Judge Awards Sony With Visitor IDs of PS3 Hacker's Website

[Raesvelg]

Then by watching the news I've become involved in the fighting in Libya? The attempted murder in Dublin? Every sporting event I wasn't really paying attention to? There is a point at which contact is so far removed and passive that it's irrelevant. How many of those people didn't watch the video all the way through? Will this result in a simple check or a witch hunt into the consumer base? It's a grey area, sure, but it's being treated as black and white. Even the slightest knowledge of the thing is potentially damning and that kind of thinking is very dangerous. Will even saying the name "GeoHot" make me a key player in this?

If magically nearly everyone else who watched/read the event died/forgot, and you were one of a relatively modest number of people capable of giving witness testimony, then yes, you should expect a subpoena to appear in court.

The relevance here is that the system allows the ability to compel people with necessary information to release that information on command, assuming that the person requesting that information can prove that it is necessary in some fashion.

In the case of the accident witness, despite his noninvolvement, his testimony can be compelled because he is a witness.

In this particular case, Sony can compel the release of geographical location of GeoHot's site visitors in order to prove jurisdiction.

 

[Raesvelg]

OT: Wow, just wow. Sony really needs to calm the hell down. I wonder what they're going to do if it shows that the majority of downloads came from a country that's not the US?

I expect, all things considered, that Sony will be using the information they're gathering to present their case in terms of absolute numbers, not relative percentages.

i.e., "Your Honor, 130,000 residents of California have accessed this information, thus proving that California is an appropriate venue for this trial", rather than "Your Honor, 3% of the people accessing this information live in California, thus proving that we're gaming the system to try and get a better outcome for ourselves."

Which is, of course, what's happening.

 

[Taunta]

I don't know about you guys, but as soon as I saw this I went and commented on the video.

Come at me, Sony.

EDIT: It's actually rather sad, I thought about buying a PS3 at some point in the future, but you know what, I don't think I will now.

 

[manythings]

Then by watching the news I've become involved in the fighting in Libya? The attempted murder in Dublin? Every sporting event I wasn't really paying attention to? There is a point at which contact is so far removed and passive that it's irrelevant. How many of those people didn't watch the video all the way through? Will this result in a simple check or a witch hunt into the consumer base? It's a grey area, sure, but it's being treated as black and white. Even the slightest knowledge of the thing is potentially damning and that kind of thinking is very dangerous. Will even saying the name "GeoHot" make me a key player in this?

If magically nearly everyone else who watched/read the event died/forgot, and you were one of a relatively modest number of people capable of giving witness testimony, then yes, you should expect a subpoena to appear in court.

The relevance here is that the system allows the ability to compel people with necessary information to release that information on command, assuming that the person requesting that information can prove that it is necessary in some fashion.

In the case of the accident witness, despite his noninvolvement, his testimony can be compelled because he is a witness.

In this particular case, Sony can compel the release of geographical location of GeoHot's site visitors in order to prove jurisdiction.

That still seems really thin. I have my doubts that it will actually pan out as useful information and it begs the question what happens to all that personal information at the end of it all.

 

[JDKJ]

You know parts of the subpoenas may well be illegal as per U.S. law. There is alot more involved here than people realize. If Sony retains the data during this legal process and it gets compromised what then? They don't even need all of this data to prove their argument that the case should be heard in that part of the country. People should read the letter from the EFF lawyer. Why should people who did not agree to sony's TOS have their information exposed when that information is really not required to prove this argument? Why are they asking for records of who downloaded things from his blog beyond the jailbreak file? Your browser downloads an entire page every time you go somewhere. Asking for a record of all the downloads is stupid when you only need to look at jailbreak downloads if at all. Why do they need the text of comments posted to his private video? Remember this is a civil lawsuit not a criminal proceeding. The request for the text of comments may be forbidden under current U.S. law as it is.

If all you claim is true, then I'm sure the recipients of Sony's subpoenas will raise all your points in their motion to quash the subpoenas. If you're correct, then the subpoenas will be quashed. If you're wrong, then the information will have to be produced. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you're wrong.

And if you are going to claim that U.S. law forbids a particular outcome, it helps to actually provide a usable citation to that law. Doing so bears the potential of actually supporting your position. Without citation to the law you claim supports your position, it can appear as if you're merely relying on non-existent law for your own convenience.

And, FYI, there are thousands of civil lawsuits underway every day in the U.S. that involve the potential risk of having sensitive information obtained as part of the discovery process inadvertently -- or advertently -- compromised. The usually employed remedy is to require the receiving party to agree to a non-disclosure stipulation. If the terms of that non-disclosure agreement are subsequently breached, then any party injured by that breach has legal recourse against the breaching party (or, to put it in layman terms, they can sue the shit outta somebody). But the mere fact that the information is sensitive in nature and may be somehow comprised by the party who receives it isn't usually any reason not to have the information produced.

And I'm not clear on why you're drawing a distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. The ability to seek discovery is actually greater in civil cases than it is in criminal cases. There's actually a requirement in criminal proceedings that any potential evidence in the possession of the prosecution and which would tend to exculpate the defendant must be automatically turned over to the defendant. Failing to do so is a violation of due process. (See Brady v. Maryland, establishing the so-called "Brady Rule"). There's also a prohibition against forcing criminal defendants to provide information which would tend to self-incriminate (this is why a criminal defendant can never be forced to attend their own deposition or to testify at trial) (See the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and related court opinions). No such equivalent requirement or prohibition exists in civil proceedings. If civil litigants are in need of information which would tend to prove or disprove relevant facts, they're entirely on their own in obtaining that information. And, therefore, the civil discovery rules tend to liberally grant broad abilities to go off in search of relevant information.

Didn't I say to look at the letter from the EFF lawyer? Take a look at the cases she cited. Also see here:http://www.eff.org/cases/apple-v-does and here:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002702----000-.html

Individuals who had their info exposed could move to quash the subpoenas independently of Holtz and his lawyers.

Jailbreaking an iPhone was found not to further piracy, and therefore not violative of the DMCA, under the related and particular set of factual circumstances. That does not necessarily mean that jailbreaking a PS3 under an entirely different set of factual circumstances is also not a violation of the DMCA. An apple plus an orange does not equal two apples. And, because the DMCA makes it illegal to "traffic" or "share" information or any part thereof that would enable circumvention for the purpose of copyright infringement and that Hotz did indeed traffic in or share such information is part of Sony's allegations against him and are allegations necessary to prevail on their case, then proving Hotz' distribution of the information is part of Sony's burden of proof. And allows them to obtain a subpoena with which they can go off in search of that proof.

You're making excuses. If the mere potential for pirracy was a valid argument, you could be jailed for owning a CD/DVD burner. The notion that a jailbreak could further lead to piracy when not part of the design or advertised intent is ridiculous and pointless apologetics in defense of a company hoping to bully the opposition.

By the logic of some of these companies we should ban the teaching of physics since that knowledge could be used to make bombs. The jailbreak that he created clearly is not only useful for piracy. It is suitable for running custom software on the device that has nothing to do with copyright infringement. I really wish the EFF had not omitted game consoles when they got their exemption for things like cellphones with respect to jailbreaking.

I was gonna look at the EFF's attorney's letter until I realize the the issuing magistrate already did and had apparently decided that it wasn't a saying a thing to convince him that Sony shouldn't be granted the requested subpoenas. I'm not sure why you're latching on to that big, unconvincing bucket of fail, but suit yourself.

And, as I read the DMCA, and the part that clearly says:

"No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that?
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title"

I take the phrases "primarily designed or produced for the purpose" and "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than" to mean that considering the "potential" for piracy is absolutely a necessary part of the required legal analysis. Under Subpart (A), one need consider all reasonable purposes and then determine if piracy is the primary purpose. Similarly, in Subpart B, one need consider all commercially significant purposes and determine if there are any commercially reasonable purposes served by the circumvention beyond that of mere piracy. The relevant part of DMCA is intended to prevent piracy of material copyrighted under the Copyright Act. Piracy lies at the center of that part of DMCA.

And that's not being an apologist. That's what I called being a legal analyst.

And why would anyone move to quash after the information has be "exposed." The objective behind moving to quash is to prevent the exposure. Trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted down the road doesn't anyone much good and is a futile effort. In fact, it's called "a moot point" in law.

 

[Raesvelg]

That still seems really thin. I have my doubts that it will actually pan out as useful information and it begs the question what happens to all that personal information at the end of it all.

There is potential for that sort of conflict, aye, but there are also legal measures in place to prevent someone from abusing information they gain in this sort of evidentiary finding. As for whether or not it's going to be useful, I think we can safely assume that of the hundreds of thousands of people who accessed the site, a reasonable percentage of them lived in California. Sony will probably manage to get the evidence they need to settle the jurisdictional issue, and the case will proceed in California, rather than persisting in limbo.

It's also worth noting that Sony already tried to subpoena for the specific identities of other members of the fail0verflow team, and were denied.

 

[JDKJ]

That still seems really thin. I have my doubts that it will actually pan out as useful information and it begs the question what happens to all that personal information at the end of it all.

There is potential for that sort of conflict, aye, but there are also legal measures in place to prevent someone from abusing information they gain in this sort of evidentiary finding. As for whether or not it's going to be useful, I think we can safely assume that of the hundreds of thousands of people who accessed the site, a reasonable percentage of them lived in California. Sony will probably manage to get the evidence they need to settle the jurisdictional issue, and the case will proceed in California, rather than persisting in limbo.

It's also worth noting that Sony already tried to subpoena for the specific identities of other members of the fail0verflow team, and were denied.

The need for discovery goes to both the jurisdiction issue and the distribution issue (distribution of the crack file being a core issue in the Hotz case).

 

[shadow skill]

Yes, yes this magistrate did issue the subpoena, but it's not as if these things have not been vacated by other judges. In fact the lower court judge said that following Sony's logic the entire universe would be under her jurisdiction. There is pretty much no doubt that people within this magistrate's jurisdiction accessed his blog or followed him on twitter. That goes without saying. The problem is that the nature of the technology itself makes it such that it is logically impossible to demarcate jurisdiction because access is available to a huge portion of the earth.

It's the kind of stupidity that allows obscenity laws in one state to apply to servers based in another state where the owner would otherwise not be subject to the laws of the other state. Yes judges have actually ruled this way, yes it is nonsensical because now the obscenity laws of different states apply to people and content not located within their borders. Holtz lives in New Jersey presumably much of his content originates geographically from New Jersey. How is it then that he should be the one to make the trip to California? Because the server happens to be located in that state? Really? That is the major justification? Does that then mean that non Americans are subject to California state law since they technically entered California through the internet?

The movement to quash after the release speaks directly to the problem of issuing notification to non parties to the lawsuit. If they [Those named in the subpoena.] were to turn over the data before having notified and given relevant third parties time to respond the whole thing would break. I would imagine that the companies would not turn over the data until two weeks or so had passed so that affected parties would have the opportunity to respond.

Sony is pretty much hoping no one notices.

 

[Ice Car]

Luckily I never watched those guy's videos, visited his site, looked at his Twitter account, etc.

I'm safe. But I find this quite inappropriate. Demanding the location info and other personal information for someone commenting on a video that obviously is not a hacker, is idiotic, and I hope this doesn't get allowed/this shouldn't have been allowed.

 

[JDKJ]

Yes, yes this magistrate did issue the subpoena, but it's not as if these things have not been vacated by other judges. In fact the lower court judge said that following Sony's logic the entire universe would be under her jurisdiction. There is pretty much no doubt that people within this magistrate's jurisdiction accessed his blog or followed him on twitter. That goes without saying. The problem is that the nature of the technology itself makes it such that it is logically impossible to demarcate jurisdiction because access is available to a huge portion of the earth.

It's the kind of stupidity that allows obscenity laws in one state to apply to servers based in another state where the owner would otherwise not be subject to the laws of the other state. Yes judges have actually ruled this way, yes it is nonsensical because now the obscenity laws of different states apply to people and content not located within their borders. Holtz lives in New Jersey presumably much of his content originates geographically from New Jersey. How is it then that he should be the one to make the trip to California? Because the server happens to be located in that state? Really? That is the major justification? Does that then mean that non Americans are subject to California state law since they technically entered California through the internet?

She said that before she ruled that the case could proceed before her. That would also be before she said that by publishing his crack file in the State of California and potentially causing injury to Sony in California, Hotz, in so doing, subjected himself to the jurisdiction of California courts. And she's not "the lower court judge." She's the judge who continues to preside over the case.

If I sit in New York and publish defamatory statements about you on the internet where they can be read by someone in Alabama, you bet your house that an Alabama court can properly exercise jurisdiction over my libel suit against you. Alabama is one of the places where you have potentially caused harm to my reputation. A place of injury is always a legitimate place to bring suit. Yes, "a non-American" (I assume you mean a non-resident of the United States) is subject to the jurisdiction of a State's court for injuries they allegedly cause within that State. (See the International Shoe and Worldwide Volkswagen cases.) It's what's called "purposeful availment" in the law. The justification being that you directed your activities towards the State and, in so doing, should have been aware that you could be requested to appear in that State to defend yourself against allegations of injury resulting from your activities.

 

[shadow skill]

Yes, yes this magistrate did issue the subpoena, but it's not as if these things have not been vacated by other judges. In fact the lower court judge said that following Sony's logic the entire universe would be under her jurisdiction. There is pretty much no doubt that people within this magistrate's jurisdiction accessed his blog or followed him on twitter. That goes without saying. The problem is that the nature of the technology itself makes it such that it is logically impossible to demarcate jurisdiction because access is available to a huge portion of the earth.

It's the kind of stupidity that allows obscenity laws in one state to apply to servers based in another state where the owner would otherwise not be subject to the laws of the other state. Yes judges have actually ruled this way, yes it is nonsensical because now the obscenity laws of different states apply to people and content not located within their borders. Holtz lives in New Jersey presumably much of his content originates geographically from New Jersey. How is it then that he should be the one to make the trip to California? Because the server happens to be located in that state? Really? That is the major justification? Does that then mean that non Americans are subject to California state law since they technically entered California through the internet?

She said that before she ruled that the case could proceed before her. That would also be before she said that by publishing his crack file in the State of California and potentially causing injury to Sony in California, Hotz, in so doing, subjected himself to the jurisdiction of California courts.

If I sit in New York and publish defamatory statements about you on the internet where they can be read by some in Alabama, you bet your house that an Alabama court can properly exercise jurisdiction over my libel suit against you. Alabama is one of the places where you have potentially caused harm to my reputation. A place of injury is always a legitimate place to bring suit.

You are right, but in that instance you would be a direct party to the lawsuit, you wouldn't be someone entirely unrelated to the suit. Requests for discovery of Doe's are granted all the time, they are also denied all the time even when the Doe is the one being targeted. The problem is that they are trying to use the location data to prove that the california court has jurisdiction as opposed to the court in New Jersey because of the server locations which makes no sense because the entire planet could easily claim jurisdiction let alone any of the other forty-nine states. What would be the threshold to even decide that one place had more jurisdiction than another? Because unless there is some way to tell that one place has more jurisdiction than another through the traffic to the site everywhere would have equal jurisdiction. At that point I would suggest picking some neutral area to hear the case.

 

[JDKJ]

Yes, yes this magistrate did issue the subpoena, but it's not as if these things have not been vacated by other judges. In fact the lower court judge said that following Sony's logic the entire universe would be under her jurisdiction. There is pretty much no doubt that people within this magistrate's jurisdiction accessed his blog or followed him on twitter. That goes without saying. The problem is that the nature of the technology itself makes it such that it is logically impossible to demarcate jurisdiction because access is available to a huge portion of the earth.

It's the kind of stupidity that allows obscenity laws in one state to apply to servers based in another state where the owner would otherwise not be subject to the laws of the other state. Yes judges have actually ruled this way, yes it is nonsensical because now the obscenity laws of different states apply to people and content not located within their borders. Holtz lives in New Jersey presumably much of his content originates geographically from New Jersey. How is it then that he should be the one to make the trip to California? Because the server happens to be located in that state? Really? That is the major justification? Does that then mean that non Americans are subject to California state law since they technically entered California through the internet?

She said that before she ruled that the case could proceed before her. That would also be before she said that by publishing his crack file in the State of California and potentially causing injury to Sony in California, Hotz, in so doing, subjected himself to the jurisdiction of California courts.

If I sit in New York and publish defamatory statements about you on the internet where they can be read by some in Alabama, you bet your house that an Alabama court can properly exercise jurisdiction over my libel suit against you. Alabama is one of the places where you have potentially caused harm to my reputation. A place of injury is always a legitimate place to bring suit.

You are right, but in that instance you would be a direct party to the lawsuit, you wouldn't be someone entirely unrelated to the suit. Requests for discovery of Doe's are granted all the time, they are also denied all the time even when the Doe is the one being targeted. The problem is that they are trying to use the location data to prove that the california court has jurisdiction as opposed to the court in New Jersey because of the server locations which makes no sense because the entire planet could easily claim jurisdiction let alone any of the other forty-nine states. What would be the threshold to even decide that one place had more jurisdiction than another? Because unless there is some way to tell that one place has more jurisdiction than another through the traffic to the site everywhere would have equal jurisdiction. At that point I would suggest picking some neutral area to hear the case.

First off, there aren't any "Does." Doe is used to describe someone who's real name and identity is unknown. The subject's of Sony's subpoenas are known to all. "Doe" is like a placeholder used when you don't know precisely who you're after but want to reserve your rights against that person and proceed to the point where you have figured out who they are.

Secondly, personal jurisdiction over a defendant isn't an "either or" or "most" proposition. It is entirely possible that multiple jurisdictions could have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. That's what allows a sharp plaintiff attorney to "forum shop" for what they think is the most favorable jurisdiction among many possible jurisdictions. And, yes, while your suggestion of a "neutral ground" would promote fairness, a plaintiff is free to bring their suit wherever they choose, as long as it's a jurisdiction that can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

 

[Torrasque]

What a surprise.
Since they can't prove that he has done anything inherently wrong (legally), they will say that other people have done things wrong because he showed them how.

I'm amazed at this ridiculous breach of personal security that is being casually thrown around.

 

[JDKJ]

What a surprise.
Since they can't prove that he has done anything inherently wrong (legally), they will say that other people have done things wrong because he showed them how.

I'm amazed at this ridiculous breach of personal security that is being casually thrown around.

Nice job, guy. I've been sitting here reading a number of attempts to twist what's actually happening into a pretzel and your attempt is by far the one which has produced the most pretzel-like result.

 

[Torrasque]

What a surprise.
Since they can't prove that he has done anything inherently wrong (legally), they will say that other people have done things wrong because he showed them how.

I'm amazed at this ridiculous breach of personal security that is being casually thrown around.

Nice job, guy. I've been sitting here reading a number of attempts to twist what's actually happening into a pretzel and your attempt is by far the one which has produced the most pretzel-like result.

lol, I blame watching Unknown.
That great movie has opened my mind to think about secondary and tertiary motives and goals that an individual or group can have.
And kinda Bulletstorm as well. I love aiming at one enemy with my sniper rifle, and hitting another when the bullet slows down.

Besides, all Sony can gain from taking down this guy, is flexing their strength and saying "don't fuck with us"
By taking on this "secondary" objective for the sake of taking down this guy, they can dip into the personal lives of everyone that visited his site.
lol if this case is put on hold while Sony goes through the (probable) millions of people that visited his site and watched his videos (and other stuff they magically get access to)

 

[shadow skill]

Yes, yes this magistrate did issue the subpoena, but it's not as if these things have not been vacated by other judges. In fact the lower court judge said that following Sony's logic the entire universe would be under her jurisdiction. There is pretty much no doubt that people within this magistrate's jurisdiction accessed his blog or followed him on twitter. That goes without saying. The problem is that the nature of the technology itself makes it such that it is logically impossible to demarcate jurisdiction because access is available to a huge portion of the earth.

It's the kind of stupidity that allows obscenity laws in one state to apply to servers based in another state where the owner would otherwise not be subject to the laws of the other state. Yes judges have actually ruled this way, yes it is nonsensical because now the obscenity laws of different states apply to people and content not located within their borders. Holtz lives in New Jersey presumably much of his content originates geographically from New Jersey. How is it then that he should be the one to make the trip to California? Because the server happens to be located in that state? Really? That is the major justification? Does that then mean that non Americans are subject to California state law since they technically entered California through the internet?

She said that before she ruled that the case could proceed before her. That would also be before she said that by publishing his crack file in the State of California and potentially causing injury to Sony in California, Hotz, in so doing, subjected himself to the jurisdiction of California courts.

If I sit in New York and publish defamatory statements about you on the internet where they can be read by some in Alabama, you bet your house that an Alabama court can properly exercise jurisdiction over my libel suit against you. Alabama is one of the places where you have potentially caused harm to my reputation. A place of injury is always a legitimate place to bring suit.

You are right, but in that instance you would be a direct party to the lawsuit, you wouldn't be someone entirely unrelated to the suit. Requests for discovery of Doe's are granted all the time, they are also denied all the time even when the Doe is the one being targeted. The problem is that they are trying to use the location data to prove that the california court has jurisdiction as opposed to the court in New Jersey because of the server locations which makes no sense because the entire planet could easily claim jurisdiction let alone any of the other forty-nine states. What would be the threshold to even decide that one place had more jurisdiction than another? Because unless there is some way to tell that one place has more jurisdiction than another through the traffic to the site everywhere would have equal jurisdiction. At that point I would suggest picking some neutral area to hear the case.

First off, there aren't any "Does." Doe is used to describe someone who's real name and identity is unknown. The subject's of Sony's subpoenas are known to all. "Doe" is like a placeholder used when you don't know precisely who you're after but want to reserve your rights against that person and proceed to the point where you have figured out who they are.

Secondly, personal jurisdiction over a defendant isn't an "either or" or "most" proposition. It is entirely possible that multiple jurisdictions could have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. That's what allows a sharp plaintiff attorney to "forum shop" for what they think is the most favorable jurisdiction among many possible jurisdictions. And, yes, while your suggestion of a "neutral ground" would promote fairness, a plaintiff is free to bring their suit wherever they choose, as long as it's a jurisdiction that can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The defendant is George Holtz, he is the target of the lawsuit. The people with identifying information that may be pulled because of these subpoenas are not parties to the lawsuit yet they may still have their information exposed without their consent or the possibility to consent. While multiple jurisdictions may be able to claim a defendant it doesn't make sense to even need to prove that the case should be tried in california unless you had to show some kind of number of people or traffic indicators. Otherwise the judge could just rule in Sony's favor since everybody knows there is at least one person from that jurisdiction that visited the site. There wouldn't be a point to the subpoenas with respect to making a determination of where the case should be heard. The only other logical reason would be to prove that he was distributing the jailbreak. Even then you still do not need personally identifying data for that purpose, the IP address logs would suffice assuming records of individual file downloads are kept.

 

[Illyasviel]

All you people, except JDKJ and a very, very tiny number of other posters in this thread, need to stop being so damn melodramatic and take a spade for a spade instead of trying to completely blow everything out of proportion.

I know this type of appeal to emotion, not logic, tactic is among the most common, especially since a lot of automatically root for the underdog, but really, really, really consider all things equally before you post your "expertise."

Or at least get mad at something that warrants getting mad at instead of one organization following the law down to the very letter and punctuation mark in a completely legal and just manner. I don't know if this is stemming from your hysteria clouding your better judgment or the education system failing to properly educate people in how the judicial system works.

 

[JDKJ]

Yes, yes this magistrate did issue the subpoena, but it's not as if these things have not been vacated by other judges. In fact the lower court judge said that following Sony's logic the entire universe would be under her jurisdiction. There is pretty much no doubt that people within this magistrate's jurisdiction accessed his blog or followed him on twitter. That goes without saying. The problem is that the nature of the technology itself makes it such that it is logically impossible to demarcate jurisdiction because access is available to a huge portion of the earth.

It's the kind of stupidity that allows obscenity laws in one state to apply to servers based in another state where the owner would otherwise not be subject to the laws of the other state. Yes judges have actually ruled this way, yes it is nonsensical because now the obscenity laws of different states apply to people and content not located within their borders. Holtz lives in New Jersey presumably much of his content originates geographically from New Jersey. How is it then that he should be the one to make the trip to California? Because the server happens to be located in that state? Really? That is the major justification? Does that then mean that non Americans are subject to California state law since they technically entered California through the internet?

She said that before she ruled that the case could proceed before her. That would also be before she said that by publishing his crack file in the State of California and potentially causing injury to Sony in California, Hotz, in so doing, subjected himself to the jurisdiction of California courts.

If I sit in New York and publish defamatory statements about you on the internet where they can be read by some in Alabama, you bet your house that an Alabama court can properly exercise jurisdiction over my libel suit against you. Alabama is one of the places where you have potentially caused harm to my reputation. A place of injury is always a legitimate place to bring suit.

You are right, but in that instance you would be a direct party to the lawsuit, you wouldn't be someone entirely unrelated to the suit. Requests for discovery of Doe's are granted all the time, they are also denied all the time even when the Doe is the one being targeted. The problem is that they are trying to use the location data to prove that the california court has jurisdiction as opposed to the court in New Jersey because of the server locations which makes no sense because the entire planet could easily claim jurisdiction let alone any of the other forty-nine states. What would be the threshold to even decide that one place had more jurisdiction than another? Because unless there is some way to tell that one place has more jurisdiction than another through the traffic to the site everywhere would have equal jurisdiction. At that point I would suggest picking some neutral area to hear the case.

First off, there aren't any "Does." Doe is used to describe someone who's real name and identity is unknown. The subject's of Sony's subpoenas are known to all. "Doe" is like a placeholder used when you don't know precisely who you're after but want to reserve your rights against that person and proceed to the point where you have figured out who they are.

Secondly, personal jurisdiction over a defendant isn't an "either or" or "most" proposition. It is entirely possible that multiple jurisdictions could have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. That's what allows a sharp plaintiff attorney to "forum shop" for what they think is the most favorable jurisdiction among many possible jurisdictions. And, yes, while your suggestion of a "neutral ground" would promote fairness, a plaintiff is free to bring their suit wherever they choose, as long as it's a jurisdiction that can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The defendant is George Holtz, he is the target of the lawsuit. The people with identifying information that may be pulled because of these subpoenas are not parties to the lawsuit yet they may still have their information exposed without their consent or the possibility to consent. While multiple jurisdictions may be able to claim a defendant it doesn't make sense to even need to prove that the case should be tried in california unless you had to show some kind of number of people or traffic indicators. Otherwise the judge could just rule in Sony's favor since everybody knows there is at least one person from that jurisdiction that visited the site. There wouldn't be a point to the subpoenas with respect to making a determination of where the case should be heard. The only other logical reason would be to prove that he was distributing the jailbreak. Even then you still do not need personally identifying data for that purpose, the IP address logs would suffice assuming records of individual file downloads are kept.

Yes, that is, I suspect, why, in part, the magistrate granted the subpoena: because distribution is a core issue in the case. But bear in mind that the Google subpoena is but one of many internet sites from which Sony seeks discovery and that "shotgun approach" probably has more than a little to do with their theory of the case that Hotz was trafficking in circumvention technology. Those internet sites aren't without some relationship to each other and the personal identifying information goes to understanding that relationship. For example, if all Sony gets from Google is IP address logs, how can they then use that information to meaningfully compare those visitors to the visitors to the PayPal site (where it is entirely possible that money was exchanged for the circumvention information)? They can't. They may get lucky and pick up those who visited both sites from the same IP address. But what about the cases where the same visitor used one IP address to visit the Google site and another IP address to visit the PayPal site? Sony would never be able to determine that the same visitor used two different IP addresses if all they have is the IP address. They'll need something more. Sony's entitled to as much information as is needed to reasonably make head and tails of what exactly occurred.

 

[JDKJ]

What a surprise.
Since they can't prove that he has done anything inherently wrong (legally), they will say that other people have done things wrong because he showed them how.

I'm amazed at this ridiculous breach of personal security that is being casually thrown around.

Nice job, guy. I've been sitting here reading a number of attempts to twist what's actually happening into a pretzel and your attempt is by far the one which has produced the most pretzel-like result.

lol, I blame watching Unknown.
That great movie has opened my mind to think about secondary and tertiary motives and goals that an individual or group can have.
And kinda Bulletstorm as well. I love aiming at one enemy with my sniper rifle, and hitting another when the bullet slows down.

Besides, all Sony can gain from taking down this guy, is flexing their strength and saying "don't fuck with us"
By taking on this "secondary" objective for the sake of taking down this guy, they can dip into the personal lives of everyone that visited his site.
lol if this case is put on hold while Sony goes through the (probable) millions of people that visited his site and watched his videos (and other stuff they magically get access to)

Ya gotta admit that if Sony's objective is to scare the crap outta kids and make them think three times before they publish PS3 crack files to the internet, they're doing a pretty good job of that.

 

[JDKJ]

All you people, except JDKJ and a very, very tiny number of other posters in this thread, need to stop being so damn melodramatic and take a spade for a spade instead of trying to completely blow everything out of proportion.

I know this type of appeal to emotion, not logic, tactic is among the most common, especially since a lot of automatically root for the underdog, but really, really, really consider all things equally before you post your "expertise."

Or at least get mad at something that warrants getting mad at instead of one organization following the law down to the very letter and punctuation mark in a completely legal and just manner. I don't know if this is stemming from your hysteria clouding your better judgment or the education system failing to properly educate people in how the judicial system works.

Or could it be the spin that the Escapist has been putting on all the Hotz articles and their failure to present the matter in anything near resembling a fair, balanced, informative, and objective way?

I can't really blame the Escapist, though. If you're older than 16 years and haven't yet figured out how to read between the lines and pick the sense outta the nonsense, that's your own fault.