Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

smooth · 10-07-2005, 01:16 PM

Like I said, criminal defense is about possibilities. Civil defense is about evidence.

Stompy is counseling you to make the case that it's possible for someone else to have done this. No one will disagree with that, but you won't even have a chance at being exonerated unless you can demonstrate over 51% certainty for the court that someone else actually did. They didn't, so how are you going to demonstrate that someone did?

I am aware of wardriving, technology, wireless security, and hacking. I'm also in the unique situation that I know about it in relation to law. Stompy is inccrrect in at least two of his assumptions: that the logical principles are not analogous to my car example (they are, and the thing that operates against you here is the concept of jurisprudence where the court will review cases it views are similar and apply the same principles) and that the plaintiffs will not be well-versed in internet technology. Both of those assumptions are not only incorret, they are dangerous to assume when $50,000 dollars is at stake.

Now, you asked for free legal advice. This is where you get the wonderful choice you may never have in real life (presumabley because you have to pay for initial counsel): you can look at the quality of one person's advice contrasted against the others. You can, for example, directly compare what I've written with numerous people telling you that you have not much or nothing to worry about. What works in your favor is that you can verify what I've written by calling an attorney or even a cursory internet search.

Let me explain to you how Stompy's suggestion will directly work against your favor:
You will need to argue that your internet connection is insecure and that someone else used your computer or masqueraded as your computer in order to facilitate the theft. You have a serious problem here...because the truth of the matter is if it's so insecure, you do have an obligation to secure it. You don't in the sense that if nothing happens, then you won't ever have to worry about it. But you do in the sense that if something like this happens, you have to demonstrate to the court that you took reasonable efforts to limit your liability.

Let me give you another example: would you be surprised to learn that if you leave your vehicle unsecured and someone steals it, you may be found (partially) liable for damages incurred from the criminal's actions?

You don't just get to plug something into the wall and forget about it if it presents risk to yourself or others. And Stompy's argument hinges on your making a successful claim that harm exists by nature in an internet connection.

Stompy, if you think my car examples are not analogous to the router arguments, then it's on you to dispute them and demonstrate why they are not...consider it a rough run at a legal argument disputing my contetion.... (you guys see how this works? you don't just get to say: no it isn't...you have to construct an argument why it isn't so).

10-07-2005, 01:16 PM	#131 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Like I said, criminal defense is about possibilities. Civil defense is about evidence. Stompy is counseling you to make the case that it's possible for someone else to have done this. No one will disagree with that, but you won't even have a chance at being exonerated unless you can demonstrate over 51% certainty for the court that someone else actually did. They didn't, so how are you going to demonstrate that someone did? I am aware of wardriving, technology, wireless security, and hacking. I'm also in the unique situation that I know about it in relation to law. Stompy is inccrrect in at least two of his assumptions: that the logical principles are not analogous to my car example (they are, and the thing that operates against you here is the concept of jurisprudence where the court will review cases it views are similar and apply the same principles) and that the plaintiffs will not be well-versed in internet technology. Both of those assumptions are not only incorret, they are dangerous to assume when $50,000 dollars is at stake. Now, you asked for free legal advice. This is where you get the wonderful choice you may never have in real life (presumabley because you have to pay for initial counsel): you can look at the quality of one person's advice contrasted against the others. You can, for example, directly compare what I've written with numerous people telling you that you have not much or nothing to worry about. What works in your favor is that you can verify what I've written by calling an attorney or even a cursory internet search. Let me explain to you how Stompy's suggestion will directly work against your favor: You will need to argue that your internet connection is insecure and that someone else used your computer or masqueraded as your computer in order to facilitate the theft. You have a serious problem here...because the truth of the matter is if it's so insecure, you do have an obligation to secure it. You don't in the sense that if nothing happens, then you won't ever have to worry about it. But you do in the sense that if something like this happens, you have to demonstrate to the court that you took reasonable efforts to limit your liability. Let me give you another example: would you be surprised to learn that if you leave your vehicle unsecured and someone steals it, you may be found (partially) liable for damages incurred from the criminal's actions? You don't just get to plug something into the wall and forget about it if it presents risk to yourself or others. And Stompy's argument hinges on your making a successful claim that harm exists by nature in an internet connection. Stompy, if you think my car examples are not analogous to the router arguments, then it's on you to dispute them and demonstrate why they are not...consider it a rough run at a legal argument disputing my contetion.... (you guys see how this works? you don't just get to say: no it isn't...you have to construct an argument why it isn't so). __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman