IP Address is not a person

As we deal with forensic reviews of log data, our SIEM Simplified team is called upon to piece together a trail showing the four W’s: Who, What, When and Where. Logs can be your friend and if collected, centralized and indexed can get you answers very quickly.

There is a catch though. The “Where” question is usually answered by supplying either a system name or an IP Address which at the time in question was associated with that system name.

Is that good enough for the law? i.e., will the legal system accept that you are your IP Address?

Florida District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro says no.

Judge Ungaro was presented with a case brought by Malibu Media, who accused IP-address “″ of sharing one of their films using BitTorrent without their permission. The Judge, however, was reluctant to issue a subpoena, and asked the company to explain how they could identify the actual infringer.

Responding to this order to show cause, Malibu Media gave an overview of their data gathering techniques. Among other things they explained that geo-location software was used to pinpoint the right location, and how they made sure that it was a residential address, and not a public hotspot.

Judge Ungaro welcomed the additional details, but saw nothing that actually proves that the account holder is the person who downloaded the file.

“Plaintiff has shown that the geolocation software can provide a location for an infringing IP address; however, Plaintiff has not shown how this geolocation software can establish the identity of the Defendant,” Ungaro wrote in an order last week.

“There is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos, and establishing whether that person lives in this district,” she adds.

As a side note, on April 26, 2012, Judge Ungaro ruled that an order issued by Florida Governor Rick Scott to randomly drug test 80,000 Florida state workers was unconstitutional. Ungaro found that Scott had not demonstrated that there was a compelling reason for the tests and that, as a result, they were an unreasonable search in violation of the Constitution.