Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet
- From: anthonyberet <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:03:27 +0000
Technomage Hawke wrote:
anthonyberet wrote:Yes that sounds more like it. I am not aware of the criminal justice system having been used in the first instance.
Leythos wrote:In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:19:42 -0400, Leythos wrote:No, the fact that YOUR IP did it is enough to get a search warrant -
when YOU make a connection, it shows your PUBLIC IP, that's all that'sBut they have to prove YOU (personally) did it - don't they?
For example, what if there are five people and five computers in the
Or if the neighbor hijacked your wireless router connection?
from there, since you don't know it's coming they get the computer and
copyright infringers in any jurisdiction that I know of.
Can you substatiate your spurious claim?
I search warrant is not needed except in criminal cases. in civil cases, a
subpoena is used to "confiscate" the equipment holding the "proscribed
materials" and its then imaged. now, if a civil case goes against the
defendant, then information gained from that civil case can be used to
obtain a warrant for further searches (as well the previously testified
info presented in the civil case can also be used in the criminal courts).
it rather depends on which court system was used first: civil or criminal.
if criminal first, then yes, a warrant is required for search and seizure
of equipment/drives/etc (unless there is sufficient probable cause to go in
without a warrant first).
- Prev by Date: Re: How to create a manageable DMZ architecture?
- Next by Date: Re: Norton vs Zone Alarm firewalls
- Previous by thread: Re: Would a firewall have protected Jammie Thomas from being sued by the RIAA Safenet
- Next by thread: Qos with IPSO 4.2 on Nokia