Quote:
Originally Posted by mazwell2
Is this why BT are the 'easy target' that these law companies continue to extract IP's from ?
Well I just cannot see that argumnet standing up in court- if that is what is comes to. Luckily someone on another forum in PM offered pc-technical help with that (on trashing 'techical- forensic analysis) and best friends partner is a Barrister who has done a lot of HRA cases (including as high as ECHR) and such like so I'd not have to pay for legal counsel and representation.
|
PAH- the only way they can KNOW it was from a specific computer (and even then a sophisticated hacker can get around this) is if they infected a movie/ file (and therefore a computer) with malware so that when it was clicked to open it would transmit a text file with said IP/ PC details back to File Watch.
Of course that is an illegitimate evidence collection technique (the same procedure hackers use to hijack wireless connections/ piggy back signals/ remotely control a computer etc).
It's also inadmissible in court- another reason why no DEFENDED cases have ever appeared before a Judge.
*But* File Watch and TBI are banking on the idea that if they select only those that their malware indicate did D/L the movie (wireless hackers notwithstanding) will- in the face of brutal court papers/ technical documentation and a settlement offer- cave in and pay up (a la DL before).
Don't do it. The case- should it ever get that far and it won't - will be thrown out of court once FW reveal their true actual illegitimate method of data collection.
Get off a concise denial that you nor anyone else D/L'd the file and listen to that lawyer partner of your friend.
CALM DOWN !!