view:

topics flat nest axus

join:2001-06-18

Washington, DC axus Member Next we will be tracking leaked documents And disconnecting anyone with information the government declares classified. Finally, encryption will be declared an illegal circumvention of copyright protection methods.

nothing00

join:2001-06-10

Centereach, NY nothing00 Member Re: Next we will be tracking leaked documents Uh, it's easier to create a surveillance society using private companies than the government. There's still a Constitution that protects citizens from government. There's no such thing that protects citizens from agreements they've made with a private company.



ISPs will just (if they already haven't) amend their TOS to include inspecting all of your traffic, however deep for the purposes of "network management". Done deal and you agreed to it.



It's disturbing that this has happened with support from the Administration. I can only suspect that the *IAA's shill Biden is responsible for this catastrophe.

elwoodblues

Elwood Blues

Premium Member

join:2006-08-30

Somewhere in elwoodblues Premium Member Re: Next we will be tracking leaked documents said by nothing00: Uh, it's easier to create a surveillance society using private companies than the government. There's still a Constitution that protects citizens from government. There's no such thing that protects citizens from agreements they've made with a private company.



Unless they are are contracted/legislated by the government do do so.

FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Not ID'ing company? Maybe because contract not signed yet Not ID'ing company? Maybe because the contract may not have been signed yet. Ascribing nasty intentions to the process and assuming secrecy isn't justified yet. Let's wait until something is announced and a contract is signed before proclaiming evil intentions.

Adam J

@sunwave.com.br Adam J Anon Re: Not ID'ing company? Maybe because contract not signed yet Are you for real?



Yeah, because if anybody deserves the benefit of the doubt, it's the MPAA/RIAA. These companies wouldn't talk about the details of their last plan, and won't talk about the details of this one. There's no transparency here.

ArrayList

DevOps

Premium Member

join:2005-03-19

Mullica Hill, NJ ArrayList Premium Member why do the ISPs even care about this? Can someone tell me why ISPs even have to listen to the RIAA/MPAA? what law says that they have to? why are they taking on the extra costs of dealing with this crap? Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06 Wilsdom Member Re: why do the ISPs even care about this? I think what they are covering up is:

1. They have business relationships with the MPAA and are engaging in monopolistic practices

2. They are receiving cash payments from copyright interests not to provide internet and are violating subscriber and franchise agreements

Kilroy

MVM

join:2002-11-21

Saint Paul, MN Kilroy to ArrayList

MVM to ArrayList

said by ArrayList: Can someone tell me why ISPs even have to listen to the RIAA/MPAA? Because they have the best politicians that money can buy in their pocket. If they don't deal with the RIAA/MPAA directly they risk having to deal with laws passed by congress. This could cost them tons of cash to archive every byte that every customer moves through their system for a specific time, probably years. The data retention alone could bankrupt and ISP.

ArrayList

DevOps

Premium Member

join:2005-03-19

Mullica Hill, NJ ArrayList Premium Member Re: why do the ISPs even care about this? If that is the case then I say they should push the MPAA/RIAA towards that. Lets see what happens when congress gets the blame for bankrupting them and as a result, eliminating competition. Kiljoy616

join:2010-02-21

Miami, FL Kiljoy616 Member Re: why do the ISPs even care about this? Congress wipes it's ass with what you or me think.

OldschoolDSL

Premium Member

join:2006-02-23

Indian Orchard, MA 1 recommendation OldschoolDSL Premium Member Government for rent Slightly in debt`ed government for rent.



Must be willing to lie to the general public, undermine privacy rights, keep appointments to backdoor secretive meetings, and regularly think of the Constitution as tee-pee (toilet paper).



Requirements are simple... Must present lump sum of cash or open ended blank check. Lump sum of cash accepted, but open ended blank check preferred.



Only the rich need apply. Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29

Eustis, FL 1 edit Mr Matt Member Seems to violate wiretapping laws!

HF Article M···1987.pdf

5,430,398 bytes

Same crap 24 Years ago! How will the copyright police be able to detect copyright violations without monitoring every subscriber using P2P file sharing software. Several months ago when I attempted to download an instruction manual from a manufacture I was given a choice of using a P2P file sharing option to download the file. What happens to those subscribers downloading files that are not copyrighted but using P2P file sharing software. Will anyone using P2P file sharing software be marked with a Scarlet Letter and have all of their broadband communications run through the latest SNOOPMASTER Hardware just in case they might be sharing copyrighted data? It appears that the piracy issue is just a MacGuffin:



»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin



to justify monitoring subscribers communications and circumvent wiretapping laws.



Unfortunately High Fidelity Magazine ceased publication June 1989. How will the copyright police be able to detect copyright violations without monitoring every subscriber using P2P file sharing software. Several months ago when I attempted to download an instruction manual from a manufacture I was given a choice of using a P2P file sharing option to download the file. What happens to those subscribers downloading files that are not copyrighted but using P2P file sharing software. Will anyone using P2P file sharing software be marked with a Scarlet Letter and have all of their broadband communications run through the latest SNOOPMASTER Hardware just in case they might be sharing copyrighted data? It appears that the piracy issue is just a MacGuffin:to justify monitoring subscribers communications and circumvent wiretapping laws.Unfortunately High Fidelity Magazine ceased publication June 1989.

FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Re: Seems to violate wiretapping laws! Wiretapping laws apply to telecom services and not data services(like the FCC categorized the internet). Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06 Wilsdom to Mr Matt

Member to Mr Matt

They are probably going to trawl P2P swarms for people torrenting files that interest them like they did before. When your IP is flagged your ISP is notified to disconnect you. Much easier than moving millions of lawsuits through the courts. And if they can get most of population kicked of the internet piracy will obviously be significantly reduced. openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: Seems to violate wiretapping laws! said by Wilsdom: When your IP is flagged your ISP is notified to disconnect you. Except disconnections aren't really part of this plan.

Gbcue

Premium Member

join:2001-09-30

Santa Rosa, CA Gbcue Premium Member Re: Seems to violate wiretapping laws! said by openbox9: said by Wilsdom: When your IP is flagged your ISP is notified to disconnect you.

Except disconnections aren't really part of this plan. Yet. MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

join:2007-08-15

Austin, TX MyDogHsFleas Premium Member ISPs don't want to tell pirates how they'll be stopped. This is a real shocker! Didn't see that coming!

BigStew

Premium Member

join:2000-12-21

Atlanta, GA BigStew Premium Member Say adios to privacy on the net... I wanna know some details about the technology being used, but the DtecNet site doesn't say a word about this. The DtecNet site does say:



"DtecNets solutions will automatically secure evidence against the infringer(s) and generate Cease & Desist letters that can be sent to the infringer(s) asking for immediate removal of the content."



I guess I was expecting to see something like Paxfire's tech.



I was used to thinking that SSL encrypted connections were safe, but now there are fake certs and MITM proxies with deep packet inspection that kicks privacy out the window.



I don't share copyrighted content but I do download some of my TV shows via usenet w/SSL. If I were to get an automated RIAA letter I'd rather fight it than settle.



They seem to target P2P networks, but this is just the beginning folks. WTF happened to net neutrality? Yeah I may be mixing to different topics, but I think that they are related. Rekrul

join:2007-04-21

Milford, CT Rekrul Member Paranoia... I'm not defending this deal in any way, but I have to say that the level of paranoia displayed by most people here is amazing.



I haven't read or heard anything that even hints at ISPs being the ones to do the snooping, or that anyone will be hacking into your data stream to inspect what you're transferring. All they're going to do is monitor P2P networks, like they do now. The only difference is that they now have an official agreement with various ISPs to take some kind of action when the anti-piracy companies send them a note saying that a specific IP address was seen sharing copyrighted files.



Honestly, do you think it would even be considered legal for an ISP or a third-party company to snoop on the data going to and from your system? The second word got out that they were doing that, they'd be sued by doctors, lawyers, non-entertainment corporations and probably even the government. Yes, I know the government is gung-ho about having ISPs stop piracy, but do you really think that they'd support having all their data inspected by some third-party?



Now, I'm sure that someone will point out that ISPs have already used DPI to be able to throttle P2P transfers, but there's a big difference between checking to see what kind of traffic is emanating from a system and actually checking the data to see what the files are.



Additionally, how would it even be practical for an ISP to examine every single packet? P2P software doesn't transfer the parts of a file in order, so you might download the last bit first. How will they be able to match that one part to a file hash? Unless they keep hashes for each possible packet of a file, and then you're talking a few billion hashes that every packet will need to be compared against.

ctceo

Premium Member

join:2001-04-26

South Bend, IN ctceo Premium Member Done and Done. This should come as no surprise. I've seen this tactic in use by the MAFIAA and NSA for a decade or more.



Instead of punishing people for committing crimes which are tempted to them by the corrupt systems in place, why don't we fix that instead and the problem will fix itself. your comment..

