full-disclosure - Re: Case ID 51560370 - Notice of ClaimedInfringement

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <996ce0c505040719482e6846be@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri Apr  8 03:48:10 2005
From: spook3y3s at gmail.com (AJ C)
Subject: Re: Case ID 51560370 - Notice of
	ClaimedInfringement

Civil vs Criminal cases dude, you're imposing some aspects of criminal
cases upon civil proceedings and that's not how they work.  In a
criminal trial it's a dramatized version of reasonable doubt, civil
proceedings must show 51%+ responsibility on the part of the defendant
(much, much easier and why the powers that be choose this route).  Not
to mention it's their content (no harm, no foul on downloading
something they already own) and MPAA/RIAA/blah have set precedence for
proactively tracking (either themselves or appointed parties)
file-sharing events (method of access is not unlawful and cannot be
brought into contention...is BitTorrent inherently illegal when used
for legit purposes? -- nope).

If bb knocks on your door then you argue evidentiary process otherwise
in a civil proceeding you bear more of a burden to show you *didn't*
do what they're claiming (right or wrong they do have the legal upper
hand with their records versus essentially a verbal denial at best).

'Probably just easier to not download the crap and stay off the radar, $0.02.

On Apr 7, 2005 7:26 PM, Jason <security@...enik.com> wrote:
> IANAL but it seems this thought process is broken.
> 
> Jason Coombs wrote:
> > Come on, people, get a clue.
> >
> > The copyright owner has authorized the forensic investigators to
> > download the infringing material. If it was there, according to a
> > forensic investigator, then you have to prove it was not.
> 
> This position does not hold water, there is no way for them to not break
> the same laws they would be attempting to enforce by performing the
> investigation from a remote location and without a valid search warrant.
> You do not have to prove that you did not have the content, you only
> have to prove that you have content that appears very similar to the
> remote reviewer.
> 
> If you were to place a copyrighted work of your own there then would
> they be forced to download it and break the law in order to prove that
> it was not the other copyright owners property? If they show in the logs
> as having attempted a download does this make them guilty?
> 
> It is as simple as creating a server that will return filenames and
> hashes found on the network but actually provide /dev/random for the
> download or your copyrighted content with an engineered hash collision.
> 
> It only takes one case to prevent the civil suit from being filed. To
> file the suit would be admitting to having broken the law. You cannot
> bring suit when the basis of the suit is itself illegal activity.
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> 

-- 
AJC
spook3y3s@...il.com