Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th May 2011 20:56 UTC
Legal "The French government's 'three strikes' approach to online copyright infringement relies on a private company that scans file-sharing networks and gathers the IP addresses of alleged Gallic content pirates. But that company, TMG, suffered an embarrassing security breach last week, and the French government has 'temporarily suspended' its acquisition of new TMG data while an investigation is underway." Yeah, the company that collects IP addresses of alleged file shares got Sony'd.
E-mail Print r 2   7 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 473586
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Ol�é !
by Doc Pain on Wed 18th May 2011 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Olé !"
Doc Pain
Member since:

I may not agree with most of that law. But with the part that say "that people are considered responsible for securing their computer and the network it's attached to." isn't totally wrong.

In some countries (Argentina) you are innocent until prove guilty, and also you are owner of everything that is inside you property (house, car, etc). Unless someone prove the oposite. That means you are responsible for everything that's inside.

The concept behind that is the philosophy of "ownership implies responsibility" which isn't bad per se.

So if you cars is involve in a back robbery you are accused of been part of it unless you can prove that someone else was driving it (let say it was stolen).

True in Germany, too. Therefore is even punished by law if you keep your car unlocked where everyone can access it (e. g. in ordinary traffic, next to a road, in a parking lot).

The parallel is that if you offer WLAN for everyone for free (which is your right to do so), you are responsible for what happens with it. The provider has a contract with YOU, not with the people "accidentally" using your connection. So if you have no means to track down any abuse of it to an individual (e. g. "I saw him doing this and that."), YOU will be in the scope of investigation.

If the police find drugs in you house you are accused of having drugs, unless you can prove that someone else has put it in there.

A fully valid conclusion. Of course, the problem is to actually prove that, but in the reverse case, when the police finds drugs in YOUR house and would have to prove that YOU put them there, it would be a bit problematic. Concept: There is no need to prove the obvious.

So if your machines is used for crimes you should prove that you are not involve in it.

Fully agree. Good security and maybe logs can help doing so. This investigation could be supervised by an official so nobody says: "You've written those logs on your own, haven't you?" :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2