BT and TalkTalk challenge Digital Economy Act

[hooperman]

In May Ofcom drew up the policy to deal with illegal file-sharers. It requires ISPs to send warning letters to customers who illegally download films, music and TV programs.

Not every file that is shared on these sites is pirated. Visitors to such sites might not actually be downloading something illegally, so the ISP would have to know what was being downloaded before they could take action. How would they do it, other than by either visiting the page on which the download link lives, or downloading it themselves. That sounds like a lot of work.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

[tke71709]

If you don't believe in the very concept of rights then there is no point in having this conversation because nothing that is said will ever change your mind.

If you don't believe in the very concept of rights then there is no point in having this conversation because nothing that is said will ever change your mind.

[JJMcClure]

Not every file that is shared on these sites is pirated. Visitors to such sites might not actually be downloading something illegally, so the ISP would have to know what was being downloaded before they could take action. How would they do it, other than by either visiting the page on which the download link lives, or downloading it themselves. That sounds like a lot of work.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

I suppose it would be down to the source of the file and if the source might contain both illegal and legal downloads then yeah, how are they supposed to tell them apart? It does sound like a lot of work and that might be another reason BT don't want to do it but when I was listening to a BT representative being interviewed about it on Radio 4 he didn't mention it being unworkable as a specific objection, he just kept repeating the privacy objection and the lack of Due Process in that the Uk apparantly didn't ok this with the rest of the EU member states before making it law.

If you don't believe in the very concept of rights then there is no point in having this conversation because nothing that is said will ever change your mind.

Well clearly I won't be having it with you will I It's always possible that someone will say something that will change my mind, I love it when that happens because my opinion must have just evolved and improved. However, I bestow upon you the right to remain silent.

[benitez17]

That wouldn't be necessary, it wouldn't be hard to monitor file types and bandwidth useage and identify suspicious profiles. MI5/MI6 monitor all your phone calls but they're not actually listening to them, their surveillence is triggered by the use of keywords.

Do you have any evidence of this? I wasn't able to turn up any information about this program.

The tunnel analogy would work better if I'd said that I'd been approached as the tunnel owner by an anti-drugs law enforcement agency who asked for my help and I refused it because I know that people would stop using my tunnel if they thought they might get searched or have to pass some other type of scan. I guess it's a question of context, no one minds getting searched before they get onto a plane do they, no one screams about their 'privacy' being ignored because that's an issue of their own safety but really it's the same thing. Customs regularly search the bags of innocent travellers, no one complains because that's a familiar situation so I think that if ISPs had been monitoring our behaviour since the inception of the internet, we wouldn't blink about this new law either.

I don't think you should have to help the police if they are just asking, but if they have enough evidence that your tunnel is being used for illegal activity that they can get a warrant for individuals passing through, then you should cooperate.

Also, I know plenty of people that complain about excessive scans at airports and about DUI checkpoints on the road. I agree that the context does matter though.

I think 'rights' are meaningless. They're basically an idea, that usually benefit the originator of the idea, that isn't real unless it can be enforced and using the word rights just muddies the waters in any debate. People might 'want' their privacy, but they have no 'right' to it. Don't want to get monitored? Don't use an ISP that monitors you.

Besides, why would BT be any more trustworthy than any other large company, they might be monitoring traffic already. Let's face it, knowing what their customers are surfing for would be profitable info for them wouldn't it.

Rights are a concept, but they aren't meaningless. I believe they are basically the foundation of society.

I don't really trust my ISP, and there are debates about the limits of their rights to monitor traffic on their network because they could collect plenty of useful information about their users. My issue here is that others are trying to force BT to spend their time and money enforcing policies that don't benefit BT or their users.

[Clinton]

1. Should people be allowed to commit a crime behind the 'right' of their privacy?

Yes. Absolutely. People should be allowed to commit crimes (and then get punished for it if caught). I shudder at the thought of a society where people are so restricted that they can't choose to commit a crime. I don't support crime but I fully support everyone's right to commit a crime.

If some internet users downloading illegal material means that all users should be monitored all the time it follows that we should install survellance cameras in every home in the UK because some men beat their wives.

I serve as an unpaid accountant for the government in keeping tax records, I serve as their unpaid tax collector by collect and accounting for VAT and National Insurance, I'm a free department of social services via having to implement their tax credits scheme, I serve as an unpaid policeman and detective by the responsibility forced on me (and all accountants/solicitors etc) by the recent labour government to rat on my clients. I'm damned if I'm going to support the government shoving more of their responsibilities up my tunnel.

If the copyright responsibility is put on ISPs why can't Flippa be responsible for never listing a site that violates anyone's IP?

[JJMcClure]

Do you have any evidence of this? I wasn't able to turn up any information about this program.

I thought i was common knowledge but I no I can't prove it. You can test it though, over the next few weeks make lots of phone calls and use words like bomb, explosive, weapons, target etc etc and see if you get picked up.

I don't think you should have to help the police if they are just asking, but if they have enough evidence that your tunnel is being used for illegal activity that they can get a warrant for individuals passing through, then you should cooperate.

Also, I know plenty of people that complain about excessive scans at airports and about DUI checkpoints on the road. I agree that the context does matter though.

Yep, it sure does. If it's going to stop terrorists blowing up the plane you're on then you have no problem with a complete stranger going through your personals but try to stop music theft and suddenly it's all about privacy......

Rights are a concept, but they aren't meaningless. I believe they are basically the foundation of society.

'I believe' - that's what they boil down to. Money is the foundation of our economy but that's just a concept too and the second everyone stops belieiving in it all that metal and paper in your wallet becomes worthless. Rights are the same, they only exist if enough people want them to and if you can enforce them. I do NOT want to start a debate about abortion but it is a good example of arbitrary rights are, some people think women have the right to kill a foetus and other people think the foetus has the right to grow into a human being. Both can't be true so who's right about the rights? Unfortunately for the foetus, it can't speak for itself or enforce it's own right to survive so currently abortion is leagl in this country.

Hitler thought he had the right to kill jews and for 6 years he did because he could enforce that right, the rest of the world disagreed and took that right away by force.

I don't really trust my ISP, and there are debates about the limits of their rights to monitor traffic on their network because they could collect plenty of useful information about their users. My issue here is that others are trying to force BT to spend their time and money enforcing policies that don't benefit BT or their users.

It wouldn't change anything for the users who aren't breaking the law so it's only the music thieves and BT who would suffer.

Yes. Absolutely. People should be allowed to commit crimes (and then get punished for it if caught). I shudder at the thought of a society where people are so restricted that they can't choose to commit a crime. I don't support crime but I fully support everyone's right to commit a crime.

Maybe I phrased it badly. What I think I should have asked is: Should people be allowed to hide a crime behind their 'right' to privacy and escape prosecution because of it.

If some internet users downloading illegal material means that all users should be monitored all the time it follows that we should install survellance cameras in every home in the UK because some men beat their wives.

Sure, and I bet there are people who think that should happen but this is another great example of the concept of rights in action. No on would want cameras in their own home so they would exercise their right not to have them and they'd be able to enforce it by voting out any government that tried to make it happen it so it won't happen. If we were unable to vote them out, say the UK became a dictatorship, suddenly I think you'd find that the governemt have the right to put cameras in your home and there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it.

I'm damned if I'm going to support the government shoving more of their responsibilities up my tunnel.

So you want them to take control of it themselves then?

[Clinton]

So you want them to take control of it themselves then?

They're already in control of it. When they get me involved, they don't give me control, they retain that. They give me only the responsibility (and cost).

If we were unable to vote them out, say the UK became a dictatorship, suddenly I think you'd find that the governemt have the right to put cameras in your home and there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it.

But we're not talking about the extreme and unlikely eventuality of Robert Mugabe running the UK. He won't bother with cameras - he'd chase all the white and brown people out! We're talking about ISPs, current legislation and tomorrow afternoon. Is it your argument that as things stand now every house should have a government monitoring camera because some men beat their wives? It's fine if you do - you probably do - just want to know your position on this.

[benitez17]

I thought i was common knowledge but I no I can't prove it. You can test it though, over the next few weeks make lots of phone calls and use words like bomb, explosive, weapons, target etc etc and see if you get picked up.

The amount of effort it would take to implement something like that is enormous and almost certainly will not be a good use of the time and money spent. I am pretty sure that you have to have a warrant in the UK to monitor a UK citizen, just like in the US (with a few exceptions here that are hotly debated).

Yep, it sure does. If it's going to stop terrorists blowing up the plane you're on then you have no problem with a complete stranger going through your personals but try to stop music theft and suddenly it's all about privacy......

Maybe you don't mind, but there are people who would prefer the freedom to walk onto a plane without being scanned over the reduction in risk that the scanning provides. I personally think the security checks are worth it in theory, but they are poorly implemented and reactionary.

'I believe' - that's what they boil down to. Money is the foundation of our economy but that's just a concept too and the second everyone stops belieiving in it all that metal and paper in your wallet becomes worthless. Rights are the same, they only exist if enough people want them to and if you can enforce them. I do NOT want to start a debate about abortion but it is a good example of arbitrary rights are, some people think women have the right to kill a foetus and other people think the foetus has the right to grow into a human being. Both can't be true so who's right about the rights? Unfortunately for the foetus, it can't speak for itself or enforce it's own right to survive so currently abortion is leagl in this country.

Hitler thought he had the right to kill jews and for 6 years he did because he could enforce that right, the rest of the world disagreed and took that right away by force.

I said I believe that to be polite rather than sound like I was lecturing. Without rights, citizens are ripe for abuse by their government, which is why they are the basis for the rule of law and society. Your examples are completely true, and are evidence of what can happen as rights are eroded and expanded by a government.

In the US, we recently had a huge debate (that is not yet over) about whether people have a right to healthcare. Many people favor this right because they believe that all Americans should be taken care of by their government as much as possible, but the other side of the debate says that everyone has a right to not be forced to pay for a very expensive service for other Americans. Another example is the loss of individual rights in Venezuela as Chavez has consolidated power in the state.

It wouldn't change anything for the users who aren't breaking the law so it's only the music thieves and BT who would suffer.

It would most likely lower the quality of service for the users who aren't breaking the law because the ISP is forced to allocate resources towards this effort instead of upgrading their network, but the more reasonable argument in my opinion is that this is a mandate that the entertainment industry is trying to force on everyone because their business model is broken and a small part of the population takes advantage of that fact, and it is reasonable for ISPs fight this.

Maybe I phrased it badly. What I think I should have asked is: Should people be allowed to hide a crime behind their 'right' to privacy and escape prosecution because of it.

No, but I would rather have people commit crimes and get away with them than have my rights reduced, especially when it is a minor crime like this.

Sure, and I bet there are people who think that should happen but this is another great example of the concept of rights in action. No on would want cameras in their own home so they would exercise their right not to have them and they'd be able to enforce it by voting out any government that tried to make it happen it so it won't happen. If we were unable to vote them out, say the UK became a dictatorship, suddenly I think you'd find that the governemt have the right to put cameras in your home and there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it.

No matter what government does, all people have the ability to refuse to follow the commands of their government or another person. It's a matter of whether they are willing to accept the consequences or not.

So you want them to take control of it themselves then?

I think that the party impacted by the problem is responsible for solving the problem, not conscripting others to fight their battles for them. There are already ways to catch and prosecute file sharers without requiring ISPs to become extensions of the police and assume that all of their customers are criminals.

[JJMcClure]

The amount of effort it would take to implement something like that is enormous and almost certainly will not be a good use of the time and money spent. I am pretty sure that you have to have a warrant in the UK to monitor a UK citizen, just like in the US (with a few exceptions here that are hotly debated).

What about the NSA monitoring your phone calls? NSA warrantless surveillance controversy I'm quite sure that this is going in in the UK too even if it would technically be illegal.

In the US, we recently had a huge debate (that is not yet over) about whether people have a right to healthcare. Many people favor this right because they believe that all Americans should be taken care of by their government as much as possible, but the other side of the debate says that everyone has a right to not be forced to pay for a very expensive service for other Americans.

Yeah, another good example of irreconcilable rights and all it does it just prove that rights are nothing more than someone wanting something. Unless you can make it happen though it just stays wishful thinking. The side that wins that debate will be the one that can enforce their own particular right/desire. We're not born with rights. that's just a modern indulgence and at the end of the day it simply doesn't matter what you think your rights are, the gang with the biggest guns will determine what rights are actually practiced, that's their right, right?

My sister in law has two kids and has never worked a day in her life but she thinks she has the right to her council house, and her benefits and basically to live without actually contributing anything useful to society. Can you tell her that she doesn't have that right? How, would you argue that? She thinks she does, therefore she does, and our government happens to agree and they have the power to enforce it so she gets what she wants.

[JJMcClure]

Is it your argument that as things stand now every house should have a government monitoring camera because some men beat their wives? It's fine if you do - you probably do - just want to know your position on this.

Get serious, of course I don't want cameras in my house, I even said that earlier in the thread. My point is that you think you have the right not to have cameras in your house and you're only allowed to indulge that right becasue the people with the power wouldn't want to risk their power trying to enforce their desire to surveil you in your own home. The population of this country have the power to enforce their desire not to be surveilled and you can call it a right if you want but all it is is desire that can be enforced.