Re: Re: Case ID 51560370 - Notice of Claimed Infringement

[Thierry Zoller <Thierry () sniff-em com>]

Dear Randall Perry,

RP> The opportunity for collisions causes 'reasonable' doubt.  With all the
RP> 100's of terabytes being shared on P2P, I would imagine it quite possible
RP> for a couple of hashes to match.  (again, not concrete, but  _possible_)
RP> The problem is that such evidence admitted to court sets precedence for
RP> plausible matches (as opposed to innocent until PROVEN beyond reasonable
RP> doubt) to be presented as concrete fact.  And I am not a P2P guy (except
RP> BitTorrents of Fedora and Debian), but I am concerned about this mindset
RP> for prosecution bleeding into digital signatures, encrypted emails (that
RP> they cannot encrypt but see a string that resembles the characters 'I did
RP> it' ).

You forget that the hash is not the only unique thing that specific file
has in common with the pirated file/material.

Calculate the following probability:

- The file/chunck has the same MD5 (or whatever HASH)
  as the pirated material in question.
- The file has the EXACT same filename (if there would be a collission
how is the probability in mathametic terms that the file the
collission takes place has the exact same filename?)
- The file has the EXACT same size (The file has the EXACT same date
etc.pp)

I am sorry, but considering all these factors don't we have to conlude the
file is indeed THE file ? ;)

<Wild Speculation> Do the maths you probably get to a possibility which is equally likely
then a parental test based on DNA, which is accepted in some courts.</Wild Speculation>




-- 
Thierry Zoller



_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/