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



Technomage Hawke wrote:
anthonyberet wrote:

Leythos wrote:
In article <9HOMi.57415$YL5.27284@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
onesolution@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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....

I don't think that is true. They don't issue search warrant for p2p
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).

Yes that sounds more like it. I am not aware of the criminal justice system having been used in the first instance.
.