Slashdot Mirror


Major ISPs Help Fund BitTorrent User Tracking Research

An anonymous reader writes "I was scanning conference proceedings to come up with ideas for a reading group I run at my workplace, and I noticed an interesting paper from the new IEEE WIFS forensics conference. Researchers from the University of Colorado have published a technique for tracking BitTorrent users (PDF) by joining and actively probing torrent swarms using low-cost cloud computing services. They claim their methods allowed them to monitor the entire Pirate Bay torrent set for as little as $13/mo using EC2. But that's not even the interesting part. Their work appears to have been 'funded in part through gifts from PolyCipher' — a broadband ISP consortium. That's right; three major national ISPs funded this round of BitTorrent tracking research, not the MPAA/RIAA. Could this be evidence of ISP support for ACTA and a global three-strikes law?"

25 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by grahamsaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ISPs could simply be looking for ways to find heavy bittorrent users, provide proof of the fact that they're using a lot of bandwidth to download copyrighted content, and to throttle them down or to block this traffic entirely.

    ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks so they don't have to upgrade as often. If they can delay these upgrades under the guise of supporting intellectual property rights, it's a win win for them. I'm not saying I support this kind of thing, but it makes business sense.

    --
    Facts have a liberal bias.
    1. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Analyzing traffic without a warrant is a privacy violation.

      Bullshit.

    2. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks so they don't have to upgrade as often. If they can delay these upgrades under the guise of supporting intellectual property rights, it's a win win for them. I'm not saying I support this kind of thing, but it makes business sense.

      Totally agree with that. Bandwidth costs money, sure the cost might be dropping, but why would you (as an ISP) actually WANT your consumers to go using all that bandwidth that you are selling them? Wouldn't it make much more business sense to sell them a plan with 100Gb (Yes, in Australia, that's still considered a very high amount of traffic) and have them use 2Gb for their surfing and emails - oh, and find a nice way to kick off all those customers who actually use what they pay for - without looking like it's got anything to do with you, after all, if you sell high usage accounts, you can't kick off high users... erm... wait wat?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From my point of view, I'd hold bets that 9 out of 10 "heavy users" on the internet are not swapping P2P files but are infected by trojans spewing spam.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a simple solution to this: Sell only what you have. Or rather, market it correctly. When you sell people 8mbit synchronous, they will expect this to be available to them and they will maybe try to use it. Hoping that they just want to have a fat pipe but won't use it is like hoping that people who buy cars that go 200mph won't drive that fast.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by ravenscar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Warrants are for the government. When you signed your contract with your ISP you likely authorized them to monitor your traffic to some extent (at least bandwidth usage and likely more). Does that violate your privacy? Maybe, but the issue is much more complicated than you make it seem.

    6. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by teh+moges · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You would find that the majority of the 'good' botnets rely on many computers doing low-bandwidth operations, so that the owner of the computer doesn't notice. If the speed of the Internet gets too slow, the owner could send the computer in to get fixed, and the IT guy would find and remove the problem files. If the owner never notices, its less likely this could happen. There still exists viruses that do the 'high impact' thing, but they are less common now and don't last very long (for the previously mentioned reason).

    7. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by mlts · · Score: 4, Informative

      It could also be a last-ditch effort for ISPs to show they can police themselves before they get shackled by Draconian regulations. ISPs also hate high bandwidth usage (expanding networks cost money, so to the bean counters who failed ITIL class in MBA school, it is better to charge fees, throttle, and kick off users than it does to expand networks to handle new growth and new applications.)

      ISPs are not going to like ACTA so they want to avoid it as much as they can. Having to record not just packet headers, but every single packet a user has sent/received and store it for 7 years is going to make them have to spend large amounts of cash for disk farms. They also don't want to be the focal point for customer outrage when Big Brother-eqsue stories happen: For example, a divorce happens, the ISP gets a motion of discovery, and has to go data mine in the archives to come up with the exact web pages a husband was viewing in the past on a certain day.

    8. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by BuhDuh · · Score: 4, Informative

      DISCLAIMER: I am part of the support team of an ISP
      Yes, we do hate those users who suck bandwidth via bittorrent to the detriment of the majority who simply want to read their email, keep up-to-date via a social networking site and do other non-intensive tasks. However if we were being completely cynical, the over usage charges we can collect (and which our users agreed to in our AUP when they signed up) are a nice earner. PLUS I agree, we don't have to invest so heavily and so often to upgrade our infrastructure. I don't necessarily agree with such a position, but I'm stuck with it. However, I read TFPDF and it bleats about illegal copyrighted downloads which it seems to imply is the only use for bittorrent, nowhere do I see (except after the download is complete) how this violation can be proven. I have lost count over the years of how many iso's of various Linux distros I have downloaded, how many times the kids have updated WoW.... This sanctimonious BS posturing in the guise of protecting copyright leaves me cold.

      --
      Enlightenment? It's just a flush in the pan.
    9. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Read your contract dipshit.

      You work for Comcast customer relations, right?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy bittorrent traffic on their networks so they don't have to upgrade as often. If they can delay these upgrades under the guise of supporting intellectual property rights, it's a win win for them. I'm not saying I support this kind of thing, but it makes business sense.

      On the flip side, ISPs have a strong incentive to reduce heavy BitTorrent traffic that goes into or comes out of their networks far, far more than traffic within their network. If I were managing an ISP, I'd be analyzing BitTorrent traffic to find out how much of it is staying locally, and using that to decide whether it's worth looking for a way to extend the protocol to prefer nearby seeds by adding additional DHCP response fields, by doing something clever with mDNS, etc. Heck, if I were managing an ISP, I'd be contributing code to BitTorrent to allow ISPs to specify information about the IP ranges within our regional network and the cost of uploads/downloads through our various peer ISPs, thus allowing the P2P client to weight its traffic towards connecting to other P2P peers that are cheaper for the ISP if all other things are equal, and allowing the P2P client to more effectively use bandwidth by making sure that only one P2P client within the regional network pulls each chunk of a given file through the expensive upstream pipes, then seeds it to the other peers through the faster regional network. Performance should improve on the average *and* the cost to the ISPs would go down.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    11. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by pengin9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      why did you sign it then if you don't want your dog shot?

    12. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe they've put a gun to his head?

      If they "put a gun to his head" then the contract is automatically void. For there to be a valid contract both parties must accept it voluntarily, and there must be a reasonable "meeting of the minds", i.e. agreement on the nature of the contract. Note that if you claim to understand a contract before signing you should expect to be taken at your word, whatever your actual understanding may be. See also: due diligence.

      That's the whole point of inalienable rights: so you can't be forced to give them up.

      A contract allowing a third-party to shoot your dog does not forfeit any inalienable rights. Domestic animals are property, and can be killed ("put to sleep") by the owner, or anyone granted permission by the owner. A contract is a perfectly valid way to grant such permission. For that matter, the contract could just as easily have transferred ownership of the animal, after which its fate would be entirely up to the other party.

      Pretty much the only right universally recognized as inalienable—among those who recognize inalienable rights at all—is the right to self-ownership, i.e. the right to one's own mind and body. This is usually considered self-evident, as the mind and body cannot be separated from one's sense of self. Everything else, however, is separable (alienable) and thus may be contractually transferred with the current owner's permission.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    13. Re:It could be related to ACTA, or. . . by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      A few years ago, only bittorrent users were using video on the Internet. But now, my 4 and 6 year old kids seem to spend more time watching kids' shows on the Internet than they do on TV, my wife and I use netflix on demand, and my 11 year old watches dozens of youtube videos to learn card tricks and yo-yo tricks.

      Video isn't exotic anymore. If the majority of your customers are just checking facebook and email, start the countdown because it won't last.

      If you're talking about a cable ISP, downloads are effectively "free". Kids and parents watching Hulu all day doesn't concern them too much.

      However, the thing Bittorrent does that does impact a cable ISP is *uploads*. Compared to downstream bandwidth, upstream bandwidth is very limited. You already know if you set your upload too fast your connection gets useless for surfing, gaming and interactive applications. Well a few people doing that takes down an entire node as all the upstream bandwidth is consumed. And that takes out service for many people - web pages take forever to load, gaming is impossible as your ping starts averaging 100ms spiking to 500+, and forget about ssh.

      Our ISP has a limit of 60GB (Canada, and quit your comcast 250GB bitching). However, people have routinely doubled that - they don't care if it's mostly downloads. After all, there's tons of downstream bandwidth, and a few users gobbling up data doesn't really impact other's performance. If you start uploading a significant fraction of that, they take notice and send warning notices out. Heavy uploaders are the first targeted in any bandwidth measure.

  2. Do it your self by KevMar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All they want are honest numbers. We know we cannot trust MPAA/RIAA for those.

    I'm not saying we can trust the numbers or have any idea how ISP's will use the results. But they will be more informed when they decided to support or fight ACTA.

    --
    Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
  3. They want your money, not your IP traffic by renger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As cable company researchers, their goal is to maximize profits for the cable industry. This includes: reducing (and delaying) the need to invest in new cable-modem equipment, reducing the size of the Internet transit circuits that they must purchase from real IP backbone providers, reducing the quantity of TV channels they must give-up to make room for DOCSIS (cable modem) channels, reducing any competition for video services from (non-cable-company) Internet-video sources, and so on. Cable company executives care about MPAA/RIAA only so far as it affects the size of their bonus checks. It is always about the money.

    Let's hope the fiber-based operators kick their sorry coax ass. (And let us be vigilant that the fiber operators don't become similarly arrogant and unresponsive once they assume the throne of dominant last-mile provider.)

  4. Re:ISP's hate bittorrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If ISPs would do their job, P2P would be an almost negligible load: Multicasting would replace it and virtually eliminate packet duplication. Working against Bittorrent will only make things worse for ISPs. Every layer of defense against deep packet inspection and tracking adds load to the network. If ISPs really support Bittorrent tracking research, they must (stupidly) think that they can make an impact on file sharing. What will happen is that they will only cause further evolution of file sharing protocols. They should work on developing and deploying more network efficient distribution protocols (e.g. multicasting). File sharers have different priorities.

  5. Re:Not Necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah. They don't want a three-strikes law, because when you're "out" they can't overcharge you for bandwidth. What they do want is to stop you from using available bandwidth, without pissing off anyone commercial (e.g. blocking Hulu traffic would save massive bandwidth, but Hulu would get their ass in court. Going after bittorrenters, and especially "bad" bittorrent from a copyright perspective, means only pissing off customers (which is apparently many ISPs' #1 priority) and ensuring a lot of them can't fight back without risking their own asses from the MAFIAA after info on their torrenting habits is aired in open court.

    Really, if you start from an adversarial relationship with your own customers, it makes perfect sense.

  6. Re:ISP's hate bittorrent by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It also has a tendency to be full blast all the time. Part of what makes cheap lines cheap is that when you have a lot of people, you can share bandwidth and normal usage patterns are such that they don't interfere with each other. You can see this when you have a roommate in that your cable modem doesn't suddenly feel half the speed just because there's another person using it as well. You'll probably find that it is the same overall. Same deal with an office LAN. You all have 100mbps to your desktops and say gig to the server. Yet even with 100 people the server still seems to go full speed on your connection all the time.

    Well the reason is because normal usage isn't sustained at maximum level. It is full of spikes. You download something and then once you have the data the usage stops. The net effect is that you can oversubscribe lines and people still get good service. Everyone gets to pay less and all is well. The larger the scale the more true this seems to be. The peaks in individual usage average out such that you can oversubscribe by a good amount and nobody has problems.

    However that breaks down if people start using things to the max all the time. The suck up a lot of bandwidth and leave little for everyone else, and it doesn't relent.

    Bittorrent is very bad for that. Part of it is because of the uploading, most torrent clients will just keep serving out what they've downloaded until they are stopped. Another part is the many BTers seem to be collectors. They'll download any and every thing they come across that they have any interest in and sort through it later. They always have multiple downloads going to get more stuff.

    As such it really screws over the way cheap connections work. So it isn't just that you are using so much, though that is part of it, it is that by using so much in a continuous fashion it degrades service for others.

  7. Re:Not Necessarily by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 3, Informative

    You are assuming that there is actually competition and not localized virtual monopolies. The reality however is that cable and teleco have divied out service area plots and hardly ever expand into each others' "turf". Even in one of the richest county in United States - Fairfax, VA. Depends on where you live, you either get Cox, Verizon, or Comcast. Areas where you may choose between the three service providers practically don't exist. So what happens when you want to drop your ISP? Well, the alternative is 56k dialup.

    --
    Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
  8. Not for cable providers by copponex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The internet is quickly turning everything we consume into data. Cable companies want to fragment what being on the internet means, and then charge you extra for wanting to use port 25 or have the "privilege" of using bittorrent. They want you to pay for cable TV even if you can get everything off of hulu or directly from nbc.com.

    If they can use technology to kick off high bandwidth users or force them to pay more without having to expand infrastructure, that's a hell of a lot better than expanding infrastructure. More short term profit. Higher stock price.

  9. lol by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Being someone that works for a major ISP in the department in which we receive and act on copyright complaints, I can tell you... we hate it. Think of it this way, when the DMCA was passed we suddenly had to create an entire department that produced no profits. In fact, it sometimes forces us to disconnect customers and LOSE money. I know that managent rutinely goes to our legal department to find out if they can just stop enforcing DMCA all together. Now, throttling the bandwidth of torrent users? Yea... they're all over that. What ISPs want are little old ladies paying $100/month for 10MB service and only using it to check their mail once a day.

  10. Re:ISP's hate bittorrent by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On a related note fat people are now banned from All You Can Eat restaurants.

    They have a tendency to eat all the time. Part of what makes cheap food cheap is that when you have a lot of people, you can share kitchens and normal eating patterns are such that they don't interfere with each other. You can see this when you have a roommate in that your microwave doesn't suddenly cook at half the speed just because there's another person using it as well sometimes. You'll probably find that it is the same overall. Same deal with an office kitchen. You all have 1000 watts to your coffee machine and say 3000 to the plug. Yet even with 10 people the coffee maker still seems to go full speed on your java all the time.

    Well the reason is because normal usage isn't sustained at maximum level. It is full of spikes. You eat something and then once you have the meal the usage stops. The net effect is that you can oversubscribe kitchens and people still get good service. Everyone gets to pay less and all is well. The larger the scale the more true this seems to be. The peaks in individual usage average out such that you can oversubscribe by a good amount and nobody has problems.

    However that breaks down if people start using things to the max all the time. The suck up a lot of gravy and leave little for everyone else, and it doesn't relent.

    Fatties are very bad for that. Part of it is because of the farting, most fat people will just keep serving out what they've eaten until they are stopped. Another part is the many fatties seem to be huge. They'll eat any and every thing they come across that they have any interest in and digest it later. They always have multiple plates going to get more stuff.

    As such it really screws over the way cheap restaurants work.
    So it isn't just that you are using so much, though that is part of it, it is that by using so much in a continuous fashion it degrades service for others.

    That was disturbingly easy to translate....

  11. I'm not saying it can't be by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm saying it usually isn't. This is based on my observation of torrent users. Now I'm not talking about the person who uses it to get patches for a game and doesn't know it, or the guy who downloads a Linux ISO for work or something. The ISPs have no problem with them, their bandwidth usage is fairly normal. The people I'm talking about are the torrent head types. Generally they are downloading copyrighted content, though not always. They just go crazy, they download tons and tons and tons of stuff, since it costs nothing. They have downloads going in the background, all the time. They are the ones who use tons, who cause problems. They just queue things up when they finish what they are getting now.

  12. Re:Not Necessarily by Thundersnatch · · Score: 3, Informative

    On the north side of Chicago (Lincoln park), you can choose between two cable, two 4g wireless, six 3g wireless, and about 10 xDSL providers. Oh, and that laggy sattelite service too. All this choice in the most corrupt political climate in the country. Maybe Fairfax needs to hire Todd Stroger.