right in this
country to be proven guilty which has a burden of proof which is MORE than
just an ISP (otherwise why did the lawyer argue she "could" have had a
wireless router and that mystery router "could" have been hacked)?

Is there a firewall or other solution that would protect our privacy?
Or is Leythos actually correct in that there is no software, hardware, or
technique which gives you any better privacy than that open connection she
apparently used?

"OneSolution" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:8dOMi.57413$(E-Mail Removed). net...
> Theoretically, would a wireless router firewall have protected
>
The same question seems to be regularly asked each month, with similar
answers being given. Check your newsfeed is working.
"NO" is the answer you are looking for.

X-No-Archive: Yes

On Oct 3, 9:18 am, OneSolution <onesolut...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:52:58 -0400, Leythos wrote:
> > No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
> > from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
> > records....
>
> "On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps
> Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked
> from 'right outside her window.'"
> (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...ips-defen.html


They do not HAVE to be right outside your Window. You can make an
antenna out of a Pringles can, or Nalley's Big Chunk Beef Stew can,
and be able to hit wireless routers from quite a distance away. You
can even BUY ready-to-use "cantennas" in some of the computer store,
and in most countries, its LEGAL to use one, including the United
States. Such antennas can be bought and used LEGALLY in America.

I know this, becuase on the two biggest figure skating bulletin
boards, where people do "live blogging" from figure skating events,
many of them DO use such antennas and hijack peoples' unsecured
wireless access points, to post their reports onto Figure Skating
Universe and/or GoldenSkate. And what these live-bloggers are doing to
post to Figure Skating Universe is LEGAL in EVERY country except
Canada and England. So if you go got Figure Skating Universe, or
GoldenSkate, you will find at least ONE live blogger, somewhere in the
arena sending reports back to either site, and usually hijacking
someone's nearby unsecured wireless access point. And what these
bloggers are doing is LEGAL in every country except England and
Canada, as long as they don't break any password, encryption, or other
security system to do it.

So, in short, if she has or had an unsecured wireless access point,
then it is considered PUBLIC under the computer crime laws of America,
and if someone DID hijack her wireless router, said person or persons
are NOT SUBJECT to prosecution, under Federal law, and the laws of 45
states (there are 49 states in the Union) as long as they did not
break through and password, encryption, or any other security system
to gain access to her wirelsss router.

>
> So ... part of the defense is that someone might have done it, but, not
> her. ""Did you people actually observe defendant infringing?" defense
> attorney Toder asked Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief, who
> took the stand for about 90 minutes."
>
> Also, in the Jammie Thomas case, she replaced her hard drive when they
> asked for the computer as evidence. So, there is nothing on her hard drive
> for the search warrant to see.
>
> Even simpler than replacing her hard drive, she could have simply wiped her
> file sharing folder clean with PGPwipe freeware when they asked for the
> computer. Even simpler would have been to mount her file sharing disk
> partition with Truecrypt freeware or Sandboxie freeware so even if a raid

I use encryption when going to Australian Customs, becuase one pieve
of software that I use on my station, for making station IDs, and
arching my talk show could be considred a "tool" for breaking copy
protection under far more stricter DMCA-like laws in Australia. Alive
WMAMP3Recorder could, sooner or later, be declared illegal the new
Australian laws, becuase it can also be used to cirumvent DRM, which
has recently become illegal in Australia. To prevent problems with
Australian authorities, whenever I return to Australia from abroad, I
keep that softwware encrypted and locked, so Australian Customs will
not be able to open it or read it. As the saying goes "they cannot
prosecute what they cannot read".

> occurred unbeknownst to her, all the files would be safe from everyone
> anyway.

Evidence Eliminator is the BEST of the bunch. That is what *I* use,
when travelling, before taking any of my radio station's computer
equipment through Customs, especially in Canada, England, Australia,
or the United States, where it has become quite common for Customs
agents in those countries to do on-the-spot foensic examination of
hard drives. You NEVER KNOW what might be on your computer that could
get you arrested in those countries, so I first bomb the equipment
with Norton Ghost, and then have Evidence Eliminator scrub all the
empty space. Despite some of their cheesy advertising, the software
does everything the advertisting says it will do.