In reply to a post by camieabz:

I doubt a dynamic IP is much of a proof against being tracked down.

Indeed. Golden Eye went after O2 customers, who mostly use dynamic IP addresses.

Which were extremely sticky at the time, making things simple.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Which were extremely sticky at the time, making things simple.

I believe Davenport Lyons and ACS:Law also went after dynamic IP addresses as well as static ones. Indeed, they don't even know which are static and which are dynamic when applying for a court order, although they do know which ISP they are registered to. It's up to the ISP to read their logs and work out who used which IP address and when, static or dynamic.

What I meant was it is easier to trace if a user has the same "dynamic" IP address for months, if not years, on end, than it is when it changes possibly several times a day. Which with someone wanting to avoid being traced is rather simple on true dynamic.

You seem to have misunderstood the point of my post . Which was that maybe they chose O2 precisely because of the relative ease of tracing, and lack of excuse by the ISP that it could be difficult.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

What I meant was it is easier to trace if a user has the same "dynamic" IP address for months, if not years, on end, than it is when it changes possibly several times a day. Which with someone wanting to avoid being traced is rather simple on true dynamic.

Oh right. I don't think the companies monitoring p2p check to see if you are sharing the works for a few days, I suspect after 5 minutes of downloading from an IP address they will add it to the list with a timestamp.

Same point. They know with O2 they will get a higher probability of proving who it was. Far less hassle than ISPs with highly volatile dynamic IPs.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Same point. They know with O2 they will get a higher probability of proving who it was. Far less hassle than ISPs with highly volatile dynamic IPs.

Either that, or they thought O2 would be a soft touch in court, which indeed proved to be the case, as they chose not to object to the court order.

Either that, or they thought O2 would be a soft touch in court, which indeed proved to be the case, as they chose not to object to the court order.

Just for the record neither did Plusnet.

In reply to a post by wingco1:

Either that, or they thought O2 would be a soft touch in court, which indeed proved to be the case, as they chose not to object to the court order.

Just for the record neither did Plusnet.

Probably because Golden Eye didn't go after Plusnet customers, they chose only to persue O2/BE customers.

True. But others did and Plusnet didn't object to the court order. Neither did it seem did other ISP's. In which case O2/Be were not on their own.