Hacker News Reader

Comment by conbandit | Hacker News Reader

How do we convince courts/LEOs that ip address != identity?

Anecdotally I have had some success getting judges to think of IP addresses mapping to individuals like they already think of post office boxes mapping to individuals.

For example, a post office box is a real address, but what goes in can be put there by anybody with access to the box, whether it's with the key from the customer side, or from the open back from the post office side. Similarly, what goes out can be removed by anyone with access to the open back of the box, or from the front with a key. No one checks to ensure that the holder of a key is the owner of the box.

Of course this is a very blunt metaphor, but with it one can see the light go on....

Given that people probably understand the postal system as well as they do any other network, it would be the best metaphor.

It's unlikely to happen. The incentives for both detectives and prosecutors both align with putting someone behind bars. They do know damn well that IP addresses != identity, but if the circumstances are convenient enough they'll press forward with cases regardless to keep their case closure/conviction rates up.

It's the public, the yokels on the jury, that you need to correct the perceptions of. When most of them get their CS understanding from daytime television crime procedurals, you have a lot of work ahead of you.

So when defense lawyers get smart about proving just how weak IP == Identity is? They'll keep doing it as long as it puts perps behind bars.

It doesn't matter what the defense lawyers know. They are not permitted to present that information in court. If they tried to, the prosecution would raise an objection that the defense was attempting to 'bamboozle' the jury with technobabble and it would be suppressed.

What is the point of a defense lawyer if they are not allowed to argue for their client?

That's a good question.

Ah yes. The final layer of protection, a jury of my "peers", none of which work in the same industry or understand the most basic principles of what I do (as a programmer).

It doesn't help that people specifically like yourself tend to be weeded out of jury pools under voir dire.

An educated person such as yourself might be able to influence the other jurors (or at least hang it), and we can't have that. It's much easier if everybody simply accepted the prosecutor's explanation of how IP addressing works.

When getting it wrong starts costing them money, is my guess.

so never? when they get sued, the city (or the insurer) pays for it, not the police department.

Which, after evidence planting, is never.

When you give them something better to identify people with. Which is probably worse.

The reality is that it is the only tool they have. However they should require more evidence than just an ip address.

Read the article; the police absolutely do have better tools, but they are so terrified of leaving a suspected pedophile in a house with children that they do not wait for any corroboration before making the arrest.

So I did read the article and no where does it mention any other tools for identifying activity online. Unless I am missing something.

They are so terrified of leaving a suspected pedo in a house with children... that they guarantee the safety of pedophiles and continued access to children in their care for weeks or months as they chase phantoms by not being careful. They protect the pedophile, and their mistakes endanger children while destroying innocent lives. There is a reason that child advocacy organizations actively oppose these sorts of raids where police go after downloaders and such. It does nothing to protect children, and is so alluring and easy for police officers that they neglect any actual useful efforts completely in favor of it.

You can either go online and claim to be a turbosexual 15 year old whose parents are out of town and bust anyone who shows interest and net 5 busts in an evening.... or you can investigate the most profoundly disturbing case of your career of parents abusing their own children for months and then get 1 bust. The police make the easy choice, and the kid getting abused by their parents (the absolute most common case by a country mile) gets no help. Child advocacy groups do not waver in their mantra: Education and empowerment. They are the only things that actually STOP child abuse. But they're not as flashy and quick and easy, and society generally doesn't want to educate or empower kids, so everyone just does what makes them feel good without thinking too much about whether it actually helps real children.

Choosing available criminals and quantifiable laws is, in my opinion, our justice system's worst shortcoming.

It plagues our judicial system from the most trivial crimes (speeding), to the most awful (sexual abuse and murder).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com