Re: [Full-disclosure] Re: Case ID 51560370 - Notice of ClaimedInfringement

[Jason <security@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

IANAL but it seems this thought process is broken.

Jason Coombs wrote:
> Come on, people, get a clue.
>
> The copyright owner has authorized the forensic investigators to
> download the infringing material. If it was there, according to a
> forensic investigator, then you have to prove it was not.

This position does not hold water, there is no way for them to not break 
the same laws they would be attempting to enforce by performing the 
investigation from a remote location and without a valid search warrant. 
You do not have to prove that you did not have the content, you only 
have to prove that you have content that appears very similar to the 
remote reviewer.

If you were to place a copyrighted work of your own there then would 
they be forced to download it and break the law in order to prove that 
it was not the other copyright owners property? If they show in the logs 
as having attempted a download does this make them guilty?

It is as simple as creating a server that will return filenames and 
hashes found on the network but actually provide /dev/random for the 
download or your copyrighted content with an engineered hash collision.

It only takes one case to prevent the civil suit from being filed. To 
file the suit would be admitting to having broken the law. You cannot 
bring suit when the basis of the suit is itself illegal activity.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/