I still don't trust IKS....
|
Silver Member Username: JaysonPost Number: 345 Registered: Aug-06 | C/P I just want to point out that KORNET is in SOUTH KOREA (friendly to the USA) and that they are a commercial satellite TV provider for South Korea, having recently launched their own satellite. If the nfusion server is located on THEIR network, how sympathetic to Dish network (a fellow satellite provider) would they be when asked to turn over that nfusion server. Or worse, just monitor incoming connections to that IP so that they can record IP addresses without even getting the nfusion server. The legal precedence to sue customers and end users was set with all this RIAA suing MP3 downloader's using their unique IP address as provided by their internet provider. So there you have it, I think the nfusion works TOO GOOD, and in fact offers an opportunity for DISH to copy the RIAA and start suing end users |
|
Gold Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 9896 Registered: Jan-08 | Jayson Nobody was hurt because he use IKS, many sites are affraid with that because many rumor are launched by competitor brand.  |
|
Gold Member Username: RiconissanPost Number: 1546 Registered: Feb-09 | There is no reason to worry if you believe that you are doing nothing illegal. A microwave signal in your yard is free to do with what you want. If you read your agreement with your IP, a court may find that you have broken the law(s). |
|
Gold Member Username: RunnerguyPluto Post Number: 1839 Registered: Sep-06 | http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/how-do-i-hide-my-ip-address |
|
Bronze Member Username: Walter227Post Number: 12 Registered: Sep-06 | C&P: Canadian judge: No warrant needed to see ISP logs A Superior Court in Ontario, Canada has ruled that IP addresses are akin to your home address, and therefore people have no expectation of privacy when it comes to their online activities being accessed by law enforcement. This means that, in Canada, police can potentially request information from your ISP about online activities, and can do so without a warrant. By Jacqui Cheng | Last updated February 13, 2009 12:37 Your activities on the Internet are akin to your activities out in public--they're not private and are possibly open for police scrutiny, according to an Ontario Superior Court. The ruling was made by Justice Lynne Leitch on--surprise!--a child pronography case. The judge said that there's "no reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to logs kept by ISPs. Canadians, watch out, because everything you do online could soon be turned into legal fodder, even without a warrant. The case in question came about when, in 2007, police asked **** Canada to hand over subscriber information for a particular IP address that they suspected of accessing and "making available" child pron online. According to the National Post, the ISP handed over the name and contact information for the account without asking for a warrant, which is apparently typical among ISPs in Canada only if the request is related to a child pron investigation. The lawyer for the defendant--the defendant being the husband of the woman whose name was on the account--disagreed with **** Canada's actions. He argued that since there were no accusations of luring a child or putting a minor in danger, a warrant should have been required. This argument was rejected by Judge Leitch, however, who equated the information to data that the state already has. "One's name and address or the name and address of your spouse are not biographical information one expects would be kept private from the state," she wrote. She also stated that Canada's Personal Information Protection Electronics Documents Act allows for ISPs to give IP information to a "lawful authority," which she interpreted as not requiring a warrant. Though it's clear that the ruling in the case (which is still ongoing) was made with good intentions, privacy advocates know what the road to hell is paved with. Critics fear that such a precedent could open the doors to police asking for information on all manner of Internet activities, ranging from the embarrassing to the questionable-but-legal, without judicial oversight. One instructor from Toronto's Osgoode Hall Law School argued that, even when criminal activity is suspected, a warrant should be required. "[E]veryone wants to get at the child abusers," professor James Stribopoulos told the National Post, which is why judges seem to be agreeing with Judge Leitch's interpretation of the law. "It is not just your name, it is your whole Internet surfing history. Up until now, there was privacy. An IP address is not your name, it is a 10-digit number. A lot more people would be apprehensive if they knew their name was being left everywhere they went." IP addresses aren't necessarily accurate indicators of who's behind certain activities online. As many college campuses in the US have argued to the RIAA, IP addresses are reassigned often and no single student can be tied to a single IP address much of the time. IP address data can even be incorrect (or incorrectly matched up by ISPs), leading to some being unfairly accused of illegal activities. Judge Leitch's ruling has privacy advocates in Canada worried, as it is binding to lower courts in Ontario. "There is no confidentiality left on the Internet if this ruling stands," Stribopoulos said |
|
Bronze Member Username: Walter227Post Number: 13 Registered: Sep-06 | C&P The Supreme Court of Canada last week declared illegal a grey market in the country that sells signals from US satellite television broadcasts even though the US companies are not licensed to sell to Canadians. Some Canadians "stole" the US signals using widely-sold decryption equipment; others subscribed to the US providers by giving US addresses. The unanimous decision that it is illegal to sell equipment to receive satellite signals from outside Canada was declared a victory for Canadian broadcasting by the country's biggest satellite TV company, Bell ExpressVu, which brought the case against a seller of decryption systems. Its relief can be understood from a survey for the Canadian Cable Television Association which estimates that between 520,000 and 700,000 Canadians are using unauthorised satellite systems, switching off the Canadian broadcasting system and plugging into the US network. "That was undermining the Canadian broadcasting system, cheating rights holders, creators, actors, technicians and others of their lawful compensation," said the President of Bell ExpressVu. The case concerned a dispute over Canada's Radiocommunication Act which a lower court said was written only to prohibit the illegal decoding of Canadian broadcasts, but that could not cover US broadcasts because US companies are not "lawful distributors" in Canada. The lower court had criticised Bell ExpressVu for failing to distinguish between paying subscribers of US signals and those who use decryption equipment. However, the Supreme Court rejected this criticism as misguided, considering that all decoding of US signals is illegal, even if Canadian subscribers are paying for the service. |
|
Gold Member Username: PlymouthCanada Post Number: 9905 Registered: Jan-08 | Walt Thanks for the infos and note it, Bell Express Vu is Bell since over 6 monts now. All the attempts for charge the Canadians who uses the American signals fell through. |
|
Platinum Member Username: NydasPost Number: 15424 Registered: Jun-06 | Walt: I would disagree with the Ontario Supreme court Judge's statement that "One's name and address or the name and address of your spouse are not biographical information one expects would be kept private from the state". In general, it has to be recognized in law that certain aspect of a person are revealed to certain state authorized person(s) but are not necessarily public property. Even your phone number can be kept private and not published, and yet some of the employees at the telephone company would know it. Doctors and doctor's offices keep very private detailed records of individuals and they are for their eys only - not to be revealed even to a spouse without authorization. Yes, they can be revealed in a court under a judge's instruction and only to the extent required. Your IP address should therefore have some level of privacy and it has been established for a very long time that a warrant is the instrument for legal intrusion into privacy. |
|
Gold Member Username: TapemanNew York Citay in-HD, NY Post Number: 4361 Registered: Oct-06 | IP adress alone is not enough to grant a warrant Yo could be using the neighbor's WI-FI Most judges will require another proof besides IP to be 100% sure " therefore people have no expectation of privacy when it comes to their online activities being accessed by law enforcement. This means that, in Canada, police can potentially request information from your ISP about online activities, and can do so without a warrant. " I'm not sure about Canada laws But in the US yo got a lot more rights These are non-violent crimes and they are more like civil issues However selling or hosting these servers and boxes can be criminal piracy |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics