News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identify a pirate. Parent comment

Re:US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identi... by AnthonyMouse on Sunday September 02, 2018 @10:23PM (#17899853)
The facts of the actual case make it much easier to understand the problem, but how is that situation actually different? There are still multiple people it could have been, no evidence is presented to distinguish between them at all and it's an obvious injustice to punish one person when it was another who did it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identi... by AmericanChopper on Sunday September 02, 2018 @10:41PM (#17899926)
How do you know it wasn't a nearby neighbour piggybacking on your wifi?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identi... by a1369209993 on Sunday September 02, 2018 @11:48PM (#17900178)
You don't, that's the point; claiming "the criminals had mail sent to 1342 Grass Lane, therefore the owner of 1342 Grass Lane is the criminal" is patently ridiculous, and it's good that the court realizes that the same applies (if anything, even more so) to IP addresses.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identi... by rootw0rm on Sunday September 02, 2018 @11:41PM (#17900150)
because wifi is reasonably secure by default these days?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Court of Appeals: An IP address isn't enough to identi... by mmt on Monday September 03, 2018 @12:31AM (#17900329)
That notion is conradicted by numerous articles about WPA2 cracks.

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=wpa&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&...

[ Parent | on HN ]