theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
You can, however, it's less likely due to the fact that you've got no one argueing the other side.
You know, if arguemebnts didn't matter. Lawyers wouldn't bring up issues.
Also... why would it be thrown out? New evidence found in discovery is fine. Once they get that information, they can use it for whatever they want.
If the Supeonas which were ordered are legal... sony can use that information for anything they want. The only stimpulation on the supeona is that it is "For Lawyers eyes only." which means Sony can't release that information to the public. Sony can still sue people based on that information though.
The only reason the cases would be thrown out would be if those who were sued later argued that the supeona in which the information was gained was actually illegal and the court ruling was wrong.
I mean, it's pretty simply.
This IP adress downloaded the PS3 crack, which can only be used to bypass our clients security protection, so we want to supeona his identity. (If it isn't static.)
Check.
Ok, so now we want to check his PS3 to see if he downloaded it. We have probable cause because he owns a PS3 why else would you download it?
Check.
His PS3 has been cracked, (and he may have pirated games.)
Conviction. Or more likely settlment, but you get the point.
|
I'll let their actions prove me right. I don't know where you are getting this idea that the discovery process allows you to use your information however you want.
Look, they were denied use of the IPs for that purpose in the first case and now you think that they can use them by asking for them for something else?
"The only reason the cases would be thrown out would be if those who were sued later argued that the supeona in which the information was gained was actually illegal and the court ruling was wrong."
Like,.that.is.exactly.my.point.jpg
and for added humour:
"Hey mom, can I have 5 dollars for candy?"-"No, we are eating dinner soon, and you don't need candy"- "well then, mom, school is having a field trip to, um, the museum of fine arts tomorrow, and they said we need to have cash for it" - "ok, here you go".- "thanks, mom".
"jimmy, how was museum of fine arts?" - "uhh, I didn't go" - "What did you do with those 5 dollars then?" - "I bought candy" - "Oh well that's ok then, because you lied to my face"
|
It's based in reality.
You don't realize why the first Supeona was rejected do you?
It had zero to do with them searching for failoverflow.
And EVERYTHING to do with the Supeona's being too broad.
It was ruled that "by supeonaing that information, too many innocent people would be hurt."
It had nothing to do with the Failoverflow people.
Aside from which. They'll use that info in this case as well.
|
Kasz, I know what you're saying. I understand.
In this subpeona, EFF also contested it by saying it was overly broad evidence.
You're implying that the subpeona was overly broad in what they could do with the information, but that is not the case. It was overly broad in the extent of the information. As in, they were searching for failoverflow but the subpoenas would return too many people/ implicate too many people who weren't part of failoverflow. This relates to my point that they can't go after people other than failoverflow/they cannot do anything else with the information.
This is exactly what your writer comments on in your link; dolphins with the tuna.
But there won't be any dolphins because they aren't looking for the tuna. They are going after Geohotz.
If we are going to have to agree to disagree, then that is fine.
We will see what happens.
I firmly believe that they aren't going to go after anyone that downloaded the hack or watched youtube etc etc, unless they file and are approved for a new subpeona.
|
