Thanks Gucci. It's finally time to shred my 8year old win98 laptop. :thumbsup:

This is a simple criminal charge at worst, intelligence agencies will not be trying to recover the hard drive. Writing over every bit with a 0 is fine, do a pass of 0s and one of random data if you're really paranoid.

I read this last night and checked my TOS with AT&T, who's my internet provider at home. Low and behold, I am responsible for securing any network.

I think that an unsecured wireless network could qualify as an attractive nuisance. That concept is why homeowners have to fence their pools with locking gates and contractors have to secure their jobsites at night to keep people out (in part - obviously theft is an issue too). If an univited guest is hurt on your unsecured attractive nuisance, you are potentially liable.

willravel, your advice bothers me and it's so unlike you that I don't think you've thought it through to it's logical conclusion. You've advised the OP to commit fraud and potentially perjury. If there is no unsecured wireless network in place, then telling his ISP that there is can only be a lie. If the provider pursues this, should the OP run out and buy the right equipment? Thanks for the brainy/grammar compliment, but I think that you need to give this a little more thought, especially since this is something that has a greater-than-minimal chance of ending up in court.

I am of the opinion if they can crack my encryption or find my deleted data after the 7 random passes, then bless 'em, I deserve whatever they can prove to charge me for.

That's what I've been trying to say, if Will would just read his TOS he'd most likely see the same thing.

Going out and buying the right equipment now won't help either as the OP has no logs to show another connection to his account.

.. jeesus .. I write a reply and it is shamefully moderated

looks like the good 'ol boys club strikes again

Simply writing 0's one time to the drive will not erase it. It is magnetic storage meaning past writes can be retrieved by looking at the lower frequencies. You need to write zeros many more times than once. Also a girl got in major trouble for doing this because it was easy to prove she had done this and the judge used that as 51% guilt and the case went to the RIAA.

I was motivated to look at my TOS since Xazy asked me if I secured my network, and also after reading Jazz's response.

Time Warner Cable TOS http://help.twcable.com/html/twc_sub_agreement.html

this section says you are required to secure your network.
The below states that TWC isn't liable if you do not secure your network and that you are..

//sigh// This is why you use secure deletion which writes random data. Even after that data can be recovered after one pass since alignment of the magnetic domains is never one hundred percent accurate (I believe this term is called magnetic hysteresis, mechanical engineers know of elastic hysteresis). This is why multiple passes is a good idea.

CCleaner does [multiple] passes of psuedo-random data too, with your choice of 1, 3, 7, or 35 passes!

Oh yeah and Eraser rocks my world too. http://www.heidi.ie/eraser/

And there is this wonderful log here at TFP which can't help the OP's case. Where was that picture of the snake?

Seems pretty clear, I'd like Will to post what is said in his TOS, I bet it's the same thing I've been saying for the past 3 pages that he's been trying to say doesn't apply.

My guess is that all TOS are going to be basically the same, the ISP is not responsible, you are, is the compressed version. I think one thing was made obvious in this thread, more people need to fully read their TOS with their ISP before they set up a home wireless network, because ignorance isn't an excuse.
Yep Will jumped the gun with that picture.

Large companies, especially ones that provide a service a double sided as the internet, will have legal agreements that won't leave them (the large internet companies) hanging in the wind when media companies come around asking tough questions.

Oh and I just checked out DBan, and am reminded that we just call that the "Nuke Disc" on campus. There was a small group of us that jacked our computers around and felt it best to wipe the drives before they went back to the university for replacement and analysis.

DBAN is another program that rocks my socks off.

I guess I wasn't clear. My post was more like added information onto the cautionary tale in the OP. It wasn't advice to perjure himself. It was supposed to have a sarcastic tone and be somewhat admonishing, like "Had you done your homework, you could have had a decent defense." Everything since then has been defending my assertion that open wifi is a decent defense.

Try rereading it in a sarcastic tone. If it helps, I can edit and put the ":rolleyes:" smiley at the end to clarify.

Which it isn't, which has been proven by the TOS I posted as well as Cyn and The_Jazz TOS they posted.

It probably wouldn't help. I have Comcast. You know, the company that's been illegally slowing down bit torrent for people and that will probably be fined a ton of money for it? They're not likely to have model terms of service.

Besides, I have open wifi, Peerguardian, and I don't download illegally so for me it's a non-issue. I've got like 400 DVDs, just ask Ch'i.
It was an attempt to diffuse growing hostilities. I think it worked.

Yeah it was good at doing that Will, you posted it for the same reason I posted my ALF pic.

400 DVD's jesus that's a fuck load of movies.

I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging you from editing your post, but rereading your advice from page 1, it still looks like you're feeding him a lie, regardless of sarcasm. To save you the hassle of reviewing it, here it is as it currently is:

The OP never stated that he's using a wireless connection or not. He would have already had to have had an unsecured network to take your advice and been able to use that as his excuse. If he didn't have such a thing, then claiming it could have been fraudulent. Again, this is unlike you, so I'm surprised at it. I actually spent several hours wondering whether or not to post and decided to do so hoping that the OP would actually read what I said and understand the potential problem.

You're still not getting what I'm saying. I'll try to make it more clear:

Imagine the most sarcastic guy from high school, the guy who was smart, but didn't apply himself and talked back to teachers, saying, "It's a good thing that you've had an open wireless network for a long time, thus providing an impossible burden of proof on Paramount" followed by him mockingly calling the guy "Einstein".

Is that more clear?

And I don't know how I'd be lying. It's pretty clear that the RIAA/MPAA have had serious trouble with this defense in the past, as I made clear in my posted articles above. In one case they actually had to pay the attorney's fees. Does that sound like something that could easily be disproved by laymen like us?

While comcast may not be the "model" , as you put it, you can read their TOS and see that they have the same security requirement. Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean you aren't going to be held liable for it.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

By that I also include having to defend your position or "innocence" from utilizing such "grey" area softwares like p2p and bittorrents.

http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp?cookieattempt=1


400 DVDs, nice collection, I have about 600+ need another new cabinet but will wait until we move into the HD marketplace.

I don't do the crime, but I do use p2p services from time to time, LEGALLY (yes, it's possible). I stopped doing the whole Napster thing when I got my first decent job, for the most part.
I just use one of those portable cases. It's bound in pleather so it isn't obtrusive on a bookshelf.

I'm not going to start switching to higher def until BlueRay wins (or HDDVD, which I suppose isn't impossible). I've already spent a lot on DVDs and having to re-buy HD simply because the format died isn't a worthy investment.

I had a friend do that to, he boxed up the keepcases. When he moved, the son somehow lost the portable cases, so he had 300+ empty keep cases.
/threadjack

Playing devil's advocate just a little, it would seem to me that violating the TOS of Time Warner would not automatically make you liable for damages to the RIAA, a different entity (okay, forget for a moment that Time Warner might own the rights to the music or movie you downloaded). Two different issues, IMO.

According to what some have said here, if I could manage to download kiddie porn at the local high school, the principal could be arrested.

Lastly, fuck the RIAA. I just read that they sued some guy for ripping his legally owned CDs to his computer.

First, they created a scenario in which, by purchasing a CD, you only had "the rights to use the music." Not transferable, therefore you couldn't (according to them) loan out or re-sell the CD. Now it seems you don't have the rights to the music you buy, either.

At the risk of being repetitive, fuck them with a six-foot dildo.

I haven't heard of the case, but the tests that show data from overwritten drives can be recovered were done with ridiculously low density media compared to today's technology. If you're really worried, overwrite it with random data, but unless you're protecting state secrets, doing 3 writes is paranoid and 7 is ridiculous.

Why not just use a different HD instead. I personally have 2 HD one with a lot of information and the OS and software. But how would they really know if you yanked the second drive or swapped it with another. Maybe I am being naive if so tell me so.

So, I'd love to chime in here. Here is my take.

Terms of Service has nothing to do with copyright law. It is a contract. Lets assume that your ISP ToS said that each time your ISP called your house and asked for "Betty" you had to mail them one hundred million dollars. This would obviously be handled the same way and software ToS is handled in court... largely dismissed because not many people read these 20 page documents and we all know it.

Lets assume something else for fun here. Lets say you have an open network, and a hacker uses your network to hack a government system which ultimately sends the entire economy crashing to calamity. Since you didn't meet all the provisions in the ToS, a contract with an ISP, you think you are responsible for the hackers actions.

Acting like small business contracts have anything to do with law is absurd.

To prosecute somebody for something, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed said crime. Proof of action is NOT synonymous with proof of possibility. On the other hand. Say the ISP incurred a fine for the illegal download activity. I believe that the ISP could sue the open network provider for losses incurred by not following the ToS and probably win. Disregard for contract resulted in loss, the party in breach should be responsible. This has nothing to do with criminal proceeding though.

Am I way off base? Have I misunderstood American law my whole life?

So, I'd love to chime in here. Here is my take.

Terms of Service has nothing to do with copyright law. It is a contract. Lets assume that your ISP ToS said that each time your ISP called your house and asked for "Betty" you had to mail them one hundred million dollars. This would obviously be handled the same way and software ToS is handled in court... largely dismissed because not many people read these 20 page documents and we all know it.

Lets assume something else for fun here. Lets say you have an open network, and a hacker uses your network to hack a government system which ultimately sends the entire economy crashing to calamity. Since you didn't meet all the provisions in the ToS, a contract with an ISP, you think you are responsible for the hackers actions.

Acting like small business contracts have anything to do with law is absurd.

To prosecute somebody for something, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed said crime. Proof of action is NOT synonymous with proof of possibility. On the other hand. Say the ISP incurred a fine for the illegal download activity. I believe that the ISP could sue the open network provider for losses incurred by not following the ToS and probably win. Disregard for contract resulted in loss, the party in breach should be responsible. This has nothing to do with criminal proceeding though.

Am I way off base? Have I misunderstood American law my whole life?

7 wipes is standard DOD practice. I think the Gutmann method does 35 wipes.

So if you're worried about it, go download Dban, type DOD when the screen comes up and wait a few hours.. no more worries. Just be careful with Dban.. it will wipe any and all drives on the system no questions asked.

Turns out the DOD no longer finds 7 passes acceptable as a means of destroying data, as of 2007. An agency within it, the DSS (Defense Security Service) outlines destruction policies of data.

I still think 7 passes is enough. Electron microscopes and pattern backtracking algorithms can only see so far back into the past of a hard drive platter.

Ignorance is no excuse, just because you didn't know about it or didn't take the time to read the TOS doesn't mean you're exempt from it.
This is an extreme circumstance and has no comparison to downloading copyrighted material so it's pointless to respond to.
It isn't a law, it's a legally binding contract between you and your ISP saying you take responsibility for YOUR account. I know, I know it's crazy you're responsible for your account, what a wacky concept.
They have proof, they have logs saying that said material was downloaded by said account at said time on said day, they don't need much more proof than that.
Way off base, start by reading the TOS with your ISP, you'll see you're responsible for the activity on your account, plain and simple, links have been posted in this thread to show that already.

Unfortunately, I believe you are incorrect. I agree with you ideologically. I love the idea of honest contracts. One where both parties clearly state the provisions. However, corporate bureaucracy and sesquipidalian lawyers have caused this to no longer be the case. ToS's are such a joke that many court circuits know it, and have started throwing out ToS agreements. Many ToS are recognized as BS. Like not being allowed to return software after it is opened, but you can't read the ToS until opening it, and by opening it you agree to be bound by the ToS enclosed. Better yet when the ToS says that the ToS can change at any time without notification and that you will automatically be understood to agree with those terms as well.

You are correct ignorance does not exonerate you of responsibility to the contract, but conversely it does not force responsibility for the crime not proven to be committed by you.
Extreme circumstances are the only circumstances that belong being compared. They make clear the blunders in logic.

Not wacky at all. What is wacky is assuming this makes you criminally responsible for all actions on your account.
Yes, they have proof that the download happened through your account, nobody is arguing that. What they don't have proof of, is that YOU downloaded that material using your account. So, losses incurred are your responsibility, but criminally you still need to prove that I broke the law.
It's like you still aren't aware of the argument at hand. The argument from me isn't that you aren't responsible to the contract, it is that you aren't criminally responsible unless proven to be.

herk, can you clarify waht you see here that's illegal? I see no criminal action being taken, only civil. I think the burden of proof will be diffenent in the separate court systems.

Herk, no one has mentioned criminal actions being taken, so it's like you still aren't aware of the argument at hand.
Not when the extreme circumstance being used has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Destroying a countries economy by hacking records is just a wee bit different than downloading copyrighted materials, and the charges for such would differ greatly.
Criminally responsible, no, responsible for action on your account, you sure are.
So they have proof that the download happened through your account, which YOU are responsible for, so they now have proof YOU did it.

From the opening post.
"They said that Paramount had sent them an e-mail saying I downloaded a movie illegally"

Is it not illegal to download copyrighted materials? Illegal doesn't necessarily mean a criminal offense has taken place, the matter could be handled with civil suit instead. Think HTA is speeding a criminal offense? Is speeding legal?

Changed 1 word. Otherwise, it's like you've turned into ratbastid and I'm just nodding along.

I've never heard of anyone arrested for copyright infringement or serving time for it. I think that this is just a case of sloppy language (the OP) being interpreted by a bunch of precise people (us).

Thanks for the change Jazz. I agree, I think the OP just didn't pick his words careful enough and now people like us are pulling our own meanings out of them.

OJ could be another example of not being criminally guilty (although for shady reasons) yet he was still civilly responsible for the deaths.

It is illegal to download copyrighted material. Illegal does mean a crime was committed. My point is that criminal and civil offenses are two different things. In this case, it is quite black and white that the ISP customer is responsible for the action on his/her account, just like you say. Because of this they would lose in a civil suit, understandably(this would only involve a termination of the contract including server and possibly a civil suit to recover lost money). However, the insinuation that he is somehow at risk of suffering criminal penalty because you are responsible for the actions occurring on your open network is absurd. You could only suffer these if it could be proven that you were THE person who performed the illegal act; not the person having up a network upon which an illegal act was committed.

Just out of curiosity, are you aware of an actual criminal statute that makes copyright infringement/downloading copyrighted material an actual crime? I'll google it when I get a chance, but I'm wondering if you know off the top of your head. No biggie if you don't, but you seem to be on the ball with this stuff and might save me the trouble.

Title 17

That is good stuff right there.:thumbsup:

I just think the TOS is only good between the ISP and the end user.


paramount doesn't make the TOS, and TOS is not LAW, it's simply a service agreement so the ISP isn't responsible for your misuse. That way they can be like "i told them so!"

In short, IF IN REALITY someone else used your connection to download a movie, the most you're in trouble for is violating your TOS. You didn't commit a crime.

In the same breath, paramount might want to milk you for negligence or being party to assisting an illegal act, but thats hardly the same as being convicted of copyright infringement or software piracy

Yeah, right on Shauk. I think we all pretty much agree to be honest. Would you say that we probably agree, Silent_Jay? ;)

Doubtful, but it doesn't matter anyways, anything else I add is just going to be me regurgitating my own points again as I've already made my case.