Alright turds, listen up. I need your opinions.
My mom works at a doctor's office. Today she calls me talking about a patient they had today who is filing for bankruptcy, even though his job is going perfectly fine.
The man said his home router got 'hacked'. The hacker, or maybe a group of people, was somehow able to download presumably TB's of data through that router. I did not talk to the man myself but I'm guessing there was no one outside his home that he could see that would be within range of his home router's signal or he wouldn't be in this situation.
One day he gets a letter from some big company saying they are filing a law suit for $1,000,000 on the grounds of breaking copyright infringement laws. He can prove that he didn't do it, nor any of his family, but supposedly the alleged claims are legit because 'they used his router'.
He said the people he talked thinks one of his family's mobile devices got hacked on a public network, from which the hacker got his home router's password.
Does all of this make sense to you? I could see his home network possibly getting 'hacked', but to download enough data for not only somebody to notice, but for them just to send only a letter about a $1,000,000 law suit?
Wouldn't the FBI get involved? You don't just send a letter to someone about this sort of thing?
How do you think was done? Maybe they somehow made his router seed torrents, if that's even possible?
>>55550146
hello MPAA
>>55550208
It might have been, but to just send a letter?
>>55550146
>He can prove that he didn't do it, nor any of his family, but supposedly the alleged claims are legit because 'they used his router'.
Tell him to talk to a lawyer. They're trying to argue he is personal responsible for contributory negligence which is a losing argument. Seems like they're using a scare tactic to get him to settle out of court.
>>55550146
>He can prove that he didn't do it
Hahahahahaha, but anon, THEY need to prove he did it. And they can't.
Those are scaremonger letters he can just dismiss, he should just tell them to go fuck themselves and just switch ISPs.
Why is he stupid enought not to just talk to a lawyer
Supposedly he did talk to a lawyer and apparently for every instance of copyright infringement it would cost him around $5,000 in court to successfully dispute and win. But at that rate, it would still be cheaper for him to declare bankruptcy.
He's an old man. He doesn't understand on these buttons and dials. His lawyers are probably making the best case against the allegations as we speak.
>>55550233
So you are saying that he can getaway clean, without paying a dime to the prosecutors?
>>55550146
its fraud
>over 70% of global traffic is malware traffic
>everyday billion attacks happen
>there are literally nests of TB of infringed data all over the world
a private household router wouldnt get a lawsuit filed upon.
cyberpolice would be informed and there would be an investigation.
there is no traffic wit no trace
i hope the guy is behind 7 proxies
because not even that will help him for too long
>>55550412
>prosecutors?
This is going to be a civil case not a criminal one. Depends on the facts. No one gives the entire story. Only the most forgiving, "in the best light," part is generally spoken about in public. Thus why it is always suggested to GET A LAWYER.
>>55550457
worst case scenario
they blacklist your ip
>>55550146
>One day he gets a letter from some big company saying they are filing a law suit for $1,000,000 on the grounds of breaking copyright infringement laws. He can prove that he didn't do it
ITT lawsuits that get thrown out instantly.
