Re: Mac address & hostname automatic randomizer freeware for Windows|
|
|
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||
|
Posted by jhailey@hotmail.com on December 23, 2008, 12:10 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Hi John, I'm trying not to get strung OT here as my two questions remain! I do appreciate your help as you know more than I do, but I must correct your OT statement above. I provided two cases, not one. Both back up my claim that you requested even though it was off topic to do so. The two cases I proved you a link to were a. Priority Records LLC et al v. Candy Chan (Michigan) b. Capitol Record v. Deborah Foster (Oklahoma) In both cases I quoted, the RIAA lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, which means the original defendants could recover all attorney's fees, due to the fact the ISP only knew the owner of record, not the person accused of copyright infringement. I strongly suspect the RIAA dropped suing individuals this week because 1. In the US, the Constitution says you have to identify the culprit 2. Copyright law requires someone unauthorized download your upload 3. Worldwide privacy blocklists were becoming more and more effective 4. Current penalties are likely unconstitutionally large anyway 5. In some US states, the RIAA needed a PI license (they don't have) But all but the first on that list is off topic. We're talking identification here. Identification of a specific piece of equipment. This is a technical newsgroup. Not a legal newsgroup. Let's get back to the technical question please. Assuming the MAC address is one of the pieces that affect privacy, just as a credit card or a telephone number is a datapoint that impacts your Internet privacy, the technical questions remain ..... TECHNICAL QUESTIONS REMAINS: 1. Does ANYONE know of freeware that randomizes ROUTER hostname & MAC? 2. Does anyone know if the ROUTER hostname is stored in the ISP logs? | ||||||||||
|
Posted by John Navas on December 23, 2008, 12:24 pm
Please log in for more thread options >On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:01:09 -0800, John Navas wrote:
> >> Only one case backed up your claim that "these cases have been thrown
>> out of court" >
>I'm trying not to get strung OT here as my two questions remain! > >I do appreciate your help as you know more than I do, but I must correct >your OT statement above. I provided two cases, not one. Both back up my >claim that you requested even though it was off topic to do so. I disagree, have already stated why, don't want to keep beating it to death, don't want to continue off topic, and won't help more now that I've come to the conclusion that this isn't for a legitimate purpose. -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us>
John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes> | ||||||||||
|
Posted by on December 25, 2008, 6:42 pm
Please log in for more thread options
jhailey@hotmail.com wrote: >In both cases I quoted, the RIAA lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice,
>which means the original defendants could recover all attorney's fees, Who told you that "dismissed with prejudice" means that? | ||||||||||
|
Home Cabling GuideFinally, an instantly downloadable book that saves you thousands in home improvement dollars! Enjoy living in 21st century technology-advanced home while increasing its selling value and competitive advantage on the real estate market. Whether your cabling is for home office or high-tech leisure, you can wire your home yourself or learn "wirish" to speak with your cabling contractors in their language! Learn More |
> out of court"