Lawyers target thousands of 'illegal' UK file-sharers
Dorian Gray
Given the recent file-sharing app thread, I think this is on topic.
I post it for information only, nothing should be inferred about my own
views.
Pd
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8381097.stm>
>
> Given the recent file-sharing app thread, I think this is on topic.
I find this surprising, for a number of reasons: "ACS: Law recently
obtained two High Court orders that require ISPs to hand over the names
and addresses of the account holders for 30,000 IP addresses, a number
which can identify a computer on the internet."
I'm surprised they can get a court order requiring the release of that
information, based on an alleged offence.
I'm surprised they can get so many account details from just two orders.
I'm surprised it says that an IP address can identify a computer on the
internet.
--
Pd
James Taylor
> I find this surprising, for a number of reasons: "ACS: Law recently
> obtained two High Court orders that require ISPs to hand over the names
> and addresses of the account holders for 30,000 IP addresses, a number
> which can identify a computer on the internet."
>
> I'm surprised they can get a court order requiring the release of that
> information, based on an alleged offence.
The UK has become a police state and we're all powerless to stop it
because democracy fails when *every* party wants more control.
> I'm surprised they can get so many account details from just two orders.
Depends on the wording of the orders, and whether the judge could be
hoodwinked^W convinced that it was necessary for the investigation.
> I'm surprised it says that an IP address can identify a computer on the
> internet.
It can identify the household at least, and then an examination of the
handful of computers behind the NAT would clinch it. Knowing which
household would probably be sufficient to crack the case anyway.
If it was a large corporation with hundreds of computers, the
investigators would just contact the IT manager and demand to see the
access logs. It wouldn't hold them up for long. Sniffing the traffic and
doing some passive fingerprinting of the OS, the filesharing client and
any related broswer activity would help to narrow it down too.
--
James Taylor
SM
Another UK development here:
<http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39909136,00.htm>
Stuart
--
cut that out to reply
Rob
I've read a few of these stories, and they seem short on detail - either
who, what or when seems to be missing.
I have a feeling there's an element of bluff going on. ISPs identify
high traffic levels from particular users, and this fact alone sparks a
'bluff' solicitors letter, and the demand for a large but not crippling
sum. Those that challenge are 'released'.
My theory FWIW!
Rob
Duncan Kennedy
<use...@oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes
>> I'm surprised it says that an IP address can identify a computer on the
>> internet.
>
>It can identify the household at least, and then an examination of the
>handful of computers behind the NAT would clinch it. Knowing which
>household would probably be sufficient to crack the case anyway.
>
to identify the IP address issued on a particular date? Quite a lot of
ISPs don't offer fixed IP addresses although a "sticky" address is now
more common with broadband accounts. That said if you unplug a BT
router and reconnect after a few minutes I think you'll probably get a
different IP address (and have to go through the 10 days of fixing the
maximum speed again.) Pipex used to say that they changed IP addresses
every 3 - 6 months ("sticky") unless you paid extra for a fixed address.
Demon addresses were always fixed, I seem to remember (Peter?).
That suggests that lawyers - or customers - would have to be very
careful of identification through IP address. (Although if you had
illegal material on the computer you might have a problem).
--
Duncan K
Downtown Dalgety Bay
Peter Ceresole
> Demon addresses were always fixed, I seem to remember (Peter?).
On one tarrif, they are. On another (cheaper one) they aren't.
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
> On one tarrif, they are. On another (cheaper one) they aren't.
And on my tariff.... D'oh.
--
Peter
James Taylor
> James Taylor wrote:
>
>> Pd wrote:
>>
>>> I'm surprised it says that an IP address can identify a computer on the
>>> internet.
>>
>> It can identify the household at least, and then an examination of the
>> handful of computers behind the NAT would clinch it. Knowing which
>> household would probably be sufficient to crack the case anyway.
>>
> Doesn't that depend on whether a fixed IP address or the ISP being able
> to identify the IP address issued on a particular date?
All ISPs keep logs that allow customers to be identified by IP address
in conjunction with date and time. Indeed I believe such logging is a
legal requirement, as well as a practical operational necessity.
--
James Taylor
J. J. Lodder
In short, they want to make mobile internet access impossible.
There clearly is an inbalance here.
The economic benefits of people being able to access mail,
group agendas, weather forecasts, trafic conditions, etc
while travelling far outweigh the occasional 'illegal' download.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> Dorian Gray <D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8381097.stm>
> >
> > Given the recent file-sharing app thread, I think this is on topic.
>
> I find this surprising, for a number of reasons: "ACS: Law recently
> obtained two High Court orders that require ISPs to hand over the names
> and addresses of the account holders for 30,000 IP addresses, a number
> which can identify a computer on the internet."
>
> I'm surprised they can get a court order requiring the release of that
> information, based on an alleged offence.
So it's going to be terrorism, USA style,
attempting to discourage all
by disproportionally large fines
imposed on the unlucky few.
> I'm surprised they can get so many account details from just two orders.
>
> I'm surprised it says that an IP address can identify a computer on the
> internet.
It can immediately, for those who have a fixed IP.
(convenient for remote login, and for IP cams, etc)
For others, with a dynamic IP (from the pool owned by the provider)
you also need the time, and the logs from the provider.
Best,
Jan
Dorian Gray
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> SM <in...@that.sundog.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Another UK development here:
> >
> > <http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39909136,00.htm>
>
> In short, they want to make mobile internet access impossible.
Well, the article says that actually there is no culpability:
'...where a business operates an open Wi-Fi spot to give customers or
visitors internet access, they would be "not be responsible in theory"
for users' unlawful downloads, under "existing substantive copyright
law".'
Dorian Gray
Rob <patchoul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dorian Gray wrote:
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8381097.stm>
> >
> > Given the recent file-sharing app thread, I think this is on topic.
> >
> > I post it for information only, nothing should be inferred about my own
> > views.
>
> I've read a few of these stories, and they seem short on detail - either
> who, what or when seems to be missing.
This /. article might help:
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Virgin Media To Trial Filesharing Monitoring In UK
|
| from the deep-pocket-inspection dept.
|
| posted by timothy on Thursday November 26, @19:15 (The Internet)
|
|
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/26/236232/Virgin-Media-To-Trial-File
sharing-Monitoring|
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Shokaster writes "The Register reports that [0]Virgin Media are to begin
monitoring file sharing using a deep packet inspection system, CView,
provided by Deltica, a BAE subsidiary. The trial will cover about 40% of
customers, although those involved will not be informed. CView's deep
packet inspection is the same technology that powered Phorm's advertising
system. Initially Virgin Media's implementation will focus on music
sharing and will inspect packets to determine whether the content is
licensed or unlicensed, based on data provided by the record industry.
Virgin Media emphasised that records will not be kept on individual
customers and that data on the level of copyright infringement will be
aggregated and anonymised."
Discuss this story at:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=09/11/26/236232
Links:
0. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26/virgin_media_detica/
> I have a feeling there's an element of bluff going on. ISPs identify
> high traffic levels from particular users, and this fact alone sparks a
> 'bluff' solicitors letter, and the demand for a large but not crippling
> sum. Those that challenge are 'released'.
You might well be right. The law firm in the BBC article said that the
letters asked for �100s in out-of-court settlement, but threatened
�1000s in fines if it went to court. Bullying and bluffing?
J. J. Lodder
So that's what he got a 8,000 pound fine for?
Jan
Dorian Gray
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Dorian Gray <D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <1j9w0v3.1n8...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >
> > > SM <in...@that.sundog.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Another UK development here:
> > > >
> > > > <http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39909136,00.htm>
> > >
> > > In short, they want to make mobile internet access impossible.
> >
> > Well, the article says that actually there is no culpability:
> >
> > '...where a business operates an open Wi-Fi spot to give customers or
> > visitors internet access, they would be "not be responsible in theory"
> > for users' unlawful downloads, under "existing substantive copyright
> > law".'
>
> So that's what he got a 8,000 pound fine for?
If you believe the Internet law professor quoted above, it means that
the court made the wrong decision in this isolated case, which we don't
know much about because they will not say who it was. Don't forget the
case might be a complete fabrication and the publicity of the fictitious
case by The Cloud intended to scare open Wi-Fi spot operators into
taking some kind of responsibility for their customers' downloads.
Pd
> > I'm surprised it says that an IP address can identify a computer on the
> > internet.
>
> It can immediately, for those who have a fixed IP.
No it can't. Whose computer is it using the open wifi access point in
the block of flats at the end of the road?
--
Pd
Peter Ceresole
> No it can't. Whose computer is it using the open wifi access point in
> the block of flats at the end of the road?
That prompted me to look with iStumbler on Anne's MBP. There are seven
wireless access points within range, and every one is secured.
Little girls are smarter than they used to be.- as the story has it when
Little Red Riding Hood blew away the wolf.
--
Peter
Steve Firth
> I'm surprised it says that an IP address can identify a computer on the
> internet.
It can. It often doesn't. However I know of several computers which are
uniquely identified by their IP address.
J. J. Lodder
The BBC news item cited isn't about WiFi at all.
It's about computers connected to their provider.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Which is effectively impossible.
So it is an attempt to make open WiFi impossible,
Jan
ray
Many ISP's now ship wireless routers with WEP encryption enabled by
default. Most numpties never change this.
--
http://www.dream-weaver.com/email.php
Web development promotion and seo
http://www.spaldingcomputers.co.uk
http://www.overseasmovingsolutions.com/
Peter Ceresole
> > Little girls are smarter than they used to be.- as the story has it when
> > Little Red Riding Hood blew away the wolf.
> Many ISP's now ship wireless routers with WEP encryption enabled by
> default. Most numpties never change this.
But however weak WEP might be, it's a hell of a lot better than no
encryption at all.
If I taste the local networks, they announce themselves as requiring WPA
passwords. The little girls really are getting smarter.
--
Peter
J. J. Lodder
> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Pd <peter...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > No it can't. Whose computer is it using the open wifi access point in
> > > the block of flats at the end of the road?
> >
> > That prompted me to look with iStumbler on Anne's MBP. There are seven
> > wireless access points within range, and every one is secured.
> >
> > Little girls are smarter than they used to be.- as the story has it when
> > Little Red Riding Hood blew away the wolf.
>
> Many ISP's now ship wireless routers with WEP encryption enabled by
> default. Most numpties never change this.
So you can log in with
User = Admin, Password = password,
Jan
ray
No, that would be silly. They are shipped with unique login details.
ray
Or words published by people who don't really know what they are talking
about.
Pd
The BBC news item cited has the following paragraph:
"The growing popularity of wi-fi means many people share an internet
connection. Recent studies have also shown that many people do not
password protect their wi-fi connections, meaning they can be hijacked
and used for nefarious means."
So the person whose computer is connected to their provider might not be
the person who has been downloading copyright material.
--
Pd
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1j9y53j.1ghm2b86x3vraN%data...@hotmail.com>):
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>> ray <data...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pd <peter...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No it can't. Whose computer is it using the open wifi access point in
>>>>> the block of flats at the end of the road?
>>>>
>>>> That prompted me to look with iStumbler on Anne's MBP. There are seven
>>>> wireless access points within range, and every one is secured.
>>>>
>>>> Little girls are smarter than they used to be.- as the story has it when
>>>> Little Red Riding Hood blew away the wolf.
>>>
>>> Many ISP's now ship wireless routers with WEP encryption enabled by
>>> default. Most numpties never change this.
>>
>> So you can log in with
>> User = Admin, Password = password,
>>
> No, that would be silly. They are shipped with unique login details.
>
Certainly many wireless routers which have shipped in the last three years or
so have shipped with a unique, locally generated, WPA key. In some routers,
this is based on a unique PIN which ships with each router, and the MAC. The
combination of the PIN and the MAC and a random number generator based on the
time that you activate the router generates the key, so not even the vendor
knows what key is on what router.
If users just use the key that is generated for them, they usually are fairly
secure. Even if you know the algorithm used to generate the key and you know
he PIN (it's printed on the bottom of the router...) you don't know when the
router was activated. And if you have the physical access required to ge the
PIN, you can just hook an Ethernet cable to the router and log into it (the
admin username and password are printed on the bottom of the router, too) and
change the key yourself.
Failing physical access, an attacker would have a wee problem.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Dorian Gray
"Taking some kind of responsibility" is not impossible. If I were to
play devil's advocate, I would say that if a regular was sitting in the
corner of the pub every afternoon with a laptop on the Wi-Fi, actively
downloading the whole time, the Wi-Fi spot operator might check what he
was doing or ask him to explain a bit what he was doing.... as opposed
to knowing very well and not caring that he was downloading torrents of
pirated movies and later putting them on DVD and selling them in the car
park out the back.
J. J. Lodder
> In article <1j9xul7.13j...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > Dorian Gray <D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Don't forget the
> > > case might be a complete fabrication and the publicity of the fictitious
> > > case by The Cloud intended to scare open Wi-Fi spot operators into
> > > taking some kind of responsibility for their customers' downloads.
> >
> > Which is effectively impossible.
> > So it is an attempt to make open WiFi impossible,
>
> "Taking some kind of responsibility" is not impossible.
It is, for all practical purposes.
> If I were to
> play devil's advocate, I would say that if a regular was sitting in the
> corner of the pub every afternoon with a laptop on the Wi-Fi, actively
> downloading the whole time, the Wi-Fi spot operator might check what he
> was doing or ask him to explain a bit what he was doing....
Would you allow anyone to look over your shoulder
while surfing the web?
And to take control of your macbook to see
which apps you have running in the background?
And would you hand over the wake-up password?
> as opposed
> to knowing very well and not caring that he was downloading torrents of
> pirated movies and later putting them on DVD and selling them in the car
> park out the back.
You are deliberately being silly,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Jim
> > as opposed
> > to knowing very well and not caring that he was downloading torrents of
> > pirated movies and later putting them on DVD and selling them in the car
> > park out the back.
>
> You are deliberately being silly,
Not in the slightest.
Jim
--
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK
Please help save Bletchley Park - sign the petition for
Government funding at: (open to UK residents and ex.pats)
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BletchleyPark/ Thank you.
Dorian Gray
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Dorian Gray <D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <1j9xul7.13j...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> > nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >
> > > Dorian Gray <D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Don't forget the
> > > > case might be a complete fabrication and the publicity of the fictitious
> > > > case by The Cloud intended to scare open Wi-Fi spot operators into
> > > > taking some kind of responsibility for their customers' downloads.
> > >
> > > Which is effectively impossible.
> > > So it is an attempt to make open WiFi impossible,
> >
> > "Taking some kind of responsibility" is not impossible.
>
> It is, for all practical purposes.
>
> > If I were to
> > play devil's advocate, I would say that if a regular was sitting in the
> > corner of the pub every afternoon with a laptop on the Wi-Fi, actively
> > downloading the whole time, the Wi-Fi spot operator might check what he
> > was doing or ask him to explain a bit what he was doing....
>
> Would you allow anyone to look over your shoulder
> while surfing the web?
> And to take control of your macbook to see
> which apps you have running in the background?
> And would you hand over the wake-up password?
I'm not suggesting any of these things are necessary or desirable. I
mean the publican asking the regular what he downloads all day, and
getting a plausible answer and not seeing any evidence to suggest
otherwise; or else checking the logs.
> > as opposed
> > to knowing very well and not caring that he was downloading torrents of
> > pirated movies and later putting them on DVD and selling them in the car
> > park out the back.
>
> You are deliberately being silly,
If we think about this imagined/publicized scenario a bit more, it is
probably more likely that it was publican himself doing this (selling
pirated DVDs in the carpark), and thinking he could hide behind the
anonymity of the open Wi-Fi spot and no-one could be prosecuted, and The
Cloud needed to show it wasn't on.
Just playing devil's advocate. But is the above not a plausible guess
at what could have happened and why it went to court?
Peter Ceresole
> Just playing devil's advocate. But is the above not a plausible guess
> at what could have happened and why it went to court?
It's perfectly plausible. Not necessarily what was actually going on,
but a very reasonable course of events.
We have a local cafe with a nice, fast Wifi connection, but it isn't
open; you have to get a password. Same is true of the local pub. Any
establisment that has unprotected Wifi has to expect that (1) it will be
exploited and (2) they may find themselves in trouble. It's quite likely
that quite a few places are simply winking at what they know will be
illegal download and copying activity. They have no reason to care about
it. I suspect that the legal action was intended to wake them up and
make them care a bit.
--
Peter
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1j9ycoo.tb8e852dgffnN%j...@magrathea.plus.com>):
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>>> as opposed
>>> to knowing very well and not caring that he was downloading torrents of
>>> pirated movies and later putting them on DVD and selling them in the car
>>> park out the back.
>>
>> You are deliberately being silly,
>
> Not in the slightest.
>
He's accidentally being silly?
Dorian Gray
Jim
> >>> as opposed
> >>> to knowing very well and not caring that he was downloading torrents of
> >>> pirated movies and later putting them on DVD and selling them in the car
> >>> park out the back.
> >>
> >> You are deliberately being silly,
> >
> > Not in the slightest.
> >
>
> He's accidentally being silly?
It's a perfectly plausible scenario.
Bruce Horrocks
> Just playing devil's advocate. But is the above not a plausible guess
> at what could have happened and why it went to court?
The recording industry people rarely refrain from announcing a
successful prosecution for copyright infringement. So much so I find
suspicious in this case that they haven't.
Since the story doesn't actually say what the conviction was, it could
well have been for not logging user access, hence the reason why the
story went on at some length about the rules affecting public
communication service providers.
But again, if so then I would have expected some more general level of
warning put out to those operating free public wifi.
It all smells a bit fishy really.
--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)
Duncan Kennedy
<use...@oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes
>Duncan Kennedy wrote:
>
>> James Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> Pd wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm surprised it says that an IP address can identify a computer on the
>>>> internet.
>>>
>>>the handful of computers behind the NAT would clinch it. Knowing
>>>which household would probably be sufficient to crack the case anyway.
>>>
>> Doesn't that depend on whether a fixed IP address or the ISP being
>>able to identify the IP address issued on a particular date?
>
>All ISPs keep logs that allow customers to be identified by IP address
>in conjunction with date and time. Indeed I believe such logging is a
>legal requirement, as well as a practical operational necessity.
>
Indeed - and that is the frightening bit as computerised records can go
so very wrong in so many cases that some ISPs may not be as accurate as
others.
--
Duncan K
Downtown Dalgety Bay
zoara
I wonder whether anyone getting one of these letters could delete the
incriminating evidence and turn off WEP / WPA to successfully plead "it
must have been someone else".
-zoara-
--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
SteveH
> > So the person whose computer is connected to their provider might not
> > be
> > the person who has been downloading copyright material.
>
> I wonder whether anyone getting one of these letters could delete the
> incriminating evidence and turn off WEP / WPA to successfully plead "it
> must have been someone else".
If you have BT FON enabled on your HomeHub, then you could just connect
to the 'public' side of it whenever you wanted to download dodgy stuff.
Even better if it's being downloaded to an external hard drive, leaving
no evidence on your machine.
--
SteveH
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1j9yr19.tpdweo7hl2ziN%itali...@gmail.com>):
Well, many NNTP clients keep logs of what they download and where they put
it. You'd have to police up those logs, too.
J. J. Lodder
'I don't download anything. Just checking the ads, the weather,
the adult sheep, the....'
> > > as opposed
> > > to knowing very well and not caring that he was downloading torrents of
> > > pirated movies and later putting them on DVD and selling them in the car
> > > park out the back.
> >
> > You are deliberately being silly,
>
> If we think about this imagined/publicized scenario a bit more, it is
> probably more likely that it was publican himself doing this (selling
> pirated DVDs in the carpark), and thinking he could hide behind the
> anonymity of the open Wi-Fi spot and no-one could be prosecuted, and The
> Cloud needed to show it wasn't on.
Really, do you eet shady characters around every corner in England,
'hey pssst, you wanne look a feelthy DVDs?'
> Just playing devil's advocate. But is the above not a plausible guess
> at what could have happened and why it went to court?
It isn't,
Jan
Dorian Gray
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> Dorian Gray <D.G...@picture.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I'm not suggesting any of these things are necessary or desirable. I
> > mean the publican asking the regular what he downloads all day, and
> > getting a plausible answer and not seeing any evidence to suggest
> > otherwise; or else checking the logs.
>
> 'I don't download anything. Just checking the ads, the weather,
> the adult sheep, the....'
It is a matter of plausible deniability. If it is just browsing and not
heavy downloading by that one user, that will be reflected in the Wi-Fi
spot's logs.
> > > > as opposed
> > > > to knowing very well and not caring that he was downloading torrents of
> > > > pirated movies and later putting them on DVD and selling them in the car
> > > > park out the back.
> > >
> > > You are deliberately being silly,
> >
> > If we think about this imagined/publicized scenario a bit more, it is
> > probably more likely that it was publican himself doing this (selling
> > pirated DVDs in the carpark), and thinking he could hide behind the
> > anonymity of the open Wi-Fi spot and no-one could be prosecuted, and The
> > Cloud needed to show it wasn't on.
>
> Really, do you eet shady characters around every corner in England,
> 'hey pssst, you wanne look a feelthy DVDs?'
Well, pirated DVDs sold at car boot sales and in pub car parks is a big
problem in the UK, if you believe the authorities. And who said
anything about them being filthy? The biggest sellers are older Disney
animations.
> > Just playing devil's advocate. But is the above not a plausible guess
> > at what could have happened and why it went to court?
>
> It isn't,
Sure it is. Now you're being silly.
James Taylor
> James Taylor wrote:
>
>> All ISPs keep logs that allow customers to be identified by IP address
>> in conjunction with date and time. Indeed I believe such logging is a
>> legal requirement, as well as a practical operational necessity.
>>
> Indeed - and that is the frightening bit as computerised records can go
> so very wrong in so many cases that some ISPs may not be as accurate as
> others.
But I think they'd still have to show a trace on the end user's
computer, such as the copyright media itself in the users possession.
Identifying only the household wouldn't be sufficient.
--
James Taylor