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."

Comments

Re:Tubes again?

[moderatorrater]

No, it sounds like they're actually applying something of a legal term to them. Instead of some dumb-ass congressman trying to explain what they are, they're explaining the regulations that apply to them.

Didn't use the magic word!

[Chris Burke]

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"!

Yeah, right

[Anonymous Coward]

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 welcome this

[Malevolent Tester]

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)

'persistent pirates' == everyone...

[Doug52392]

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.

Re:'persistent pirates' == everyone...

[Mr_Freedownload]

What they seem to forget is that p2p is used by everyday average joes and janes. The stuff they really want to stop but can't is the mass downloading and selling. What are they gonna kill after p2p? well thats ftp of course. If p2p stops then ftp will rise again but will return underground.

Re:'persistent pirates' == everyone...

[KublaiKhan]

Darknets work well, also. WASTE is fairly popular, for instance, though finding the right network is sometimes a bit of a slow process--they're secretive by nature and all that.

I suppose this could lead to a bit of a class system online--those who know where to find all the interesting bits, and those who are just regular users. Moreso than usual, anyway.

Re:'persistent pirates' == everyone...

[bob.appleyard]

Deep packet sniffing can be employed, but that would be terribly costly. Considering the amount of traffic that a typical UK ISP would be dealing with, you're already talking about some massively parallel computer just to handle that. To then go and do some pattern matching stuff on every packet to see if it's a case of copyright infringement would not only be hell to actually code, it would take a ridiculous amount of computing power. What's worse, this could be defeated by encryption.

Some kind of shallow packet sniff could be done to check for hashes of copyrighted material, and ban people referring to that hash. That requires a database of infringing hashes, and new materials could be appearing all the time. It would also require knowledge of how every P2P protocol communicated these hashes. There is always the chance of mistaking some unrelated innocent communication with an illicit one, that will increase with the size of the copyright database and the number of protocols checked. And this can be defeated with encryption too.

There is another way of approaching this problem. Take a protocol, say, BitTorrent. You could use your database of copyrighted works, and check out trackers of those works for whether UK IP addresses are connected. You have a problem choosing which trackers to check, as you usually only get a name and a description. This one can't be beaten by encryption, but some elaborate series of proxies could elude it.

One of the common weaknesses with all of these approaches, beyond what has already been mentioned, is that the infringing works must first be identified. This could be done by downloading all the files and then manually checking them or by using some kind of fingerprinting technique. This is going to be either expensive in terms of equipment (big server farms for fingerprint analysis) or in terms of people checking the files manually.

The problem here isn't really technical, it's economic. Although most of the costs of blocking customers will have to be done by the ISPs, it will probably be up to the media companies to pay for identifying (say) trackers/hashes for copyrighted works. As this brief analysis seems to suggest that most of the cost is in the identification stage by a long margin, there would have to be a significant payout to justify this investment. I'm not convinced that it's there.

The other aspect of this is that the actual costs of P2P file sharing can only be guessed. Without at least some kind of checking described above it will remain that way. You don't know how many people are sharing this stuff, and you don't know how many of them would have bought it if they couldn't share the stuff. These are unknown risks, so deciding what kind of effort should be expended in avoiding them is a very very difficult task. It's hard to tell whether you've spent more money preventing the risk than the risk would have actually cost. Inevitably, they will have to choose whether to step off the ledge and actually do something on a big scale, or give up altogether. It seems to me that option with least risk business-wise would be to give up trying to stop it and use other means to reduce the probability of it occurring such as lowering prices or offering a better service than pirates.

In the USA...

[the4thdimension]

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?

Hmm; some ISP sanity at last

[ricebowl]

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.

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?

Who would have thought it?

[Odiumjunkie]

> 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?

Re:If it were "spammers" instead of "file sharers"

[Penguinisto]

Err, you do know that there is a difference between voluntarily downloading something between two consenting parties (P2P user and peer(s)), and blasting unwanted crap out to unwilling recipients (spam), right?

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.

/P

Lack of knowledge makes this a bitch

[MindPrison]

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.

Re:If it were "spammers" instead of "file sharers"

[Penguinisto]

Err, you do know that there is a difference between voluntarily downloading something between two consenting parties (P2P user and peer(s)), and blasting unwanted crap out to unwilling recipients (spam), right?

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...

/P