Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Too bad that only the government is prohibited by this. I can think of some 4 letter groups that are guilty of this.

Issue: doesn't the subpoena process implicate the fourth amendment?

I don't see the words "from the government" in here.

However, the govenment has deputized copyright holders with the powers of a judge. As such, it IS the RIAA using powers bestowed from the government.

Since papers are specifically mentioned, and if we can say files are electronic paper...

Searching those papers BEFORE the subpeona would seem to be a violation...

"against unreasonable searches and seizures"

One thought tho, is running a search in Kazaa and downloading a file to check if it's your's unreasonable?

aaron29, I don't know if you can say that the government has deputized copyright holders with the powers of a judge, because, when you say that, you imply ALL powers of a judge, and I cannot agree even the DMCA does that, but I understand your statement totally in the practical application, and in that sense, you are right, that the clerk of the court rubberstamps the subpoena as if the judge had ordered it.

There should be a law that a subpoena can ONLY be issued pursuant to a review by a judge of competent jurisdiction, and upon his or her signature, and only in cases where a lawsuit has been filed, and the subpoena is part of the discovery process, and thus, ruled by the discovery plan filed with the court.

I don't know about federal courts, but in lower courts here in texas, you are supposed to have a discovery schedule/plan filed, which designates which level of discovery you are operating under (levels mainly determined by the amount sued for).

There should be NO case in which someone off the street, can just say that he or she has a "suspicion" or good reason to believe something without an offer of proof, and can demand a clerk of the court issue a subpoena. This is an invitation to abuse.

Also:

Copyright is a government granted monopoly. That might be enough.

leflaw, how does this "settle or we sue"
differ from extortion. to me, it is making a threat of negative acts in exchange for money not to perform those acts

or how does it differ from blackmailing?

Do the threatened acts have to be illegal in nature? or extralegal.

Your preaching to the choir. See Curley v. Cumberland farms. In that case, many of the plaintiff class that settled for 10 million dollars were guilty of shoplifting. So what. You can only extort guilty people, or making them believe they were guilty of something.

I thought that extortion would also be something like this. Joe Blow has a daughter. He's rich. He receives a demand from the Bizarro Simbionese Army(lo... the BSA) that if he does not give them a million dollars, they will kidnap or kill his daughter. Neither he nor his daugher are guilty of anything, wouldn't that be an attempt at extortion?
thanks, respectfully,
bulk

Speaking of being secure in my house

Is 30 of these in 5 seconds really necessary?
Connection Rejected: 63.241.23.77 - FBI.GOV-MP3.COM (10-18-2003 @ 08:56:36)
Connection Rejected: 63.241.23.77 - FBI.GOV-MP3.COM (10-18-2003 @ 08:56:3

I don't even use P2P. This morning I downloaded WinMX. I had a legit purpose for logging on. But nevermind.

I'm not secure in my own house. FBI.GOV-MP3.com. FBI @ MP3.com?

I wonder who is paying off the FBI.

My God!!!

Maybe I should shut off all electronics and go hide in a closet.

That wasn't all of it.

Recounting, it was much more than 30.

It was approx. 130 scans in 13 seconds.

go to eprivacysoft.com and get blackcatmp3 program...like peerguardian, but blocks scans for MP3s

Thank you bulk.

I appreciate it.

I'm not entirely sure what the FBI's job is defined as. But I have a feeling that there is no clause that says "Scan joe at 9am for absolutely no reason, other than the fact that he kicks ass and blocks the fbi." eh..

Thank you bulk.

I don't want to start an off topic thing here,

but after my scans I thoroughly cleansed my computer, including spyware, etc. It was clean. After i started blackcatmp3, I scanned again and found two browser hijackers. I thought maybe they were part of blackcat's functionality. Eitherway, they are gone. I'm just looking for input if you have any. Thanks.

Yeah the RIAA is violating the fourth, so we should tar and feather them and haing them for display off of the ledge of the statue of liberty.

the RIAA searching for songs made publically available by p2p users IS NOT in violation of 4th amendment rights.

However, using subpoenas without judges' signatures in an attempt to amass names, addresses, phone numbers etc....is a clear violation of my rights.

How is this "reasonable"

TheSherminator i use peerguardian and do not have any other p2p installed on my putter. and i gets this and others all the times sometimes it a hundred hits in min. i also get the fbi one too. but peerguardian blocks them all including the riaa mpaa
: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.105 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.105 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.105 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.105 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:40)
Rejected: 216.35.71.105 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:41)
Rejected: 216.35.71.105 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:41)
Rejected: 216.35.71.105 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:41)
Rejected: 216.35.71.105 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:41)
Rejected: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:41)
Rejected: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:41)
Rejected: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:41)
Rejected: 216.35.71.120 - Overpeer ( see comments) (10-13-2003 @ 23:50:41)

sorry for being off topic

Cool, thanks hawk.

reedom

port scanning is not illegal
access to your computer without your authorization is. makes you wonder what would happen without a firewall

Port scanning, in face in many cases IS illegal.
Read your ISPs Terms of Use.
The fbi randomly scanning is grounds to get me thrown off my ISP...
possibly sued.
but nothing this day and age surprises me anymore.
Anyway bulk, not arguing, just pointing out. In theory you are right, in practice, it aint so.

~time flies~

So can we scan the FBI?

If it's not illegal, we can.
If it is, but they do it, so can we, eh?

I'm aware that no harm was done. But that doesn't change the fact that I block a max of 10 connections per day. Log onto WinMX for 100% legit reasons and the FBI scans me 130+ times in 13 seconds. I'm pissed about it.

maybe someone can answer a question i have about peerguadian v1.98 i downloaded it ,start it , minimize it and i cant get it to come back up from the minimised state. i run certain programs alot that would seem to make me a target and nothing has ever been blocked . i have a router and a free version of zonealarm . am i doing something wrong or just lucky no one has scanned me ?

get 1.99 pr7 i had trouble with that one but right now see if the ranges are block at 672 if there are not uninstall the one you have and install 1.99pr7 it should fix it

burner,

Not totally sure how to help you. But I can tell you that having a router probably helps your case. And Peer guardian never goes on top of my windows. I gotta be on the desktop, and only click it once. If I kept this window open for example, I wouldn't be able to look at it. There might be a setting for that, I never bothered to look.

Also - make sure you download the latest updates (it's in the menu), turn your aggression bar up to 100% (all the way to the right) and make sure you have the boxes to block banned IP's and Connection log clicked.

Although this won't help if you can't even maximize it. hmm.. i helped.

thanks guys think ill start with 1.99 appreciate the input

You guys should see the port scanning that goes on when you go to ebay. doubleclick and big champagn are big port scanners. I have asked ebay several times about this with no answer.

As far as hits from the FBI, the writers of Peergaurdian identified that scanner as FBI, they could have said "Wilbur's suprise". It is probably someone with the RIAAMPAA hardon trying to gather data. Just keep blackcat and Peergaurdian turned on and share turned off.

If you are concerned, go to the peergaurdian forums and question this.

an ISP terms of service agreement is not criminal law, it is civil contract, plain and simple. Port scanning is NOT illegal, since illegal means it violates the law.
What law is violated by scanning ports?
None in the US

Not arguing, but zeitgheist, if you can find me a statute, USC Code, etc. and send me the specifics, I would appreciate it. I have already researched this some time ago. Port scanning, just scanning, is not illegal anymore than it is illegal to ping microsoft.

For those of you geting the FBI.MP3.Com hits, odds are good that's through your own doing. I was getting the same hits, and was quite worried about it, until I figured out that they came from visiting the Mp3.com site.

My job requires me to browse alot of RIAA member sites, and MP3.com is owned by BMG (I think). Therefore, it's blocked in Peer Guardian, and each hit on your log file is a cookie, an image, or whatever.

Not to say they aren't scanning, but once I quit going to their sites, the hits on my log quit.

www.securityfocus.com/news/126
Port scans legal, judge says

Federal court finds that scanning a network doesn't cause damage, or threaten public health and safety.
By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Dec 18 2000 10:05AM

A tiff between two IT contractors that spiraled into federal court ended last month with a U.S. district court ruling in Georgia that port scanning a network does not damage it, under a section of the anti-hacking laws that allows victims of cyber attack to sue an attacker.

Last week both sides agreed not to appeal the decision by judge Thomas Thrash, who found that the value of time spent investigating a port scan can not be considered damage. "The statute clearly states that the damage must be an impairment to the integrity and availability of the network," wrote the judge, who found that a port scan impaired neither.

"It says you can't create your own damages by investigating something that would not otherwise be a crime," says hacker defense attorney Jennifer Granick. "It's a good decision for computer security researchers."

A port scan is a remote probe of the services a computer is running. While it can be a precursor to an intrusion attempt, it does not in itself allow access to a remote system. Port-scanning programs are found in the virtual tool chests of both Internet outlaws and cyber security professionals.

Scott Moulton, president of Network Installation Computer Services (NICS), is still facing criminal charges of attempted computer trespass under Georgia's computer crime laws for port scanning a system owned by a competing contractor.

Apparently, federal law says legal to port scan. But, Georgia apparently has an "attempted trespass" law that you can be charged under.
and from...
cert.uni-stuttgart.de/archive/incidents/2000/12/msg00079.html
the following...
"Moulton v. VC3 interpreted two statutes, Georgia's computer crime
statute and the Federal computer crime statute. Both statutes have a
damage requirement; the court did indeed find that the cost of
investigating port scans did not constitute "damage" under those
statutes. This is not a huge leap in judicial interpretation; the Kansas
Supreme Court in State v. Allen also found that costs of investigation
could not be used to meet the "damages" requirement of the statute.

The precedential value of Moulton v. VC3 is limited to the Georgia and
federal computer crime laws. State statutes that punish "access" or
communication with a computer that exceed authorization _without any
damage requirement whatsoever_ are quite common. They are in the
majority, not the minority. Of the first seven states I looked at,
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, and
Delaware, only Arkansas and Alaska required additional elements beyond
access. I'd guesstimate a similar ratio among the rest of the states.
Most of these statutes are broadly worded, and even a port scan would
probably qualify as "accessing" a computer. Moreover, civil common law
torts, like trespass on chattels (which punishes people who interfere
with other's personal property, like kicking another's dog), can still
be applied (successfully.) The most recent example of this is the eBay
v. Bidder's Edge decision.

The problem with these laws is that they are overexpansive and badly
drafted. Additionally, there's a bootstrapping problem. By the time a
user receives notice from the computer that a particular activity is
unauthorized, that user has already accessed and communicated with the
computer and is, technically, liable.

Many (most?) state computer crime laws technically criminalize any
packets sent to a system connected to the Internet, if they arrive
"without authorization." Many courts are going to balk at interpreting
the statutes that broadly because it would criminalize or assign
liability to even innocent users. Those laws are too broadly worded to
provide predictable legal results. The law still hasn't provided a clear
distinction between network uses that will get you in trouble and those
that won't."

Hey to you all! I have not been here in a while , I have been working long and all hours kind of a job latey. Good to see the boycott is still going! Funny as it may be I'm Listening to" Slauhter - Eye to Eye" And it says it all people! Come on 80's people! Lets kick some ASS now! DON'T BUY SHIT! You know what I'm talking about babe!

I can play some thing for you! It comes from a Les Paul 22 3 22 3 22 3 4 64 64 64 kiss my 22 3 3 22 3 22 3 22 3 22 3 WoW?I'm Jack-t up , think I missed a beat?

It SUCKS , It make's no sence right? Stop f--k-n around with the bullshit ! You people need to VOTE next time ! I don't give a rip if you think it won't count. If you won't stand up as an American ,than who will?The RIAA has to much power people, Do your job and stop them! VOTE!

By the way where's Code? I like his input

P.S. why is there so many wind bag's in here, I'm sick of the long writings of those who think they know what they are talking about. Why don't you run for office if you think it can be done? You know we are all in this together! This is a democracy!

77 port scans from the - FBI.GOV-MP3.COM 63.241.23.77 in two seconds.

I wonder how they would like being port scanned? I would definately like to know on how to accomplish that.

So f--kn what, why would they scan you? Are you a threat to this country? Jesus, what's up? Are you that paranoid? This web site is full of fear filled people that think they are going to go down for being here. Do you have any balls or what ? God, I'm glad to have some Balls! Dude f--k port scans.....

I will add to my last post, F--k the RIAA & the FBI, This is a boggest IP address any who. You can scan all you want dickweed! Those who think they can scan is thinking they are good! I don't think so! Did I say that?

Well , I guess I said it all, An American with some Balls! You people should find some! God help us!

I'm a user who lurks here fairly often. I tried that Black Cat software and I believe that after scanning with Spybot Search & Destroy several times, that Black Cat is itself spyware. As soon as I got rid of it, it stopped finding browser hijackers.

azburner,

Why don't you go back to working long hours and screw off?

If you're referring to bulkeraser as a "long winded person who thinks he knows what he's talking about," well he does.

He's a huge contributor here with a lot of knowledge.

Speaking of long winded: If you post again before screwing off, don't do it 15 times ok? thanks.

formerlurker> Don't be so paranoid, what are they going to do to you?

Theshermiinator> What Did I piss you off or something? As someone who thinks he still has some freedom of speech left... And yes I work a lot of hours!

Thesherminator> Are you that lame that you would spew that kind of anti Americican crap? What? I thought you were for freedom of speech.. All you have to say is go back to work and shut my mouth? Boy ,I'm glad you don't run this country. " NO NO I'LL get it Sherm ,my master, what do you need sir?" Wow, this is not a good thing Sherm. Why don't you shut your pie hole BOY!

It's not hard to keep mine shut when yours won't stop running.

How am I "anti-American" for telling you to stop posting so much? Is it the same way that you are anti-american for telling me to shut my pie hole? Hypocrite.

Wow, I'm glad you don't run this country. What do you need azburner? Anything you want sir. Shut my pie hole? Yessir, even if it means overlooking the blatent double standard you're trying to pass off. You present yourself as patriotic and claim I am anti-American by telling you to shut up, yet your response is for me to "shut my pie hole." And from someone who was for freedom of speech...

Damn, you have a lot to learn about earning respect son. Because all you're getting from me right now is the finger. How does that feel, patriot?

I wish this could take place in the forums, but I just can't contain myself sometimes. Given that, I'm out of here for awhile. This is counter-productive and aggrivating. Feel free to reply anyway with more accusations of being "anti-american," but I won't be back to read.

Why do I get the feeling you're already hammering out another response on your keyboard?

Peace.

I was just at at a sight called United File Sharing Defense Fund.Do you know who they are or what they are about ?I found no names no goal.

Are they legit?

TheSherminator-- thanks man.
I appreciate ya!
-bulkeraser

nfo on who owns that site for gramm
"Registrant Contact:
United File Sharing Defense Fund
Itamar Koblenz (eatamar@aol.com)
5182215076
FAX: none
70 Round Hill Rd.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
US


Administrative Contact:
United File Sharing Defense Fund
Itamar Koblenz (eatamar@aol.com)
5182215076
FAX: none
70 Round Hill Rd.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
US


Billing Contact:
United File Sharing Defense Fund
Itamar Koblenz (eatamar@aol.com)
5182215076
FAX: none
70 Round Hill Rd.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
US "

TheSherminator... dude , dumbass, FBI.GOV-MP3.COM = 63.241.23.77

It is a dummy redirect trying to connect to your computer because somebody has installed Internet Optimizer (spyware) on your system (probably snuck in from a crack or trial program installer). Just background noise on the internet. Probably got blocked by the stupid Windows XP "firewall".

http://www.internet-optimizer.com/Help/NavigationError/?e=ERRDNS&u=http%3A//fbi.gov-mp3.com/&cls=wsi9&rid=r01