French ‘Loi Hadopi’ anti-filesharing law passed

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

It can also spoof where the data packet has apparently come from - it's used in DDoS attacks to that end.

But if the purpose of your monitoring is to detect illegal content going to a particular user of the ISP, does that affect things? ie, won't it just be the recipient's address and the packet "contents" that are relevent?

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Every law is subject to false accusions; that's why we have courts, to determine whether the accusation that has been made against someone is true or false. With this law that has been set up in France, the evidence against someone will be presented to a body that's been set up called the "Haute Autorité", which will determine what, if any, punishment is appropriate - temporary suspension of internet access, a fine, or an injunction banning them from certain activities. There is not, as has been incorrectly suggested by some on this thread, an automatic assumption of guilt and termination of internet access without "due process".

And where exactly are you getting this information?? I ask because nowhere, in any thing I have read about this law, do they state that evidence against someone will go before a court BEFORE they terminate access.

What I have read is that, if your ISP "suspects" that you are in violation they will send you and email, and then a letter, and then terminate access. Where are you getting all this evidence before a court information?? I'd really love to read it.

And, please, don't just tell me that you saw it somewhere. I'd prefer a link as the proof of what you are saying about this new law. Not just your usual "I was under the impression that ......"

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And where exactly are you getting this information?? I ask because nowhere, in any thing I have read about this law, do they state that evidence against someone will go before a court BEFORE they terminate access.

What I have read is that, if your ISP "suspects" that you are in violation they will send you and email, and then a letter, and then terminate access. Where are you getting all this evidence before a court information?? I'd really love to read it.

And, please, don't just tell me that you saw it somewhere. I'd prefer a link as the proof of what you are saying about this new law. Not just your usual "I was under the impression that ......"

I've already posted the link where I got my information, Ricky, but here it is again:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04...three_strikes/

This states that there will be no "automatic termination"; the matter will go to a body that's being set up with judicial powers, called the "Haute Autorité", which will have the power to impose fines, injunctions, or temporary suspension of Internet access. May I ask where you got your information that there will be some sort of "automatic" termination of access, because that's not at all in accordance with what I've read.

Happy reading!

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But if the purpose of your monitoring is to detect illegal content going to a particular user of the ISP, does that affect things? ie, won't it just be the recipient's address and the packet "contents" that are relevent?

If I can change my MAC and IP address to look like I'm you, then yes, it affects things.

If I use spoof data packets to connect to dodgy websites, which are later raided and your details are found on the site, then again, yes it matters.

I'm not suggesting this sort of thing would become the norm, by the way, but it's common enough behaviour in other forms of cyber-crime for it not to be ignored either.

A good computer forensics person might be able to unravel everything and prove that the apparently guilty person isn't, but there's a whole string of things that need to have been done correctly before they would even stand a chance. And unfortunately not all law enforcement people are adequately trained to ensure this would be done, even assuming everything had been set up correctly in the first place.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've already posted the link where I got my information, Ricky, but here it is again:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04...three_strikes/

This states that there will be no "automatic termination"; the matter will go to a body that's being set up with judicial powers, called the "Haute Autorité", which will have the power to impose fines, injunctions, or temporary suspension of Internet access. May I ask where you got your information that there will be some sort of "automatic" termination of access, because that's not at all in accordance with what I've read.

Happy reading!

I read it. It does not say anything about the Haute Autorite being a "court" in front of whom evidence will be presented.

So, guess again, Harry. No court .... no evidence. All there needs to be is a suspicion (according to the same article, and I quote) ....

The principle behind the law is simple. Anyone suspected of illegal downloading of material on the internet will receive two letters: a first and a second warning. The first warning will recommend that the user check to make sure that no one is surfing on the back of an unsecured Wi-Fi connection: but it will also point out that it is the subscriber’s responsibility to make sure their net access is properly safeguarded.

Being hijacked will not be an excuse in the eyes of the law.

Oh, and then there's this bit:

The ultimate decision rests with the Haute Autorité, which may cut off subscribers - but does not have to. This is because the government does not wish to see businesses and institutions placed in a position where a national enterprise could suddenly find itself deprived of internet access because of the illegal activities of one or two of its managers.

So, it's ok to cut off service to a home-based business because a child does something stupid the parent doesn't know about??

Talk about your double standards ....

___________________________

And .... if you can find one reference to evidence being presented in front of a court ... then I missed something. Giving a body "judicial powers" does not mean that it is a court of law .... it means it can render decisions that have the force of law.

So .... now where was that information that you were going to point me towards?? Just that article?? Thought so .....

I've read it. I'm not really sure you read it with any understanding of what it says.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But if the purpose of your monitoring is to detect illegal content going to a particular user of the ISP, does that affect things? ie, won't it just be the recipient's address and the packet "contents" that are relevent?

How do you know a packet is an illegal packet? What if it "spoofed" to appear as if it came from the French Government?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, and quite right too! I've also done 35mph in a 30 zone, so lock me up and throw away the key!

Really, do you think that this disqualifies me from believing downloading material illegally from current, living, authors, is wrong?

Would that include the works of Harry Harrison which you uploaded to MobileRead? He is very much alive*.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11597

*The story in question is out of copyright in the US.

[strangeseraph]

Its odd all this is happening. :/ The three strikes thing would mean ISPs can't make money off internet users. What chance do you think there is that the ISPs will conveniently 'forget' to send warnings or whatnot?

Also, this morning, before I found out about any of this, I made a vow to only listen to music from Jamendo for the month of April. I did this today, and not April 1st so nobody would think I was fooling.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by strangeseraph

Its odd all this is happening. :/ The three strikes thing would mean ISPs can't make money off internet users. What chance do you think there is that the ISPs will conveniently 'forget' to send warnings or whatnot?

Depends how much money/business they think they'd be likely to lose if they got sued for allowing it to happen I suspect...

[kovidgoyal]

What seems strange to me is why copyright owners (and the governments they bribe) are going after individual file sharers in the first place. It would be much easier (and more effective) to strong arm ISPs into blocking access to HTML based p2p indexes like the Pirate Bay. Kinda like the great firewall of china. I know that's the start of a slippery slope to free speech violations, but then what they're currently doing is an equally slippery slope to privacy violations (and really privacy is an essential ingredient of free speech).

All that's really needed to kill file sharing is to make it sufficiently inconvenient, and that's (relatively) easy to do for the vast majority of the computer illiterate public.

Fortunately, it appears that the copyright lobby is rather incompetent

[Donnageddon]

Complete bullocks. P2P and bittorrent technology has light and dark uses. So do guns, cars and knives. Trying to punish those who use any of the above for "alleged" "suspicions" of illegal activities is a high crime committed by the state.

Trust me, the US has seen its high crimes committed by the state in the last 8 years (that have not yet been punished yet... but when they are you can be assured it will be by DUE PROCESS).

As for the right to privacy, I cannot fathom the fool who thinks only the guilty need worry about their privacy being violated. When we lose the right to privacy we lose everything that ... is... private. Nothing could be more sacred to a sentient being.

And I hope France does not have any King Crimson fans, because the DGM Live web store uses bittorent (LEGALLY) for its transactions.

About DGM Live

DGM Live utilizes the latest in peer-to-peer technologies to deliver large music files across the internet. Files are distributed using BitTorrent, a file distribution utility that can dramatically increase the speed of your download by retrieving your content not only from DGM's servers but from fellow downloaders simultaneously. Download it now.

Here

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.

- Ben Franklin. He spent a lot of time in France, as a diplomat. I am sure he is not happy wherever he is now.

[Donnageddon]

And as for the person who brought torture into the discussion... nothing, naught, zip has ever been learned from torture other than that torture is an absolutely worthless way to gain any information of value. (just ask the Spanish inquisition!)

Except for the information that torture is an abhorrent crime against all humanity, torture is of no other value.

Army Field Manual (Time Magazine)

Former Head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Says Torture Unreliable

[Abelturd]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

And as for the person who brought torture into the discussion... nothing, naught, zip has ever been learned from torture other than that torture is an absolutely worthless way to gain any information of value. (just ask the Spanish inquisition!)

That person has completely disqualified himself from this discussion by even questioning the unacceptability of torture.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

And as for the person who brought torture into the discussion...

It was Zelda who brought torture into the discussion.

[Donnageddon]

Yes, Harry, and you defended it.