54-Year Old School Teacher Who Doesn't Know How To Download Movies First To Be Kicked Off The Internet In France

from the hadopi'd dept

Mon, Jul 25th 2011 6:42am — Mike Masnick

We recently noted that, over in France, under the HADOPI three strikes regime, they had their first 10 people get their third strike, and each was being reviewed to see if they should lose their connection. Well, it looks like the first guy has lost his connection... and it's a 54-year old school teacher who insists he has no idea how to download unauthorized content. The story is a little unclear, but it sounds like he had open WiFi, and he didn't understand what the "first strike," was really about. When he got the "second strike" notice, he tried to figure out how to secure his WiFi, but it either took too long or he was unable to figure it out... and so along came the third strike. The guy is pretty upset about this, for a damn good reason. It's going to be ridiculously expensive to fight and it may get appealed up to European courts outside of France, which would entail significant travel expenses as well. This is why it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, right?

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, hadopi, oversight, review, three strikes
Companies: hadopi

181 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:46am

You can easily secure your internet connection by disconnecting your wi-fi and figured it out. It's like getting parking tickets for parking in the same place every day, and then being amazed that someone put the boot on your car. Perhaps if you had moved sooner, things might have worked out.

Ignorance should not be a acceptable defence in a system with three strikes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:49am
  
  Re:
  You BEST be trolling
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    He is. The fact that he simply ignores how hard it is to properly configure a safe wireless connection to the regular Joe and how easy it can be to break the security for the seasoned internet user just proves how hard he's trolling.
    
    And I didn't even mention IP spoofing.
    
    This article is a hit on the nail. The French Govt is considering every1 guilty until proven innocent. They should be giving due process to every infringer (i.e.: call them to an audience and properly investigate). Oh wait, if they do that the judicial system will be overload because whooping 18 million infringements were detected. I believe there's a problem with the law if you criminalize over 10% of your population.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rabbit80, 26 Jul 2011 @ 8:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sometimes it is simply not possible to implement adequate security. For example - I went out last week to configure a network for a friend who has just moved house. In order to get a good wireless signal to the entire house, we decided to install a wireless access point in the house to act as a repeater and boost the signal. It was then we discovered that it was impossible to configure his router to accept an access point using anything but WEP encryption - which as we all know can be broken in a matter of seconds. This was using a Wireless-N 300 router purchased less than 6 months ago and a brand new access point. this is a problem with wireless specifications, not a problem with the configuration.
      
      "Dynamically assigned and rotated encryption keys are usually not supported in a WDS connection. This means that dynamic Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA) and other dynamic key assignment technology in most cases can not be used, though WPA using pre-shared keys is possible. This is due to the lack of standardization in this field, which may be resolved with the upcoming 802.11s standard. As a result only static WEP or WPA keys may be used in a WDS connection, including any STAs that associate to a WDS repeating AP" - Wikipedia
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Distribution_System
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 12:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's actually about 30% of the population, there are 63 million people in france.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Insider, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:57am
  
  Re:
  Mhhh... No comments on whether the LAW is fair or just...
  No comments on how governments seem to pass law catering to some industries interest ignoring the desires of the majority of the population who elected them there in the first place...
  Strange references to parking tickets and cars being booted...
  
  Yep, you must work for the DMV, and were looking for the next Union meeting. That's two post downs, three threads to your right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    You want comments? I thought we have pretty much killed this dead already 100 times over. But hey, let's give it a try:
    
    Governments don't pass laws to cater to anyone. Rather, they pass laws that balance what the general public wants and what industry wants, with that balance point being maintaining an economy and generating precious tax revenues. Quite simply, if there is no business, there is little in the way of taxes to create. There are fewer jobs. It's just the basics.
    
    Often the desires of the majority have to be ignored for a greater good, a good that is often not considered. An example would be drunk driving laws. Clearly we have these laws because a significant number of people have the desire to go out drinking and then drive themselves home, regardless of the risks or consequences that come from their action. At some points in the past, I am sure that many people felt that drunk driving laws were terrible, a waste of effort, police just hassling some good ol' boys having a good time on a Saturday night.
    
    The greater good comes into play. That sort of example pretty much kills off your argument. The government has to work for the overall good of the people who elected it, rather than pandering to their every whim. The issues that the US find itself in today often are as a result of pandering to the electorate, rather than doing what is right. It's a pretty basic way to explain the current budget crisis (thank you Republican party for being too obvious!).
    
    The law itself isn't unfair. Unfair would be "one strike and prison for life". Three strikes, with clear notification, is pretty fair to all concerned. The person had all the chance to change things to get it corrected, and apparently did not do anything (or enough). Is it "fair" to rights holders that he should be allowed to either keep download or keep providing access for downloaders because he is ignorant?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How about spending the same or less money to simply have the ISP come onsite and educate him/setup security? What's with this need to get blood? I don't see a need to apologize for him, etc. Let's just solve the problem without making it painful.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Have you considered that perhaps this would be a nice motivation tool for wi-fi makers to ship only secured Wi-fi units (not permit "open" settings without hacking, which would be your problem), and to encourage ISPs to actually take the time to do proper installations for their clients?
        
        ISPs have been cheaping out in these areas, perhaps they will wake up with they starting losing customers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh so now all of a sudden Open Wi-Fi is illegal, and we should DRM all routers?
        
        I'm glad I don't live in your terrifyingly oppressive fantasy world...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus doesn't lock his bike or apartment either.
        
        Right Marcus?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Greevar (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A stupid analogy. There is no requirement by law that Marcus should have to lock his apartment. It is merely a personal choice. Requiring people to secure their WiFi by legal mandate would be like requiring people to lock their homes to protect copyright. People shouldn't be held to criminal liability if someone accesses their unsecured residence and uses their computer to commit infringement nor should they if their WiFi is open. It's anyone's right to have an open WiFi. The burden is not on us to protect your copyrights and it's not our liability when someone uses our home networks to do so. But it's impossible to catch the real culprit and so much easier to beat on the innocent person they use to perpetrate it instead isn't it?
        
        Well, it would seem someone didn't learn from my prior lecture on the difference between enable and perpetrate. Here's a link for your convenience:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110617/23403614733/funniestmost-insightful-comments -week-techdirt.shtml#c261
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FuzzyDuck, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "But it's impossible to catch the real culprit and so much easier to beat on the innocent person they use to perpetrate it instead isn't it?"
        
        They don't care who did it, they just want to punish someone, anyone. It's a way to scare off people.
        
        Of course that fails, because it motivates people to hack in to their neighbors wifi to download, which results in more innocent people being punished.
        
        Now I just hope all these innocent people will learn one important lesson: don't pay for music and movies ever again. Do not finance the a*holes that took away your internet connection and threaten you.
        
        Hopefully this will backfire on the MAFIAA in a big way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If I choose not to lock my door, and someone started a meth lab in my house while I was at work, I would call the cops - and guess what? They would help me - they wouldn't say "well, you left it unlocked, so now we're arresting you for meth production"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If the cops told you there was a Meth lab in your house on two different occasions and you did nothing about it, then I believe the burden is on you the 3rd time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unless they've been given the wrong or false information by whomever is making the accusation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And yet I still wouldn't just get declared automatically guilty - and the burden of proof would not be on me. I would face a trial, where the level and nature of my involvement would be determined, and I would be presumed innocent from the start. If the prosecution could not demonstrate that I had a willful hand in the drug production, I would likely face a lesser charge - at most aiding and abetting - and my presumption of innocence would still stand until that charge was proven.
        
        But replace a dangerous drug lab with a torrented copy of Bridesmaids and suddenly it's instant punishment. Does that really sound fair to you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes it does. He's a moron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus, you are forgetting, this isn't some sort of court of law, it's a reporting system. If you keep showing up in the radar, you lose your internet access. You don't get a criminal record, you don't go to jail, none of that. You just stop being able to easily pirate stuff.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Brendan (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And read news. And talk to family. And participate in your local democratic system. And perform professional or scholastic research. And have a phone system. And log in to the office VPN to do work.
        
        Seeing any problems yet? Perhaps the internet connection is used for more than the minor infraction of potential copyright infringement.
        
        You have no right to determine who gets to keep or lose internet access. Your accusations are meaningless with evidence presented and accepted in court. There are so so many way to have the wrong person blamed, letting alone thedisproportionality of disconnection,that the method of IP or even MAC address should be laughed out of court without extensive investigation and validation.
        
        This is why we need more countries declaring net access to be a basic righ.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're the one who felt the need to drag out the analogy of "leaving your apartment unlocked" - I showed you where that analogy goes. Amusingly, even though it is a completely inappropriate analogy that you employed for no justifiable reason, it still doesn't prove your point, which is what I demonstrated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You just stop being able to easily pirate stuff.
        
        Right, piracy has stopped in France.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HothMonster, 26 Jul 2011 @ 8:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I lock my house but only because if someone comes in and steals my books and movies I dont want to get charged with contributing to criminal copyright infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus, you can keep living in your wide open fantasy land. Just don't be shocked when you find people in your living room when you get home watching your movies, drinking your beer, and making a mess of your house, because I assume you don't lock that up either. Oh yeah, can I borrow you phone? I need to make a few long distance calls. I am sure you won't mind, you love to share your services, don't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm sure he'd be annoyed. But, unless I missed something here, it would be you, not he, who would be liable for any damage and/or costs. Marcus would not be locked out of his house due to the damage you did, which is the situation here.
        
        Again: locked your house and router are both very good ideas, but there's only one you can be punished for without due process or reparations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please show me where I said locking up your wi-fi is stupid or that I would never do it. All I have an issue with is making it illegal, or taking away the option.
        
        I guess you would like it to be against the law to lend a stranger your phone? Maybe it should be against the law to hold the door for someone too, just in case they plan to rob the store. And we should all be *required* to have guns so that we can defend our property.
        
        The logical conclusion of your stance is a government that mandates "safe" behaviour, and a citizenry made eternally distrustful and paranoid by the threat of misplaced liability. I'm sure you will dismiss my points as ridiculous hyperbole, but frankly if your argument can't withstand reductio ad absurdum then it's not much of an argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And we should all be *required* to have guns so that we can defend our property.
        
        I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled....
        
        ... That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
        
        ��Militia Act
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That act is about defending the nation, not making sure every citizen had a gun-centric home defense system. The US militia was replaced in 1903 by the formation of the National Guard.
        
        Also, take a look at the first sentence you quoted: "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified..." This was a volunteer militia, not a mandatory militia (barring conscription/draft events in times of war).
        
        Either way, not really a *requirement.*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified..."
        
        That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
        
        (Emphasis added.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, in other words, it didn't apply to everyone, it only applied under certain conditions, and it assumes you don't already have a gun even if those conditions exist and apply to you?
        
        How is this everyone required to have a gun again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 12:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How is this everyone required to have a gun again?
        
        Point is, the idea of requiring gun ownership is neither absurd nor without precedent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 12:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, take a look at the first sentence you quoted: "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified..." This was a volunteer militia, not a mandatory militia (barring conscription/draft events in times of war).
        
        Emphasis added.
        
        There were stipulations for calling up the militia in the First Militia Act:
        
        "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act"
        
        The Second Militia Act (which you're quoting) is defining who the Militia should be composed of. ("Every free able-bodied white male, ages 18-45...")
        
        If we're going to continue to stretch this paper-thin metaphor, I'll need to point out that the person is question is 54. So, if Mandatory Militia= Everyone Has to Own A Gun = Secured Wi-Fi, this schoolteacher would have been exempted.
        
        Also: the Militia Law (as you're quoting it) no longer stands today. The National Guard is volunteer-only at this point. You have to sign up for it. Still very much not-mandatory.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        mike allen (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have stated many times my Wi Fi is open as per the five principles of Gnu - Linux.
        wont change it for any stupid record company.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's because the ISPs know they'll get 1000 times the number of calls asking how the security settings work compared to complaints that the routers aren't secure enough.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      someone play taps while this guys burns the constitution please, I can see the flames licking at the document "of the people, by the people, and for the people..." R.I.P. democracy, you were terrible, but still better than tyranny.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        wrong country man
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you don't think that the guy who posted was american/speaking about american government? i've only ever heard that sentiment from american hating americans
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - cc (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Great, let's balance economic interests... between the internet and Big Entertainment... for the good of the people!
      
      Of course, since entertainment is a much larger industry than the internet, we should cut off the internet to cater to the entertainers' wishes.
      
      Oops, hold on... The internet industry dwarfs the entertainment industry by a thousand-fold.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        [citation needed]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really? So you'd rather be flippant about the very fact that the internet makes more money than the MPAA and RIAA?
        
        You have yet to figure out that Google could *buy* a label and still have change left over?
        
        You believe that Amazon's revenue along with the likes of Hulu, Netflix, eBay, and the myriad of competitors doesn't dwarf those of the recording industry, who still believes in overpriced licensing or the movie industry, who still believes that regionalization, windowing, and lack of customer service will save them from the big bad piracy monster?
        
        Are you SURE you want to begin this line of reasoning?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In his delusional twisted world MAFIAA must be 99% of the world's GDP. His comments make total sense for him.
        
        Should I paste the revenues of Google, Yahoo, Amazon, ISPs worldwide to provide citation? Or can we all Google for them? Oh wait, Google is so huge that we use the term "to Google" nowadays...
        
        Fail ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HothMonster, 26 Jul 2011 @ 8:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the internet only makes money because of the content industry which obviously only makes money because of copyright. Without their content you wouldnt have the money to fund and maintain your precious interweb tubes
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really? You're saying that people only have internet connections to access corporate produced content? That removal of high bandwidth applications would cause profits to disappear. That seems... odd.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        /sarc
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Quote:
      Governments don't pass laws to cater to anyone. Rather, they pass laws that balance what the general public wants and what industry wants, with that balance point being maintaining an economy and generating precious tax revenues. Quite simply, if there is no business, there is little in the way of taxes to create. There are fewer jobs. It's just the basics.
      
      You are just full of shite.
      First the economical imbalance inside any developed country is big, in the U.S. alone the top 1% holds 80% of all the money but strangely they pay less than half the taxes, who pays the rest is the bottom.
      
      Care to explain why that happens?
      
      Quote:
      Often the desires of the majority have to be ignored for a greater good, a good that is often not considered. An example would be drunk driving laws. Clearly we have these laws because a significant number of people have the desire to go out drinking and then drive themselves home, regardless of the risks or consequences that come from their action. At some points in the past, I am sure that many people felt that drunk driving laws were terrible, a waste of effort, police just hassling some good ol' boys having a good time on a Saturday night.
      
      Those laws actually benefit the whole population not only a minority what are you talking about?
      
      Quote:
      The law itself isn't unfair. Unfair would be "one strike and prison for life". Three strikes, with clear notification, is pretty fair to all concerned. The person had all the chance to change things to get it corrected, and apparently did not do anything (or enough). Is it "fair" to rights holders that he should be allowed to either keep download or keep providing access for downloaders because he is ignorant?
      
      First you apparently didn't read what was written in the original article, the guy sought a way to secure the connection, he did so and failed, now lets not forget that Sony, Paypal, the police, the government can't even secure their networks and you want simple people who are not even IT inclined to do it?
      
      Ain't happening unless they throw out all of their electronic equipment that can spawn a network.
      
      You must be a troll otherwise you are just a dumbass.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You said: "First you apparently didn't read what was written in the original article, the guy sought a way to secure the connection, he did so and failed, now lets not forget that Sony, Paypal, the police, the government can't even secure their networks and you want simple people who are not even IT inclined to do it?"
        
        Me: Unplug the freaking thing already. Turn off the wireless. END OF PROBLEM. How hard is that?
        
        Sorry, you guys leave me shaking my head. The solutions are simple and clear. If people were running up thousands of dollars of long distance on your phone because your cordless phone was getting hacked, would you not UNPLUG IT? Or would you just leave it plugged in and say "I tried everything, too bad", and then decline responsiblity?
        
        Is nobody responsible for their own actions anymore?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How about the guy who actually did it? We're going to punish the innocent person but let the guilty go free. Great idea.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We're going to punish the innocent person but let the guilty go free.
        
        That's what happens when Dr Guillotine's blade swings freely.
        
        �
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 12:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Chrono, the buck stops somewhere, and in this case unless he can point at the other guy and say "he was using my wireless to download gay bestiality porn", then he is pretty much on the hook.
        
        Somwhere, somehow, someone has to accept responsiblity for what happens. That line, at least in France, is with the subscriber of the service. If you don't want to be responsible, don't subscribe. If you do want to be responsible, make sure nobody else is using your stuff.
        
        Example: Turn off your wifi when you are not home, or when you go to bed. Some wi-fi units now require you to push a button on the front before you can log anyone new in. That only lasts for a few minutes before the unit is locked down again.
        
        There is a point where the guy has to be responsible, even if he didn't do it. He blew off the first notice, then he left the wi-fi open, he didn't fix it, and he didn't do the obvious to stop it (turn it off).
        
        Sorry, I have very little sympathy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Killer_Tofu (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 1:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, I have very little sympathy.
        
        That's not the only thing you have very little of ...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you don't want to be responsible, don't subscribe.
        
        Right. People should have to quit being connected to the Internet just because some lazy shilltards like you continually fail to prove the losses you alledgedly suffer from piracy.
        
        Here's an easy solution for your ilk: if you don't want you content infringed upon, don't produce the content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rabbit80, 26 Jul 2011 @ 8:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Example: Turn off your wifi when you are not home, or when you go to bed."
        
        In some situations, turning off your router can have a negative effect on your broadband connection. For example - My router currently syncs at around 7500Kbps. If i power it down for more than 10 mins it forces a line retrain - which can take up to 10 days to stabilize. normally, my line will initially only resync at around 4000Kbps after the unplug - and for a week afterwards it is unstable both in terms of speed and in holding its connection.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 25 Jul 2011 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "How about the guy who actually did it? We're going to punish the innocent person but let the guilty go free. Great idea."
        
        It is! See, in AC's "Big Media, Big Copyright, Law is All" world, there are no innocents. Disconnecting the guy who's router got used by another is DETERRENT! That will deter piracy, because you got after someone who had nothing to do with the infringement. So that stops ....er wait....piracy? Hold on, how does this work again? Lemme take another run at this. You disconnect someone who had nothing to do with it but was used by another to commit the infringement, and that leads to ...less piracy? More sales? The guy is cut off for something he didnt do, so he will buy more media? Right, I guess? How again does that fix the problem? Maybe AC can enlighten us, since he has all the answers and we are just a bunch of stupid freetard apologists. Please, AC, detail how disconnecting this 54 year old man who was the victim of someone else using his connection is going to reduce piracy and increase sales.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rd, another amusing story. You must be on your meds, because you only capitalized one word randomly. A big improvement from you my little hot head.
        
        However, you completely misrepresent my point of view, and make it sound completely different from what I said.
        
        There is only one subscriber. He is ultimately responsible for what happens on the connection he is paying for.
        
        If you have an old fashioned home phone (or a cell phone for hat matter) and lend it out to anyone randomly, and they make lots and lots of long distance calls, you will be responsible for them. If you hang your phone on a cord outside your window with a big sign that says "make phone calls free here", you should not be shocked when people abuse it.
        
        Having an open wireless is doing the exact same thing. "Use my connection, do what you want, I don't care". But since you are contracted with your ISP for service, ultimately you are responsible for what happens on your connection.
        
        What you are falling for is the "54 year old victim" BS which is nothing but a way to try to turn the story. The truth is this guy has an internet connection, has a wireless, and enough brains to use it. He got notified and blew it off, got notified again and puttered around trying to figure it out himself, and finally got third notice and got shitcanned off.
        
        For him to say "SODDI!" and have us all just accept it is bull. He could have easily reacted at notice one and addressed the issue, and certainly could have pulled the power plug on his wireless after notice 2. That he didn't take simple steps while being notified of this issue is his problem, and nobody elses. It doesn't matter if he is 54 or 24.
        
        You are falling for the red herring. But then again, you always do, don't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "For him to say "SODDI!" and have us all just accept it is bull. He could have easily reacted at notice one and addressed the issue, and certainly could have pulled the power plug on his wireless after notice 2. That he didn't take simple steps while being notified of this issue is his problem, and nobody elses. It doesn't matter if he is 54 or 24"
        
        All that blathering, and like always, you avoid answering the question: HOW does disconnecting someone who's connection was used WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT help either piracy or selling more media? Please, answer or STFU.
        
        Oh and I'm not YOUR anything. Come within 3 feet of me and I'll show you just how much you arent. And yes, that IS a threat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Danny, 26 Jul 2011 @ 6:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Having an open wireless is doing the exact same thing. "Use my connection, do what you want, I don't care". But since you are contracted with your ISP for service, ultimately you are responsible for what happens on your connection.
        So, does that mean that the content creators need to be held responsible for not keeping a tighter reign on their content instead of letting them get away with paying the government to force ISPs to do it for them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why don't you take responsibility for your own fraking content then?
        
        Why others need to be responsible for your content?
        
        It is not their problem, why should they care or be forced to care?
        
        Because you think you are loosing money?
        
        F. you!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let me get this straight, is someone got their phone hacked and incure in a lot of costs, you want them to cut the phone right?
        
        So if someone gets a heart attack he has to go to the neighbor to see if they can let him use it to call for help?
        
        You want everybody to be responsible for your content no matter the consequences, you want everybody to protect you so you can feel safe?
        
        F. YOU! F. YOU! and F. YOU! I can't say that enough.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Is nobody responsible for their own actions anymore?"
        
        You're fucking kidding here right? I mean no one could possibly be this oblivious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 2:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, unless Herry Potter got pirated, in which case, OBLIVIATE!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 1:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Is nobody responsible for their own actions anymore?"
        
        Apparently not. When **AAs are wanting other corporations, governments and people, to pay for the protection of their imaginary property, when it was themselves who originally released it...
        
        Simple solution? Don't release it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Andrew (profile), 26 Jul 2011 @ 7:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What about if the means to the internet was the wireless device itself???
        
        I have had in the past my dsl modem was my wireless, so if I unplug it I can't use the internet.
        
        So lets say I do unplug it and then decide all right lets google to see how to close up my wifi. Wait my internet is down. Some user manuals of certain devices are also extremely unhelpful and even me (I work as a programmer) have trouble figuring out how to turn the wifi off on new devices.
        
        The fact is the law should never have been passed and with so many things online and internet is becoming more than just something you use on and off. Its becoming necessary for some to do their jobs. That is what people try are point out...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HothMonster, 26 Jul 2011 @ 8:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Me: Unplug the freaking thing already. Turn off the wireless. END OF PROBLEM. How hard is that?"
        
        maybe his computer is in a place where it is inconvenient or costly to run wires to. My mother's desktop computer runs off wireless because of the room she chooses to keep the computer in. I know you think the **AA should get to choose what room she keeps her computer in right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - A Monkey with Attitude (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I agree with your sentiment but the numbers stand thus:
        
        1% of population are the highest wage earners
        of this 1% they pay 40% of the federal income taxes.
        this 1% accounts for 20% of the monthly taxable wages.
        
        To your point the bottom 50% pay all the taxes... your wrong... according to US Census Bureau
        49% of all Americans pay No Federal Taxes.
        20 million are at or below the poverty line.
        
        Of the 80 Million they average this:
        2 Color Televisions per house hold, 1 of them has a high probability of being a big screen
        they will average a cell phone, with text and web (high % chance of a smart phone)
        2.5 Cars per household
        LARGER living space than the Average (not at the poverty level ) EUROPEAN
        More Caloric intake than the average person in the world.
        
        about the part where tax dollars come from (generally the Middle class at 50K per year in household revenue and up) not the bottom 50% like you asserted.
        
        I hate even remotely supporting a troll but your facts are false as theirs...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 25 Jul 2011 @ 2:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ENOUGH ALREADY!
        "To your point the bottom 50% pay all the taxes... your wrong... according to US Census Bureau
        49% of all Americans pay No Federal Taxes."
        
        Can we PLEASE have enough of this "% of the population doesnt pay any tax therefore..." bullshit rhetoric?
        
        IT doesnt matter if its 20, 50, or 80% of the population that doesnt pay income taxes (and make no mistake, they DO pay taxes, and lots of them, just not INCOME tax) when they ONLY HAVE 1% OF THE WEALTH!!
        
        You spout this drivel as if its a big deal that 1% of the wealth of the country doesnt pay taxes. BIG DEAL. The rich own 95-99% of ALL the wealth, so they SHOULD be paying 95-99% of the taxes too.
        
        Stop putting the burden on people who can barely afford to live as if they are some parasites when the rich live lavish lifestyles on the backs of the poor and middle class. The burden SHOULD be on them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - duffmeister (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I still have the problem of considering an accusation a "strike" as my main issue with this law.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I thought our there was something in the Constitution about being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Only a rube would think that any 'strike' plan is anything more than you are guilty-take your punishment.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Monkey with Attitude (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      LOL "greater good" I love that arguement... lets test it shall we (credit to the person that wrote this first, Marcus i think)
      
      Hitler said it was the Non-Germans that where the problem and passed laws for the "greater good"... cant see a problem with your logic...
      
      Stalin said that dissidents create problems, to the gulag... for the "greater good of the soviet politic" ... cant be wrong there aye?
      
      Pol Pot said that all should farm for the "greater good"...
      hmmm.. yup that worked out well too///
      
      The "greater good" argument has been used time and time again as a flag to punish and oppress people around the world...
      
      So color me skeptical that the law is for the "greater good" of the people and not the enrichment of an industry and the Government...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'd love to go through that post line by line and show how every single line is either a lie, deliberately disingenuous, or factually wrong, but its not worth talking to a brick wall. I'll stick with pithy:
      
      Governments don't pass laws to cater to anyone.
      
      One word: Lobbyists.
      
      Aren't you one of them?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Governments don't pass laws to cater to anyone."
      
      Lol.
      
      "Often the desires of the majority have to be ignored for a greater good"
      
      Double lol.
      
      "An example would be drunk driving laws."
      
      I'm pretty sure most people agree that drunk driving laws are necessary. I doubt you can find such a consensus on the state of IP laws.
      
      All in all, this is four paragraphs of uninformed tripe. Your entire "Well we just need the government to hold our hands so the corporations can get their fair share" argument is exactly the kind of defeatist attitude that allows them to push these kinds of laws onto the majority. There is no good that can come from circumventing already-existing legal models in place of models that seem to think that guilty is the default state of a person and that an IP = a person.
      
      Of course, judging by your posting history, I'm likely going to get a typical "well ur just a freetard" response.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 3:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, the law IS unfair and stupid.
      
      I'm french, and I've seen it unfold, it's maddening. There is no presomption that you are innocent, you don't have the right to access the data that is used to accuse you! The company charged of checking the downloads works in a completely opaque way and obviously turns false positive.
      
      Don't get me started on the basic idiocy of a law that treat customers as robbers. A real comedy of absurdity...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hxa7241, 26 Jul 2011 @ 4:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "for a greater good" -- hahaahahaa: for a few corporations to make easy money, more like it.
      
      Your message uses a common method of corporate PR: the false generalisation. A corporation cannot simply say they want something because it makes them richer; that will not persuade anyone. So instead, they find a *general* rule that just happens to fit their *particular* self-serving intention. Then they can leave aside the details that benefit them, and present it as a cause that is good for *all*.
      
      The 'greater good' in this case is the better functioning of the economy. And it is nothing more than a myth. Let us consult Landes and Posner -- hardly anti free-market 'socialists': they are prominent figures in the 'Chicago School' neoclassical economic area -- in a quote from 'The economic structure of intellectual property law' (Conclusion, p422, s3.):
      
      "Economic analysis has come up short of providing either theoretical or empirical grounds for assessing the overall effect of intellectual property law on economic welfare."
      
      To spell it out: *we do not even know whether copyright is doing any good*.
      
      That really rather knocks the bottom out of the sacrificing for the 'greater good' justification.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2011 @ 2:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      what part of him having open internet was difficult for your morass of a brain to understand.. he did not voluntarily download any copyrighted material himself..
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Qritiqal (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  Actually, it's more like having your car parked in your garage every day, then getting speeding/parking tickets in the mail and not understanding how it's possible given your car never left the garage.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    to take your analogy furthur,
    
    its like having your car parked in your driveway, never driving it cause you take your bike most places. Then the police start giving you speeding tickets, you ignore them assuming it's a mistake, when the second one comes you try to figure out whats going on but you realize someone stole your license plate, you tell the police this and they proceed to send you another speeding ticket, take your car, your license and break your kneecaps.
    
    you then realize all they wanted was your money.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    This man's situation reminds me of the time I came home to find a water shut-off notice on my door handle (on a Friday, no less, and the water co. closed on the weekend). There was absolutely no reason for this, our bills were paid.
    
    After many calls to the office to straighten it out, we had to go to the office - where we sat in a room and called them on the phone! lol, they must get many angry people in there - turns out it was their mistake: they'd simply taken someone else's word for it that we were moving (!) and this mystery person was taking over our address (!) and why weren't we reading the messages on our bills to that effect (!!!).
    
    We weren't reading them because we weren't moving. Why would we be even looking for such a message?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, it's like getting a ticket for not meeting emissions standards, and having no fucking clue how to work on cars.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, it's more like getting a ticket for not meeting emissions standards in a state that doesn't have emissions standards and not being able to stop the tickets since you're not doing anything illegal. Having an open WiFi is not illegal.
      
      Remember, every time we punish an innocent person, a guilty person goes free.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G-Max, 7 Feb 2012 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Actually, it's more like having your car parked in your garage every day, then getting speeding/parking tickets in the mail and not understanding how it's possible given your car never left the garage."
    
    Actually, from what I've read, it's more like having your car parked in your garage every day, but being unable to figure out how to close the garage door, so hooligans are constantly hotwiring your car and speeding around town in it, and using your driver's license because you left it in the glove compartment like an idiot, and the car gets impounded twice... and you still never bother to figure out how the garage door works, or put a wheel clamp or other security device on the car yourself... and eventually, you get your license revoked.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:33am
  
  Re:
  Right, thats why the three strikes system is working for California
  
  (Hint: Its not).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nicedoggy, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:30am
  
  Re:
  http://www.zeropaid.com/news/94630/load-gearing-up-for-massive-8gb-multinational-data-dump/
  
  http: //www.zeropaid.com/news/94625/p0keu-dumps-nearly-300-military-and-government-accounts-to-pastebin/
  
  Easily secure a network LoL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:42am
  
  Re:
  Linked article says he did (or tried) to secure his wi-fi. How can the onus be on the owner of the wi-fi to guarantee security when many large tech companies themselves cannot?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  Sigh... how did I know the instant I read the headline that some AC moron would come straight in here and blame the victim, attack Mike and basically do anything other than accept that the problems we all predicted are coming to pass?
  
  "You can easily secure your internet connection by disconnecting your wi-fi and figured it out."
  
  You could. I could. Someone less computer literate? Almost certainly not without help.
  
  "It's like getting parking tickets for parking in the same place every day"
  
  That place being your own home.
  
  "Ignorance should not be a acceptable defence in a system with three strikes."
  
  Last time I checked, there's no acceptable defence for morons like you. The accusation is enough to prove "guilt". That's one of the major problems with this type of system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 2:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Sigh... how did I know the instant I read the headline that some AC moron would come straight in here and blame the victim, attack Mike and basically do anything other than accept that the problems we all predicted are coming to pass?"
    
    I will guess because its not your first time on TechDirt. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:29am
  
  Re:
  Sigh... how did I know the instant I read the headline that some AC moron would come straight in here and blame the victim, attack Mike and basically do anything other than accept that the problems we all predicted are coming to pass?
  
  "You can easily secure your internet connection by disconnecting your wi-fi and figured it out."
  
  You could. I could. Someone less computer literate? Almost certainly not without help.
  
  "It's like getting parking tickets for parking in the same place every day"
  
  That place being your own home.
  
  "Ignorance should not be a acceptable defence in a system with three strikes."
  
  Last time I checked, there's no acceptable defence for morons like you. The accusation is enough to prove "guilt". That's one of the major problems with this type of system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  And yet I presume you will use ignorance as a defence of your post. Right? So do I smell hypocrisy here? Or are you just a plain old, garden variety troll? Either way, you lose.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Boost (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:53am
  
  Re:
  "Ignorance should not be a [SIC] acceptable defence in a system with three strikes."
  
  Why not, you seem to be pretty ignorant all the time?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:19am
  
  Re:
  And what if it was secure? All the consumer grade wireless encryption protocols are fairly easily hacked. Is he still to blame? Troll.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:14am
  
  Re:
  No, for that analogy to work there has to be another person that steals your car, parks it illegally, wracks up the parking tickets, then puts the car back. It's not like she actually did anything illegal, someone did something illegal with her connection.
  
  Victim blamers are fucking shameless.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tuna, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:16am
  
  Re:
  Why should he have to secure his Wi-Fi?
  
  If someone commits a murder using my hammer I don't get punished for not locking my garden shed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 1:05pm
  
  Re:
  good god. I forgot everyone in the world has the tech smarts as you. We all know he was being stubborn and not ignorent, so your right, no excuses Mr Frenchy, it serves you right!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 3:29pm
  
  Re:
  You're a fool.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:17pm
  
  Re:
  Three strikes shouldn't be acceptable in the first place. The ignorance lies with the people that past this crap to begin with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brendan, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:33pm
  
  Re: Anonymous Coward
  I think your analogy is off base. It's more or less like someone stealing your car and using it to knock over mailboxes. Using someone's unsecured wireless is theft and I don't think he should be held responsible for the actions of someone else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Don, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:00pm
  
  Re:
  That is a massively inaccurate characterization. Securing a wifi connection against hacking is orders of magnitude more complex than looking out a window and seeing a no parking sign.
  
  Are you really that stupid?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Don, 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:01pm
  
  Re:
  That is a massively inaccurate characterization. Securing a wifi connection against hacking is orders of magnitude more complex than looking out a window and seeing a no parking sign.
  
  Are you really that stupid?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Another Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 5:39am
  
  Re:
  No, you cannot easily secure your connection if we can't teach a 54-year old teacher how to do it in a reasonable amount of time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMS, 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:26pm
  
  Re:
  You are missing the point. Imagine someone company you don't know sends you cryptic letters and if you don't respond the police comes and kick you out of, let's say, your school for a year. On a blog, some smart ass tells the world that you had it coming, because all you had to do was google the term 'aublarstfunika' and find out you should have called 555-454-634 and said 'acacadabra' twice. You seriously sound like the introduction of the HHGTTG. :-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:52am

Freedom has been stabbed so many times that it lies on the ground slowly bleeding to death and all the passerbies look the other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bengie, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:23am
  
  Re:
  The more blood that freedom loses, the more the Tree of Liberty thirsts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Blood for the Freedom God!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Monkey with Attitude (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh Lord, not a warhammer reference lol
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re:
  Passersby
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JayTee (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:57am

Did they not even check if he actually had the material he was supposed to have downloaded?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:00am
  
  Re:
  of course not that would assume he was innocent until proven guilty
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - KAPT Kipper, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    It doesn't work that way in France. You are more guilty and proving your innocence.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2013 @ 10:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    BTW... In France, the LAW regarding physical crimes is generally Guilty until proven innocent. It probably applies to digital crime also.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:19am
  
  Re:
  Of course not.
  
  Doing so before kicking him off the internet would require work.
  
  Doing it after would prove they were morons, leaving no doubt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mistyrouge, 26 Jul 2011 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re:
  JayTee : No they don't ! The HADOPI law does not blame people from downloading copyrighted material because this part of the law was censored by the constitutional council. The HADOPI law blame people if their ip address detected has downloading copyrighted material. So they don't have to check because you could have done so with another computer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
deane (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 6:57am

perfection in terms of knowing EVERYTHING is what comment #1 is mandating. good job troll. your #1 on the idiot meter.

now as for the article, guess the UN won't be SCREAMING at the france government for violating a persons free speech!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insider, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:00am

The presumption of innocence is not universal to all courts of law. That's even more easy to ignore in judicial systems that don't have trials by jury.

And of course they didn't check for the material "allegedly" downloaded. You seem to forget that this law is supposed to herald stronger laws censoring internet use, not advocate fair use, nor benefit "we the people"....
Sheeeesh....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Overcast (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:38am
  
  Re:
  The presumption of innocence is not universal to all courts of law.
  
  HA! Name *ONE* 'court of law' that doesn't assume guilt to start with now.
  
  Presumption of innocence is a concept that sadly, only exists in small circle now, and most certainly is not present in modern 'justice systems'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - taoareyou (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    US Courts. See Casey Anthony.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:01am

this is what we get for advocating a system of government where only the scummiest of scum even want the job...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:12am

"he didn't understand what the first strike was really about."

Translation: he blew it off.

You know there's more to this story than what Masnick wrote, but don't expect to find it on this blog.

Here it's either 100% piracy apologist spin or nothin at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:18am
  
  Re:
  ahh samefag, I was wondering why there was 2 comments on this post that made me rage
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:28am
  
  Re:
  You know there's more to this story than what Masnick wrote, but don't expect to find it on this blog.
  
  Are you implying that Mike frames things to suit his needs, even if it means not telling the whole story? Never!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Manabi (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:38am
  
  Re:
  Did you bother to look at the linked article? (Of course you didn't.) It actually claims that the guy was definitely hacked after securing his WiFi after the 2nd notice. Masnick's "100% piracy apologist spin" changed that to saying it's unclear exactly what happened, that perhaps he got hacked, or perhaps he didn't get it secured in time to avoid a 3rd notice.
  
  If you consider that pro-piracy spin then you're obviously going to consider anything pro-piracy spin. I take it pro-IP enforcement is a religion for you and you don't bother with things like facts or reality contradicting what you believe.
  
  As for blowing it off, well now, for that you need to actually look at the original article (conveniently linked from the article TechDirt linked). He didn't blow it off, he wrote Hadopi and told them they must be mistaken. After the second one he called them, apparently to get help in making sure his connection was secured. And for the third, the time it claims he downloaded the movie he was in class teaching.
  
  Personally I'm inclined to believe the guy. Guilty people often do loudly proclaim their innocence. But guilty people don't undertake a very expensive lawsuit, that'll even require him to move, just to "clear his name".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Prisoner 201, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Facts and reality are impediments to profit and control.
    
    The Wild West of facts and reality will come to an end. Just you wait, freetards.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Spaceboy (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:45am
  
  Re:
  Then by all means link to the rest of the story.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:10am
  
  Re:
  So to clarify: you don't believe in being innocent until proven guilty?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:39am
  
  Re:
  Amazing that those who throw accusations at Mike are always ACs. Sack up and create an account or f*ck off.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  "Here it's either 100% piracy apologist spin or nothin at all!"
  
  Whereas, you just assume that anybody who doesn't lie at feet of your corporate gods and raises the smallest objection to their actions is a piracy apologist. You're pathetic.
  
  "You know there's more to this story than what Masnick wrote, but don't expect to find it on this blog."
  
  Then research it yourself, and educate us. Tell us why we're wrong and what's being withheld. You never do this, all you do is go "you're wrong" and never try to say why, nor offer a. You treat your own opinion as if its the unvarnished, unimpeachable truth, usually looking like a fool while doing so.
  
  "Translation: he blew it off."
  
  That's one possibility. There are many others, most of which don't imply a lack of action on the part of the recipient, depending on how the letter is worded. I notice you don't address the subsequent notices where he responded but got cut off from what's been classified as a human right without due process, despite being innocent of the crimes he's been accused of.
  
  It's also apparently the first person to be "punished" under the law. So, unless he's completely lying out of his ass, a man's human right has been violated based solely on false accusations and this will do nothing at all to help the content industry. In fact, if the guy in question was in the habit of buying legal content online, they've just stopped a paying customer from purchasing their content. Nice job. That doesn't bode well for the future, does it?
  
  I'm not a vindictive person, but I do wish you were personally subjected to the punishments you support for the innocent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    "nor offer a."
    
    Wow, my internet's annoying me today with its flakiness so I mistyped. I meant to say "nor offer a workable alternative viewpoint, only accusations and unfounded claims"
    
    Hope I don't get accused of downloading by ACs. I'm only downloading Skype for an interview I have during the week, I'd hate to get cut off because some idiot thinks it's a pirate program.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- john, 25 Jul 2011 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re:
  No I read he doesn't understand how an internet connection works or how wi-fi works. Giving the fellow the benefit, in that case he didn't download squat so had no idea why he was getting a possibly anonymous form letter for doing nothing. I leav e my connection open for anyone to use, it is up to the isp to do something about others using the line or air in this case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:13am

Drunk drivers get to drive in cars and shoplifters get to shop in stores. But be accused of downloading infringing material three times? No more internet for you. What a wonderful society we live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Donny (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:32am
  
  Re:
  Not to defend what's happened here, but shoplifters get banned from the stores they stole from, security will refuse them entry. And drunk drivers typically get their licenses revoked (although maybe not after the first time. Maybe after...well, the third or so).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Manabi (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    But shoplifters typically aren't banned from all stores everywhere, which would be the equivalent of what the Internet disconnection penalty is like. They get banned from individual stores in the area they live in (and got caught in).
    
    And even the drunk driver analogy doesn't work fully, often those with suspended licenses can get a work permit, which allows them to drive from home to work only, so they can still make a living. I don't recall there being any kind of exception to the French three strikes disconnection penalty to allow people to have a limited connection strictly for work purposes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Drunk drivers: Not to mention, if you have ever seen a single episode of Cops, there are plenty of folks starring on the show that are driving without a valid license.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vincent Clement (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    Except in this case, it is the government that is kicking people off the internet. I can't recall any cases where the government banned a shoplifter from shopping.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'd say this isn't like shoplifting because shoplifting involves taking something from a place and then being banned from that store (which also includes making purchases from that store in the future).
    
    It'd be funny if these alleged copyright infringers got banned from going to the entertainment industry's websites or purchasing their content. It would contradict the entire point behind Hadopi - to try to force infringers to pay for all their content.
    
    This is more akin to, "we're going to cut your vocal cords because we don't like what you say," which ignores that you might have non-offending things to say that are important aspects of your life. Getting banned from the internet in an age when a lot of businesses only offer service online is just cruel and unusual punishment, especially when there is no due process.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    because drunk drivers and shoplifters go to court. three strikes is on accusation alone. can you not see the difference?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yogi, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:13am

Slaves
So basically, the entire free world is being held hostage to the interests of the legacy copyright industry? Does that make sense to anyone who is not on their payroll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:18am

France
Napoleonic code - guilty until proven innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:18am

And so it begins. Now, who said it'd never happen?
I'm sure some here said it wouldn't. Now that it HAS happened, I INSIST that you Pollyannas -- MIKE -- at least admit you've been blatantly wrong all along. Gov'ts and corporations ARE going to move ahead with total tyranny despite your token protests. First step toward a solution is to admit the true problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:33am
  
  Re: And so it begins. Now, who said it'd never happen?
  Coming up next story, out of the blue donates his brain.
  
  For Science!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:39am
    
    Re: Re: And so it begins. Now, who said it'd never happen?
    Depends...do brains work well as urinal cakes?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:22am
  
  Re: And so it begins. Now, who said it'd never happen?
  "Gov'ts and corporations ARE going to move ahead with total tyranny despite your token protests."
  
  "First step toward a solution is to admit the true problem."
  
  Erm, what? Our token protests against the problem aren't working so first we have to admit that the problem exists? WHow does this make any sense?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:42pm
  
  Re: And so it begins. Now, who said it'd never happen?
  I thought the first and maybe only step was to admit that there wasn't a problem and just let them trample all over you like you seem to want to do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:21am

I thought that innocent until proven guilty was a English common law thing?
What does it have to do with France.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Manabi (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:50am
  
  Re:
  According to Wikipedia's Presumption of Innocence article, France's civil law system also uses it (emphasis added):
  
  In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Everyone is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until their guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TCBloo (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    DAMN YOU!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Prisoner 201, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Guilt has been established. Duh.
    
    The guy was accused three times!. No one gets accuses three times unless they did it.
    
    /s
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TCBloo (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:57am
  
  Google is your friend.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#The_fundamental_right
  
  1st and 4th bullet point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gill Bates, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:29am

Secure your WiFi
If you do not know how to - get someone that does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Manabi (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:52am
  
  Re: Secure your WiFi
  He tried, the original article says he called Hadopi's call center after the second notice for help in securing it. Either they failed in assisting him properly, or they were too quick on sending out a third notice, basically sending it out almost immediately after the second one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:43am

they needed someone that had no idea what was happening and they found this guy. they must have thought thatall their christmases had come at once! no response from the first one, no idea what to do after the second one, but tried to do something (no law as far as i am aware to ensure everyone needs to have a MS qualification in routers etc before using the internet, particularly when lots of ISPs restrict customer access), failed, and then fucked on the third one. would like to see some internet freedom advocate take this to EU court on his behalf. wonder what that snidey little shit sarkozy would do when he is charged with crimes against the french people and the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Manabi (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:53am
  
  Re:
  To be fair, he did respond to the first notice according to the original article. He wrote Hadopi and told them it had to be a mistake, that he didn't even like the kind of music they accused him of downloading.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:45am

This is crazy.. France declared internet access a human right and yet they then take it away based on accusations. What's next... food? I can't wait to see what the courts say...

ttp://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2355

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

In some countries such as Estonia,[5] France, [6] Spain,[7] Finland[8] and Greece,[9] Internet access has already been made a human right.
Further information: Right to Internet access
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:46am
  
  Re:
  It's only a human right so long as you don't piss off the IFPI/RIAA/MPAA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dave (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  let them eat cake!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joe Publius (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 12:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Let them listen to Cake!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 2:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Let them steal Cake!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimr (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:48am

You sir, are guilty.... now tell someone who cares.
This whole process is flawed and needs some major legal challenges.

By their logic:
You are not technically savvy enough to stop the unauthorized access so you should be banned from the internet.

You are technically savvy enough to stop the unauthorized access so you MUST be guilt and be banned from the internet.

My first question would be how they came to such a conclusion to even lay accusations? Any form of legal discovery? Invasion of privacy? If it turns out the accusations are not true is their any recourse to recoup any finical losses and personnel embarrassment over the false declaration? If you are able to vindicate yourself is there anything to stop them from harassing you and continuing to accusing you?

Lastly is it possible for me to just buy or create three copyright works by three different companies and then accuses all members of government and employees of related to HADOPI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whisk33, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:54am

Execution
Does anyone know how this actually works? Can the man use his friends' computers? Can he go to an internet cafe? Public library? Own a smartphone? Could he reinstate his internet simply by switching providers? Is internet privatized in France?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
deane (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:56am

as I said in comments before, WHY isn't the UN screaming at france for violation of FREE SPEECH! this law should NEVER have been made, especially since doing this will have the WORST impact on the short sided media companies. they kick all the infringers off = they make the decision to boycott their LARGEST customer base. they GO OUT OF BUSINESS or start screaming at their captive government to come BAIL THEM OUT! >.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:57am

I find it interesting all of the usual trolls blaming the guy, and they are overlooking that HADOPI itself got hacked. And the interesting thing that came out of that was that the system they were using was flawed.

The idea of innocent or guilty until proven really does not matter. I find it more interesting that no one outside of HADOPI has ever looked at how this system works and vetted it. We really need to start to demand that the Government stop accepting the media companies claims as 100% proven fact. They distort the truth in reports, that when debunked they refuse to comment on it. They rip off the artists they claim to represent on many levels. We've seen several people involved in these media protection groups facing charges for stealing.

How far do we have to go to prop up a business model?
The answer to the problem is not more laws or special end runs around peoples rights, but for the business model to adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Plotkin, 25 Jul 2011 @ 7:59am

Two words: Oy Vey
Did anyone seriously doubt that a case like this one would come up? I love that they took the guy's internet away anyways...

I'm usually quick to criticize the sloth and lethargy with which legislators react to real world issues. I have to say that this time, France has acted to hastily. They clearly didn't think this one through.

Never mind the fact that creating this law implies that the internet is akin to drug dealing (and another 3 strikes rule doing wonders for the U.S prison population), it also warps the idea of what internet enforcement is and should be.

I'm all for governments stepping in and policing child pornography and human trafficking on the internet. But IP matters are a sepreate issue entirely.

Intellectual property rights are private and should not be enforced by the government on behalf of individuals (who are more often than not quite capable of representing themselves). This system is analogous to a drivers license point system. The difference is that on the roads, it is the government (through police) to regulate traffic and punish disobedience. Copyright and trademark holders have always had the burden of policing their own assets. This law is a perversion of that.

Finally, the analogy is still flawed in that a person can ask the court for a special dispensation to use their car for a purpose like work (if they are a delivery person for instance). This law doesn't even have an express provision of that sort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:04am

The issue here being that its clear the man is actually innocent. Despite how obvious that situation is he's STILL the one being held responsible for it. Thus, even though he took all reasonable measures to remedy the situation he's still the one paying the price. The simple fact is that regardless of the ability any end user has to "secure" their network it is far to easily cracked with simple tools and instructions easily available on the internet.

If you cannot prevent it then how can you logically enforce it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James Plotkin, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:16pm
  
  Re:
  The problem is that the man is not innocent, he's guilty under the law. Though that doesn't mean the law is a good one or a smart one, he is, nevertheless guilty.
  
  As I stated above, I believe it's the law itself that is so ill conceived that such situations are absolutely inevitable. It's like doing brain surgery with a jackhammer. the sanction prescribed by the law is a harsh one. The fact that there are no fail safes in place to prevent the 54 year old school teacher form losing his internet because he couldn't figure out how to password protect his network is plainly unacceptable. It's a massive affront to the principle of proportionate punishment.
  
  From a point of view, the man was still negligent and through his negligence, an act (or several acts) of infringement occurred. He also should have been a wee bit more perceptive to warnings. Fact is, his behavior was a little dense. But the law is not supposed to punish people for not securing their networks. It's supposed to punish people for copyright infringement. The man did not infringe copyright. He may have enabled someone else to do so but it was done unwittingly.
  
  Ignorance to the law is an inadequate defense. That being said, the sanction has clearly been applied in an inappropriate fashion. The worst part of it is, this precedent will probably encourage more of the same, not less.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pahosler (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:16am

secure computers
are computers that are not attached to ANY outside source ever and are locked in a room where NO ONE has access to them. No matter what you measures you take with your wifi router, if someone wants access to your connection they will get it; wifi is notoriously easy to exploit and there are many "tools" available on the internet that make it a simple matter of clicking a mouse. You can even keep your SSID hidden and someone can still hack into your router; the SSID btw is the name your router broadcasts, like LINKSYS for example, that let you know which router you are connecting to. If someone is determined to use your router/access point there is little you can do about it except perhaps turn it off or disconnect it from the internet.

Now, as far as ISP's not doing enough to set up routers etc for their customers because they don't want to spend the money... BULL HOCKEY!! They don't have to spend the money because they CHARGE A FEE to come set up the equipment for you, usually in the $99 dollar range. The customer has the option of doing a self installation to avoid having to pay for this. And are these people security pros as well as installation techs? They might know the basics. I've talked to several of them in the past and most of them really don't know much.

Anyway, I'm glad we've got our wonderful big brother protecting us from double plus ungood low to mid-level income retards that can't keep their networks secure!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BobC, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:30am
  
  Re: secure computers
  Not being an expert on routers, I'm curious how this could happen. I have my linksys set to not broadcast SSID, it only allows connections from specific MAC addresses I have typed into a table, and admin functions can only be done when connected to the box by ethernet cable, not by wireless. So how is this "determined" someone outside my home going to use my wireless? I'm not refuting your claim, just interested in how it can be done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - pahosler (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:46am
    
    Re: Re: secure computers
    the determined someone can
    use a radio freq meter to detect your router
    sniff your packets
    spoof one of your mac addresses
    and decrypt your key/password/pass phrase
    
    IANAC - I am not a cracker
    
    But I do know there are tools to make all those things easier, a little knowledge goes a long way.
    
    Basically the point is, it can be done, but the likely hood of you being a target is probably minimal unless you are the only game in town or neighbors and still the only radio. Like most people that would steal something in the first place, the easy targets are the ones that would get hit first.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:48am
    
    Re: Re: secure computers
    Using a $200 radio scanner-snooper to intercept your Wi-Fi data. IT's much harder than open Wi-Fi, but it's still easy for those willing to do it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:48am
    
    Re: Re: secure computers
    he could spoof his mac address to yours, not overly difficult, if you know the network exists it doesnt matter if you don't broadcast the ssid. and none of this requires admin so it doesnt matter if you are connected to the box or not
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Manabi (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:53am
    
    Re: Re: secure computers
    Well, a bit of Googling around, the first step is extremely easy, you can find routers with disabled SSIDs without any trouble using a variety of tools:
    
    http://www.tomschaefer.org/web/wordpress/?p=1610
    
    Secondly, you can spoof MAC addresses easily, and since MAC addresses are sent unencrypted, anyone nearby can sniff your network (quite easy to do) when you're home and figure out what MAC addresses you use, then spoof them later:
    
    http://tech.ifelix.net/1024.html
    
    And finally, you can hack WPA/WPA2 to gain access to the network. This is harder than the previous two steps, and if the key is sufficiently long and random enough may be impossible, but still not all that difficult. Since most people don't use a key of sufficient length & complexity to defeat this kind of attack, this is just a time consuming step:
    
    http://www.howtoarchives.com/2009/05/how-to-hack-wpawpa2
    
    Once you're on the network you don't need admin access if you're just wanting to use someone else's connection to hide your downloading movies/music/porn/etc. You just locate their router (easy), sniff their network to find a MAC address to use so you can spoof it (also easy), hack WPA/WPA2 if needed (not quite as easy but not too hard) and voila, you're on their network and any copyright notices will be sent to them.
    
    And that was the result of maybe 5 minutes Googling for info on how to get past the security restrictions you mentioned. I'm far from an expert on this (I don't even use wireless on my home network, I prefer wired connections for both speed and security), someone who's really determined should have an easy time of connecting to your router if they really want to.
    
    This isn't to say doing what you've done is a bad idea, it's just not a guaranteed way of preventing hackers from getting in if they're determined enough. It's a lot like physical security, you're basically making yourself a more difficult target so that the hacker (or burglar for physical security) will pick another, easier target instead. It also deters casual wireless hackers, much as locking your door deters random people from walking in while you're not home.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 10:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: secure computers
      A nice long list of things. It took you 5 minutes to find, but the actual work would take hours / days / maybe weeks to complete, and as such, would be a royal pain in the ass.
      
      Basically, a determined thief might be able to break into Fort Knox, but realistically by putting up enough security, they have stopped the average 12 year old from walking in and picking up gold for free.
      
      A determined hacker will hack, we agree. But that does not preclude anyone from taking the steps that the first poster in this sub-thread described, which would pretty much stop all by a very small percentage of people.
      
      Oh yeah, btw, cloning a mac address is nice, but most routers won't allow the same mac address to appear twice at a time, so if the original computer is still on, there is no hope of a connection that would be functional.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Manabi (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: secure computers
        A determined hacker will hack, we agree. But that does not preclude anyone from taking the steps that the first poster in this sub-thread described, which would pretty much stop all by a very small percentage of people.
        
        I would imagine now that people in France are facing possible Internet disconnection for downloading stuff that those wanting to do so are much, much more dedicated to hacking others' wireless access to avoid just such a penalty being applied to them. Kind of a nasty unintended side-effect of the law.
        
        Oh yeah, btw, cloning a mac address is nice, but most routers won't allow the same mac address to appear twice at a time, so if the original computer is still on, there is no hope of a connection that would be functional.
        
        That's easy to overcome, most people don't leave their computers on 24x7, they turn them off when they leave the house (or take them with them). Seeing as the original article even says he was accused of downloading Iron Man 2 for the third strike while he was actually at work teaching it's likely his MAC address wasn't in use at that time.
        
        What I find interesting is no one seems to even be speculating that his computer is infected with malware. That's another way someone could have proxied through his connection for the download, although it'd have been fairly slow unless he has fast upload speeds too. It's definitely possible though. There's just too many ways it could have been someone other than him, disconnection is too harsh a penalty. Not to mention it's silly in cases like this because it's punishing a clueless middle party while the true guilty party gets off without any punishment whatsoever. Is that really going to deter people pirating movies/music/etc? No, it's just going to lead to them framing more and more innocents for it instead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rich, 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re: secure computers
    Just because it's not broadcast its ID doesn't mean it is not broadcast at all. By its very nature, it is always broadcasting. And MAC addresses are easily spoofed. You are not as safe as you think you are. This kind of stuff is child's play to someone with knowledge and skill.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:06am

Rhetorical Q
So here's an obvious question:

Are these laws going to have any kind of deterrent effect?

In the US, there is Jammie Thomas' case along with all the cases where the music industry won Pyrrhic victories.

France seems not to learn from the enforcement angle. All it shows is the government being incredible bullies for monetary interests. So will all of these issues stop piracy? Or will it move it out of the reach of government hands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ITWARZ, 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:19am

We Are Glad We Don't Live There
Hmmmm... France, any chance of us moving there anytime soon nephew Kenny? I don't see it uncle Ronnie... ITWARZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:27am

France!
France......at least they sponsor the best bike race in the world!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wiggs (profile), 25 Jul 2011 @ 9:39am

Doesn't Know How
When I read the article tagline, I thought the phrase without getting caught was certain to be implied.

Guess I was wrong. Ah well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 12:07pm

I'll need to point out that the person is question is 54

Why don't you just point out that he's French, lives in France and may be guillotined: Guilty or innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 4:35pm

I'm actually curious what is going to start happening when WEP-encrypted points become the weak link in the chain.

Most consumer-grade routers don't use WPA2 as a standard, it's too difficult to set up for some older operating systems. So instead they just use the highly-flawed-easily-circumvented WEP encryption. Encryption that can be taken down in roughly an hour.

And there are MANY more infringers on the internet than there are people who peddle illegal material. I'm waiting for the point where they realize that it's either too easy for someone to point fingers at someone else or the point where they realize that it's too easy for someone to frame another person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:04pm
  
  Re:
  Sorry I forgot to use troll logic while browsing Techdirt again, if you secure your wifi with WEP you are clearly wanting to be hacked. You gave the hackers that stare that just said "hack me baby". So it's your fault that they had their way with your wireless access point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - James Plotkin, 27 Jul 2011 @ 4:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't think that's relevant. A 54 year old teacher shouldn't have to know that. If a person takes a reasonable effort to secure their connection (reasonable for a mortal...not a techdirt reader)they should not be held liable under this law.
    
    The person hacking your connection is essentially trespassing. We generally don't prosecute people who are the victim of a trespass.
    
    We may be less apt to award them damages if they didn't lock their doors. However, no judge is going to say that a person shouldn't be indemnified for loss because of they didn't have a complicated or expensive enough lock on the door.
    
    I'm afraid your argument is flawed mon ami.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:08pm

The guy's a TEACHER and doesn't know how to download movies?
He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a computer, let alone a classroom!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DTS, 25 Jul 2011 @ 5:23pm

Now THAT's progress
Let's not forget that not too long ago HADOPI complained that they were swamped with three-strikes complaints. 18 million complaints submitted to them, and the first thing they do is to catch some technologically illiterate sap. Is that supposed to be an indication that HADERPI works? But then again, you don't need to be surprised given the logic of these individuals:

Us: You're suing children!
Them: This plague of entitlement culture amongst our youth must be stopped at all costs.

Us: You're suing old people!
Them: It's their fault for not disciplining their kids.

Us: You're suing dead people!
Them: Clearly nothing will stop these dastardly individuals for trying to ruin our industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2011 @ 8:13pm

Open wifi is not a crime. Password is "password".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2011 @ 12:07pm

Unsecured WiFi
That's the catch and the problem to the whole three strikes your out rule. Even a WPA2 personal can be hacked in a reasonable amount of time. People who are knowingly downloading content can always claim they were hacked and/or simply connect to someone else's internet to do the download. You combine this with long range wireless antenna, which you can buy or make from a Pringles can, and that gives a person a 10+ mile radius to find anyone with a WiFi connection. If you live in a big city, like I do, you'd have hundreds of connections to choose from. The whole idea is just not practical, sorry big media companies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]