Slashdot Mirror
UK ISPs Resistant to Monitoring Users
ethericalzen writes "An article from BBC News online states that ISPs in the UK are resistant to the government's desires for monitoring their users' data. The government seeks to have ISPs turn off the access of users who are 'persistent pirates'. The ISPs are citing technical and legal reasons for why they do not wish to do this. Legals reasons include surveillance laws which prohibit ISPs from monitoring a user's data unless compelled by a warrant. Technical reasons include an inability to accurately identify copyrighted material that is legally being transferred over p2p clients, and copyrighted material that is being transferred illegally over p2p clients."
We all know how Evil those P2P users are.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
I'm not quite sure what would happen if any ISPs did that here since no one yet has any pay per usage service, although Time Warner is proposing something like that. It'll be interesting to see what effect, if any, the situation in the UK will have over in the US.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Legals reasons include surveillance laws which prohibit ISPs from monitoring a user's data unless compelled by a warrant.
Silly UK government! The secret password to get around the law isn't "piracy", it's "TERROR"!
The enemies of Democracy are
"Technical reasons include an inability to accurately identify the legality of copyrighted material that is being transferred over p2p clients."
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Someone in the UK protesting more monitoring of its people? I don't believe it.
United Kingdom: Twenty million people watching another twenty million people. A final twenty million kicking each other to death for fake Burberry baseball caps.
I'm glad the UK government is cracking down on file sharing. In particular, I'd like them to crack down on their own habit of sharing my personal information with every single bloated, inefficient, fuckwitted, semi-competent IT services provider who made a sufficient donation to the Labour party at the last election (Crapita, this means you)
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
Not only did you put words in everyones mouth... you condemn them for you thinking they said/are saying it. Good show.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
The next step will be for the British government to mandate the evil bit.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Those idiot lobbyists and corporate CEOs think ANYONE that uses BitTorrent is a pirate. But are they? Let's see, here's what I (at least attempt to because I have Comcast) use BitTorrent for:
1. Downloading large Linux install DVD images
2. Download legal, open-source programs
3. Download legally free files
The problem with this is that I bet NO ONE will actually sit there and read all the traffic logs. A computer will just flag customers who even so much as transfer a packet through a BitTorrent port as a 'persistent pirate' and cancel their service.
A computer can only say YES this person is using BitTorrent or NO he's not. The computer CAN NOT find out exactly what someone is downloading, and weather it's legal.
So if the UK wants to fall behind everyone in the Internet age and cancel EVERYONE out of the Internet, not much we can do but hope it doesn't happen.
Hey, if it were the US they would comply and keep it under wraps... after all, the government agencies will do what they can to get you immunity later, amirite?
Crackin' Wise - Blogging about whatever we want
But, looking at the American example of attempting to make illegal surveillance being retro-actively legal/non-impeachable (I'm not a lawyer so that may be entirely the wrong term), how long until we brits see the law changed to reduce by half the obstacles?
> The ISPs are citing technical and legal reasons for why they do not wish to do this.
Uhm, how about not wanting to be forced to abondon ten percent of their paying customers as a reason not to wish to do this?
This was my first article submission. My apologies for not catching the "Legals" typo. That's supposed to be "Legal". Also, if my summary did not give enough detailed information I'd love critique so as to provide better information.
Thanks!
Life is a prison, death a release.
You must be new here. Read all about it. Try the first post, +5 Insightful. Care to make any other ridiculous attempts at an indignant response.
Isn't there anything the PEOPLE can do to have this and other such attrocities repealed?
One is a normal (albeit sometimes infringing) transaction, while the other is an unwarranted invasion of others' file storage space and bandwidth.
QED, no hypocrisy.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
How about some relevant evidence, instead of that half-stuffed strawman you just trotted out? You claimed that, in paraphrase, /. would happily demand that governments destroy ISP users' privacy rights at whim in order to catch spammers. Please show us an example where this allegedly happened.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Bargain basement ISP Tiscali have already operated a similar scheme in cahoots with the BPI, but it's all fallen apart because Tiscali want the BPI to pay for the privilege of sending warnings and chucking people off. The most intriguing part is that the BPI are doing the investigation and instead of monitoring the packets of each connection they are monitoring the known torrents and connections to those torrents, which is clearly a far more practical idea than monitoring all packets. The Register have the full story
Night is slowly falling over the UK.
As always , the government - usually due to absolutely severe lack of knowledge - have to comply with the business out there that usually FEAR more than actually KNOW whats going on.
Fact is:
1) The industry have NO clue if the "piracy" either gains or damages their sales, it's pure guessing - no statistics.
2) The government have to enforce the law, if someone breaks it - they create new laws so it won't happen again, unfortunately this is often based on fear rather than knowledge. You listen to the corporates that doesn't have a clue, and you certainly won't listen to the thieves (eg. pirates).
3) No way in this life or the next one will ANY ISP or the government EVER be able to monitor the petabytes of data that flows trough their lines each day, there would not even be enough workers for that...even in an overpopulated world. Even if you write intelligent software...someone has to decipher all that information and only a "human" so far . can make the final judgement on whatever case.
4) You'll only sort out the "clean people" from the "pirates" as the pirates usually are the "savy ones" that only will go deeper (tor anyone?) while the "common morons" are left to take the fall for the rest with their amateur mistakes.
Man....I sometimes wonder who the "clowns" who got the bright idea to make it the law to force ISP's keep records of all user data-transfers 1-2 years on backlog, it most certainly wasn't anyone with any computer knowledge whatsoever.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Ok Penguinisto, I'll google it for you. How about this story. Wow, look at all the "Insightful" comments. More ISPs should do this... blah blah blah. Hypocrites. The little bit of discussion about privacy that exists there is not in the +5 Interesting comments, it's in the unrated/buried comments. I'd say that's pretty clear evidence that slashdot, in general, is not terribly concerned about privacy when it comes to eliminating spam. Care to add anything to discussion, or simple deny fact after fact as though they didn't exist?
That's nice doublethink you have there.
So in other words, you have no idea.
I didn't realize the RIAA was consenting to your file sharing. Oh, that's right... they aren't.I don't know or care what the RIAA thinks about the files I share (hint: the only ones I've ever bothered sharing are all CC, copylefted, pub-domain, or GPL-licensed), so how about you not ruin what little credibility you might have by making stupid assumptions like that, m'kay?
Meanwhile, any two points in a P2P session are still made voluntarily. Weasel all you want, but you cannot change that primary fact - and the IFPI affiliate owns neither of those connections, so they don't get any say-so - aside from launching a lawsuit against the distributor once a determination is made that the distribution was an infringement (and even then they must remain within the bounds of law).
Besides, what does the Recording Industry Association of America have to do with asking (let alone demanding) anything from a British ISP, genius?
Just like slashbots would propose that ISPs disconnect anyone suspected of illegally sending unsolicited email.An example (relevant this time, plz) would be nice. Of course, trying to get you to stop with gross generalizations, and idiotic attempts to prove a flamebaited point with wildly unrelated strawmen arguments? Well, it would be a lost cause, but see if you can overcome them anyway, my dear little troll...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
No actual spammers being cut off then, eh? No suspected spammers being disconnected at the behest of an outside party (which is what you and the IFPI are advocating)? Nothing even remotely relevant at all aside from the fact that if a trojaned machine is sending out spam it therefore gets cut off?
Thought so.
Wow, look at all the "Insightful" comments.Wow indeed... most of them discussing the current state of ISP abuse desks, I even found this cool comment... think the IFPI would be nearly as kind about assisting users in clearing out any infringing content, or will they just sue/extort the unholy crap out of 'em? I'm thinking the latter, meself.
Oh, and one comment modded up that agreed it was a good idea. I never realized that when it comes to slashdot user opinions, you think that "5 (the poster + mods)" == 10^7.5 ... so how do the laws of physics work on your planet? ;)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
No, I believe I followed that by pointing out you are assuming legal traffic on P2P and illegal traffic on email to justify your stance. There are both spam and legitimate mailing lists. How does an ISP know the difference? They don't know any more than they know the difference between a Linux ISO and a copy of a hollywood movie. It's doublethink. Sorry if you weren't bright enough to catch that one. I'll try to spell everything out for you in this post so you can keep up.
Meanwhile, any two points in a P2P session are still made voluntarily.You keep ignoring that there are three parties involved in the P2P issue. The copyright owners in many cases have not agreed to anything in respect to the distribution of their imaginary property. You don't win any debate by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "NAH NAH NAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
Besides, what does the Recording Industry Association of America have to do with asking (let alone demanding) anything from a British ISP, genius?That's right, nitpick the semantics because you're losing the argument. Maybe you'd like to point out a few errors in my spelling or punctuation next?
An example (relevant this time, plz) would be niceThe fact that you're denying the sentiment even exists suggests you're being disingenuous. I believe I've provided you with adequate examples at this point. Feel free to shout strawman until you're blue in the face though. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it come true.
Is that your sample size? A single +5 post out of a thousand?
The fact that its a first post has no relevance either way.
Um, actually, the headline reads "Swedish ISP Blocks Computers That Send Spam." You're assuming that they are trojaned computers and not voluntary installs of "Make millions working from home" bots designed to send spam, just like the submitter did. What we know with certainty is: ISP blocks computers that send spam. The rest is conjecture. And with that came plenty of cheers from the slashdot crowd happy that they were doing it with no regard to privacy.
I noticed you conveniently ignored the score 1 privacy posts I pointed out. I've provided what you asked and now you're moving the bar. Will you continue to move the bar until I'm required to collect signed affidavits from more that 50% of slashbots for you to accept what is blatantly obvious to anyone who has read anything regarding spam and P2P at this website? I don't think I'll jump through any more of your flaming hoops. I'm sure you have an endless supply.
No, I'm basing it on past experience. I've had plenty of discussions on this topic. Have a look at the parent of the post I linked there. Mr 4 digit ID Eric Smith suggest torture for suspected spammers. Others cheer on murder of suspected spammers. Disconnecting suspected spammers is a rather tame by comparison. I'm sure they'd be all for it, privacy be damned. Would anyone else like to dispute the -plainly obvious- slashdot sentiment regarding spammers?
my Malevolent Tester Overlord!
... toothpaste.
Maybe you'd be happy if news sites fought to copyright each news story as-it-happens? That way, every site can have ****exclusive**** news, w00t!
Comments like that don't really work when anonymous.
They just make it seem like the poster is patting himself on the back.
Many Brits first discover new TV series through torrents, we also tend to get most shows imported quite a bit after their original US air dates, at which point they have been spoilered to f*ck in forums etc.
The real losers aren't the producers, but rather the cable/satellite channels, who get exclusives on series. No one I know in my age range (20-30) can be bothered subscribing to see the 3-4 programs they want a week. So instead they torrent, then purchase (frequently) the DVD sets. 80% of my DVD collection is based on films/series I've first seen online. I've also bought into shows/films on the basis of recommendations of free loaders, who are too cheap to buy anything as pety as entertainment, ever.
If I wasn't able to see shows/films before buying, I'd probably read more books, play more sports, or do more gaming instead. From the ISP's pov, now they've mostly begun offering pay/gig for heavy users (aka pirates), they have a lot to lose by going with the flow here. Piracy is what has driven the broadband internet revolution, these measures if widely adopted will simply be a footbullet of epic proportions to everyone involved.
The UK really is rapidly (already?) becoming a police state - did someone take 1984 to be a guide on nation building?
The original posters point is that are there not three people involved in a p2p transaction. There are only two. The poster rejects the concept of "imaginary property" and the concept of copyright. So do I. The law is wrong.
So as a vast majority of the content on YouTube constitutes of copyright material (video rips, spoofs, audio tracks), does that mean that anyone accessing the latest J-Lo (I cringe) music video will be barred from the net like a patron of the Queen Vic?
Biomech
I'm using the term in a descriptive nature. I'm not sure how it could be used to forward my argument.
For those who are familiar with the book, it's clearly defined and I felt doublethink was a much more adequate term to describe this case than hypocrisy. A hypocrite might actually see, concede, and attempt to explain away his use of contradictory logic. Doublethink leaves you unable to even see it. Penguinisto argued for several posts about whether or not such an attitude regarding spam even exists on /. Even after providing several examples to the contrary, he couldn't even touch the point I was making about the hypocritical nature of slashdot posters. In the above post, I spell out the plainly contradictory logic because he is continuing to insistently ignore it. He's a doubleplusgood duckspeaker comrade. He doesn't even need to think. His argument emanates solely from his larynx, or his fingertips in this case. It's a simple reflex. No brain activity required.
The original posters point is that are there not three people involved in a p2p transaction. There are only two. The poster rejects the concept of "imaginary property" and the concept of copyright. So do I. The law is wrong.And now you're doing it too. I'm not arguing the right or wrong of P2P. That is off topic. I'm pointing out that /. readers, on the whole, are a bunch of hypocrites. They are against disconnecting users for suspected illegal P2P use, but in favor of disconnecting users suspected of sending unsolicited commercial email. Legitimate and illegitimate uses of both protocols are equally difficult to distinguish. Yet most of you are perfectly fine with that, or at least you will be until some legislator exploits your hypocrisy to create laws regarding one only to embrace/extend/extinguish the other. It's obvious to me what will happen, and most of you will never see it coming until it's far too late. Either you defend everyone's right to free speech, or you are not defending free speech.
I've written scripts that rip apart (spam) emails, peel apart the headers, figure out which ISP is responsible for the machines that sent them to my MX (via the ICANN records) and (where possible) sends an automated complaint email to the 'abuse' address of the responsible provider.
If they get a couple of hundred such complaints from various sources, they don't have to listen in on the customer's line to conclude that there's a problem. About the only reason to listen in on your line at that point is to prove you innocent of the (numerous) allegations against you (in the case of malicious complaints).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.