Slashdot Mirror
End of Online Anonymity in Canada?
boochy writes "Are we close to losing our anonymity online in Canada? As Angela Pacienza writes in a National Post article; "The record industry's attempts to sue people who share music online threaten to change the widely held expectation that everyone's anonymous when surfing the Internet, lawyers representing the public interest argued Monday."
This is a very interesting article that shows how much the lawyers representing the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic are trying their best to protect our privacy online."
Loosing?! Oh..."losing"...
No. We're not losing our anonymity. We never had it. Your email shows up on mail servers everywhere. Your IP is logged. You can be found.
There's a big difference between actual anonymity and perceived anonymity. The public thinks they're anonymous. The realization that they are not (through education or through lawsuits of these sorts) will lead to increased awareness and eventually smarter users.
Maybe I'm just optimistic.
How does this fit in with Canada's new privacy law that came into effect January 1st? Is this a legitimate business purpose?
Trolling is a art,
How can it be "the end of online anonymity" if we've never had it in the first place?
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
But you have to remember the non-technical people.
Web browsers give no indication whatsoever to someone who knows nothing about computers that, 'Hey, I'm telling them who you are.'
Non-technophiles would assume that the net is anonymous because they are given no reason to think otherwise.
Who ever told you that you were "anonymous" on the Internet?
I actually see 2 different issues here. First, should a person's activities online be traceable? Yes - after due process. We all would love to see spammers caught, etc. However, the other issue is the record company's suit. Should they be suing? Well, the fact that I think they are greedy, stupid, outdated fools doesn't change the fact that they currently have a legal right to do so, I suppose. But here's to hoping they get some reasonable limits set on them soon (say real due process, reasonable limits to how much they can sue for, etc).
Do ordinary Joe Public people really believe they are anonymous when browsing the web?
Yes they do. Just looks at how many people have used the "I didn't know it was illegal!" defense when accused by the RIAA/MPAA of being file-sharers...
What if I do not care about not being anonymousness ? :
I just don't want people to abuse my privacy, it's not the same thing
I agree to be known when I visit a "public" (insert definition here) web site provided it doesn't exchange data about me with other "public" web sites.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The big misconception in this, is that people believed they were anonymous in the first place.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Dude you keep linking your site as if it is relevent. Other posters have pointed out the same. Mods - get a clue about this Karma Whore please.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
The big misconception in this, is that people believed they were anonymous in the first place.
But it is possible to be totally anonymous, isn't it? If I use the internet through a computer in an internet cafe (and pay by cash), or use one at a public library, then that is untraceable as far as I can see.
If your subscribed to one of Western Canada's largest Internet service subscribers (Telus), you've already lost your 'anonymous' status. Telus sells your info to marketing companies - you got to opt out manually by calling thier privacy line.
Don't worry, it's just your mailing address, name, and your phone number. Telus swears they're not selling your email address but I wonder how much longer before they start to use that as a cashable asset?
At issue here is whether or not the music industry is allowed to snoop on your home PC's. Where's the search warrant I ask?
Point 1. Canada's law on privacy (FOIP) may protect us from RIAA anyways. New rules and guidelines came in effect on January 1st. It basically allows us to operate with business without reprocussions of invasion of privacy.
Point 2. Canada is already collecting a tarrif on CD's sold in Canada to go towards musicians from sales lost from online music sharing(even though most have never seen a red cent). If I'm already paying tarrifs on CD's to protect the music industry, do I not have a legal right to copy and download music I want?
Point 3. CD's were suppose to promise cheaper albums when first introducts in the 80's. Cost of production of an LP vs a CD is around 95% less. Where's my savings RIAA? Most albums still go for $15-20 dollars. Where's my promised $7 new albums?
Last Point. The last time the music industry shut down Napster, music sales plumeted 10%. Does file and music sharing spawn interest in CD's? What about albums or CD's I can no longer buy but the music is available P2P? Doesn't RIAA realise that they should be embracing this as an opportunity to change how music is sold? I mean, it's not like artists make money on albums anyways. Who's really behind this push?
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
If there's no anonymity, then who am I? How true is it that there is no anonymity?
The bigger point is that the public does believe that when they are using P2P they are anonymous. That's why they pick pseudonyms and that's why they may do things online that they wouldn't do in the real world - ie. engaging in free speech regarding politics, religion, sex etc. They feel "safe" doing so because it appears to be anonymous. As ISP's hold more information about us, we should be worried about how easily the recording industry or anyone else for that matter can get access to it.
The ISPs in this case have fought (at least Shaw and Telus). However, the other three (Bell, Rogers, Videotron) have hardly fought. They basically will hand over the identities once there is a court order. Their only interest is in the inconvenience that it causes them to have to deal with it and the money it costs them.
This case is actually a perfect example of why there should be a high threshold before ISPs are ordered to hand over names. There was no evidence in this case that linked the IP addresses to the KaZaA usernames and there was no evidence that anyone ever listened to the files that were downloaded. Therefore, there is a risk that the wrong people will be identified and that even if they are the right people, they didn't do anything wrong. Further, the best that the ISPs can do is to identify the account holder, not the actual user (who might be a neighbour who tapped into a wireless router).
Because the recording industry is also worried about the destruction of evidence, another problem is that once they have the account holders' names, they will go to court for an order (without notice to the account holder) which allows them to go in an seize the account holders' computers in order to preserve evidence. How happy would that make you?
The ISPs are scared of all this because they will wear the mess at the end of the day even if the problem was really with the recording industry's investigation.
These actions obviously have very serious ramifications for privacy, anonymity and other rights. Revealing the identities will have effects for the targeted people as well as the broader public because people may just stop going online if they think that what they do may be exposed (in a very public forum) at any time.
On top of all this, downloading music is legal in Canada and there is also a big question as to whether uploading is illegal at all.
Canada has a better health care system.
If you had actually lived in Canada instead of just visited you'd know that this is inaccurate. The Health care system in Canada is deplorable. The best Canadian doctors leave the country for better wages.
For people that have never experienced socialized medicine, it's like any other government service. Imagine those ladies at the DMV providing health care.
I have a friend that developed MS while living in Canada. He was told that it would be 6 months before he could see a specialist. He moved back to the US and got treatment immediately.
Canada is a great country. You don't need to detract from the US to make yourself feel better about your own country. That's the problem with Canadian patriotism. The only source of national pride is derived from deriding their neighbors to the south..
Where does this myth of anonymity online come from? People should expect privacy on the internet but you must always assume that someone could be watching you and identify you. You expect privacy at home but you can still be identified. You must treat the internet the same way. Am I a little paranoid, yes.
The only place I expect anonymity is in Las Vegas because as they say what happens there stays there. Just ask Ms. Spears.
Key word is "attempts." Each time they've tried the ISPs have told them to hit the bricks. YAWN. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
"Hey buddy. Better move - there's a truck coming."
"Trucks? Trucks never come down this road."
"Nevertheless, here comes the truck."
"I doubt it. Nothing to see here."
"But..."
"Lalalalalalalalalalalalalala-" *WHAM*
Not completely. But in a country where I live, I will be anonymous as long as I won't be suspected of a crime where penalty can be over 6 months of prison. Only then authorities can get my name based on IP address.
Other organizations and companies cannot breach my anonymity. My ISP would break a law if it discloses my personal information (like what IP address I was using yesterday) to local 'RIAA' equivalent.
What people often forget is that social networking can corroborate what IP tracing already has shown.
For example, you post some comment on a web board. Your IP is logged. The Board moderator does a simple trace, and finds out within seconds what kind of connection you have, even if you signed off. Is it from an AOL modem pool? A DSL account? Those sorts of things are easy to find out.
So some hacker-wannabe uses some online modem pool with DHCP, so he's truly anonymous, no? No. See, the most COMMON mistake is that people who do these sorts of things are people you already know. Ex-boyfriend, some guy you pissed off at an anime con, and so on. If you work backwards by assuming that, ("Hmmm... call traced from DSL connection in Camden, NJ... we have a guy who we booted off the board last year from Camden...") and then compare it to other connections he makes, Usenet postings, referral logs, and so on ... you can stack up a HUGE amount of evidence, even if it all might be declared "amazingly circumstantial" in court. Now it's up to the people who he's pissed off how much time and effort they want to put into getting back at the jerk.
I have also found that people who are jerks online are REALLY easy to trace, because if they were truly paranoid and intelligent, they'd keep a low profile and say nothing, never start flame wars, etc... Those who are good at computing, for instance, rarely get involved in computer flame wars because they know they don't have anything to prove. "Let this guy say Macs suck," they'll say. "Their loss!" A guy who is insecure about how little he knows about his FreeBSD box will often try and cover this up with being an ass, patronzining newbies, and so on. That's when the people in the IRC chat room trace his IP, hack his FreeBSD "firewall," find out he hasn't logged in since last year and wouldn't know a hacked box looks like if he saw one, and do whatever they think is appropriate. :)
Of course, I have always felt that the really good hackers are like black holes: we know scientifically they exist, and we see evidence of them, but due to their very nature, you can't actually SEE one in action.
Untraceable to a degree.
As far as network logs go, the buck stops there. However, from that point is where a suitably motivated investigator begins collecting other intelligence. Be it it tapes from CCTV cameras, or just asking questions of employees and other patrons. You'd be amazed at how much information casual observers in such a situation will remember, and be able to provide an investigator.
Human intelligence is often the critical piece of info needed to pinch someone who has otherwise covered their tracks well.
For truly anonymous internet, find yourself a hotspot and a nice dark corner in which to hide (or alley to park in while wardriving). Oh, and spoof your MAC address as well, just to make it that much harder to pin it to your machine.
Cheers
That? That was a pigeon.
Sure we have the levy/tax/whatever. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay again. And again, and again and again. We're Canadian after all...if we aren't setting the record for the highest-taxed people on the planet, we just aren't trying hard enough!
On the upside, the moron responsible for the tax/levy/whatever has recently been turfed from the gov't. Good riddance, Shiela Copps!
Jiminy Cricket! Did you even read the article? The point is that, up until now, the Recording Industry's pitbulls haven't been able to strongarm Canadian ISPs into divulging user information. _That's_ the anonymity that we're about to lose.
About the most you can do is match a particular IP address at a particular time to one particular ISP, and in turn a subscriber of that ISP. To take action against that subscriber requires the cooperation of the ISP, of course, but if the person on that IP was doing something that violated the ISP's terms of service (and running publically accessable services such as a web server or file sharing software which might cause your upstream traffic to be notably larger than it otherwise would are often such a violation for domestic accounts, at least), then the ISP's gonna be interested in cooperating anyways.
Actually, even IP addresses can be forged under certain circumstances, but most of the people that might otherwise want to fileshare almost certainly don't know what's all involved in making that happen.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'