French Court Says IP Address Does Not Identify A User
from the but-is-that-good-or-bad dept
Michael Scott points us to the news that a French court has ruled that an IP address is not enough to identify a single individual. Now, obviously, many of us agree with this general point, and we've brought that up time and time again in the past when lawsuits insisted that a single IP address was enough to identify a user. And, given that France now has its three strikes law which will be based in large part on entertainment companies indicating a single IP address as evidence of infringement, this might seem like a good ruling. But in this case, there's another side to it which is important. The reason why the court ruled that an IP address doesn't identify an individual, is to say that it is not a privacy violation to get someone's IP address.This isn't a new issue. We discussed a similar case before, and I actually think, on the whole, it's correct. An IP address shouldn't be considered private information directly, since it doesn't identify a individual and you effectively have to give it out just to use the internet. But for people who argue that revealing IP addresses is a violation of confidential information, they might not like this ruling very much. On the whole, though, I think in the long run it's better to have a world where the courts recognize that an IP address does not identify a user, even if it means that IP addresses aren't considered private info.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: france, ip address, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Grammah Correction Specialist
1.) Use "agree with" to refer to a person. Use "agree to" to refer to an idea.
2.) "We've is a contraction. Try to avoid contractions in formal writing.
3.) Article sez "a user". Try to use "an" before words that start with vowels. But, in this case, it should just be "users".
4.) "Indicating a single IP address" is stilted. Try using "Showing a single IP address.
5.) "this might seem like a good" is weird. The subject conflicts with the verb "seem" Try "this may seem"
6.) Where it reads "But in this case," it's too wordy. Replace it with "here,"
7.) " on the whole," is cliche and wordy. Try "overall,"
8.) " identify a individual" Nope! Use "an" before words that start with vowels.
9.) "a user," should actually be "users"
Howz you're grammarz? Take the online Grammah tests now! http://www.dailygrammar.com/archive.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
Mike, don't listen to this guy. He's either an idiot or he's intentionally trying to give you wrong advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
"Daily Grammar" is the brainchild of Pete Peterson, former Executive Vice President of Word Perfect. Pete wanted to find a way to easily teach grammar to those in need of lessons.
In order to fulfill his wish, Pete sought out the help of Mr. Bill Johanson, a thirty-year English-teaching veteran.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
of course, the other two out of three are pretty much Wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
Trolling: It's something to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
1) You have two related thoughts; these would be better connected with a semi-colon.
2) You have not properly ended your quote. Quotes begin and end with quotation marks. In addition your second sentence does not have proper verb usage. Should read "Try to avoid using contractions".
3) "sez" is not a word recognized in the English language. Sentences should not begin with conjunctions.
4) Again, quotes begin and end with quotation marks.
5) All sentences end with punctuation. Please be sure to do this as you made this mistake twice in one line.
6) Sentence does not make sense. Missing at least two punctuation marks, and contains an extra word. Reword sentence to make it clearer removing the "it" portion of the "it's" contraction.
7) All sentences end with punctuation.
8) Contains sentence fragments.
9) All sentences end with punctuation.
My grammar can kick your grammar's butt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
Anonymous Coward must contemplate these concepts while eating a nice can of Spam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
I hate all of you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
"Agree to" indicates consent to a particular imperative, whereas "agree with" tends to imply one shares consensus to an idea.
Mike did not say "identify a individual", but "identify a single individual". This is actually correct usage of the article "a".
"A user" refers to a singular person as a plaintiff would charge in a civil suit, which is the correct reference. "Users" refers to a class of people which a IP cannot properly label.
On point four, you are both wrong. The best choice of wording would be, "submitting a single IP address".
On the rest of your points, that is pure aesthetic and is not a mandate of "proper" writing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Grammah Correction Specialist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward
And quit being the grammar police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupid waste of time and money
1) IP addr does not identify an individual
2) Recent case of school spyware taking pix of kids
3) Light bulb turns on over head of idiot politician
4) webcams are now mandatory to id the user
5) usrz put bugs bunny (or worse) pix in front of webcams
6) IP addr kicked off the intarwebs
7) back to square one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anti anti mike
and soa da frenchwes hows yu gonna du a tree strokes ruule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP addresses
The only reason to 'collect' IP address is to attach (or attempt to attach) an IP address to the actions of an individual. I'd argue that these collections of IP addresses are a problem. I'm glad France feels that an IP address does not identify a user, because an IP address does not identify a user. However, an IP address can identify who paid for internet access and saying that it is not a privacy violation to find that out is troubling. Collecting IP addresses is only used to persecute people, otherwise there is no point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Denmark, an IP address is not enough in file-sharing cases
An IP address was not enough to identify the infringing user, the court ruled, in cases with more than one person in the household or even in a single-person household with an unsecured wifi.
Here's a legal analysis (in English) of the Danish cases
http://www.openlife.dk/?p=994
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunatly...
If you're neighbour hacked your Wifi, you're guilty as well. IP being a private data or not shouldn't have such an impact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunatly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunatly...
If I could be bothered, I would spoof your IP and make you eat your words. Lucky for you I'm too lazy, but maybe there's someone out there who will take you up on your "I'm stupid, teach me a lesson" position...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP can't id a user, but the ISP can use it to id the owner of the account
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP can't id a user, but the ISP can use it to id the owner of the account
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IP can't id a user, but the ISP can use it to id the owner of the account
The filename might change, but for p2p this doesn't matter. If the hash is the same, then it's the same file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IP can't id a user, but the ISP can use it to id the owner of the account
Not always. Sometimes they just go by the name. Stupid, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP can't id a user, but the ISP can use it to id the owner of the account
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]