On 6 Mar, 15:44, Les Invalides wrote:
> Jethro posted
>
> >On 6 Mar, 14:42, Les Invalides wrote:
> >> As we know, TPTB are considering imposing a regime under which
> >> persistent sharers of copyright material will ultimately have their
> >> Internet accounts closed.
>
> >Sorry, it appears your keyboard is faulty ... what you meant to write
> >was :
>
> >"As we know, TPTB are considering imposing a regime which is
> >impossible to police and enforce, and which further expose the
> >government to accusations that they have absolutely no clue when it
> >comes to any form of technology which requires studying to understand"
>
> Why will it be impossible to enforce?
Off the top of my head :
1) unless you explicitly ban P2P software (yeah, right), then you have
to do your monitoring based on what is *in* the packets whizzing round
the interweb. This is something that would require a huge paradigm
shift in ISP infrastructure - quite aside from the legal probelms.
2) P2P software can be used *(quite legitimately* to share copyright
material. If I record a song with my band, and decide to share ona P2P
network, then I can, quite legally. How is the technology going to
tell my legal packets apart from packets making up the latest coporate
blockbuster ?
3) At the end of the day, P2P packets going across port 80 are
presently identifiable because no one has bothered to encrypt them[1].
As soon as they are encrypted, then the ISP will have no idea what is
in the traffic. At this point, any terrorists or kiddie fiddlers that
have held off using the internet will feel much more comfortable using
it. after all, a 1 in 10,000 encrypted stream, can be flagged and
monitored. A 1 in 2 would be impossible.
4) Assuming TPTB (who appear to have no intention of actually doing
*anything* here, apart from passing laws) manage to crack 1,2, and 3
(which will no doubt be a 1-100 in a few months time) then they have
to look at the mechanism for identifying the PERSON responsible for
the downloading. I can suggest many scenarios where such
identification will be impossible. I know there will be a few hard-of-
thinking Daily Mailistas out there who would advocate just targetting
the owner of the connection, irrespective, but as soon as the
government[2] finds itself without an internet connection, this would
be reversed PDQ
[1] Yes, I know. I mean *widely* used.
[2] Because I bet there have been more than 3 instances of government
employees using the governments internet connection to download
copyright material. So under the proposed system, Gordon Brown will
arrive home from a hard day f*cking up everyone elses life to a billet
doux from the governments ISP saying "this is the third occurence of
P2P sharing of copyright material. We have no choice under the Total
Bull Act 2008 to suspend your service"
In short, the technology is already around to frustrate the detection,
and the legal framework is not equipped to handle the implications. So
yet another government by soundbite" which looks good in the Daily
Mail, and provokes widespread laughter when shown to anyone with a
clue. |