Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
I don't want my mail carrier reading my mail or inspecting my packages, and I don't want my email carrier reading my email or inspecting my data-packets. I don't see a lot of difference.
|
Might want to start up your own ISP, then.
ISPs are already supervising traffic, and know in both the aggregate and particular how their network is being used. Again, they need this information in order to function properly; if their users switch
en masse from watching Youtube to playing World of Warcraft, they need to manage their network differently in order to maintain a level of service.
FYI email is sent in plain text, and has absolutely no security on it whatsoever. A post-card is probably more secure than email. I'm pretty sure at this point that every major messaging service (GMail, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter) analyze messages for their own internal purposes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
While it's not the same as hiring someone to do a specific task, it is hiring the use of someone else's resources, and that person has some rights to make sure their resources aren't misused. Why couldn't the same principle be applied to landlords who want to make sure their property isn't being damaged?
|
Generally speaking, the landlord
does have the legal right to enter the property without your permission and inspect the premises.
The only limitations are that in many jurisdictions they must give prior notice. Further, they can't let police in without a warrant. However, if a landlord does spot evidence of illegal activity during an inspection, they are allowed to notify the police.
Along the same lines, the ISPs cannot share information about you with 3rd parties without a subpoena or warrant. However, they are perfectly entitled to internally inspect user traffic.
I.e. the ISP's behavior is largely in line with how landlords treat their tenants.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
I don't have a problem with ISPs who suspect specific illegal activity seeking a warrant. However, this is requiring that they inspect individual usage without any suspicion....
|
It's actually very easy to supervise the network without a human being examining any particular information on you.
They just use traffic shapers to figure out how much of their networks are being used for Bittorrent, list the IPs on their network that are the biggest offenders, have the software verify that the traffic is in fact "Twilight.[2008.English].V2.TS.HQ.DivX-LTT" instead of "Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS", and fire off a bunch of automated emails.
They're almost certainly already doing the traffic-shaping part, so the costs probably aren't that big -- and are recouped by reducing their network loads.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Which is the main point--the RIAA and MPAA would like to avoid the necessity of filing charges; they want someone else to take on the expense of enforcing their rights....
|
And yet, when they actually due sue people for infringing copyright, people froth at the mouth and proclaim it's an injustice.
Again, it's essentially in the ISP's own interest to cut down on infringing traffic. Not only does it reduce their costs, the ISPs are increasingly in the business of providing content. Do you genuinely believe that Verizon got to be Verizon by spending their own money to save a whole other industry on legal costs?