Campaign against illegal filesharers

[dilbert]

Today, Mandy, the de-facto head of state, is announcing that the government will assume powers to "cut-off" the internet from illegal file sharers in 2011.

Obviously there are some rights and wrongs here, but does anyone know how they're actually going to prove that you are involved in illegal file sharing?

Is this going to be another badly thought out, unenforceable law, or is it really reasonable?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/28/m...

Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 28th October 14:50

[Marf]

It was always going to happen IMO.

ISP's could only hold out against the industry for so long. France already operates a three strikes and your out policy I believe.

[dilbert]

I'm not necessarily condoning it. My real question is how they actually tell the difference between legitimate transferring of files, and redistributing information over which one holds or is granted copyright.

I can't imagine that filesharers will do anything other than encrypt their traffic. This then makes it harder get at your data.

All I can imagine is that the burden of proof will be very low, so the gov won't have to decipher too many files. Or, perhaps, they'll just outlaw the use of arbitrary ethernet port numbers. Perhaps they will merely incriminate people for running particular applications on their computers.

When, for example, does an application become a file sharing application? I mean is Firefox not for filesharing?

Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 28th October 15:00

[Marf]

Its pretty simple to do.

All a publisher(or its law firm) needs to do is start downloading a torrent of some of their copyrighted work, and identify all the IP addresses that are sending them data. Ultimately a publisher has control over the legitimate distribution channels its software is available from.

My brother got served a take down notice for downloading the Prince of Persia PC game, well it was more that once he downloaded it, he didnt remove the data so the torrent client was serving it back up to the internet.

The ISP were very good about it, they said that they had not identified him to the law firm that served the notice, and that so long as he ceased to share the content that no further action would be taken.

[cs02rm0]

Marf said:

Its pretty simple to do.

All a publisher(or its law firm) needs to do is start downloading a torrent of some of their copyrighted work, and identify all the IP addresses that are sending them data.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I'm afraid you're missing the important bits of the puzzle here.

Edited by cs02rm0 on Wednesday 28th October 15:07

[dilbert]

I suppose that might work in the "civilised world", but I can't see it working on the Ivory Coast.

In addition, the Paedophiles that share their kiddy flicks, don't sound like they are doing it anything other than undercover now.

[Shoot Blair]

Control of the interweb is probably a bigger nut to crack, since the biggest nerds don't work for Prez Blair.

[Marf]

cs02rm0 said:

Marf said:

Its pretty simple to do.

All a publisher(or its law firm) needs to do is start downloading a torrent of some of their copyrighted work, and identify all the IP addresses that are sending them data. Ultimately a publisher has control over the legitimate distribution channels its software is available from.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I'm afraid you're missing the important bits of the puzzle here.

Rather than making a sarcastic condescending comment, perhaps you could explain and further the discussion?

As I understand it, if the IP address the data is being served from can be traced back to an ISP, then it can be traced back to the individual user by requesting that information from the ISP.

Edited by Marf on Wednesday 28th October 15:11

[chris watton]

Increasingly, this tired and moribund government make me picture a bully who has just realised no-one’s scared of him anymore, and just out of sheer spite, and to make himself feel a little better in his tiny, twisted mind, he lashes out on the weakest of the weak in school.

[Mr E]

Marf said:

As I understand it, if the IP address the data is being served from can be traced back to an ISP, then it can be traced back to the individual user by requesting that information from the ISP.

If it's a TOR ring, for example, the machine supplying the data will have no idea what it is or where it's come from. So, all these *evil* copyright infringers need to is switch from bog standard peer-peer to TOR, and it's untraceable.

[Marf]

Mr E said:

Marf said:

As I understand it, if the IP address the data is being served from can be traced back to an ISP, then it can be traced back to the individual user by requesting that information from the ISP.

If it's a TOR ring, for example, the machine supplying the data will have no idea what it is or where it's come from. So, all these *evil* copyright infringers need to is switch from bog standard peer-peer to TOR, and it's untraceable.

Hence why I said "if it can be traced back to the ISP"

And anyway, last time I checked you couldnt route P2P traffic through Tor?

[cs02rm0]

dilbert said:

I'm not necessarily condoning it. My real question is how they actually tell the difference between legitimate transferring of files, and redistributing information over which one holds or is granted copyright.

They quite possibly can't.

dilbert said:

I can't imagine that filesharers will do anything other than encrypt their traffic. This then makes it harder get at your data.

Yes, though as the ISP they could theoretically exploit a MITM attack and wouldn't necessarily have to crack the encryption. Not sure I see this as likely.

dilbert said:

All I can imagine is that the burden of proof will be very low, so the gov won't have to decipher too many files. Or, perhaps, they'll just outlaw the use of arbitrary ethernet port numbers. Perhaps they will merely incriminate people for running particular applications on their computers.

The burden of proof would have to be unworkably low. Any software application could be run on any port. The port number makes no difference.

dilbert said:

When, for example, does an application become a file sharing application? I mean is Firefox not for filesharing?

When they can tax you for it. There's no other distinction.

What if someone uses your wireless connection?
What if someone gains remote access to your computer?
What if someone spoofs your IP address?
What are the implications for coffee shops, etc?

As much as it is difficult to find out who is responsible, it is as easy to frame someone else, perhaps an MP. Although at least they have more than one residency to access the internet from. And they're probably excluded.

[Puggit]

Mr E said:

Marf said:

As I understand it, if the IP address the data is being served from can be traced back to an ISP, then it can be traced back to the individual user by requesting that information from the ISP.

If it's a TOR ring, for example, the machine supplying the data will have no idea what it is or where it's come from. So, all these *evil* copyright infringers need to is switch from bog standard peer-peer to TOR, and it's untraceable.

What I was about to write...

[page3]

Marf said:

Mr E said:

Marf said:

As I understand it, if the IP address the data is being served from can be traced back to an ISP, then it can be traced back to the individual user by requesting that information from the ISP.

If it's a TOR ring, for example, the machine supplying the data will have no idea what it is or where it's come from. So, all these *evil* copyright infringers need to is switch from bog standard peer-peer to TOR, and it's untraceable.

Hence why I said "if it can be traced back to the ISP"

And anyway, last time I checked you couldnt route P2P traffic through Tor?

A filename means nothing until all the file is obtained so its content can be determined. If course, are you actually breaching copyright before you watch said file?

If only the movie studios would give their customers a legal alternative...

[Ian_S]

Surely usenet & SSL bypasses this, and rapidshare also?

[cs02rm0]

Marf said:

Mr E said:

Marf said:

As I understand it, if the IP address the data is being served from can be traced back to an ISP, then it can be traced back to the individual user by requesting that information from the ISP.

If it's a TOR ring, for example, the machine supplying the data will have no idea what it is or where it's come from. So, all these *evil* copyright infringers need to is switch from bog standard peer-peer to TOR, and it's untraceable.

Hence why I said "if it can be traced back to the ISP"

And anyway, last time I checked you couldnt route P2P traffic through Tor?

It doesn't matter if it's Tor or any other alternative route.

[cs02rm0]

Marf said:

As I understand it, if the IP address the data is being served from can be traced back to an ISP, then it can be traced back to the individual user by requesting that information from the ISP.

Wrong. An IP address identifies a computer, it doesn't identify who the user is. It doesn't even identify that the source machine is even inside that ISP's control, merely that the connection passed through a computer that was. In fact, it may not even identify that potentially.

Edited by cs02rm0 on Wednesday 28th October 15:31

[Marf]

cs02rm0 said:

Marf said:

As I understand it, if the IP address the data is being served from can be traced back to an ISP, then it can be traced back to the individual user by requesting that information from the ISP.

Wrong. An IP address identifies a computer, it doesn't identify who the user is. It doesn't even identify that the source machine is even inside that ISP's control, merely that the connection passed through a computer that was.

OK, so how are take down notices served to users then? It sounds like you are inferring that the ISP doesnt know who the data their servers are receiving is being sent to?

[him_over_there]

Marf said:

cs02rm0 said:

Marf said:

Its pretty simple to do.

All a publisher(or its law firm) needs to do is start downloading a torrent of some of their copyrighted work, and identify all the IP addresses that are sending them data. Ultimately a publisher has control over the legitimate distribution channels its software is available from.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I'm afraid you're missing the important bits of the puzzle here.

Rather than making a sarcastic condescending comment, perhaps you could explain and further the discussion?

As I understand it, if the IP address the data is being served from can be traced back to an ISP, then it can be traced back to the individual user by requesting that information from the ISP.

Edited by Marf on Wednesday 28th October 15:11

Well, yes.

They will have the IP address of the last link in the chain. But there are filesharing networks out their operating like onion routing (like TOR, for exmaple).

[dilbert]

cs02rm0 said:

Marf said:

As I understand it, if the IP address the data is being served from can be traced back to an ISP, then it can be traced back to the individual user by requesting that information from the ISP.

Wrong. An IP address identifies a computer, it doesn't identify who the user is. It doesn't even identify that the source machine is even inside that ISP's control, merely that the connection passed through a computer that was.

I think you're right.

It's almost certainly the thin end of a wedge. I'm not condoning the Paedophile angle, but that started out being a question of the illegal distribution. The distribution moved to the Ivory Coast (or wherever) and still people in the UK persisted in getting the kiddy flicks.

Now the government just raid people's houses looking for the stuff (where they have a suspicion).

I know of someone who had their house raided in conjunction with child porn. Apparently the police scoured the house. It was the blokes wife's undie draw and the lot. In the end, all the evidence they took away was a video of their (naturally - in hospital) deceased child.

I think this filesharing thing will be a similar deal, although more acceptable in guilt.

Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 28th October 15:41