"The problem with the entrapment defense is that it relies on the "something you would not otherwise have done" part. How do you prove that someone would -or wouldn't- have done anything otherwise?"
Quite easily actually -- compare
1) A: "I will not sign this agreement under these terms"
B: "I give you $1m; would you sign it now?"
with
2) A: "I will not sign this agreement under these terms unless you give me $1m as well"
... is when A induces B to do something that B otherwise wouldn't; if B chose to do something of his own volition and A just let him, then it is not entrapment... IIRC
"If you disagree with 'greedy' record companies and artists, fine, no problem with that. Just don't *buy* their products. Note, I said *buy*. Exercising your option not to buy does not give you the right to steal."
We, as a society have given the artists et al, a *privilege* of benefiting from their contribution to the society, be it in the form of songs, books, &c. This privilege is, however, being abused to the detriment of the society and for the benefit of not the actual contributors but a select group of selfish over-indulgent individuals who demonstratively fail to appreciate the extent of this privilege and seek to abuse said privilege in every imaginable way. One has to remember, that what is given can always be taken back, and what is commonly misreported as "illegal" (vs unlawful) downloading is the first step by the society as a whole in taking back this privilege.
Incidentally, before some step in to call me a freetard, I own hundreds, if not thousands, of DVDs and hundreds of CDs... Although I only buy them when the asking price matched my perceived value of a particular film or a music CD. The fact that some people choose to obtain music, &c through whatever means at a zero cost to them, could only speak as to the value they place on that piece of creative art. And, if the true extent of copyright infringement is indeed as extensive as the recording & film industries claim, then *we*, as a society, have to ask ourselves one important question -- "who are our laws protecting?".
Finally, I am completely amazed at the stupidity of the xPI (and similar cartels) in failing to recognise, what is according to them, a perfectly profitable model of music distribution, as this case demonstrates!
So your logic is that the jury were either too stupid or that they do it themselves?..
The Fraud Act 2006, if he was indeed charged under it, requires a number of criteria to be met, which of the section 2-4 of the Act could possibly apply -- did he make false representation, failed to disclose information or abused his position???
IANAL, but AFAIK, breach of contract does not void the contract, hence there is a possibility that Nominet's actions could lead to compensation claims. There is also an interesting academic question as to whether there is any criminal liability in what could essentially be summed up as a denial of service attack...
From my old school days of science classes I remember the teachers beating into us (yes, this is a loaded phrase!) method, raw data, method used to manipulate the data, method of analysis and only *then* the result...
So these guys have nuked raw data, don't tell you what this "trick" is and only want you to look at pretty pictures they automagically produced... Conspiracy, most likely not; amazingly bad science, oh yes!
Also, as to the use of the word "trick", I would not disagree that using "tricks" is useful in a lot of cases, *but* using some random non-standard statistics fiddling trick to achieve the results that *you* want is rather amazing! Does anyone know what this trick actually is?..
Paris, because she probably knows to keep the original files!
"And for the benefit of others how do you find out who owns a PAYG phone without tipping them off? Especially with an unregistered PAYG SIM."
Rather easily...
"Or, say, a phone fitted with a SIM bought off eBay using a hijacked foreign credit card and picked up directly from the postie on the morning rather than letting it go through the letter box of the utterly-unrelated-to-the-buyer address they gave the seller? That'd be well within the capabilities of anyone who wanted to make an untraceable call and would make it bloody difficult for the police to catch them!"
"All too often after weeks or months the data source replies that “It’s a pay as you go phone, no subscriber data”, you still get bill £60."
So what you are saying is that most of these requests are useless and are a colossal waste of *TAXPAYER'S* money? Why bother serving them in the first place? Oh, incidentally, you can still establish who the phone belongs to even if it is PAYG, quite a lot of the time within five to ten minutes, you just need to know how to conduct an investigation, and not be a mindless drone procedurally filling out paperwork in a vain hope of automagically getting what you want...
I remember reading a bulletin when this happened - it was flight SU-321 and the woman collapsed when the plane started to descend into LAX. According to the doctors the silicon implants were already damaged before the flight.
I wonder how access to these records is going to be controlled, and whether there will be leaks to the press about various officials "surfing" to "immoral" sites...
There was some talk about bots on some Gov't computers somewhere, right?..
... IRS are banking or WorldPay screwing up and consequently taking them to court for hefty damages?.. just imagine - potentially details of every taxpayer in the states could be exposed...
> @ Igor: "The idea that you propose of 'forceful' transmission into the
> neighbour's airspace is plain risible! Seriously, stop clutching at
> straws!" No it's not risible, yes it is how it works, and yes you just
> lost your computing licence.
So if I live near the airport, the ATC/NDB and other signals are intruding into my airspace? I'm glad to know that I can, by the same logic, take any TV/radio broadcaster for forcing their signal onto me to court, the same goes for the GSM providers, the US gov't for forcing GSM, BT for their intrusion with OpenZone, T-Mobile for their intrusion with this HotSpot interference, police/fire/ambulance service that drive past my residence and whoever else I can pick up with radio equipment... Who needs to work; I'll get busy drawing up a list!
... oh and, of course, the council for putting all these street lights that are emitting the electro-magnetic signal in the visible spectrum right through my windows!
Unauthorised access to computer networks, or any other network for that matter, is still illegal. The idea that you propose of 'forceful' transmission into the neighbour's airspace is plain risible! Seriously, stop clutching at straws!
Also,
> Like riding on a pavement on a bike. Not illegal...
> Comparing accidental misconnects to walking into someone's house?
How do you know they were accidental? Given the story, either version is plausible.
RE: @Igor Mozolevsky @18:47 GMT
> The reason most insurance...
I suggest you revisit the definition of 'burglary' - you can easily draw parallels between that and hooking into someone else's WLAN.
> Any analogy between war driving and plain theft...
War driving is like walking up to a door and trying to open it, *but* this article is not about war driving.
RE: @AC - Something Doesn't Add Up
If you didn't know this - most perpetrators get caught because they've done something stupid
RE: @Igor Mozolevsky @17:28 GMT
> The network shows the same internet and there's no nametag on the 1's and 0's...
Accessing someone else's network is still an offence! AFAIK, recklessness is not a defence in court... Incidcentally: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm
@ Everyone:
There's so little detail here to actually form any conclusion so we can speculate as much as we can and we may be way off target!..
@ El Reg:
Time to get thread-capable feedback mechanism guys!
> It's OK to leave your connection wide open for abuse
> because basically if anyone dares to use it and you
> can prove it, they are in the wrong for unlawful usage.
> Let's try that with my car or house, when all my stuff
> gets nicked and I ask the insurance company to pay
> out for my stupidity?
So you'll be happy for anyone to use your land line, your electricity line, your gas supply, let anyone dump their cr*p into your sewer, gladly watch them put their rubbish into your bins?..
Hmmm... "Eventually it may get to the point where even airports don't do identity checks because they already know who individuals are..." Funnily enough, the last time I flew ncl<->lhr couple of weeks ago, nobody checked my id at either end, a printed online check-in sheet of paper seemed to suffice. I thought it was because once they dangle you by your ankles and shake you till everything falls out, they would not care who you actually were, but maybe he knows something we don't?
Is there any quantitative proof that anyone who bombed anything actually photographed their target initially? Obviously anyone with a camera on them is either a terrorist or a pedophile... Oh hold on, don't mobile phones now have cameras too?!. The problem is that all these policy makers and other uneducated fools watch too much tv without actually engaging their brain for a nanosecond... Yey for more vexatious interference in our daily lives..
Paris, because, I guess, she likes having her pictures taken!
So to ensure that people like that are kept in line you're willing to give up your own freedoms?.. Maybe we should send a few cops around your home just to make sure you're not doing anything illegal, just in case, you know like you said - better safe than sorry...
... if your card issuer is inept... I know at least of one card issuer that uses one time passwords for VbV and there's no way to change anything at the prompt. You go to the ATM, print a slip that has a unique ticket number and ten passwords, when you pay, their VbV prompt asks you for password number P on ticket number T and that password is not used any more on that ticket. Granted, the issuer is not a UK one...
sounds like the Gov't hired the Information Minister from Sadam's circles (remember the one who was saying on the TV that there was no sign of the American military near Baghdad while an American(?) tank was making its way across the background)...
As we all know statistics allows us to show pretty much anything, right?.. So do they really mean that the 20% reduction (which is attributed to the speed cameras) in accidents are only taking into the account the accidents that actually were due to exceeding the speed limit? Thus, if the total number of accidents caused by speeding are 6% of the total, 20% reduction in 6% is a mere 1.2%!..
If this actually does go ahead and if anyone were intending to commit any crime where a mobile phone were to play a key role the perpetrators would be motivated to commit (a potentially violent) crime against individuals with the purpose of stealing their phone. Thus increasing the potential pool of those who are likely to be victimized.
Yet another prime example of someone who is utterly clueless charged with making policy.
Even Paris would've been able to see how this is a stupid idea...
... from the vague description this "attack" relies on the fact that the attacker is able to establish a proper connection? Any well written firewall policy ought to be able to detect rapid connections to a particular resource... and if you have a decent firewall, the firewall will handle the TCP handshake before handing off the connection to the internal hosts... Not really a problem if you have someone who knows what they're doing.
So... when are we going to put limits on how much we can breathe out? It seems that all these scaremongers are overlooking a simple fact - world population has grown expotenentially since about mid-1600s...
So he was contracted exclusively for one company... Nothing new here, this rule was there for ages, the High Court just re-affirmed that people shouldn't take the p*ss...
> to do secure browsing if this comes in. I'm not sure of the details of https
> but can it be used to create an encrypted session both ways, so that
> phorm can't see anything passing between the browser and the
> webserver?
You still have DNS packets and IP packet routing data to deal with, HTTPS only deals with layer 7 and you'd need to masquerade everything from layer 2 upwards...
> Anyone recommned a company for a reliable, cheap, dedicated server??
So a 'reliable' server would cost somewhere in the region of about £15k-25k just for the hardware (and then, of course, to protect yourself from motherboard/cpu/ram failure you'd want to at least duplicate the system and run that one in parallel because the availability is important), plus redundant power sources plus redundant network connections plus environment monitoring & conditioning plus staff to ensure that everything is actually working fine plus the cost of backups, and you're expecting to pay how much exactly for that?..
AFAIK, even the British ATMs fall back to magstripe when the chip on British cards is not readable. Presumably, you can clone UK CCs with 'faulty' chips to force magstripe sale, as everywhere that has a chip reader also has a magstripe reader.
Re: 3 strikes = 2 fake claims + 1 claim (which may also be fake)
> Would the BPI want to go to court and have their evidence tested or would they be
> happier retracting the accusation and paying you compensation?
Of course there's nothing to prevent BPI from saying "We did nothing wrong - we merely alerted the ISP to the activity and if they chose to take drastic action without any form of investigation how could you possibly hold us accountable???" Which is what sensible ISPs (like CPW) are probably fearing...
Register
88 posts • joined Thursday 31st May 2007 14:08 GMT
Page:
demonstrating entrapment
"The problem with the entrapment defense is that it relies on the "something you would not otherwise have done" part. How do you prove that someone would -or wouldn't- have done anything otherwise?"
Quite easily actually -- compare
1) A: "I will not sign this agreement under these terms"
B: "I give you $1m; would you sign it now?"
with
2) A: "I will not sign this agreement under these terms unless you give me $1m as well"
B: "Ok here is $1m, please sign now"
entrapment...
... is when A induces B to do something that B otherwise wouldn't; if B chose to do something of his own volition and A just let him, then it is not entrapment... IIRC
What you need to realise...
"If you disagree with 'greedy' record companies and artists, fine, no problem with that. Just don't *buy* their products. Note, I said *buy*. Exercising your option not to buy does not give you the right to steal."
We, as a society have given the artists et al, a *privilege* of benefiting from their contribution to the society, be it in the form of songs, books, &c. This privilege is, however, being abused to the detriment of the society and for the benefit of not the actual contributors but a select group of selfish over-indulgent individuals who demonstratively fail to appreciate the extent of this privilege and seek to abuse said privilege in every imaginable way. One has to remember, that what is given can always be taken back, and what is commonly misreported as "illegal" (vs unlawful) downloading is the first step by the society as a whole in taking back this privilege.
Incidentally, before some step in to call me a freetard, I own hundreds, if not thousands, of DVDs and hundreds of CDs... Although I only buy them when the asking price matched my perceived value of a particular film or a music CD. The fact that some people choose to obtain music, &c through whatever means at a zero cost to them, could only speak as to the value they place on that piece of creative art. And, if the true extent of copyright infringement is indeed as extensive as the recording & film industries claim, then *we*, as a society, have to ask ourselves one important question -- "who are our laws protecting?".
Finally, I am completely amazed at the stupidity of the xPI (and similar cartels) in failing to recognise, what is according to them, a perfectly profitable model of music distribution, as this case demonstrates!
utter failure of logic
So your logic is that the jury were either too stupid or that they do it themselves?..
The Fraud Act 2006, if he was indeed charged under it, requires a number of criteria to be met, which of the section 2-4 of the Act could possibly apply -- did he make false representation, failed to disclose information or abused his position???
NO
IANAL, but AFAIK, breach of contract does not void the contract, hence there is a possibility that Nominet's actions could lead to compensation claims. There is also an interesting academic question as to whether there is any criminal liability in what could essentially be summed up as a denial of service attack...
As per icon...
As someone who works in forensics (or even better heads it) he should really know better - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
LMAO
... paid for with virtual money?..
Conspiracy?
From my old school days of science classes I remember the teachers beating into us (yes, this is a loaded phrase!) method, raw data, method used to manipulate the data, method of analysis and only *then* the result...
So these guys have nuked raw data, don't tell you what this "trick" is and only want you to look at pretty pictures they automagically produced... Conspiracy, most likely not; amazingly bad science, oh yes!
Also, as to the use of the word "trick", I would not disagree that using "tricks" is useful in a lot of cases, *but* using some random non-standard statistics fiddling trick to achieve the results that *you* want is rather amazing! Does anyone know what this trick actually is?..
Paris, because she probably knows to keep the original files!
@Adam Foxton
"And for the benefit of others how do you find out who owns a PAYG phone without tipping them off? Especially with an unregistered PAYG SIM."
Rather easily...
"Or, say, a phone fitted with a SIM bought off eBay using a hijacked foreign credit card and picked up directly from the postie on the morning rather than letting it go through the letter box of the utterly-unrelated-to-the-buyer address they gave the seller? That'd be well within the capabilities of anyone who wanted to make an untraceable call and would make it bloody difficult for the police to catch them!"
Nowhere near as hard as you might think!
RE: @bury them in bureaucracy
"All too often after weeks or months the data source replies that “It’s a pay as you go phone, no subscriber data”, you still get bill £60."
So what you are saying is that most of these requests are useless and are a colossal waste of *TAXPAYER'S* money? Why bother serving them in the first place? Oh, incidentally, you can still establish who the phone belongs to even if it is PAYG, quite a lot of the time within five to ten minutes, you just need to know how to conduct an investigation, and not be a mindless drone procedurally filling out paperwork in a vain hope of automagically getting what you want...
false negatives
/me wants to know what metric they use to work out the false negatives... Think about it!
A few points
I remember reading a bulletin when this happened - it was flight SU-321 and the woman collapsed when the plane started to descend into LAX. According to the doctors the silicon implants were already damaged before the flight.
Also, what's the IT angle?
Potential for misuse?
I wonder how access to these records is going to be controlled, and whether there will be leaks to the press about various officials "surfing" to "immoral" sites...
There was some talk about bots on some Gov't computers somewhere, right?..
RE: To me ... to you
well, that's how the banks seem to work... although I'm not sure about the proving they are capable of performing the task bit...
If only there was a way...
of faking the Internet traffic... Hmmm!..
Clearly these guys are utterly clueless. Just remember boys and girls, garbage in - garbage out...
or maybe...
... IRS are banking or WorldPay screwing up and consequently taking them to court for hefty damages?.. just imagine - potentially details of every taxpayer in the states could be exposed...
Hmmm...
"... the law aimed to stop the *300,000 to 450,000* requests made by German residents for abusive images every year..."
so that's 375,000 plus/minus 20%?.. That's some margin of error!!!
@An open wifi IS an invitation
> @ Igor: "The idea that you propose of 'forceful' transmission into the
> neighbour's airspace is plain risible! Seriously, stop clutching at
> straws!" No it's not risible, yes it is how it works, and yes you just
> lost your computing licence.
So if I live near the airport, the ATC/NDB and other signals are intruding into my airspace? I'm glad to know that I can, by the same logic, take any TV/radio broadcaster for forcing their signal onto me to court, the same goes for the GSM providers, the US gov't for forcing GSM, BT for their intrusion with OpenZone, T-Mobile for their intrusion with this HotSpot interference, police/fire/ambulance service that drive past my residence and whoever else I can pick up with radio equipment... Who needs to work; I'll get busy drawing up a list!
RE: An open wifi IS an invitation
>@ Igor: ...
... oh and, of course, the council for putting all these street lights that are emitting the electro-magnetic signal in the visible spectrum right through my windows!
RE: Bikes on pathways
Did you even read the link I posted?
@Clueless Igor
When did this become an ad hominem debate?
Even a school kid should be able to digest the text below:
http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php
@re Not sure now...
"the kid hacked my machine and put his filth on it! He'd already hacked by AP!!!".
True, the trojan defence has often been used in courts and, worryingly, often successfully...
@Mark
Unauthorised access to computer networks, or any other network for that matter, is still illegal. The idea that you propose of 'forceful' transmission into the neighbour's airspace is plain risible! Seriously, stop clutching at straws!
Also,
> Like riding on a pavement on a bike. Not illegal...
Actually it is!
@ various...
This is upside down, because it's easier for me:-
RE: Oh come on
> Comparing accidental misconnects to walking into someone's house?
How do you know they were accidental? Given the story, either version is plausible.
RE: @Igor Mozolevsky @18:47 GMT
> The reason most insurance...
I suggest you revisit the definition of 'burglary' - you can easily draw parallels between that and hooking into someone else's WLAN.
> Any analogy between war driving and plain theft...
War driving is like walking up to a door and trying to open it, *but* this article is not about war driving.
RE: @AC - Something Doesn't Add Up
If you didn't know this - most perpetrators get caught because they've done something stupid
RE: @Igor Mozolevsky @17:28 GMT
> The network shows the same internet and there's no nametag on the 1's and 0's...
Accessing someone else's network is still an offence! AFAIK, recklessness is not a defence in court... Incidcentally: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm
@ Everyone:
There's so little detail here to actually form any conclusion so we can speculate as much as we can and we may be way off target!..
@ El Reg:
Time to get thread-capable feedback mechanism guys!
RE: That's the annoying part
> It's OK to leave your connection wide open for abuse
> because basically if anyone dares to use it and you
> can prove it, they are in the wrong for unlawful usage.
> Let's try that with my car or house, when all my stuff
> gets nicked and I ask the insurance company to pay
> out for my stupidity?
So you'll be happy for anyone to use your land line, your electricity line, your gas supply, let anyone dump their cr*p into your sewer, gladly watch them put their rubbish into your bins?..
RE: so what's my redress if ...
Don't know if you're actually being serious or joking... I certainly hope the latter!
RE: @N1AK 16:24 GMT
> So why is it that if you're burgled, your insurance won't pay a dime
> if you left the door open? Because you should have secured it.
So the guy who nicked your stuff should get off too then?.. Think about it!
RE: Volunteers?
I have a GCFA, would that do? :-D I wonder where the laptop was actually sent though...
Airport security checks
Hmmm... "Eventually it may get to the point where even airports don't do identity checks because they already know who individuals are..." Funnily enough, the last time I flew ncl<->lhr couple of weeks ago, nobody checked my id at either end, a printed online check-in sheet of paper seemed to suffice. I thought it was because once they dangle you by your ankles and shake you till everything falls out, they would not care who you actually were, but maybe he knows something we don't?
unsubstanciated suppositions
Is there any quantitative proof that anyone who bombed anything actually photographed their target initially? Obviously anyone with a camera on them is either a terrorist or a pedophile... Oh hold on, don't mobile phones now have cameras too?!. The problem is that all these policy makers and other uneducated fools watch too much tv without actually engaging their brain for a nanosecond... Yey for more vexatious interference in our daily lives..
Paris, because, I guess, she likes having her pictures taken!
RE: There IS a need
So to ensure that people like that are kept in line you're willing to give up your own freedoms?.. Maybe we should send a few cops around your home just to make sure you're not doing anything illegal, just in case, you know like you said - better safe than sorry...
RE: Isn't it 10 years in prison?
"or making naked pictures of children?"
Duh! It's for your own security, don't you get it??? No laws apply!
Coming next... cavity search for everyone, just to make sure you're not hiding something where the sun doesn't shine!
Don't fault Visa...
... if your card issuer is inept... I know at least of one card issuer that uses one time passwords for VbV and there's no way to change anything at the prompt. You go to the ATM, print a slip that has a unique ticket number and ten passwords, when you pay, their VbV prompt asks you for password number P on ticket number T and that password is not used any more on that ticket. Granted, the issuer is not a UK one...
RE: realpolitik
"I would be in favour of having fines linked to the driver's income, though, as is the case in Finland, I think."
So those who are most likely to speed - teenagers/doll-supported boy racers et al are free to continue to do so?
(for some strange reason paris was already pre-selected :-D)
Hmmm...
sounds like the Gov't hired the Information Minister from Sadam's circles (remember the one who was saying on the TV that there was no sign of the American military near Baghdad while an American(?) tank was making its way across the background)...
Lying with stats
As we all know statistics allows us to show pretty much anything, right?.. So do they really mean that the 20% reduction (which is attributed to the speed cameras) in accidents are only taking into the account the accidents that actually were due to exceeding the speed limit? Thus, if the total number of accidents caused by speeding are 6% of the total, 20% reduction in 6% is a mere 1.2%!..
Where's the IT angle btw?..
NOT to be used as a manual
You think that 1984 is scary... This is what they're actually aiming for...
http://www.aclu.org/pizza/
This will actually increase crime!
If this actually does go ahead and if anyone were intending to commit any crime where a mobile phone were to play a key role the perpetrators would be motivated to commit (a potentially violent) crime against individuals with the purpose of stealing their phone. Thus increasing the potential pool of those who are likely to be victimized.
Yet another prime example of someone who is utterly clueless charged with making policy.
Even Paris would've been able to see how this is a stupid idea...
So...
... from the vague description this "attack" relies on the fact that the attacker is able to establish a proper connection? Any well written firewall policy ought to be able to detect rapid connections to a particular resource... and if you have a decent firewall, the firewall will handle the TCP handshake before handing off the connection to the internal hosts... Not really a problem if you have someone who knows what they're doing.
scaremongering
So... when are we going to put limits on how much we can breathe out? It seems that all these scaremongers are overlooking a simple fact - world population has grown expotenentially since about mid-1600s...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Population_curve.svg
Looks like we need some sanctioned culling...
Paris, because even she would've spotted that...
RE: Why always IT?
> Accountants and Lawyers have been using the same loopholes for years, so why is IT the target of all this?
Ever known an accountant or a lawyer who holds a practice only work for *one* client?
A title is required.
So he was contracted exclusively for one company... Nothing new here, this rule was there for ages, the High Court just re-affirmed that people shouldn't take the p*ss...
Won't last long...
Clearly falls foul of Article 14 of European Convention on Human Rights...
RE: how difficult is it
> to do secure browsing if this comes in. I'm not sure of the details of https
> but can it be used to create an encrypted session both ways, so that
> phorm can't see anything passing between the browser and the
> webserver?
You still have DNS packets and IP packet routing data to deal with, HTTPS only deals with layer 7 and you'd need to masquerade everything from layer 2 upwards...
RE: Any recommendations?
> Anyone recommned a company for a reliable, cheap, dedicated server??
So a 'reliable' server would cost somewhere in the region of about £15k-25k just for the hardware (and then, of course, to protect yourself from motherboard/cpu/ram failure you'd want to at least duplicate the system and run that one in parallel because the availability is important), plus redundant power sources plus redundant network connections plus environment monitoring & conditioning plus staff to ensure that everything is actually working fine plus the cost of backups, and you're expecting to pay how much exactly for that?..
RE: Fair Trial
> 1) He won't get a fair trial. No chance. In a country where "plea-bargaining" is not only legal but even encouraged
Erm, you do know that the same happens in England right? In fact, the sooner you plea the more lenient sentence you get...
This is nothing new...
AFAIK, even the British ATMs fall back to magstripe when the chip on British cards is not readable. Presumably, you can clone UK CCs with 'faulty' chips to force magstripe sale, as everywhere that has a chip reader also has a magstripe reader.
Great way to encourage...
... more technology shows to be held in your country. How effective! ;-)
Re: 3 strikes = 2 fake claims + 1 claim (which may also be fake)
> Would the BPI want to go to court and have their evidence tested or would they be
> happier retracting the accusation and paying you compensation?
Of course there's nothing to prevent BPI from saying "We did nothing wrong - we merely alerted the ISP to the activity and if they chose to take drastic action without any form of investigation how could you possibly hold us accountable???" Which is what sensible ISPs (like CPW) are probably fearing...
RE: Defence
> Is it possible to defend yourself against claims of piracy without giving an unvetted
> third party access to everything stored on your PC? There must be a way.
Is the burden not on the accuser, not on the accusee???
Page: