NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Speculation, how AT&T can implement "copyright filtering" without wiretapping/dpi...
question - if i'm uploading or downloading a large file to/from/for a client, and i am suddenly blocked in error, and i lose the client due to the error, (could be a deadline or similar) what happens? who fixes that? i wouldn't give a damn if i was part of a tiny percentage. i would be screaming. what do you think would be reasonable to compensate? > I think you're exaggerating a bit, Kevin. My slide from Mininova shows a > list of torrents that all carry Microsoft Office and a key generator. > There is nothing ambiguous about these torrents, they're not fair use, > they're not mashups, and they're not Digital Culture, they're simply > theft. That's needed to shut down these illegal transactions is a > request from the copyright owner to the ISP that's carrying the traffic > to shut it off. Due process doesn't come into it unless somebody is > prosecuted. > > There is a risk of unfair shut-offs, but it's very, very small and can > be dealt with after the fact in some reasonable way. > > I agree that the system involved is non-neutral, but that doesn't mean > it's bad a priori. I imagine most copyright thieves would prefer to have > their streams blocked than go to jail or pay a fine, wouldn't you? > > RB > > Kevin McArthur wrote: >> There's nothing inherently offensive in this methodology until you >> realize that it bypasses due process of law. >> >> The difference between copyright violation and fair use is not >> possible for a piece of software to decide. While many uses are >> clearly infringing, there currently exists no system that can tell the >> difference between legitimate fair use (like appropriation art or >> criticism) and true copyright infringement with any level of accuracy. >> Some questions arise: >> >> Will the software, network or content owner be liable for a false claim? >> Will a user falsely accused of downloading be able to make a libel >> claim? >> Will the artist be able to make a claim for censorship, undue >> preference or collusion between the network owner and big media >> companies? >> If the ISP _can_ police the network, do they not then have a _duty_ to >> police it -- and do they not waive their special intermediary >> immunity, instead opting for the legal environment of broadcasters and >> publishers? >> >> These proposals bring more questions than answers, and I'm frankly >> surprised that these ISPs would even think about opening the pandoras >> box that is intermediary liability. >> >> Even the very basic idea that one could take a currently-downloading >> torrent, and unilaterally decide it is infringing, is ludicrous; >> you're talking about acting on allegation before proving it in a court >> of law. From a legal perspective, its shoot first and ask questions >> later. >> >> And thats not good enough, >> >> K >> >> >> >> >> Richard Bennett wrote: >>> I presented this technique at the NN2008 symposium yesterday. I >>> showed a screen-grab from Mininova showing pirated Microsoft >>> Office, and the peer list from an Azureus leecher. It's pretty easy >>> to connect the dots from Microsoft's monitoring of the tracker to >>> action by an ISP in response to electronic requests from the >>> copyright owner. One technique that comes to mind for stoppng piracy >>> transactions is Reset Spoofing, of course. >>> >>> I showed the technique to clarify that enforcement of copyright >>> doesn't involve Deep Packet Inspection or anything that scary. >>> >>> Is there any reason that such an automated system should not be used, >>> or does Net Neutrality now connote a license to steal? >>> >>> RB >>> >>> Nick Weaver wrote: >>>> I've done some speculation on how AT&T might actually implement their >>>> proposed copyright-filtering mechanism, without actually having to do >>>> deep-packet inspection or even providing new hardware. After all, if >>>> their motive is to save money, they will select a mechanism which >>>> doesn't cost money. >>>> >>>> The idea is to rely on someone else (MPAA or an affiliate) to spider >>>> the torrents and identify participants, and once the graph of >>>> participants is generated, to dynamically block just that graph using >>>> router ACLs, which would allow the MPAA to play Whak-a-mole on >>>> individual torrents. This would be very different in practice >>>> compared with either deep packet inspection or traffic analysis. >>>> >>>> I think such speculation is useful because if AT&T really does follow >>>> through on their stated goals, we should get ahead of the curve and >>>> understand what this might look like in practice, and how to detect >>>> the difference between possible techniques (DPI vs generic traffic >>>> analysis vs spider-blocking). >>>> >>>> The solution space is actually pretty limited. >>>> >>>> More details/thoughts on my blog: >>>> http://nweaver.blogspot.com/2008/01/security-thought-at-copyright-fighting.html >>>> >>>> >