I Didn’t Download it, My Router Got Hacked!
Written by enigmax on May 28, 2007People accused of uploading the game ‘Dream Pinball’ who claim they are the victim of a hacker, are starting to get letters back from lawyers explaining what they should do next. Among other things, the lawyers are demanding that the accused demonstrate computer security skills in providing evidence detailing exactly how their equipment was exploited.
Earlier this year, 500 people received letters accusing them of illegally distributing a computer game. The letters demand a settlement payment, or a court appearance was threatened.
Many people wondered how they were caught at all, while others claimed they had no knowledge of such a game and stopped to consider that their router security may have been compromised. If security features are not enabled on a router, anyone can easily fall victim to an authorized connection. In this case, it’s feared that someone may have accessed an unsecured router, downloaded and redistributed even just a tiny piece of this file via BitTorrent or eMule, with the router’s owner getting the blame.
Lawyers representing the game’s publisher state as fact that a full copy of a game must have been uploaded to their monitors for the infringement to be flagged - clearly the lawyers have no idea how a protocol like BitTorrent operates. It would be virtually impossible to download a large file in it’s entirety from just one source and the time it would take would prove totally impractical. There is a very real probability that a tiny transfer of a few hundred kilobytes can trigger legal action against an alleged infringer, a transfer easily achieved by someone accessing a victim’s router for just a few seconds.
People who are using this defense are now starting to receive letters, part of which reads;
If it is your contention that at the relevant time you did all that you could to secure your network and PC but that, nevertheless, an intrusion occurred and that the infringing act complained of was perpetrated by a person or a person unknown who gained access to the network without your permission, please provide (in accordance with the Practice Directions for Pre-Action Protocol) all copies of the essential documents on which you rely.
In other words, forget ‘Innocent Until Proven Guilty‘ and start getting used to ‘Guilty! Now Prove Yourself Innocent!‘
In terms of evidence, the lawyer Davenport Lyons representing the publisher Zuxxez, demands to see;
1. A copy of the instructions accompanying the router
2. Evidence to prove the use of anti-virus software and firewall
3. Evidence detailing exactly how the computer was compromised.
4. Evidence to prove the victim took adequate measures to prevent the intrusion.
Despite the fact that producing evidence should be up to the lawyers when dealing with cases, quite how the production of a router manual will affect this case is unclear. Presumably you send off the manual for their tech people to look at, then they use the fact that your router is ‘easily secured’ or the fact that you didn’t read the book, against you.
The manner in which PC based anti-virus and firewall software protects an illegally accessed router is also unclear. More worrying is the implication in point 3 that the accused must give a technical report as to how the breach took place, something no-one but an expert could provide - clearly trying to put a fair defense out of reach for the less well-off. The reality of the situation is that an assertion by the accused that the claimed activity was not carried out by him, is sufficient.
As for point 4, I do not believe there is a legal requirement for an internet user to train themselves in security before operating a router and connecting to an ISP, nor has there been a decision in an English court to state that an internet subscriber is responsible for the actions of others whilst using his connection. Davenport Lyons have informed users that people in Germany are responsible for what happens on their connections but German law isn’t valid in the UK. This is another important point which these lawyers seem to have purposely overlooked and one which makes them appear to be attempting to misdirect people by quoting an irrelevant case from from a completely different country.
Furthermore, even though they demand ‘evidence’, don’t think for one minute that corresponding with these lawyers is something that can bear fruit. One unfortunate gentleman whose wife has been wrongly accused of distributing the game has been talking to Davenport Lyons via letter, trying to sort the matter out, until he received a letter from them with this paragraph;
….we consider that to enter into further correspondence with you on technical or evidential points is unnecessary and unhelpful and will serve only to increase costs. We are therefore instructed not to continue this circular correspondence.
So by this measure, trying to clear your name is deemed “unecessary and unhelpful’ by the lawyers, something which is considered by many as one of the cornerstones of British justice and a fundamental right of it’s citizens. Of course, if you’re a lawyer working on tight profit margins, any correspondence will cut into that profit. ‘Unhelpful’ indeed.
The letter finishes up;
‘If we do not receive a response from you within the next fourteen days we will take our client’s instructions regarding the issuing of proceedings against you’
“Instructions which could be to ‘drop it’…” says a regular Usenet poster on the issue.
Previously: TorrentPod Episode 37
Next: Most Popular DVDrips on BitTorrent (wk21)
34 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
dl evidence is flawed to say the least,they have unwitingly made it impossible to pay,
in there first letter you must sign a dissclaimer stating that you will remove there software from your hard drive,
you cant pay unless you do,
in there evidence pack they say that it may well not be on your hard drive???
also pointed out by my brief,dl claim they have no invoice,s yet from the isp,s concerned but they still demand payment for it,
the advice given by the brief is to ride it out,not easy i know,
but the brief clearly state,s that if the dissclaimer were signed then you could never use the internet again,
as where would there next file come from,
another thing the brief said was that if the dissclaimer were signed,
it would most definetly leave you open to criminal action,then davenport would make great advertising,
not to mention open flood gates for million,s of such action with many other legal firm,s
the best response to DL would be to quote from letter a californian lawyer wrote to american clones of those DL morons:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/model-letter-for-lawyers-representing.html
I disagree, there is a far better response, such as that in Arkell v. Pressdram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kylet/PI
These assholes are insane.
They are responsible for proving the defendants committed the infringement/crime/whatever we’re calling it these days.
What is with this “Open WiFi” defense?
First just start off saying “I didn’t do it”, and let them first prove beyond any doubt that you had that address at that time.
Then make them PROVE that is was YOUR computer (not the same as an IP address) that downloaded the material.
If a neighbor is in my house without my consent firing rounds from a revolver at police officers, there is not a judge/jury in the country would find me as the homeowner responsible for anything. Not even if I left the front door unlocked. That is my right. If someone then takes advantage of that and commits a crime, it’s not my fault. If I put a sign out saying “come into my open crime and I’ll help you commit a felony” maybe it would be different.
These assholes suck.
Whoops, at the end that should be “come into my open *home* and commit a crime/felony”
One word; Woktenna
http://www.usbwifi.orcon.net.nz/
currently im connected to a router about 200 meters away.
Don’t sweat it. Fact is the routers provide basic security, and that is good enough for any court. Its really simple goto court you will win the case, then sue the idiots that brought the case and get the cost back, then sue the game company for not securing their product against this sort of thing. Lots of court dates but in the end you will have more money then you know what to do with! Also, use the entrampment thing, it sure sounds like entrampment to me..
I am a complete novice when it comes to all of this but I feel I have to say something. Those who do not respect the rights of others are going to be the ones who bring regulation to the unregulated Internet. Please think about what you are doing! Keep the Internet free by respecting others.
Adios for now,
Daniel
well the government are doin well with speed cameras,
you can be sure that dl are looking at the same spinner here,there no mug,s
so defend yourselve,s
u dint do it
u dont know who did if it was done,
it was no one i know,
this came to me as a letter,
this is still in fresh air,
can you ask your god logistep,to step in and show us all how it,s done as they seem to be the only people who know,oh forgot they are immune from anything lol,they even banned building mosques where they are,
so are logistep the law bollock,s ,
davenport and lyons are no different to anyone, all there members are public they can be seen in the same way as you,you have as much right to look at them as they have at you,
have a mess about at b4usearch lol
We see more and more cases of people accessing open, unsecured wireless networks without the owners consent being convicted of fraud. therefore the wireless owner, naturally is innocent of any crime, they don’t understand wireless security, case closed.
So why is the law contradicting itself by now putting the onus on hardware owners to be responsible for what is going on. If you cannot be legally obliged to set up wireless security, why are you then expected to understand hardwired router security. THE LAW IS AN ASS.
I apologise to any assess that may be reading.
I was just thinking, you could send a letter back to the lawyer, make it look official, and accuse him (or his daughter or something) of having downloaded something u made (music or whatever). Request a hefty fine.
“2. Evidence to prove the use of anti-virus software and firewall
4. Evidence to prove the victim took adequate measures to prevent the intrusion.”
So now it’s a crime if I don’t run anti-virus and firewall software? There’s no law that says I am at fault if I don’t protect myself against intrusion. That’s like saying I’m at fault if someone car jacks me and uses my car to rob a bank just because I failed to lock my doors and close my windows while I’m driving. This is about people trying to protect their assets while not understanding the technology used to steal them. What scares me is that little by little these types of persecution are setting legal presidence.
Sounds like a good reason to buy a Macintosh. If you want place it behind your router and turn on the firewall.
Then when they send you a letter like that you can laugh. . .
Not so MacGecko
Even innocent mac users have been accused of downloading this crap.
wellit seem,s everyone is using the wirelees as a reason,im wondering if it would be an overload as a group defense,my friend was wired direct,but never had the dam game,she did have her ebay account hacked many times last year and is trying to get the ammount of time,s she had to change her password of them,but ebay say it,s encrypted and they caonnot accsess this info,
but that is another story,
getting back to what i said earlier about this topic,
if you never did the deed but are found guilty then you must stop using the internet or else if this happened again then you would be in big trouble,
this would apply to anyone,take a step back and think of it????
it would be far better for dl to announce that they have succeed by using the dissclaimer,s allready signed by the people who have paid,
they could legitimatly tell the media this and gain a bit of power in the uk,if they lost one case in the uk concerning p2p then the media would jump all over them,
money is more immportant to there client,s than winning in court,
just one more thing,most people got 3d pinball on there pc it comes with windows lol
Doesn’t matter does it? if your wireless connection was compromised, then it was! what does it matter that other people are using that as an excuse? is that going to be another case of prove yourself innocent?
surely they have to have more proof than an ip address?
All they really have is intimidation, their poxy legal threats and all the stupid idiots that read them, see a official looking letter and pay up!
It’s these people that make me sick, all you have to do is DONT PAY!!! you morons that pay up just encourage the likes of davenport lyons to go after the all the others unfairly accused.. get some balls for once and stand your corner!! don’t be wimps all your life, fight back once in a while!!
No one in the uk has to even bother about securing their internet connection, or even justify it, thats a load of crap.
these davenport lyons people are just running out of ideas of how to intimidate people and get the rest of the money out of those with the backbone and guts to stand up to them.
The more of you who reply back via their prefered fax number 07005804431 @ 31.91p per minute (ex VAT), or approximately 37.5p per minute (inc VAT) Daytime the richer you make them !!
Just an observation but what have to gain by replying to this latest letter?
The lawyers can demand anything they want.
Unless a “JUDGE” asks for you to provide that information, you don’t have to provide anything!!!!
Whoever tries to satisfy the plaintiff by providing this information, will only be setting themselves up for a “TRAP”!
If you can show enough intelligence and experience in these matters and can prove that you were hacked, and basically provide all the info they are asking - the next question by the plaintiff would be - “Well, if you know all this, how come you did not do anything to STOP this from happening?” and the plaintiff may try to push for a charge of willful negligence, or secondary infringement.
So what if they ask for the user guide/manual.
They cannot penalize you for not reading the manual. Most people buy products and simply unpack and start using the product without reading the manual.
If any plaintiff starts attacking you for not reading the manual, ask them if they ever read the manual that came with their car/fridge/TV/computer/phone…….
And then point out the fact that there is NO law that states a person is “obligated under law” to read instruction manuals to consumer goods. And that there is no mention anywhere on the retail packaging that states that failure to read the user manual could lead to potential legal liabilities.
yes,i aggree we all know we need an mot for our motor,tax and insurance,
it,s common sense,if the same applied to your pc then most people could not afford it,if they win these case,s then the headlines would be massive,and very soon people would do away with the internet,the way there letter,s present themselves to you is a nightmare,you cant say no and you cant say yes
5 references to this post
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Add your response