On cross examination, Thomas' attorney, Toder, suggested that perhaps Thomas owned a wireless router, which a third party might have hijacked from "right outside her window."
"A neighbor could do it too, right?" he asked Edgar.
"Yes," Edgar replied.
But testimony from another RIAA witness sought to counter that defense. Iowa State University computer forensics specialist Doug Jacobson claimed that speculation over a wireless internet connection used by roving marauders was unfounded.
"There was no wireless router used in this case," he testified.
The Charter IP address identified the night of the downloading was 126.96.36.199, according to testimony from Edgar and Weaver. Had a wireless router been used, the internal private IP address assigned by the router would also have been detected by investigators, he claimed -- likely beginning with 192.168.
Excuse me? In what universe? Does "Iowa State University computer forensics specialist Doug Jacobson" not know how NAT works? Unless they were hacking her computer (which, for the RIAA's sake, I hope they weren't), there's no way they could've told whether or not a wireless router (or any other router, for that matter) was being used.
They would've seen nothing but "188.8.131.52," no matter who was getting on with this woman's internet connection -- be it her or some hacker, through a wireless router or not.
Folks, someone observing your internet usage from the outside (like the RIAA tries to) will NEVER see your internal router address (the one beginning with "192.168" if you're using a router) -- it's simply not the way things work. That address isn't even broadcast outside the router's network.
Why the hell was this point not objected?