|
Judge rejects experts employed by RIAA
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 21 May, 2009
A Federal judge has shot down a RIAA request to have their usual team of forensic experts, whose actual expertise is questionable at best, examine Joel Tenenbaum's computer. Instead Judge Nancy Gertner ordered the RIAA to use a third party investigator, who will be required to provide her with a detailed description of their methods.
Although RIAA lawyers will be allowed to select their ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
28 product reviews
|
21. May 2009 @ 14:04 |
Link to this message
|
Good job to the judge. Now we will see how the RIAA tries to "obtain" this information legally.
Quote:
His lawyer, Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson, claims the $750 - $150,000 statutory minimum damage award is unconstitutionall excessive because it is thousands of times more than any actual damages
I hope Tenenbaum wins this case, even though he confessed, let's hope he doesn't have to pay "the price" that the RIAA says he owes. And I wouldn't be surprised if they kept that money, and didn't give it to its rightful owners (the artists). The RIAA should NOT get paid one cent from this case or from the talents and work done by the artists.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
windsong
Member
1 product review
|
21. May 2009 @ 14:35 |
Link to this message
|
He could have avoided this whole mess by using Drivecrypt or Truecrypt prior to getting caught, since divulging his passphrase would have violated his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.
Remember kids...if you encrypt..they must acquit!
But do it PRIOR to them telling you they plan to confiscate your hard drive, otherwise its an obstruction of justice charge.
|
|
Lothros
Junior Member
|
21. May 2009 @ 15:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
So how do you acess your data beforehand?
|
Junior Member
|
21. May 2009 @ 15:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
"even going so far as to claim a defendant in another case must have a second computer"
I don't know about the rest of you, but there are at least 6 completely unsecured wireless networks within reach of my computer. Anyone could be attached to one of those networks and most people seem completely ignorant of that fact.
Confiscating someones computer is just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other variables that never seem to be covered.
|
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
21. May 2009 @ 15:19 |
Link to this message
|
Why is the RIAA the one with the task of examining the computer anyway for the judicial process? Shouldn't that be left to the police's IT division?
|
|
bomber991
Member
|
21. May 2009 @ 15:46 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by skeil909:
"even going so far as to claim a defendant in another case must have a second computer"
I don't know about the rest of you, but there are at least 6 completely unsecured wireless networks within reach of my computer. Anyone could be attached to one of those networks and most people seem completely ignorant of that fact.
Confiscating someones computer is just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other variables that never seem to be covered.
There's 6 networks by me too, but their all wpa secured. That's the one where you can't crack it except through brute force, which depending on the key could take anywhere from a month for a really simple passcode to a lifetime to crack.
|
|
ALIS123
Junior Member
|
21. May 2009 @ 17:29 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
In the past RIAA experts have shown a great deal of bias, even going so far as to claim a defendant in another case must have a second computer because the one she turned over for examination showed no evidence of file sharing software or even MP3 files.
Yeah, good investigators, when they don't find the evidence it must be because the defendant was using another computer... Allmost the same as police saying if someone shoots someone and they examin their gun and find nothing and still arrest him and say that he must have another gun...
|
Newbie
|
22. May 2009 @ 00:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
Appears that a small investment in a harddrive might be a good idea. Just install Windows on it and a few typical apps.
|
Member
|
22. May 2009 @ 00:45 |
Link to this message
|
@windsong
Very well put about encrypting. Here some of what I found:
The Fifth Amendment
provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The Fifth Amendment privilege can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. The protection extends equally to civil proceedings because the nature of the protection goes to the questions asked, not the proceeding itself.
@everyone else
The riaa has the right to hire experts for their case against a defendant. Unfortunately most people can't afford their own experts. The comment about variables that never seem to get covered in these cases... well theres a reason for it need I say more.
Power to the dead people and fax machines they have tried to sue they seem to be the only ones getting out of this mess, or have they?
|
|
EricCarr
Member
|
22. May 2009 @ 01:37 |
Link to this message
|
What if someone close by hacked a this persons wireless connection and downloaded and uploaded music. Now wouldn't that explain why there is none on her computer when he turned it in?
HDD could of been swapped with new windows put on it with few apps like someone has mentioned. I don't think everyone thinks like that when they are being investigated. It is possible.
If he had a different computer, you think they would find that doing an investigation.
How about checking if the MAC Address match for this computer she turned in?
The RIAA are a bunch of idiots. They can't prove anyone guilty when millions of people are stealing music online. The reason is because they can't do a proper investigation.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. May 2009 @ 01:39
|
|
B33rdrnkr
Newbie
2 product reviews
|
22. May 2009 @ 08:51 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by EricCarr:
What if someone close by hacked a this persons wireless connection and downloaded and uploaded music. Now wouldn't that explain why there is none on her computer when he turned it in?
HDD could of been swapped with new windows put on it with few apps like someone has mentioned. I don't think everyone thinks like that when they are being investigated. It is possible.
If he had a different computer, you think they would find that doing an investigation.
How about checking if the MAC Address match for this computer she turned in?
The RIAA are a bunch of idiots. They can't prove anyone guilty when millions of people are stealing music online. The reason is because they can't do a proper investigation.
Unfortunately it does not work like that.. A friend of mine got sued for downloading music and she tried to use that excuse.. I swapped out her hard drive and installed a fresh copy of windows she still got hammered with a million dollar fine...
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
22. May 2009 @ 13:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
What you do is when you going to be ivestigated,drop a couple of worms trojens, viruses. in a time bomb fashion. a couple for Unix a couple for Windows and set the time to next reboot and watch the fun happen.
|
Member
|
23. May 2009 @ 01:10 |
Link to this message
|
@B33rnrdkr
That would be due to the mac address on the nic. Changing out a drive did no good.
As far as hacking a wireless router that is not an easy task when a it's set up properly. In my neighborhood alone there are no less than 10 within in range of me of those 5 are not secured. Being ignorant or claiming ignorance won't get you out of trouble when it comes to leaving open your internet connection. Read your tos with your isp, I have yet to see one without wording of some kind that says you are resonsible for those using your connection.
*Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying I'm not siding with the greedy riaa!
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
25. May 2009 @ 11:48 |
Link to this message
|
WEP/WPA are a cake walk to crack. WEP w/ brute force will give you the key in a matter of minutes.
WPA is a different kind of beast using brute force on that will take years to resolve the correct key, however WPA encryption suffers over time as it resolves a different key eventually reseting the router or worse requiring a cold boot. all you have to do with WPA is get it to contentiously refresh its keys until it resets.
WPA2 corrected this issue,reducing overhead,etc. its also slightly faster than WPA and better protected. that however is its weakness WPA/WPA2 likes to protect itself. WPA has a can of mace, while WPA2 drives around in an M60 Patton. M60 Patton's are harder to get to, doesn't mean its not possible.
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
25. May 2009 @ 14:06 |
Link to this message
|
Packet sniffer listening to the network.. sooner or later a new dhcp release/request is made.. then you have the encrypted key to mess about with at your leisure... along with the mac number of the requesting lump of hardware.
oops.. too much info.
|
Junior Member
|
28. May 2009 @ 16:03 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by varnull:
Packet sniffer listening to the network.. sooner or later a new dhcp release/request is made.. then you have the encrypted key to mess about with at your leisure... along with the mac number of the requesting lump of hardware.
oops.. too much info.
Now now, you are going to give the RIAA too much help. They will start driving around in vans using ethereal, regardless of it being illegal...:P
Do what you can while its still questionably Legal, before it becomes UNQuestionably ILLegal.
chrialex
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. June 2009 @ 10:07
|
|
pmshah
Member
|
28. May 2009 @ 16:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by EricCarr:
How about checking if the MAC Address match for this computer she turned in?
Mac address don't mean s***. Most laptops have an option in the bios setting to present it self at any specified mac address.
Forget about the laptops. I have a mini-itx desktop mobo with onboard 10/100 Ethernet. I can program any mac address I want in the bios setting.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
28. May 2009 @ 18:08 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by EricCarr:
How about checking if the MAC Address match for this computer she turned in?
Mac address don't mean s***. Most laptops have an option in the bios setting to present it self at any specified mac address.
Forget about the laptops. I have a mini-itx desktop mobo with onboard 10/100 Ethernet. I can program any mac address I want in the bios setting.
if you knew how to read a mac address you would realize there is only one true mac address for your nic.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
1. June 2009 @ 10:02 |
Link to this message
|
There is only one true MAC, however, you can set your own for a lot of the NICs made in the last couple years. Many right from the properties page in device manager. Doing so will not over-right the true one, but it will show the custom one to (almost) anyone looking at it (the NSA for example can bypass the custom and see the true one, if they really wanted to). Also known as MAC Spoofing.
Besides, MAC address are not routable, if you are behind a firewall/on a LAN/etc, nobody on the 'net will be able to see your MAC unless they get past the firewall or into the LAN's DHCP table. And if the RIAA is doing that, counter sue for invasion of privacy, unauthorized access, etc. God help them if you are using a government (or big biz) computer and they do that. Imagine how Intel, Apple, or Microsoft would react if their system(s) were penetrated by the RIAA so they could 'search'
Do what you can while its still questionably Legal, before it becomes UNQuestionably ILLegal.
chrialex
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. June 2009 @ 10:11
|
