Games firm pursues 500 pinball 'pirates' through UK courts

"It is your responsibility to ensure that your computer is protected at all times"

That's absolutely untrue.

The onus is on the prosecution to *prove* that the files were being deliberately shared and that just isn't really possible.
 
phykell said:
"It is your responsibility to ensure that your computer is protected at all times"

That's absolutely untrue.

The onus is on the prosecution to *prove* that the files were being deliberately shared and that just isn't really possible.
Click to expand...

Wrong, it is the responsibility of the individual to ensure their computer is secure. This includes wireless as well, if someone else uses your internet connection because you have an unsecured wireless network you are held responsible. Of course if you can prove the intrusion you are fine otherwise you are screwed.
 
Noxis said:
Wrong, it is the responsibility of the individual to ensure their computer is secure. This includes wireless as well, if someone else uses your internet connection because you have an unsecured wireless network you are held responsible. Of course if you can prove the intrusion you are fine otherwise you are screwed.
Click to expand...

I really don't agree with this law, not everyone knows how to fo that. Also it isn't your fault if someone else uses your property, it's like saying that if someone steals a knife from your house and stabs someone with it, then you are responsible.
 
The Pat said:
I really don't agree with this law, not everyone knows how to fo that. Also it isn't your fault if someone else uses your property, it's like saying that if someone steals a knife from your house and stabs someone with it, then you are responsible.
Click to expand...

I can see its need, because all that would happen is any time there is a computer crime people would be able to say "yea my computer was hacked - sorry".

If someone kills someone else with your knife and then replaces it then I imagine you would get a few pointed questions from the Police :p
 
Reminds me of Jacko sueing the record company for being racist against him because his records didn't sell.

Pinball is crap (unless its a works PC) if they did their market research they would know its a Pinball games are dated pieces of software freely available off the net...
 
Noxis said:
I can see its need, because all that would happen is any time there is a computer crime people would be able to say "yea my computer was hacked - sorry".

If someone kills someone else with your knife and then replaces it then I imagine you would get a few pointed questions from the Police :p
Click to expand...

I know what you mean and agree with it, it's just the wording that gets me, using the knife example, that it doesn't matter if someone stole your knife to stab someone, it's your fault for not protecting the knife.

Davenport replied in a letter dated 21 March: "In relation to your claim that your computer was hacked into, we regret that the security of your computer is not our concern. It is your responsibility to ensure that your computer is protected at all times."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ice Tea said:
Swarm of file sharers spurred UK crackdown

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/30/filesharing_swarm/
Click to expand...
"Neither was he certain that file sharers lost him business: "Normally, if you discuss this with file sharers, they say they wouldn't have bought the game anyway," he said.

But he added, you might as well say, "I never would have bought a Ferrari if I hadn't pinched one"."

What a stupid analogy. You haven't physically taken anything unlike in the Ferrari example. It would be more like you've cloned the Ferrari somehow and left the original one there!
 
Noxis said:
Wrong, it is the responsibility of the individual to ensure their computer is secure. This includes wireless as well, if someone else uses your internet connection because you have an unsecured wireless network you are held responsible. Of course if you can prove the intrusion you are fine otherwise you are screwed.
Click to expand...

Similarly it is up to the prosecution to determine that an intrusion didn't occur. The burden of proof is on the police and the forensics examiner.

If the prosecution cant prove that you are lying then they cant find you guilty. Although, if they can prove to a certain degree what the defense is saying is rubbish then it will be taken into account.

I think that the idea that it is up to the individual is a load of crap as well. While they should take some of the responsibility the vendors and software developers should also take responsibility through secure design and ease of use of their products.

If you bought a car and locked it with what you thought was a secure lock, then 10 minutes later someone came round with a key they just made to break the lock and drove off, how is that your fault? Does that mean that everyone needs to be an expert in locks else they will be deemed negligent?

It is a very grey area of the law and as a defense is has worked for criminals in the past :(
 
Noxis said:
Wrong, it is the responsibility of the individual to ensure their computer is secure. This includes wireless as well, if someone else uses your internet connection because you have an unsecured wireless network you are held responsible. Of course if you can prove the intrusion you are fine otherwise you are screwed.
Click to expand...
That is uter rubbish; there is absolutely *no* legal precedent for a member of the public operating a private wireless network being held accountable for another person's misuse and nor should there be. The only way a person might be considered responsible is if they provided that network encouraging illegal use or otherwise knowing that it was being used for illegal purposes. An example would be if I provided people with a web site informing people they were welcome to use my network for any purpose whatsover including downloading illegal content.
 
Last edited:
phykell said:
That is utter rubbish; there is absolutely *no* legal precedent for a member of the public operating a private wireless network being held accountable other peoples' misuse and nor should there be. The only way a person might be considered responsible is if they provided that network encouraging illegal use or otherwise knowing that it was being used for illegal purposes. An example would be if I provided people with a web site informing people they were welcome to use my network for any purpose whatsover.
Click to expand...

There is in the US and that may be the source of the confusion, but not in the UK and I don't think they would be held responsible in the end...

These types of cases are more vulnerable to 'my computer was hacked' defense cases, it's as simple as getting the letter then formatting your computer and telling them it was hacked. They ask for proof, you say, I formatted it because it was compromised, not an unreasonable thing to do.

Compared to kiddy porn, where the police kick your door down and seize your computer, you have no oppurtunity to make that defence.

In another twist...it's a pretty grey area legally for the lawyers not to sign the letters.

and another...those letters come close to demanding money with menaces

and another, they didn't sign the letters but they're website lists names and email addresses for all partners, including their speciality...so the ones specialising in 'technology and copyright law' might be the people to abuse...???
 
bigredshark said:
There is in the US and that may be the source of the confusion, but not in the UK and I don't think they would be held responsible in the end...
Click to expand...
Well of course they wouldn't. Operating a home wireless network does not normally imply intent to provide people with a means to conduct illegal activity.

bigredshark said:
These types of cases are more vulnerable to 'my computer was hacked' defense cases, it's as simple as getting the letter then formatting your computer and telling them it was hacked. They ask for proof, you say, I formatted it because it was compromised, not an unreasonable thing to do.
Click to expand...
Let's be clear here; I'm not actually talking about the content having been proven to be provided from your hardware, I'm talking about your ISP or others, supposedly recording that you have either downloaded or uploaded copyrighted material; there is a significant difference in terms of "evidence". Proving that people are guilty of illegal activity based on the content of seized computers is probably hard enough but proving it based on ISP records would surely be all but impossible in most cases.
 
phykell said:
Let's be clear here; I'm not actually talking about the content having been proven to be provided from your hardware, I'm talking about your ISP or others, supposedly recording that you have either downloaded or uploaded copyrighted material; there is a significant difference in terms of "evidence". Proving that people are guilty of illegal activity based on the content of seized computers is probably hard enough but proving it based on ISP records would surely be all but impossible in most cases.
Click to expand...

100% correct, the lengths a forensic examiner has to go to to create a watertight case is insane, from the moment they seize the computer to the moment they appear in court to testify they are under extreme constant scrutiny.

ISP records are just that, they dont prove that YOU downloaded/uploaded anything. I think any brief would be able to get you off on these records alone, if the prosecution had an examination of your hard drive and found multiple traces of evidence that you downloaded these files or looked about how to download these files then you are going to have a harder fight on your hands.

The bottom line is, make it as hard as possible to get hacked :D and dont download any illegal content :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom