RIAA lobbyist becomes federal judge, rules on file-sharing cases

[shabby]

If you lobby hard enough for the riaa kids... you can get a job as a federal judge!
Isn't this a conflict of interest? How can a judge who lobbied for the riaa rule on cases involving the riaa?

http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-case-judge-is-a-former-riaa-lobbyist-and-pirate-chaser-110328/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ile-sharing-cases.ars?comments=1#comments-bar

 

[Kadarin]

Corporatism, bought and paid for government (all 3 branches), it's very sad.

 

[Rebel44]

Nothing that cannot be (more or less) fixed by dropping 50Mt nuke on Washington D.C.

 

[Fern]

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

This matter seem to fit the requirement above. She should have recused herself IMO.

Fern

 

[jonks]

1. R (look down)

2.

If you lobby hard enough for the riaa kids... you can get a job as a federal judge!
Isn't this a conflict of interest? How can a judge who lobbied for the riaa rule on cases involving the riaa?

where does it say she ruled on a case involving the riaa?

 

[PingSpike]

Nothing that cannot be (more or less) fixed by dropping 50Mt nuke on Washington D.C.

LOL, indeed. It's time America put its expensive nuclear arsenal to use on our greatest enemy. Any fallout that occurs will be worth it.

 

[shabby]

1. R (look down)

2.

where does it say she ruled on a case involving the riaa?

1. you mean the locked thread?

2. I guess i worded that incorrectly, the riaa wasn't involed in her last case http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...core-a-victory-mass-subpoenas-can-proceed.ars

 

[jonks]

1. you mean the locked thread?

2. I guess i worded that incorrectly, the riaa wasn't involed in her last case http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...core-a-victory-mass-subpoenas-can-proceed.ars

Yes, the locked thread. You have an excuse for everything doncha.

 

[bamacre]

How can an ISP turn in "illegal downloaders" without invading their customers' privacy? Serious question.

 

[JSt0rm]

How can an ISP turn in "illegal downloaders" without invading their customers' privacy? Serious question.

If they left their house via the internet then they no longer have a right to privacy...

If the pirates want to trade cd's in person and never get on the net then they should have protections up to the point they move around in public... at that point they can be watched again.

 

[EagleKeeper]

How can an ISP turn in "illegal downloaders" without invading their customers' privacy? Serious question.

I do not know about archived records, but just like a white/black list; there are lists of IP addresses that knowingly deliver pirated/illegal content.

The ISP gets an outbound request to one of those sites and can then log the IP addresses of both the requestor and requestee.

The customer has sent out to the public world the address that they want information from. Privacy has been forfited once the information hits a shared communication device.

Anywhere along the pipeline, the IP addresses could be sniffed out as sender and reciever for the data packets.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
The customer has sent out to the public world the address that they want information from. Privacy has been forfited once the information hits a shared communication device. ...

Not at all. Phone calls are considered private even though effectively the same connection process applies. An IP address is no different from a phone number in that respect.

 

[nonlnear]

How can an ISP turn in "illegal downloaders" without invading their customers' privacy? Serious question.

Internet users don't have privacy. This is very old news.

 

[bamacre]

If they left their house via the internet then they no longer have a right to privacy...

If the pirates want to trade cd's in person and never get on the net then they should have protections up to the point they move around in public... at that point they can be watched again.

Ok, I understand if you're sharing files publicly, but what about privately? I mean, I don't lose my privacy rights if I "leave the house" via telephoning my brother.

 

[nonlnear]

Ok, I understand if you're sharing files publicly, but what about privately? I mean, I don't lose my privacy rights if I "leave the house" via telephoning my brother.

Privacy on the telephone is a thing of the past too. Ordinary po-po don't have completely warrantless access (yet), but people in the alphabet soup have for a while now.

 

[shabby]

Yes, the locked thread. You have an excuse for everything doncha.

Does it really matter if the riaa was involved in that case? The riaa's interest is to see that copyright violators are held accountable for their actions, if the judge lobbied for the riaa her interests are basically the same... make copyright violators accountable for their actions. Surely allowing to sue large volume of copyright violators at the same fits that same interest.

 

[Kadarin]

This is appropriate..

 

[JSt0rm]

Ok, I understand if you're sharing files publicly, but what about privately? I mean, I don't lose my privacy rights if I "leave the house" via telephoning my brother.

These people aren't sharing privately. As I said, if the pirates want to go over to each others homes and copy files to each others computer go ahead. They are still breaking the law and they will need to be caught the old fashioned way.

If you use your internet connection you are going into public space.

 

[spidey07]

Ok, I understand if you're sharing files publicly, but what about privately? I mean, I don't lose my privacy rights if I "leave the house" via telephoning my brother.

The Internet is considered a "public" network and as such no expectation of privacy anything you do on it considered "private". The telephone network is considered "private". Laws just haven't kept up. There is a very clear legal definition of private and public network.

 

[bfdd]

spidey07, are encrypted packets sent over a public network considered private?

 

[spidey07]

spidey07, are encrypted packets sent over a public network considered private?

No, that's why you use good encryption/protocols, IF it's being transported over "The Internet". The encryption guarantees end to end integrity. The difference being a "private" or a "public" network.

The provider may (and highly likely they are) sharing your traffic on the same links but keep the control planes separate (hello MPLS). There's a very real difference.

 

[comptr6]

Ok, I understand if you're sharing files publicly, but what about privately? I mean, I don't lose my privacy rights if I "leave the house" via telephoning my brother.

You have no right to privacy in the US. This is necessary for National Security reasons. :thumbsup:

 

[bamacre]

These people aren't sharing privately. As I said, if the pirates want to go over to each others homes and copy files to each others computer go ahead. They are still breaking the law and they will need to be caught the old fashioned way.

If you use your internet connection you are going into public space.

What if I e-mailed you a copyrighted .mp3 file? Is that public or private?

 

[theeedude]

Clarence Thomas set a fine example and precedent for the rest of judiciary to follow wrt conflicts of interest.

 

[Bowfinger]

The Internet is considered a "public" network and as such no expectation of privacy anything you do on it considered "private". The telephone network is considered "private". Laws just haven't kept up. There is a very clear legal definition of private and public network.

You might want to learn about the Electronic Communications Privacy Act before you start making silly assertions. Might even keep you out of court some day.