New US ISP sanctioned/controlled piracy database will mean the end to internet privacy.

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

hmm i wonder if anonymous will have anything to say about this...


still, i know a few people who will be within the top 1% to get drilled instantly, they have terabytes walking around of nothing they paid for.

 

[t3h br0th3r]

oh noes! an attempt to enforce the laws!

Going after people who break the law is an invasion of privacy!


But seriously, this just seems like the internet version of traffic light cameras. If you don't break the laws, there is nothing to worry about here.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

I was hoping to end to the sentence was "the end to internet piracy". No it won't. It'll never end, it's only going to get easier and more common, and there isn't anything the governments of the world can realistically do about it.

We have to put some faith in the decency, forethought and perspective of people. It's they who will decide if something's worth paying for, even if they don't have to.

I don't have much to say about the link though; I read it earlier and didn't think much of it, it seems like another hopelessly non-committal meandering of the internet police pleading with ISP's to control their customers. Nothing will come of it, don't worry.

And even if this miraculously manages to retain substance and see some follow through, it's still not the end to piracy.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

We've just recently crossed a line in the UK too, one that we can never go back on. BT Internet lost a court battle against the MPAA (an american organisation) and as a result have to block Newzbin, a Usenet indexer (it doesn't actually contain anything illegal).

Now that it's happened once, it has set a precedent and there is probably little chance any ISPs in the UK will ever win a court case against blocking sites, something they've entirely avoided till now. So any industry body could likely pick most any site and ISP and win. Thank heavens for anyonymous proxies.

 

[William Dickbringer]

instead of saying I'm for or against it this is my reaction pirates ruined our privacy over the internet and now they're cracking down on it

but any time a government tries to shut down illegal activities (piracy, downloading of child pornography)

now when the fuck has someone made a thread saying "I believe child porn should be legalized"

 

[Deadman Walkin]

"People who torrent things illegally have brought this on themselves, and I'm not really all that sympathetic...

They haven't brought it on themselves, they brought it on you and everyone else because they are crazy and don't care about rights just profit

 

[Raesvelg]

As for total bandwidth caps, technically it's more along the lines of they sell you a plan based on speed, and then don't tell you there's a cap unless you read the fine print. You're just left to assume you don't have one, and find out otherwise to your dismay.

Anyhoo.

I take a few things from this article. First, I take that it was on Torrentfreak, and as such, can in no conceivable way be considered an unbiased source. Second, that it was poorly researched. They literally admit: "We couldn't get in touch with the people we wanted to, so we got in touch with this other guy by accident, and he told us THIS", which doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the veracity of the material.

Now, those two caveats aside, the third thing is that the ISPs will be the ones holding the information that they already have. ISPs already monitor people for suspicious activity, and it's already a pain in the ass at times for some folks.

So the only real change from the status quo (that I can discern from this article) is... a third party will now filter this information (which the rest of the text implies will be anonymous) looking for suspicious activities. Which could be irritating, but isn't exactly the end of the known world.

As for the penalties, they actually seem fairly lenient; 6 warnings before any actual punitive action can be taken, and theoretically a database that purges after 12 months of no suspicious activity.

 

[aashell13]

Doesn't this only apply in the US?

yes, but the danger of allowing things like this to stand in a democratic country lies in an accumulation of precedence: in former times, only authoritarian regimes allowed this type of censorship; if austrailia allows it, and the US allows it, it becomes more legitimate.

 

[KaiserKnight]

I have decided to remove this comment for a few reasons.

 

[Uncreation]

I don't see the internet as a God given right, and the 'Freedom of Information' BS just pisses me off as an excuse for piracy.

I say this is a great step in the fight against the spoiled internet thief.

You're right, please post your full name, social security number, home phone number, address, birthday, and mother maiden name . . . . . that is unless you have something to hide.

As soon as I infringe on copyrights, via file sharing, I will!

But I don't, so I won't : P

What? Why not now? Obviously you have nothing to hide, so why not post it up so that we can all use it as we see wish?

Wait, what's that? You like your privacy? Now that isn't right. Only pirates and people who have something to hide need privacy.

1) The people who pirate, and would be watched by this, would not have their personal info up for grabs for everyone under the net to see.

2) Dickhead hacker/spammer/wannabes take that info and troll people. So I don't want any 'anonymous' types to have it. So I won't post my info here.

3)-'Only pirates and people who have something to hide need privacy.'- Your blanket statement is funny.

But isn't that the point that so many people are making? If you don't have anything to hide that's illegal, they why do you mind losing your privacy?

The point is, if you use file sharing for nefarious purposes, your IP address will be used to slow down the offender?s connection.

People are acting like everyone on the web will have everyone's bank account information.

And how exactly will they know if someone uses torrents for illegal activities? After all, you can use torrents without infringing on copy rights. Doesn't that mean they'll have to actually analyze what you're downloading, to determine that? How can i be ok with that? It's basically looking around through my private things. And if they just punish people for using torrents period, then that is also unfair, since torrents can be used for downloading completely legal files.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

You know, if you didn't pirate things, you wouldn't have to worry about it. Saying you are concerned with this sort-of thing is more or less admitting to piracy, since it wouldn't bother you in the slightest if you didn't illegally download things.

I don't pirate.

The issue is I DON'T TRUST ISPS's to limit it to piracy, and it would set VERY bad precedent.

 

[RikuoAmero]

I don't see the internet as a God given right, and the 'Freedom of Information' BS just pisses me off (as an excuse for piracy).

I say this is a great step in the fight against the spoiled internet thief.

You can keep posting this as many times as you want and you are never going to get anyone on your side...

OT: Pretty ridiculous, but it seems like a rumor right now. We'll have to wait and see.

So 'your side' would be that the internet is a God given right, 'Freedom of Information' should allow piracy of games, movies, ect, and that fighting internet piracy is bad.

Glad we know each other better : )

Actually, internet is a human right, according to the U.N.
Freedom of Information is a human right, but it does not equate to downloading games/movies.
What I and others are worried about is the fact that copyright holders (mainly the RIAA and music labels, who are behind this) have a horrible record of actually finding real infringement.
The RIAA has sued thousands of John Does in lawsuits, sending legal nastygrams saying "Pay us X thousand dollars and we won't take you to court". The catch being that people often pay up because its cheaper versus defending yourself in court, often if you are completely innocent. This has resulted in a business model of suing people for profit
The six strikes system here is based on a system of ACCUSATIONS, not convictions. If you're ever accused six times, then your internet access is slowed/cut off. You can appeal, but you have to pay 30 or so dollars. The system only allows a limited number of defenses.
So basically, we're being told we can be sued at will, we have to pay money to defend ourselves (outside of legal fees) and we're being told exactly how we can defend ourselves. It's an extremely one-sided arrangement.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

So this is only the United States right? That really sucks for you guys. I hope you overturn it before other countries start getting any ideas.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I guess no matter how many studies you make about piracy not affecting sales and sometimes benefiting the companies, these people will never learn. They need to pull their head out of their ass first and then maybe you could have a civilized and reasoned dialogue with them. This really sucks for Americans. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves right now. They started the age of reason in America, and 200 years later it's all about who is going to be the greediest and most irrational person alive.

There's a lot of buzz in America lately about censoring the internet, limiting internet freedom, tracking whatever people on the internet are doing etc. You may think this particular step is a good thing and that it won't affect you, but this is just one step towards complete internet control by the government or a private company. It doesn't matter who. That's how it starts. You think it's not important, and you're just giving up rights you once had, until you're left with nothing. Snap out of it and do something about it already.

 

[Elementlmage]

It won't bother you from a practical standpoint if you don't illegally download.

It can still bother you on principle regardless.
_

Men can still care about Women's Rights. Straight people can still care about Gay Rights. Human beings can still care about Animal Rights.

Why do you feel that in this one area people need to be directly affected to give a shit, when they don't have to be in any other?

Did you just draw a parallel between piracy and women's/gay rights? Um, alright... that's an interesting analogy. Piracy is kind of illegal you know. Last time I checked, it wasn't a basic human right like, say what women's/gay rights and such.

Okay, how about I go hang up some cameras in front of your house and watch everything you do? You've got nothing to hide, right?

I don't see the internet as a God given right, and the 'Freedom of Information' BS just pisses me off (as an excuse for piracy).

I say this is a great step in the fight against the spoiled internet thief.

You can keep posting this as many times as you want and you are never going to get anyone on your side...

OT: Pretty ridiculous, but it seems like a rumor right now. We'll have to wait and see.

So 'your side' would be that the internet is a God given right, 'Freedom of Information' should allow piracy of games, movies, ect, and that fighting internet piracy is bad.

Glad we know each other better : )

Ah assumption, the bastard son of egotism and uncritical thought. Congrats! You just broke every single questionable premise fallacy IN ONE SENTENCE! That has got to be a new record for you, if not the whole world!

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Given that the RIAA has a history of suing dead people [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/05/riaa_sues_the_dead/], laser printers [http://boingboing.net/2008/06/05/entertainment-indust-1.html] and people who don't have a computer or Internet access [http://www.techshout.com/internet/2006/24/riaa-sues-local-family-without-computer-for-illegal-music-file-sharing/#], making it even easier for them to effectively pick names out of a hat to extort might not be the best idea.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

oh noes! an attempt to enforce the laws!

Going after people who break the law is an invasion of privacy!


But seriously, this just seems like the internet version of traffic light cameras. If you don't break the laws, there is nothing to worry about here.

It is an invasion of privacy because they can't just know exactly who is doing the pirating unless they just look at the pirating sites and get traces of the people doing it, but they think that takes to long, so they will come into anybody's computer unannounced and look at everything, especially your "naughty" folders.

Pornography and other sexual material is legal, but it is something that the US government is against, imposing bizarre regulations. Just look at Australia and how they were banning the showing of pictures of small breasted women, it didn't matter if the women were of age. Do that alienates such women and closes a career for them if they want it.

Gambling is legal in many states, but look how the Us Government came in and wrecked the US online poker market, petty much making playing poker on the internet not worth it.

What I'm saying is, if people with enough power deem something you do as bad, even though it is legal, eventually they could gain the ability regulate that thing and ruin what you do in your private life. Take computer games, if they deem that people are playing too many violent computer games and they think the violence is excessive, they could get the power to come in and dictate how your favorite game company makes games.

Piracy is bad and is illegal for obvious reasons, but such power that they want, will let them look through anybody's computer even if they aren't doing anything illegal, and if the people in power sees that people are doing things that are legal, but they find those things objectionable or bad, then they will go on a regulation and banning campaign and if you have anything like that on your computer, they will already know about it before you even know they have begun singling people like you out.

Heck, I would say that a majority of guys have a secret "naughty" folder hidden somewhere on their computers. In that folder I have quite a few different kinds of kinks, they aren't illegal to have, but they are the kind that if one were to act them out in real life they would be. The thing is at least half the fetishes around are of that nature, and I know at least on the private level, being able to look at such things are impossible if you don't have the right stuff(certain card companies won't let people purchase such things).

So basically, this type of thing they want to be allowed to do, is wrong. With this, they will be able to search anybody's computer even if they have don't have a solid lead that the people have done anything wrong.

I would amend what they want to do and say they can only look through somebody's computer if they actually had proof that the person had been to a known pirating site and downloaded something, because they can get that kind of proof without illegally rummaging around somebodies private computer.

 

[fulano]

Go police state! It is only cool if the U.S does it, I guess. Everyone else does it and it is considered a backwards practice and an abuse.

it is stupid to assume this system will be used solely to monitor piracy. It always starts like this before stuff like this ends up expanding and spilling over different aspects of people's lives.