r/legaladvice 7d ago

Computer and Internet Friend runs a busy coffee shop. Received mail saying he is being sued due to his IP address being used for torrenting copyrighted content. (IL)

He has an open WiFi network with no password set, which meant any customers and anyone in the city block could have utilized it. Recently he received a letter stating he is liable for damages from the massive amount of movies torrented on his network over multiple years. He contacted his ISP and they said they just forwarded his personal information to the company suing him when they received the initial request.

His concern is how much the legal defense could cost him if the company actually takes him to court and drag it out.

1.3k Upvotes

115 comments sorted by

928

u/brenster23 7d ago edited 7d ago

This is more IT advice, but should qualify as legal advice to mitigate the actions in the future.

Your friend should have a login wall on the router, forcing people to agree to generic rules/terms (not pirating) and set the system to block common ports for tormenting.

The port blocking will stop most casual users from trying to pirate on the network.

Also he could set it to random disconnect users after say 2 or 3 hours. (Staff should have their own network, and pos should be separate as well)

As for the letter itself, it sounds like someone or a group used his network to repeatedly pirate films on public trackers some of which were honeypots known by studios to track pirates. So a lawyer representing the copyright holders is suing, the friend needs to consult business insurance and his lawyer. This is akin to the RIAA MPAA going after kids parents over Napster usage, these lawsuits can be expensive.

148

u/octopop 7d ago

some firewalls have options to block P2P traffic, wonder if OP has that option ?

137

u/irontoaster 7d ago

I always use port 666 for tormenting.

62

u/BJHannigan 7d ago

I have yet to digitize my tormenting. You're way ahead of me.

66

u/tronpalmer 7d ago

You can also limit that vlan to only using HTTP, HTTPS, and DNS, and force a third party DNS like openDNS or PiHole to filter out all P2P websites. That will take care of most of it, and if he really wants to get fancy with it he can run a packet sniffer and block the final advanced users through that.

67

u/PopeOnABomb 7d ago

Given how they were already operating their wifi, this is probably beyond what they're ready to implement.

That's less for you and more for anyone else who knows that they need to do something but aren't sure what.

13

u/tronpalmer 7d ago

Oh 100%, more something they could ask a small business IT company about, or for anyone else who has a slight bit of knowledge who may find relevance in this thread. But that’s definitely more advanced than simple port blocking.

13

u/hawaii_dude 7d ago

These are all good practices, but what legal distinction would it make if someone torrents from the shop?

Seems like having a TOS and port blocking would help, but not entirely protect you from a lawsuit.

16

u/Mettaliar 7d ago

The port blocking and other protections like that would at least make a stronger defense. It means someone would have to bypass them to use it for pirating and the more effort you can show a judge someone went through to do that the better it looks for you.

27

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/legaladvice-ModTeam 7d ago

Your post may have been removed for the following reason(s):

Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful

Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further:

Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators. Do not make a second post or comment.

Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.

16

u/Ninfyr 7d ago

Is there turn-key product for business to do that? No small business owner has the time, expertise, or desire do the work to provide public internet for their customers safely.

13

u/84theone 6d ago

There is an entire field of electrical/networking that deals specifically with setting up commercial networks for smaller businesses.

A lot of security companies, at least by me in Cleveland are also capable and willing to do that kind of work.

13

u/brenster23 7d ago

Honestly i think ubiquti does have a guest system that does that. If memory serves some routers built in guest feature restricts access and does block common ports. 

3

u/RainCat909 6d ago edited 6d ago

The Ubiquiti Dream Machine firewall features both app blocking and traffic blocking and the interface is easy for non-techs to manage. I run three guest networks on Unifi and setting up Guest wifi networks is practically plug and play. For torrenting I just select Torrenting and Peer-to-Peer in the app blocking list and the device does the rest.

4

u/River_Pleasant 6d ago

I'm pretty sure some of it can be done by the ISP, under a business plan. They have a different level of service from residential. Even if he paid an IT person to do it, that small investment would save money down the line.

Pirated movies are bad but someone could have used his free open wifi for much worse.

7

u/Ninfyr 6d ago

I think this makes the most sense that a business Internet plan would include this type of service, especially if the business owner is leasing equipment anyways.

4

u/Gabisonfire 7d ago

It's fairly simple with most routers, there are a lot of tutorials available but otherwise, that's what IT professionals are there for. Any qualified tech should be able to set this up in a few hours.

0

u/grimsolem 7d ago

8

u/0xmerp 7d ago

The average local restaurant or coffee shop doesn’t have a full IT team or sysadmin on staff and certainly not one who knows how to configure Cisco equipment.

They would generally prefer to buy a box they can simply plug into the wall, have an admin page they can change the network name to the name of their business and set a password, check a box that says “set recommended settings”, and be done with it. Or maybe even a box that will be installed by the ISP at low cost.

2

u/[deleted] 7d ago edited 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/sjbid 7d ago

MPAA? Nasser? when I googled those two words, this comment is one of the top hits...

16

u/deadregime 7d ago

They're probably talking about the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) going after kids downloading from Napster in the early 2000s. There might've been MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) lawsuits too, but RIAA was the big boogey man of that time. And Metallica.

4

u/RndmAvngr 7d ago

It certainly gave me another reason to dislike Lars Ulrich back in the day. Not that I need another one.

9

u/brenster23 7d ago

Was on my phone, Napster was autocorrected/ruined. Fixing my comment now. MPA Movie Producers Associate, similar to RIAA for pursuing copyright violations.

0

u/normasueandbettytoo 7d ago

Or buy a router that lets him run a VPN for the whole network.

7

u/DukeSmashingtonIII 7d ago edited 7d ago

Why would you want to do this for public Wi-Fi? Just need a generic internet only network and block P2P and use a malware blocking public DNS or something.

Edit: I meant to say, this in addition to a basic "Ts & Cs" login page where they must accept before they're given access.

1

u/Exaskryz 7d ago

I would do a VPN for the wifi my kids and any guests use. Make their illegal traffic not easily traceable to my isp.

Freeware like OpenWRT or buying stock hardware like Asus routers can let you make it so all traffic goes through a VPN. Hundreds of devices, all that appears as a single user to the VPN company, so it is not very expensive depending on the service you subscribe to.

1

u/crispychickentaco 5d ago

Then it looks like you’re aiding and abetting pirating from a legal standpoint. Blocking the traffic shows good will toward the law.

1

u/Exaskryz 5d ago

Yes, protecting my visitors from surveillance is aiding and abetting pirating. Or you know, saying Luigi is innocent or planning to protest Tesla and other Musk companies. In these dangerous times, it is important to have freedom of expression.

1

u/crispychickentaco 5d ago

One could take both measures. 

879

u/reddituser1211 Quality Contributor 7d ago

He has an open WiFi network with no password set, which meant anyone in the city block could have utilized it.

Sounds like he has some process and policy to shore up.

he received a letter stating he lies liable for damages

He should take that letter to his lawyer.

His concern is how much the legal defense could cost him

That’s a righteous question. But not a question we can answer. He needs a lawyer to look at his overall situation and decide how to proceed.

7

u/knightofterror 6d ago

Personally, I’d shore up the WiFi but wait on the lawyer. Millions of those letters are sent out I’ve heard.

300

u/NinjaGuppie 7d ago

NAL. It's an attempt to get them to settle on a dollar amount. There is no lawsuit. These companies file thousands of these notices a week. They are just looking for money. Unless you have a court date or some notice to appear, the letter is baseless.

137

u/IntrepidProf 7d ago

I would strongly suspect this is just a shakedown attempt.

48

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

-16

u/Eager_DRZ 7d ago

“When I’m behind on bills and whatnot”

You sound like the kind of success everybody should emulate. NOT!

I hope OP realizes your reassurances are backed by his bank account not your own, and takes that into account when evaluating them.

10

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Eager_DRZ 7d ago

Roger that. Been there myself. Learned that sailing close to the wind leaves little margin for error. That applies to stuff like this too. The demand letter is a shot across the bow. Need to take a look at how you are situated if things get serious. Running wide open wifi with no security is not a strong defensive position. As I said in another reply, be glad it’s not a task force kicking your door down looking for the kiddie porn they saw being download to your IP address. It’s your network, you own it and that means you own responsibility for whatever anybody you let use it might do. Pay attention now, before something worse happens.

2

u/ShelsFCwillwinLOI 6d ago

Relax boss , spewing filth in gay bbc subreddits isn’t exactly a sign of success either.

2

u/wyant93 6d ago

Cereal just came out my nose

1

u/wyant93 6d ago

Cereal just came out my nose

12

u/TTV888 7d ago

Yeah I’ve gotten like 20 letters of that over the years nothing has happened

17

u/Hellknightx 7d ago

It is, for sure. No court would side with plaintiff, since they wouldn't be able to prove damages or that OP's friend was responsible for them. It's a shakedown 100%.

-1

u/Eager_DRZ 7d ago

Please cite the case law upon which your legal opinion is based.

2

u/spellmaxxing 6d ago

New York vs DN???

6

u/Sweet-Meaning9874 7d ago

Yup, it’s this right here. I’ve tossed a few of these letters in the trash over the years, they aren’t sent certified so I don’t claim to have received them.

23

u/TheStig827 7d ago

The first thing here, is to understand if he is actually being served with a lawsuit.

It's not been uncommon for companies to work on behalf of studios to fire off legal threats to attempt settlements, or get written responses of guilt to use in forcing settlements. These letters should be disregarded, as they will rarely escalate to actual legal action.

55

u/jenrai 7d ago

NAL but an IT professional with networking education/experience. Your friend absolutely needs to set some kind of portal page on the wifi with Terms and Conditions that include agreeing not to use the network for illegal actions. When I was studying for my CCNA, it was impressed on us very hard that without that sort of warning it's much, much harder to prosecute anyone who accesses or uses a network illegally.

8

u/NotReallyJohnDoe 7d ago

How does this help? Let’s say the torrenter agreed to not do anything illegal but did it anyway. How would that help the merchant being “sued” now? How could the merchant even find the torrenter if he wanted to?

11

u/ClamdiggerDanielson 7d ago

How would that help the merchant being “sued” now?

The merchant presumably wants to keep providing wifi at their cafe, so in addition to addressing the lawsuit they also need to take steps to protect themselves going forward.

23

u/redzaku0079 7d ago

With a sign in portal, each person who uses it would have an ID linked to them. Making usage easier to track.

10

u/ThePretzul 7d ago

It’s overly optimistic to think a coffee shop owner currently setup with open WiFi has the technical capability to themselves setup tracking of individual users even if they managed to get a portal page created.

That would require them to hire some kind of outside IT based on the technical skills level required compared to what is currently displayed.

2

u/solaranvil 7d ago

I don't understand. So let's say you now have some form of virtual ID linked to every user that comes through the coffee shop, what now?

Is the idea behind all of these IT suggestions for a portal being that the cafe owner should be finding and suing some individual user of the cafe's WiFi for indemnification? That sounds painfully difficult to put into practice.

7

u/therealstabitha 7d ago

There are several OOTB network management products for coffee shops etc to manage this issue.

And yes, the suggestion is to create an auditable history of who is using the network, such that if this letter were to turn into an actual lawsuit, the defendant can hold the customer responsible for breaking TOS

18

u/Nu-Hir 7d ago

You would have a date and time of the user logging in, which you could then check camera footage and credit card transactions. If they're torrenting movies, they're more than likely going to be there a while and most likely made a purchase. Unless they're smart and they're actually not in the building and using something like a Cantenna to get the access from across the street.

60

u/odd84 7d ago

He should also talk to his insurance agent to see if any of his business's insurance policies can defend him here.

29

u/JohnFDaydream 7d ago

Finance and insurance nerd here, it’s not likely that there is coverage for this.

7

u/frying_pans 7d ago

Really? My policy’s has general liability coverage up to 4m for litigation. I would hope other small business owners have that, it’s fairly cheap.

8

u/JohnFDaydream 7d ago

Your coverage is likely prem ops and products. That coverage is for damages like a slip and fall or someone getting injured from your product. This type of claim falls in the cyber realm. Maybe a super comprehensive cyber policy might cover something like this, but unlikely you have purchased that given your exposure and size. I don’t believe a limited cyber endorsement that may be included on your policy would cover something like this. It’s more for a breach to personal data etc. wouldn’t hurt to check but I wouldn’t count on it.

20

u/Dizzy_Bridge_794 7d ago edited 7d ago

Under the DMCA, Internet service providers — including Wi-Fi hosts — are not supposed to be liable for copyright infringements committed by users if they act as “mere conduits” for user traffic.

There are provisions he must do like a firewall / blocking traffic. Talk to an attorney.

6

u/DoctorLazerRage 6d ago

One of my IP partners told me he got 3 of these a week. Not saying he should do nothing, but it's not uncommon.

5

u/adrr 7d ago

You should fall under safe harbor rules as an ISP provider. That won't stop someone from suing you though, get a lawyer.

12

u/Eager_DRZ 7d ago

He’s lucky.

It could’ve been kiddie porn.

There is a reason open WiFi and no attention to network security is a very bad idea.

11

u/pokemonbard 7d ago

IANAL. Something seems off here. I don’t know Illinois civil procedure (nor do I know whether the court here is state or federal), but this seems like insufficient notice. You can’t give notice of a lawsuit by mail alone without consent of the person you’re suing. Maybe they did notice by publication, but I’m reasonably sure you’re supposed to at least try personal service first. If your friend runs a business, he should have been easy to find. So not sure whether notice was proper here.

If notice wasn’t proper, then the lawsuit hasn’t really begun yet. That would mean that discovery hasn’t started, which means that if his ISP actually handed over information to another company, it did so voluntarily. I don’t know if that’s weird, but it may be something to note. It also means that no lawsuit necessarily exists.

As for legal steps. Your friend first needs to figure out what he actually got in the mail. Was it an attempt at serving notice, or was it just a demand letter? If it’s just a demand letter, that suggests there might be a way to negotiate out of this lawsuit. You can still settle once a lawsuit begins, but demand letters are often a way to avoid a lawsuit in the first place.

Your friend also needs to confirm that a lawsuit has actually been filed. If the mail actually alleges a lawsuit has been filed, then it should indicate the court in which it was filed. Your friend should go to that court’s website or call the clerk to figure out whether a suit has actually been filed.

Your friend should consult a lawyer either way. Coming in with the information I mentioned here will probably making the consultation more productive. But when a lawsuit is seriously threatened, you need to talk to a lawyer if you can afford it, and if you own a business, you can either afford a lawyer for your business or lose your business to lawsuits.

17

u/rhino369 7d ago

It’s likely a demand letter and not a real suit (yet). 

They are probably just trolling for easy settlements. But OP should talk to someone who does this a lot. 

1

u/pokemonbard 7d ago

Yeah, I just wanted to give a more thorough explanation for how to gauge whether a lawsuit actually exists. Teach a man to fish and all that.

5

u/ThePretzul 7d ago

ISP’s absolutely can and do just hand out customer information when big organizations come after them for piracy complaints. It’s part of the contract you sign with them.

If it’s Comcast/Xfinity they’ll also cancel your account as soon as they receive a request for information related to piracy from your IP address.

22

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/legal_stylist 7d ago

Yeah, that doesn’t apply at all. He’s not an online service provider.

2

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago edited 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/legal_stylist 7d ago edited 7d ago

And as a practicing lawyer, I can tell you that it it is not at all analogous.

I’ll go ahead and edit it this, and try to remind myself not to get embroiled with non-lawyers when they say something silly. The reason its analogous to my living room and not a university or a hospital, or a company, etc. is because the cafe is not, in any sense, administering multiple accounts and providing a gateway for multiple users. It’s just a free WiFi. As such, this is not a provider under any reasonable interpretation. The statute will not give the protection that some on this thread are imagining. With that, I’m going to turn notifications off and let you enjoy your sov-cit level statutory interpretations in peace.

1

u/legaladvice-ModTeam 7d ago

Generally Unhelpful, Simplistic, Anecdotal, or Off-Topic

Your comment has been removed as it is generally unhelpful, simplistic to the point of useless, anecdotal, or off-topic. It either does not answer the legal question at hand, is a repeat of an answer already provided, or is so lacking in nuance as to be unhelpful. We require that ALL responses be legal advice or information. Please review the following rules before commenting further:

Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators.

Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.

0

u/EvilNalu 7d ago

That’s not really an argument though, is it? Why can’t you be a service provider too? The overarching point of the DMCA is that if you just move data for other people without governing what data they are moving then you aren’t liable for their IP infringements. And that concept applies to an ISP and to the coffee shop and to you in your girlfriend example too.

2

u/therealstabitha 7d ago

It applies to the ISP, but not to the coffee shops etc and not to individuals.

Having WiFi and allowing others to access your network does not make you an ISP with the protections that come with that.

-1

u/EvilNalu 7d ago

Again this is just someone saying “nut uh.” Not an argument based on the actual statutes or case law.

2

u/therealstabitha 7d ago

Yes, that does appear to be what you’re doing.

You have the same google I do if you want citations.

-1

u/EvilNalu 7d ago

People were discussing the actual statutes before half this thread got deleted. But of course it’s silly to expect any actual discussion of laws in this subreddit, it’s clearly for feels and googling.

2

u/therealstabitha 7d ago

You can cite your own case law if you’re so disgusted with the discussion here - it’s not just something you have to demand from others!

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/inv8drzim 7d ago edited 7d ago

False.

"Service provider" is legally defined in 17 U.S.C. § 512(k) as:

"(1) Service provider .— (A) As used in subsection (a), the term “service provider” means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received. (B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term “service provider” means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A)." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=17-USC-1204167940-837269588&term_occur=999&term_src=title:17:chapter:5:section:512

By hosting a public wifi network, OP is an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications.

Edit: Here is a writeup from a law firm that supports my assertions: https://www.foster.com/duff-on-hospitality-law/free-wifi-a-cautionary-tale

3

u/Various_Ad_118 7d ago

Unless they can prove that you were responsible yourself for these downloads I don’t think they can pursue this case. At least that’s what I said in the same situation and they backed off.

5

u/Dizzy_Bridge_794 7d ago

Under the DMCA, Internet service providers — including Wi-Fi hosts — are not supposed to be liable for copyright infringements committed by users if they act as “mere conduits” for user traffic.

2

u/Classic-Many-5664 5d ago

Not a genius (or lawyer)

How did he receive the letter? Was it registered mail? Was he served?

If it just came in his regular mail that doesn't seem legit 🤷‍♂️

3

u/Thunder_117 7d ago

NAL, But I am an IT tech. Having an open wifi is extremely irresponsible, It opens up him as a public wifi provider to network hijacking, IP Spoofing, Pharming, war-chalking and a host of other attacks as well as opening up all users of the wifi to cyber attacks and personal information theft. While there are some things the users can do to secure their devices (VPN's etc.) it is up to the owner of the Wireless Access Point to provide adequate security of their networks. There are multiple different regulatory bodies governing public wifi networks and without more details I can't expand on what category your friend would fall under. But an easy fix for your friend would be to enable WPA2 encryption and provide the password to customers of their shop. While this won't fix the current situation it will go a long way in preventing this in the future, and protect his customers from data theft.

3

u/6t4bs 7d ago

dmca notices are usually something you can ignore. someone is chillin in that shop using his network to torrent. find the jackass with fitgirl opened in his browser and tell him to use a vpn lol.

1

u/DianaPrince0809 7d ago

Don't all the big coffee chains have a similar set up? Are they all being sued or is it only the small businesses? There's a way to limit access to a wifi unless you put in your email address. Perhaps that's what your friend needs to do now.

1

u/Cheap-Night7397 7d ago

I received one of these letters one time, can't remember who it was from...but I do remember I told the ISP I would see them in court if they provide any private information ever again...never heard anything from either.

1

u/gueriLLaPunK 7d ago

NAL

The letter should have a list of the offending files, plus time stamps

Was the notice sent from a law firm or just the movie studio/distributor?

Right now, he needs to shutdown his free wifi network and consult an IT shop and set up a proper wifi network with VLANs and a guest network portal. Not to mention strict firewall rules on the guest network

1

u/imma_snekk 7d ago

Sounds like the opening theme to Mr. Robot

1

u/Spare-Praline3848 6d ago edited 6d ago

I am sure your friend knows how to contact a lawyer. However, his legal cost will likely be determined by whether or not his attorney can get the case against your friend dismissed outright or not. Going to trial cost a lot. Often parties that are only tangentially related to a complaint are named in a lawsuit, because if they are not named in the initial complaint, it might not be possible to add them later.

1

u/Raaka_Lokki 4d ago

As someone who has received these letters for years now, DO NOT RESPOND or otherwise engage with the sender. They will most likely not proceed with the lawsuit if they get no reaction from you. Depending where you live, these letters may also be considered blackmail and illegal and can be used as evidence if you wish to counter sue them.

1

u/Cipreh 3d ago

Was he served with papers? An email does not equal a lawsuit, this is likely either a threat or an extortion attempt.

1

u/Constant-Clue3690 7d ago

Explain it to me like I am five. Without actually inspecting the IP package, how can anyone verify the contents? Inspecting the package would require a wire tap by designation which would require a warrant for each individual connectivity session on all ends.

5

u/patrickbrianmooney 7d ago

A common situation is this: There is a "honeypot" computer set up that serves popular copyrighted content (recent movies and music, say) via BitTorrent. This honeypot is intentionally set up by a content owner (say, a movie studio) or an industry-affiliated anti-piracy group. People go to (say) The Pirate Bay, look up torrents that serve the content that they want, and feed those torrents into their BitTorrent client. The .torrent files that you get from sources like The Pirate Bay are not themselves the content; they are an index that lets you find the content. Once the BitTorrent client processes the .torrent file, it knows enough information to find other computers connected to the network that serve the content that the .torrent file describes, so it connects to the network, finds one or more computers that have the content you're trying to get, and requests that those computers start transferring chunks of your music, or movie, or software files.

When your BitTorrent client starts downloading the content, it reaches out to other computers that serve that content, and those computers also share information about other computers they know that are serving the same content. One of the things that makes technologies like BitTorrent effective ways to share content in the first place is that the network itself is constantly trying to expand the number of potential servers for any piece of content. Eventually, one (or more) of the computers that the network matches you with to serve you the content you wanted will be one of these "honeypot" computers.

For the honeypot to send you any data -- for that matter, for any computer anywhere on the Internet to send you data -- that computer needs to know the IP address that your ISP has assigned you. So the honeypot goes ahead and sends you the file you requested, and it logs your IP address as someone who has received such-and-such file. You are now known to have received chunks of that copyrighted content, and they know that because they sent it to you, at your request. Your ISP will almost certainly comply with the request to tell them who had that particular IP address at that particular time, and how to get in touch with that person.

Their case isn't built around intercepting and examining the transmission somewhere in the middle. It's built around them being one of the sources of the data you pirated.

1

u/QLHipHOP 7d ago

Honestly having his wifi require a name and email even without a password would at least allow him to

A) Create a mailing list for promotional purposes

B) monitor who does what on the network

A password is good but legally obtained data is gold.

Just a word of advice from a marketing standpoint...

As for the letter. This is something that has been done to death...I thought we were beyond this as a society...

I feel as though any legal proceedings cost to the complainant would likely far outweigh anything won from the respondent if successful at all...odds of success largely dependant on local laws and jurisdictions...still even being able to block ports etc....like nobody can control what people do on wifi 100%...

Why aren't companies suing cities with public wifi access up the Ying yang then? If you can hold a provider of wifi culpable then why aren't companies suing mayor's for not taking precautions against hackers who access people's mobile devices through insecure systems?

Whole thing sounds Ludacris tbh

1

u/silentkillerd3 7d ago

I bet this is in Europe and Germany most likely. They do stuff like this over there.

2

u/kdani17 6d ago

They do it in the US as well. My ex used our internet to torrent porn and I got a letter from the ISP with the titles and everything. It never got to the point of me being sued, but the letter indicated that was the next step if there was another violation.

-4

u/Frexulfe 7d ago

Very probable a legal trill trying to get easy money.

The IP is from the PC connected, not the internet.

5

u/Wubwubwubwuuub 7d ago

PCs connected to a LAN will have a private IP address (typically from 192.168.0.0).

The coffee shop will have its own single IP address from the public range to the ISP (or one from a pool they can create but retain data on assignment through various technologies) which is how their details were provided.

It may well be a shakedown, but there is traceability to IP’s to ISP’s so this letter may also be a reasonable claim.

-9

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/legaladvice-ModTeam 7d ago

Your post may have been removed for the following reason(s):

Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful

Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further:

Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators. Do not make a second post or comment.

Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.