Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting July!

[Dillon Levenque]

That article is in reference to a criminal case brought against the creators of Megaupload for illegal file-sharing. Period.

I don't have any love for either the movie or music industries: they make buckets of money and as usual most of it goes to the people with talent—that is, a talent for making money. But I get my movies from Netflix. If I want music I buy it, most of the time (I do get stuff from friends). Illegal file sharing for non-profit reasons may not be a serious crime, but it IS still illegal and, in my opinion, for a very good reason.

 

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[Mircea Lobo]

I mentioned EFF because I got this in a subscription email from them. I'm seeing the article talks about a SOPA-like law, but other people stated it's about the past Megaupload incident. Wonder why the email was sent today then. Anyway, if that's correct, thanks for clearing it up... glad I didn't panic as much about this one. Makes me feel silly about myself that I'm taking every such article seriously without reading more, but the SOPA times come back and it's hard to not worry, and I really don't wanna lose all the websites and things I use on the internet.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Alisha Matova wrote:

I'm not so sure. Yes I agree that pirating is bad. But, RIAA's power play is disgusting. It shows just how powerful these corporations have become. They go to congress and get denied, so they pass some cash around and do it behind closed doors, instead.

I think it is that, and the perceived loss of more freedoms that are causing discontent here. At least for me.

---

This is why I'm for big government regulation. When private actors try to "regulate" there's no one there to stop them, and they trample all over everyone else's right to secure their own. "Leaving it to the market" just ensures those with power get more power.

At least with government regulation - there are checks in place and everyone is forced to sit down at the table and fight it out so something balanced or repealable comes into play.

Lets corps run the show, and you end up with fascism. That's not a godwin - look up 'Facism' in the dictionary: its technical meaning is a state run by corporations and military in cahoots. Facism is -GREAT- for business, at the cost of everyone else. These corps need to be regulated, before they regulate us.

SOPA being a mess didn't mean 'hand uncontrolled license over to the corps' - it meant it was time to sit back down and come up with a better idea.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Alisha Matova wrote:

I'm not so sure. Yes I agree that pirating is bad. But, RIAA's power play is disgusting. It shows just how powerful these corporations have become. They go to congress and get denied, so they pass some cash around and do it behind closed doors, instead.

I think it is that, and the perceived loss of more freedoms that are causing discontent here. At least for me.

---

I don't see anything negative or wrong about companies asking other companies, that are used for downloading pirate stuff, to help prevent it. I still have the view that the only people who have any cause to be disappointed with it are those who download or stream pirate stuff. The only "freedom" that's under threat with this is the freedom to steal, and that's a freedom that nobody should have.

 

---

Are you in the UK Phil? I ask because the UK is far ahead of the US with surveillance and other Big Brother feeling practices. Is it possible you have become numb to privacy invasion and over powered government(or business) tactics? I certainly dont mean that in a bad way. I'm just wondering if it's a mater of perspective. In the US we are just starting to deal with new cameras and techie privacy issues now, and have our guard up. Maybe in a few years we will have no choice but to put up with it as well.

---

Yes, I'm in the UK, but I haven't become numb to privacy invasion. I never see it, so it's not a matter of perspective. I don't mind our government making crime more risky by so-called 'Big Brother' methods - cameras, et al. The only time that such Big Brother methods would be wrong is when they are used in ways that aren't against crime.

I honestly can't understand anyone's objection to a company doing what it can to prevent its goods being stolen. I suspect that there may be some misunderstanding of the way this will work. Some people may imagine strangers sitting watching what they are doing on the web - monitoring them. But that's not the case. It would be absolutly wrong if it were. I don;t know the way it will work, but I imagine it will be a case of logging the names of people who download/stream from specific websites, and then checking what they downloaded/streamed. Simple as that. I can't see any objection to that at all. It's not limiting freedoms, and it's not spying on people.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 The only people for whom it is good news are those who download pirated movies and music. Your attitude to this matter is astonishing - unless you are one of those thieves, of course.

---

Equivilence is:-

---

Phil Deakins (abridged) wrote:

 You only need to be worried about corporations working together if you're doing something that corporations don't like. Such as not helping them make money.

---

---

That's garbagee. I shouldn't need to explain why but, if you can't see it, just ask and I will.

 

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

Consumer rights are important. As is the prevention of allowing market forces to be twisted and allowing consumers to come to harm caused by corporations' predatory greed.

---

Of course consumer rights are important, but the topic of this thread isn't about consumer rights. It's about the prevention of theft. If you're suggesting that we have a right that what we do on the web isn't known by our ISPs, you're very much mistaken. By connecting to the web via an ISP, we necessarily accept that what we do on the web can be seen by the ISP if they want to see. Anyone who really doesn't want it to be like that can become their own ISP - but it's far from cheap.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

That's garbagee. I shouldn't need to explain why but, if you can't see it, just ask and I'll explain it.

---

 

Please do.

The 'only bad people need to worry about...' argument is as tired as it is hilarious.

See: War on Drugs, PATRIOT Act, TSA bodyscanners, CCTV and 'speed cameras'.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

That's garbagee. I shouldn't need to explain why but, if you can't see it, just ask and I'll explain it.

---

Please do.

---

Ok. You rewrote what I wrote to say, "You only need to be worried about corporations working together if you're doing something that corporations don't like. Such as not helping them make money."

First, you made no suggestion of what the corporation may do that should cause us to worry.

Second, the steps that are about to be taken are nothing to do with "making money", in the way that you used the phrase. They are to do with preventing theft, which is totally different.

Third, in the context of this thread, which it is, the corporations are about to take steps to prevent the theft of their products, and the only people who have any cause to worry are those who continue to steal those products. I.e the worry is specific to the thieves.

Hence, your rewrite of what I wrote was garbage.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

First, you made no suggestion of what the corporation may do that should cause us to worry.

---

Everything a corporation does should cause you worry, on some level. They don't act in the interest of the consumer.

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Second, the steps that are about to be taken are nothing to do with "making money", in the way that you used the phrase. They are to do with preventing theft, which is totally different.

---

Ah no. By the time this information is online, the theft has already been commited. This legislation is to do with preventing loss of income after the theft. The problem with this is that it's playing 'whack-a-mole', rather than patching the obvious holes in the system to prevent the theft in the first place. Had the industries involved taken the time (and spent the money) to patch these holes, our rights wouldn't have to be sold off. Our rights don't earn corporations anything; so they are saving money (and therefore making it).

ETA: A corporation's only purpose is to seek profit. Everything it does, therefore, is tied back to this drive.

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Third, in the context of this thread, which it is, the corporations are about to take steps to prevent the theft of their products, and the only people who have any cause to worry are those who continue to steal those products. I.e the worry is specific to the thieves.

---

Again, the theft has already been commited. All this does is remove consumer rights, limit market freedoms and instill surveillance systems that criminalise the average consumer.

As an example of this, consider the Sony 'Rootkit' exposé. A corporation doing something it believed was right, and would prevent people from making money from the exploitation of digital Sony products. They did this by sneakily installing rooting software onto their own customers computers, leading to huge security exploits. I doubt criminals were worried.

Thank you for the expansion, though.

[Phil Deakins]

Rather than quote each of your three statements, I'll respond to them in the order that you wrote them, so it should be clear.

1. Corporations act in the interest of themselves. They don't exist for other people's benefit. All for-profit entities work for profit, including the company/business you work for if you have a job. If you are self-employed, you work for your own personal interests too. You seem to putting across the idea that there's something wrong with it. There isn't.

2. Of course theft has already been commited. The problem is, it continues to be commited and that's what the companies are trying to plug. Doing it by "'whack-a-mole" merthods is an effective way of doing it, especially if they can whack a lot of moles. It makes other potential moles think twice before stealing from them. In other words, 'whack-a-mole' can work very effectively and is, therefore, a good measure to take. It's not a negative measure as you seem to imply.

So far, the victim companies have been very heavy handed with thieves they caught, costing the thieves dearly. This new method is a hell of a lot softer because it warns thieves instead of taking them into the legal system where it can be very costly for the thieves. If I were a thief, I'd much prefer this new method to be used against me than the other one. Wouldn't you? You'll probably say that it's not the thieves you are concerned about, and that it's the rights of everyone else. But you haven't specified any rights that anyone will lose. And you can't specify any because there aren't any.

Your rights aren't being "sold off". You are absolutely wrong about that. If you imagine you are right, please tell me what rights you are losing. You can't, because there aren't any.

3. As I said in #2, nobody is losing any rights. People don't have a right to steal, and catching thieves does not infringe any rights.

You exploitation of a company's digital products example is irrelevant because it's not a parallel to this case. But, since you mentioned it, there is nothing wrong with companies putting theft prevention measures into their software, and there is everything right about it. I don't know anything about the Sony case but if what they did left security holes, then they did it wrong, that's all. Microsoft has been doing it for years (Windows Genuine Advantage), as have probably all for-profit software companies. Any that don't are idiots.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Alisha Matova wrote:

I'm not so sure. Yes I agree that pirating is bad. But, RIAA's power play is disgusting. It shows just how powerful these corporations have become. They go to congress and get denied, so they pass some cash around and do it behind closed doors, instead.

I think it is that, and the perceived loss of more freedoms that are causing discontent here. At least for me.

---

This is why I'm for big government regulation. When private actors try to "regulate" there's no one there to stop them, and they trample all over everyone else's right to secure their own. "Leaving it to the market" just ensures those with power get more power.

At least with government regulation - there are checks in place and everyone is forced to sit down at the table and fight it out so something balanced or repealable comes into play.

Lets corps run the show, and you end up with fascism. That's not a godwin - look up 'Facism' in the dictionary: its technical meaning is a state run by corporations and military in cahoots. Facism is -GREAT- for business, at the cost of everyone else. These corps need to be regulated, before they regulate us.

SOPA being a mess didn't mean 'hand uncontrolled license over to the corps' - it meant it was time to sit back down and come up with a better idea.

 

---

i watched all those hearings..credit goes to the people of the states for becoming aware and standing up before it was voted on..it was outnumbered  until we the people spoke up..

States and the people in each of them have been what has been holding off corps when they take a bigger step than "we the people" feel they need to be taking..capitol hill is filled with shareholders in these corps..even they will set their own greed aside when the people stand up and say..you are about to lose that chair and then some if you vote yes on this or no on this..

it's harder to chop down 50 different types of trees in your way than it is just one big soft one when the people unite..

a government of the people by the people and for the people..they seem to forget that at times and need to be woken up..

it was the people coming together from all over the states that put a hold on SOPA by reminding those people sitting in those chairs about to make a decision for all states.. that they better really think about this a lot harder before they make a decision based on lack of their own education of what they were about to vote on..

and once again they were reminded..and woken up and told..they still work for us..

when they get too big for thier britches and have pushed it too far and overstepped one too many times to where  the majority feel the need for a change..then we will see a renaissance..

because there is a point that we the people..the ones that won't stand for it..will take it back ..or die trying..

there  will always be that as a last resort.. which nobody really wants but will if it has to come to that..

i'm just glad we can still have strong enough voice to put them in a hot seat on decisions as a weapon..rather than the alternative..

big government did not make that decision about SOPA..the people made that decision by sliding their chair right in there voicing up in a loud way..because we could see those old rotting bastards were out of date on the information they were recieving..

we don't need big government..we need a younger government that is up with the times that can understand it's people..

i thought half of those guys were about to croak..there should be an age limit that you have to give up the chair..i mean there are some people in there that look like they have been embalmed LOL

[Freya Mokusei]

1. I'm putting across the idea that corporations profit without thought of benefitting the consumer. Profit-seeking on its own is natural enough, but no-one should implicitly trust anything a corporation says or does, because unless you're a share-holder, they don't care about you.

2 & 3. 'They did it wrong' isn't an acceptable excuse. There are countless stories like the Rootkit one, all of them victimising either the creators or the consumers. How about Amazon refusing to pay eBook authors their full price because Amazon decided to sell their products for less? The now commonplace 'locking' of hardware to prevent consumers from being able to perform basic repairs? How about the dozens of vendors that lose data on their subscribers every year, product keys and personal information being left out in the open to be resold for spam-mail, credit-card harvesting and whatever else. I'm sorry, but defending these practices is just non-sensical.

If you think corporations will ever be trustworthy on this issue you are sorely mistaken. If you think any measure such as this has helped you (as a consumer) in any way, you are also mistaken. Please look at some examples from very recent history. All of them prove your defence of these corporations to be inadequate.

Please conduct further research on this issue, and look up some of the history involved. It is important.

Statutory Rights

Resell Rights

EU Protects Digital Resale

[Phil Deakins]

I'm not defending corporations (or criticising them). I'm saying that they have a right to protect themselves against theft, and that the topic of this thread is simply protecting themselves against theft - and without using a heavy hammer to do it. It doesn't involve locking anyone's equipment, and it doesn't involve underpaying anyone, or any other such negative thing. All it will do is stop people from stealing from them, first by a warning, then by another warning, etc. It can't be any softer or unobtrusive than that.

"They did it wrong" is a very good conclusion to make about anyone or any entity that oversteps the bounds. I didn't say it as an "excuse" because it doesn't excuse anything. Just because some entities have done things wrong does not mean that entities should not take any steps to protect themselves from theft. They should take steps, of course, but not in ways that are negative or harmful to innocent people. The topic of this thread is such a step that isn't negative or harmful to anyone except actual thieves.

Nobody, including you, has suggested any way(s) in which the topic of this thread will impact innocent people. I'm still waiting to hear any such ways. I'm not going hear any because none exist but, unless anyone can show any ways, the step being taken is perfectly good - and desirable for all - except thieves, of course.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

It can't be any softer or unobtrusive than that.

---

This is absolutely false. Having your ISP checking your data-stream for pirated content is equivilent to having your mail-man check your mail for cash, just in case it was stolen.

If you don't see the dangers in this system then you deserve everything you'll get by allowing corporations to implement it*. With your continued persistance in ignoring repeats of history, and your lack of understanding of the scope of this problem, I am withdrawing from this point of discussion.

Good luck to you all the same.

 

* I realise you're not a US national, and won't be affected directly by these changes. The UK has its own, and you'll have to bend over even further:- http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/06/the-uks-getting-a-three-strikes-and-your-isp-throws-you-under-a-bus-law-targeting-pirates/

[Phil Deakins]

You think there's something wrong with checking what you download for pirated stuff? You have a very strange idea there.

I think that all decent-minded people will be perfectly happy for their ISP to check that. I certainly am, but then I don't download pirated stuff; i.e. I'm not a thief. I can see nothing wrong with it and everything right with it. As I said, it can't be any softer or unobtrusive.

It's nothing more negative than walking through detectors on the way out of stores to ensure we are not stealing something from the shelves. What we carry is checked for tags, and we all go through those detectors. Or what about the detectors at airports. What we carry is checked there too. What about walking in places where there are security cameras - like on the streets. We are all observed, and recorded, by them in case we commit a crime.

It seems to me that some people would like the theft to be stopped as long as nobody looks at me - on principle. That attitude doesn't make any sense at all.

[161488303349]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

Having your ISP checking your data-stream for pirated content is equivilent to having your mail-man check your mail for cash, just in case it was stolen

 

---

these systems dont work like this

where there are systems in place already they work on connections. the ISPs and router companies maintain chitlists of ip addresses. they block them

you get in trouble when you try to circumvent the blocking

 

 

[MoiselleErin Teardrop]

Didn't they try to stop copyright infringement back when Napstaer was on the scene?

We see just how well THAT did.

Remember when pirating music consisted of a cassette recorder? It was illegal back then too.

 

One could go on for days about all this spying stuff but remember -

It is easier to control a population that even THINKS it is being watched. Kind of like when you were a kid and were being told Santa existed. Some kids do the acid test - want to send a letter to Santa but not tell anyone what they wrote on it. Of course those kids usually didn't get anything on the list and knew something was fishy.

 

They don't need fancy laws or technology to know what stupidity goes on in people's lives - many just post it on FB for the world to see.

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

This is absolutely false. Having your ISP checking your data-stream for pirated content is equivilent to having your mail-man check your mail for cash, just in case it was stolen.

---

That's not a parallel. When you dowload something, you request it. It's your action that causes the download. A parallel concerning mail would be that your outgoing mail is checked, not your incoming mail, because it's your action that causes your outgoing mail but not your incoming mail. It's possible that mail is checked - for such things as explosives and anthrax - and that's a good thing, whether it's done going out or coming in.

Some people seem to be against their actions being checked on but we all accept it happening all the time - in stores, airports, streets, etc. Oddly enough those same people don't seem to mind it happening to them in those places so why this case has their backs up is beyond me - unless they like to download pirated stuff, of course. If we don't do anything wrong, we have no need to fear those cameras, scanners, etc., or checks for pirated stuff.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

16 wrote:

these systems dont work like this

where there are systems in place already they work on connections. the ISPs and router companies maintain chitlists of ip addresses. they block them

you get in trouble when you try to circumvent the blocking

---

Unsure what this means. I admit I'm not familiar with US ISPs; my perspective is the networking layer. Packet inspection would still be required to determine source/destination IP addresses. If your angle is that they block access to the site via HTTP or delist from DNS, that won't be enough.

Circumventing the block would be relatively easy if it was only IP-based. And analysing without determining intent or source (i.e., following the traffic only to the last link-in-the-chain) would be extremely dangerous, and criminalise public WiFi, universities, businesses or any other shared connection.

To clarify; I picked the 'opening your mail' analogy because 1. It's illegal for them to do this without a court order. (except in prisons and prison-states) 2. Explosives and anthrax are almost always detected without having to open mail, whereas ISPs have to both open and analyse your private data to inspect it. There's no way to immediately tell 'pirate' data from real data, meaning innocent data (e.g., your shopping, bank information, porn use) will be intercepted by any system like this.

TL;DR it doesn't matter why you use the Internet. You will still become a victim to this system, and still be treated like a criminal. Phil might be okay with this, I would hope that others are not.

[161488303349]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

16 wrote:

these systems dont work like this

where there are systems in place already they work on connections. the ISPs and router companies maintain chitlists of ip addresses. they block them

you get in trouble when you try to circumvent the blocking

---

Unsure what this means. I admit I'm not familiar with US ISPs; my perspective is the networking layer. Packet inspection would still be required to determine source/destination IP addresses.

Circumventing the block would be relatively easy if it was only IP-based

---

packets need a destination ip address. is in the header. they get blocked/fail to be delivered when the ISP/carrier is unable (or chooses not) to resolve the destination

is actual how is done. like the ip addresses sites/servers that deal in illegal content gets blocked. not the content itself

is virtual impossible to open every packet and somehow deep inspect it against a massive db of illegal stuff. is also a waste of time bc a rip movie is identical to a legit copy of the same movie. so is a waste of time to do that way and ISPs not bother with that way at all

only time that ISP actual bothers to look at you close is if you frequently attempt to connect to ip addresses that they know deal in, or act as a conduit for illegal stuff. like addresses on their chit/watch list

sure can use proxies or ToR or whatevs. can disguise the content anyway you want as well. cant disguise the destination tho. so that the policing/blocking vector. is how it works where I live. from a technical pov is quite simple how is done

 

[Freya Mokusei]

---

16 wrote:

only time that ISP actual bothers to look at you close is if you frequently attempt to connect to ip addresses that they know deal in, or act as a conduit for illegal stuff. like addresses on their chit/watch list

sure can use proxies or ToR or whatevs. can disguise the content anyway you want as well. cant disguise the destination tho. so that the policing/blocking vector. is how it works where I live. from a technical pov is quite simple how is done

---

Clearly it's aimed at 'casual' pirates, and uses fly-by techniques. Thanks for the clarification.

It might act as a disincentive, but recent news simply shows that people are more likely to hide their traffic rather than stop pirating (demonstrated in the UKs recent blocking of a large-scale torrent site).

Shared and public connections would still be at significant risk. In the UK, it makes public places (bars, restaurants, hotels) liable for the downloading committed by its customers.

The destination is easily disguised, all you need is another step (router/WiFi/tunnel/VPN etc) in front of it.

[161488303349]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

16 wrote:

only time that ISP actual bothers to look at you close is if you frequently attempt to connect to ip addresses that they know deal in, or act as a conduit for illegal stuff. like addresses on their chit/watch list

sure can use proxies or ToR or whatevs. can disguise the content anyway you want as well. cant disguise the destination tho. so that the policing/blocking vector. is how it works where I live. from a technical pov is quite simple how is done

---

The destination is easily disguised, all you need is another step (router/WiFi/tunnel/VPN etc) in front of it.

---

thats where the upstream routing companies come into it. in countries where this kinda legislation is already in place the legislation refers to IPAP. IPAP meaning internet protocol address provider. cant hide from those guys no matter how clever is your tunnel. not unless you build your own physical darknet

if look at the voluntary USA org that the OP is referring to then can see that they wants to get IPAPs involved as well as ISPs. is massive debate about that for sure. just on principle alone

[Freya Mokusei]

---

16 wrote:

if look at the voluntary USA org that the OP is referring to then can see that they wants to get IPAPs involved as well as ISPs. is massive debate about that for sure. just on principle alone

---

Will look into this further. I can imagine that's going to get very unpopular, very fast.

Thank you for your insights.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

TL;DR it doesn't matter why you use the Internet. You will still become a victim to this system, and still be treated like a criminal. Phil might be okay with this, I would hope that others are not.

---

But the only people who will be treated like a criminal are those who perform criminal acts (download pirate stuff) - not the vast majority of ISP users.

You are mistaking being treated as a potential criminal for being treated as an actual criminal. You are treated as a potential criminal when you board a plane (you and your possesions are scanned), when you walk out of a store that scans for tags, when you walk down the street (cameras), when you use an ATM machine (camera), etc. Do you object to those methods too? If not, it's silly objecting to what is just another method of the same kind of thing - watching everyone in a effort to spot actual criminals. Nobody who doesn't steal has any cause for concern.

[Dresden Ceriano]

I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but I've gone shopping, spending hundreds of dollars at Wal-Mart, only to be stopped at the door on the way out to be told to show my receipt, simply because I had a big bag of dog food that couldn't be fit into a bag.  Now, maybe that's fine to most people (people such as Phil), but to me, it feels as if I'm being treated as a criminal when I've done nothing whatsoever wrong.  I don't want my ISP checking my receipt, as if I'm some sort of criminal.

Just because corporations can get away with such nonsense, doesn't mean it's right or that common, law abiding citizens have to put up with it.  I hate being monitored as such in the real world, why would I ever accept being monitored that way on the net?  You (Phil) may think it's great to get your freedom sucked away from you in this manner, but don't throw the rest of us under the bus with you.

...Dres