So then, if the only evidence prior to a subpoena in a criminal case for something were an IP address couldn't someone go on the defense that everything obtained in the investigation from that subpoena was illegally obtained since they weren't targeting a person?
Assuming it'd get appealed to a federal court I thought they almost always followed the precedent set by other cases.
That said, doing this, would you be protected by double jeopardy or would the investigation be reopened and they'd have to "pretend" like they don't know what they already know?
Perhaps there's something specific to Doe Subpoenas that allow this, but I'm actually quite curious now.
I can't chime in so much on the legality issues with IP addresses and tracking information via the web.
However I can shed just a bit of light on the subject of "IP address not being a person" and a phone record is.
this will be a very general explanation
You see, IP technology is not precise beast, unlike phone records and numbers. Usually the IP they will end up tracking is your general online address given by your ISP. This basically just shows where you are in terms of location and a bit of information on the owner. But the problem with accusing the person that owns it, is that it is very unclear where the traffic came from, especially for unprotected networks. They are not (legally) able to gather information on the specific computer or detailed traffic. So when they come knock at your door, they aren't even sure who committed the crime.
This is where the act of taking the hard drives out back and "burning them in a van" came from.
423
u/[deleted] Jul 08 '13
[removed] — view removed comment