Illegal downloaders 'face UK ban'
February 12, 2008 11:03 AM Subscribe
British internet users face ban for illegal downloads. A draft copy of a Green Paper produced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was leaked to The Times newspaper which detailed how the government was considering introducing legislation that would require ISPs to take action against users who access pirated material.
The Government's resolve on the issue has apparently been stiffened following similar proposals made by the governments of the US and France. The proposal is designed to bolster the UK's creative industries but it is questionable how much impact it will have on piracy and how willing Internet Service Providers will be to cut off their revenue by banning their own customers.
The Government's resolve on the issue has apparently been stiffened following similar proposals made by the governments of the US and France. The proposal is designed to bolster the UK's creative industries but it is questionable how much impact it will have on piracy and how willing Internet Service Providers will be to cut off their revenue by banning their own customers.
This is a leaked proposal, which I reckon will probably not ever reach the light of day. It's a bit like trying to ban blank tapes, in all honesty.
posted by triv at 11:16 AM on February 12, 2008
posted by triv at 11:16 AM on February 12, 2008
Also, what about people with unsecured wireless? I mean, are you going to ban a person because another leeched their bandwidth and downloaded the latest HOT POP ACT?
posted by triv at 11:20 AM on February 12, 2008
posted by triv at 11:20 AM on February 12, 2008
Shouldn't whoever leaked the proposal, and everyone that published it or linked to it (or commented on it) be severely punished?
posted by ba at 11:22 AM on February 12, 2008
posted by ba at 11:22 AM on February 12, 2008
I agree encryption is the way to go and I believe it would be in the ISPs interests to encourage their customers to use anonymising proxy servers as that way they wouldn't be forced into the position of having to lose that customer for life by cutting off their internet.
posted by electricinca at 11:26 AM on February 12, 2008
posted by electricinca at 11:26 AM on February 12, 2008
Unfortunately, anonymizing kills SSL and makes honeypots for identity theft, and snooping. You're trading freedom from gov't snooping for wide-open attacks by criminals and script-kiddies.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:35 AM on February 12, 2008
posted by blue_beetle at 11:35 AM on February 12, 2008
TheOnlyCoolTim, all that is provided that the internet doesn't come under control of one or a few mega-corporations, which I personally don't see as likely.
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:36 AM on February 12, 2008
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:36 AM on February 12, 2008
This is a leaked proposal, which I reckon will probably not ever reach the light of day. It's a bit like trying to ban blank tapes, in all honesty.
Or to tax blank media. Which is, if I understand correctly, precisely what Canada has been doing for a while now. I have no idea how likely this proposal would be to make its way into law, but on the face of it it's not implausible.
posted by cortex at 11:36 AM on February 12, 2008
Or to tax blank media. Which is, if I understand correctly, precisely what Canada has been doing for a while now. I have no idea how likely this proposal would be to make its way into law, but on the face of it it's not implausible.
posted by cortex at 11:36 AM on February 12, 2008
Tax customers via their ISP connection fee and then pass that money onto the various media sources? How complicated is that?
posted by triv at 11:44 AM on February 12, 2008
posted by triv at 11:44 AM on February 12, 2008
If this gets passed, Britain's internet providers are going to lose A LOT of business. I really don't see them voluntarily reducing their customer base any time soon.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:54 AM on February 12, 2008
posted by Sys Rq at 11:54 AM on February 12, 2008
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. The market is pretty much saturated, so can't see ISPs keen to lose customers either.
posted by triv at 11:59 AM on February 12, 2008
posted by triv at 11:59 AM on February 12, 2008
The OpenRightsGroup have some comments about just how stupid it would be. With the ISPs not seeming to like the idea either 'ISPs demand record biz pays up if cut-off P2P users sue', so hopefully it will all get dropped long before it becomes law.
posted by Z303 at 12:12 PM on February 12, 2008
posted by Z303 at 12:12 PM on February 12, 2008
You would think that the ISP/Internet lobby would be bigger than the not-quite-dead-yet music lobby, but I guess a lot of tech companies haven't figured out yet that your business model is only as good as the government that allows it to exist unmolested.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:22 PM on February 12, 2008
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:22 PM on February 12, 2008
triv: "Also, what about people with unsecured wireless? I mean, are you going to ban a person because another leeched their bandwidth and downloaded the latest HOT POP ACT"
I've always thought having an open wireless network was the best defence against getting busted for any dodgy online goings on (assuming the offending materials aren't sitting on your hard drive for the cops to find, obviously).
posted by jack_mo at 12:27 PM on February 12, 2008
I've always thought having an open wireless network was the best defence against getting busted for any dodgy online goings on (assuming the offending materials aren't sitting on your hard drive for the cops to find, obviously).
posted by jack_mo at 12:27 PM on February 12, 2008
If this gets passed, Britain's internet providers are going to lose A LOT of business.
As their customers move their business to what, exactly?
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 1:13 PM on February 12, 2008
As their customers move their business to what, exactly?
posted by ten pounds of inedita at 1:13 PM on February 12, 2008
If I don't download illegally, why should I have to pay a tax to compensate artists for others' misdeeds? If I'm buying blank media because I'm in a band and we're going DIY, why should a surcharge apply that funds the institution that I'm (willingly or unwillingly) not a part of?
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:16 PM on February 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:16 PM on February 12, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'm in the UK. Interestingly, the only time my internet connection craps out is when I use the BBC iPlayer's download P2P feature. Azureus and eMule run just fine since I can tweak them to run at max during BT's non-peak hours. The BBC iPlayer being braindead zero-config leaves me unable to adjust a damn thing. I can't even turn off the sharing short of deleting the downloaded files.
My bet is that the ISPs go after the BBC before they go after piracy.
posted by srboisvert at 1:28 PM on February 12, 2008
My bet is that the ISPs go after the BBC before they go after piracy.
posted by srboisvert at 1:28 PM on February 12, 2008
ten pounds of inedita: The customers won't be moving, they'll be getting banned.
posted by jacalata at 1:45 PM on February 12, 2008
posted by jacalata at 1:45 PM on February 12, 2008
TheOnlyCoolTim, all that is provided that the internet doesn't come under control of one or a few mega-corporations
Uh, whom exactly do you think owns the infrastructure of the internet now? AT&T, British Telecom, Broadwing, Cogent, Epoch, Verizon, France Telecom, NTL Ireland, Chunghwa Telecom, Cisco Systems, and a few others own the pipes the data runs through...
Encryption is nice to have, but it's not a death blow to anti-p2p traffic shaping. If an ISP uses something like Sandvine, or other deep packet inspection software in combination with behavioral and heuristic analysis, they'll still be able to figure you out. P2P traffic behaves differently from web traffic, regardless of whether or not you encrypt it. There are no magic bullets, at least currently.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:45 PM on February 12, 2008
Uh, whom exactly do you think owns the infrastructure of the internet now? AT&T, British Telecom, Broadwing, Cogent, Epoch, Verizon, France Telecom, NTL Ireland, Chunghwa Telecom, Cisco Systems, and a few others own the pipes the data runs through...
Encryption is nice to have, but it's not a death blow to anti-p2p traffic shaping. If an ISP uses something like Sandvine, or other deep packet inspection software in combination with behavioral and heuristic analysis, they'll still be able to figure you out. P2P traffic behaves differently from web traffic, regardless of whether or not you encrypt it. There are no magic bullets, at least currently.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:45 PM on February 12, 2008
ten pounds of inedita: As their customers move their business to what, exactly?
I don't know how ISPs work where you are, but most UK ISPs charge different rates for different usage 'allowances', measured in GB / month. An example is BTs ratecard, here.
So I can see a lot of users downgrading their packages if these measures are enforced. (And don't get me started on what 'unlimited downloads' really means).
posted by punilux at 2:07 PM on February 12, 2008
I don't know how ISPs work where you are, but most UK ISPs charge different rates for different usage 'allowances', measured in GB / month. An example is BTs ratecard, here.
So I can see a lot of users downgrading their packages if these measures are enforced. (And don't get me started on what 'unlimited downloads' really means).
posted by punilux at 2:07 PM on February 12, 2008
It's a bullshit proposal and it'll never come to pass (well, I say that, but knowing this government they'll damn well try ...). There are massive implications for privacy – will people really stand for ISPs monitoring every single packet of data that moves between their machine and someone else's, which is what would be required in order to confirm that the data being transferred is "stolen"? I very much doubt it, particularly in the current political climate where HMRC (and various other government entities) have lost enormous amounts of valuable personal data.
And then there's the plausible deniability angle: how would – say – the thousands of free wireless networks in every cafe and pub the length and breadth of the country police every single one of their users? Would the free wireless network in your local be shut down because someone who lives upstairs from the pub and regularly piggybacks on and canes their bandwith using Bittorrent? (And all of this is before we even get into a debate about the sacrosanct concept of net neutrality.)
As usual, it's a bollocks attempt at a quick-fix solution to a problem the music industry don't know how to deal with; it's not that far removed from the RIAA's solution to "sue the customer" and it will have the same effect, i.e. none, in the grand scheme of things.
I heard this being debated on Radio 4 earlier on. Matt Phillips, the spokesman for the BPI (British Phonographic Industry) actually said, in all seriousness, that "this wasn't suing the [music industry's] customers, because these people are thieves, not customers". As if there's no crossover between people who download music/tv and people who buy it.
Seriously, the quicker the people running/ruining the music industry are exposed as incompetent idiots, the better. For some reason – perhaps because they're not suffering from the same album vs. individual downloaded track schism, because when you download a film or a TV show, you're essentially interested in the same discrete bit of content – the film and TV industries have adapted a little better, and have been a bit more forward thinking. But down the route of shafting ISPs and downloaders madness lies.
posted by Len at 2:23 PM on February 12, 2008
And then there's the plausible deniability angle: how would – say – the thousands of free wireless networks in every cafe and pub the length and breadth of the country police every single one of their users? Would the free wireless network in your local be shut down because someone who lives upstairs from the pub and regularly piggybacks on and canes their bandwith using Bittorrent? (And all of this is before we even get into a debate about the sacrosanct concept of net neutrality.)
As usual, it's a bollocks attempt at a quick-fix solution to a problem the music industry don't know how to deal with; it's not that far removed from the RIAA's solution to "sue the customer" and it will have the same effect, i.e. none, in the grand scheme of things.
I heard this being debated on Radio 4 earlier on. Matt Phillips, the spokesman for the BPI (British Phonographic Industry) actually said, in all seriousness, that "this wasn't suing the [music industry's] customers, because these people are thieves, not customers". As if there's no crossover between people who download music/tv and people who buy it.
Seriously, the quicker the people running/ruining the music industry are exposed as incompetent idiots, the better. For some reason – perhaps because they're not suffering from the same album vs. individual downloaded track schism, because when you download a film or a TV show, you're essentially interested in the same discrete bit of content – the film and TV industries have adapted a little better, and have been a bit more forward thinking. But down the route of shafting ISPs and downloaders madness lies.
posted by Len at 2:23 PM on February 12, 2008
Also, what about people with unsecured wireless? I mean, are you going to ban a person because another leeched their bandwidth and downloaded the latest HOT POP ACT?
I would guess that they would be told to secure their network after the first warning.
Also, given the choice between a relatively large number of people facing the inconvenience of losing their ISP, and a relatively small number of people facing cripplingly huge fines, I think the former is much fairer and more likely to be effective.
posted by teleskiving at 2:44 PM on February 12, 2008
I would guess that they would be told to secure their network after the first warning.
Also, given the choice between a relatively large number of people facing the inconvenience of losing their ISP, and a relatively small number of people facing cripplingly huge fines, I think the former is much fairer and more likely to be effective.
posted by teleskiving at 2:44 PM on February 12, 2008
One point that was brought it up in the news report I saw is... if Jonny's internet connection is cut for illegal downloading, what about his little brother who uses the same access... should his education suffer (never mind dad using it for business or mum emailing her sick relatives etc etc). Think this is just a bit of poltical kite flying that will never come to pass but might frighten a few of the proles.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:00 PM on February 12, 2008
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:00 PM on February 12, 2008
Yeah, I get a definite feeling that this is a typical New Labour leak designed to toss an idea out there to gauge the public feeling whilst the policy is still deniable. In general sentiment, however, it is also another illustration of how New Labour managed to retain the authoritarian/statist inclinations of old socialism (at least with respect to the proles) whilst abandoning all of the actual socialism.
As a concept, this is just another aspect of the DRM fight, and just as bound to failure. They are trying to defend everything, everywhere, all of the time. It's just not possible. There's always a spiffy new wheeze to avoid whatever the new detection device/algorithm keys on.
posted by Jakey at 3:45 PM on February 12, 2008
As a concept, this is just another aspect of the DRM fight, and just as bound to failure. They are trying to defend everything, everywhere, all of the time. It's just not possible. There's always a spiffy new wheeze to avoid whatever the new detection device/algorithm keys on.
posted by Jakey at 3:45 PM on February 12, 2008
fearfulsymmetry - that's a feature of the plan, as championed by paul mcguiness previously. If johnny's downloading puts the rest of family's internet connection at risk, they will supposedly bring heavy pressure to bear on johhny to quit it. Collective punishment is intentional.
This is going to be a major problem - schools and businesses sharing one connection. There is simply no way you can allow people access out without also allowing them to download illegally also. Effectively, every business and school with a shared internet connection would shortly get their connection turned off. you think 6 million home users losing their connection will kick up a stink? How about every business in the country with 'net access getting cut off!
P2P and other forms of illegal downloading won't stop, they'll just go further underground. Once people start using vpn services like ryoshu points out, or other forms of strong encryption, there's nothing the ISP can do. Yes, the shit ISP's like tiscali, pipex and orange will have tiddly bandwidth quotas and throttle the hell out of all torrent and all encrypted traffic, but they do that already. They won't however be able to see what is being transferred.
So basically, it's a worthless endeavour that will only catch up millions of ordinary people in a massively expensive dragnet, building complete records of all internet traffic of everyone except the copyright infringers. Given this is coming from the 'biometric ID card and more CCTV cameras per head than anywhere else on earth' labour party, I'm pretty sure that's the real goal.
Cause massive harm the tech and telecomms businesses in a useless attempt to prop up the copyright cartel? that's just a side effect. Getting full packet inspection equipment, including logging facilities, with the government allowed to pull the records at will in every ISP in the country, using powers under the existing RIP act? *that's* the Nu Labour party we're used to!
posted by ArkhanJG at 4:36 PM on February 12, 2008
This is going to be a major problem - schools and businesses sharing one connection. There is simply no way you can allow people access out without also allowing them to download illegally also. Effectively, every business and school with a shared internet connection would shortly get their connection turned off. you think 6 million home users losing their connection will kick up a stink? How about every business in the country with 'net access getting cut off!
P2P and other forms of illegal downloading won't stop, they'll just go further underground. Once people start using vpn services like ryoshu points out, or other forms of strong encryption, there's nothing the ISP can do. Yes, the shit ISP's like tiscali, pipex and orange will have tiddly bandwidth quotas and throttle the hell out of all torrent and all encrypted traffic, but they do that already. They won't however be able to see what is being transferred.
So basically, it's a worthless endeavour that will only catch up millions of ordinary people in a massively expensive dragnet, building complete records of all internet traffic of everyone except the copyright infringers. Given this is coming from the 'biometric ID card and more CCTV cameras per head than anywhere else on earth' labour party, I'm pretty sure that's the real goal.
Cause massive harm the tech and telecomms businesses in a useless attempt to prop up the copyright cartel? that's just a side effect. Getting full packet inspection equipment, including logging facilities, with the government allowed to pull the records at will in every ISP in the country, using powers under the existing RIP act? *that's* the Nu Labour party we're used to!
posted by ArkhanJG at 4:36 PM on February 12, 2008
You could always just not pay for it — if you're not on their customer rolls then you're fully anonymous.
I don't mean WiFi leeching, in this context that's just using the leechee's identity. I'm talking about untraceable theft of service direct from the ISP.
The Cable providers, as they are currently deployed, have almost nothing keeping you from just taking internet service if you already have basic cable. They authenticate using only the MAC address of the cable modem's HFC interface to decide what service config file your modem is told to retrieve. If you compromise the software of the modem (it's yours, after all), you can not only change the MAC address to that of a legit subscriber in a different neighborhood (they are checked against a single database for the whole ISP, with no duplicate checks), on many ISPs you can also just use a random MAC and ask for whatever config you want.
Since you're on a shared loop, the closest they can track you is to your neighborhood. You can also use the compromised modem to sniff for MAC addresses and config file names on your local loop (and trade the MACs with friends elsewhere).
It gets me bandwidth that is both free as in beer (I get free basic cable) and free as in speech. I will never get a DMCA takedown or MAFIAA suit from my cable modem use.
The massive cable companies deserve worse than the pinprick I can give them. They have not, to date, given a damn.
posted by blasdelf at 5:56 PM on February 12, 2008 [3 favorites]
I don't mean WiFi leeching, in this context that's just using the leechee's identity. I'm talking about untraceable theft of service direct from the ISP.
The Cable providers, as they are currently deployed, have almost nothing keeping you from just taking internet service if you already have basic cable. They authenticate using only the MAC address of the cable modem's HFC interface to decide what service config file your modem is told to retrieve. If you compromise the software of the modem (it's yours, after all), you can not only change the MAC address to that of a legit subscriber in a different neighborhood (they are checked against a single database for the whole ISP, with no duplicate checks), on many ISPs you can also just use a random MAC and ask for whatever config you want.
Since you're on a shared loop, the closest they can track you is to your neighborhood. You can also use the compromised modem to sniff for MAC addresses and config file names on your local loop (and trade the MACs with friends elsewhere).
It gets me bandwidth that is both free as in beer (I get free basic cable) and free as in speech. I will never get a DMCA takedown or MAFIAA suit from my cable modem use.
The massive cable companies deserve worse than the pinprick I can give them. They have not, to date, given a damn.
posted by blasdelf at 5:56 PM on February 12, 2008 [3 favorites]
Interesting idea blasdelf, but that does still constitute using some's identity, and if it got to be popular, ways around it would be developed. Stronger authentication takes bandwidth, but bandwidth is ever-increasing.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:34 PM on February 12, 2008
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:34 PM on February 12, 2008
Interesting idea blasdelf, but that does still constitute using some's identity, and if it got to be popular, ways around it would be developed. Stronger authentication takes bandwidth, but bandwidth is ever-increasing.
Here's an idea that just gave me: as corporations tend to become more "evil" or at least harmful, will we or are we seeing fewer smart and motivated people willing to work for them, thus decreasing their competency? Blasdelf's example seems easy enough to defeat, but then why haven't they defeated it?
Goes right along with the sort of social contract breakdown where the corporations have been fucking enough people over that maybe no one's going to care anymore if you shoplift from Wal-Mart or purposefully default on your crappy mortgage.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:55 PM on February 12, 2008
Here's an idea that just gave me: as corporations tend to become more "evil" or at least harmful, will we or are we seeing fewer smart and motivated people willing to work for them, thus decreasing their competency? Blasdelf's example seems easy enough to defeat, but then why haven't they defeated it?
Goes right along with the sort of social contract breakdown where the corporations have been fucking enough people over that maybe no one's going to care anymore if you shoplift from Wal-Mart or purposefully default on your crappy mortgage.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:55 PM on February 12, 2008
The filtering and control mechanisms would first be introduced to combat child pornography: CleanFeed, implemented in 2007. New state proposals are to block sites alleged to be encouraging terrorism. These mechanisms are crude at best, but they are a start. They will be refined and extended in the name of public safety and national security and child protection.
When the technology is available and general acceptance of Internet censorship has been achieved, control will be extended for reasons of social and economic policy, such as restricting sites promoting "hate speech" or breaking intellectual property laws.
posted by alasdair at 1:04 AM on February 13, 2008
When the technology is available and general acceptance of Internet censorship has been achieved, control will be extended for reasons of social and economic policy, such as restricting sites promoting "hate speech" or breaking intellectual property laws.
posted by alasdair at 1:04 AM on February 13, 2008
Sweet Jesus: Uh, whom exactly do you think owns the infrastructure of the internet now? AT&T, British Telecom, Broadwing, Cogent, Epoch, Verizon, France Telecom, NTL Ireland, Chunghwa Telecom, Cisco Systems, and a few others own the pipes the data runs through...
Being controlled by >10 independent mega corporations is not really the same as being controlled one of a few mega corporations. That's sort of the whole point of having a free market, and limits on monopoly. Anyway, 10 is not even the right magnitude for the number of companies running the internet, it's much nearer to 100. Someone will always be prepared to give you transit for whatever data you want.
Encryption is nice to have, but it's not a death blow to anti-p2p traffic shaping. If an ISP uses something like Sandvine, or other deep packet inspection software in combination with behavioral and heuristic analysis, they'll still be able to figure you out. P2P traffic behaves differently from web traffic, regardless of whether or not you encrypt it. There are no magic bullets, at least currently.
Packet inspection is useless against encrypted data. For example, the packet matching rules to shape Skype traffic overmatch enormously, which is why ISPs hate them so much. You can't magically decrypt the packets and inspect them.
Heuristics are not going to get you anywhere in this other than detecting people that are using P2P protocols, it will tell you nothing about the content. They could be operating Tor nodes, hosting Linux ISOs, running legal P2P software such as BBCs iPlayer or any other numerous non-infringing uses. ISPs will traffic shapes users that use a lot of bandwidth no matter what protocols they are using, most traffic shaping measures atm are not "anti-P2P" they are anti "stop using all of our bloody bandwidth". Unless they are being paid off by some industry trade group.
posted by public at 2:55 AM on February 13, 2008
Being controlled by >10 independent mega corporations is not really the same as being controlled one of a few mega corporations. That's sort of the whole point of having a free market, and limits on monopoly. Anyway, 10 is not even the right magnitude for the number of companies running the internet, it's much nearer to 100. Someone will always be prepared to give you transit for whatever data you want.
Encryption is nice to have, but it's not a death blow to anti-p2p traffic shaping. If an ISP uses something like Sandvine, or other deep packet inspection software in combination with behavioral and heuristic analysis, they'll still be able to figure you out. P2P traffic behaves differently from web traffic, regardless of whether or not you encrypt it. There are no magic bullets, at least currently.
Packet inspection is useless against encrypted data. For example, the packet matching rules to shape Skype traffic overmatch enormously, which is why ISPs hate them so much. You can't magically decrypt the packets and inspect them.
Heuristics are not going to get you anywhere in this other than detecting people that are using P2P protocols, it will tell you nothing about the content. They could be operating Tor nodes, hosting Linux ISOs, running legal P2P software such as BBCs iPlayer or any other numerous non-infringing uses. ISPs will traffic shapes users that use a lot of bandwidth no matter what protocols they are using, most traffic shaping measures atm are not "anti-P2P" they are anti "stop using all of our bloody bandwidth". Unless they are being paid off by some industry trade group.
posted by public at 2:55 AM on February 13, 2008
I have a friend which is a camera man, he talked me into stopping downloading because this hurt his jobs also.
So now I buy used DVDs then I realized: Buying used DVDs does not help the Video workers anyway, because the royalty will be paid only once.
So would not be better for the music / movie industry to sell a new DVD with the right to download for free let's say another 3 movies (older than 1 year for example ?). And in DVD-Format or better.
So there would an incentive to buy a new movie, and less used DVDs making the round.
posted by elcapitano at 4:19 AM on February 13, 2008
So now I buy used DVDs then I realized: Buying used DVDs does not help the Video workers anyway, because the royalty will be paid only once.
So would not be better for the music / movie industry to sell a new DVD with the right to download for free let's say another 3 movies (older than 1 year for example ?). And in DVD-Format or better.
So there would an incentive to buy a new movie, and less used DVDs making the round.
posted by elcapitano at 4:19 AM on February 13, 2008
Illegal movie downloads and music downloads is a big subject that hasn't gone way for as long as I can remember. Taxing customers via their ISP connection fee and then pass that money onto the various media sources is hugely complicated! In terms of movie download companies like Apple and Vizumi are doing their best to entice users to download legally but not sure how effective this will be in the long run. Apple certainly did well for music with itunes. Can they repeat the same success with imovies?
posted by born4thesurf at 5:34 AM on February 13, 2008
posted by born4thesurf at 5:34 AM on February 13, 2008
Interesting idea blasdelf, but that does still constitute using some's identity, and if it got to be popular, ways around it would be developed. Stronger authentication takes bandwidth, but bandwidth is ever-increasing.
My current cable piracy is not appropriating anyone else's identity
I am using semi-random MACs that are not associated with legitimate subscribers. I just have my modem download an arbitrary config file from the ISP's TFTP servers instead of the one intended for non-subscribers. The only downside to this compared to spoofing a legit MAC is that your setup breaks when the config file names/locations change.
posted by blasdelf at 7:38 AM on February 13, 2008
My current cable piracy is not appropriating anyone else's identity
I am using semi-random MACs that are not associated with legitimate subscribers. I just have my modem download an arbitrary config file from the ISP's TFTP servers instead of the one intended for non-subscribers. The only downside to this compared to spoofing a legit MAC is that your setup breaks when the config file names/locations change.
posted by blasdelf at 7:38 AM on February 13, 2008
I am using semi-random MACs that are not associated with legitimate subscribers.
Fair enough. I suppose given the size of the numbers we're talking about the chance of randomly cutting someone else's lunch is pretty small.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:09 PM on February 13, 2008
Fair enough. I suppose given the size of the numbers we're talking about the chance of randomly cutting someone else's lunch is pretty small.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 10:09 PM on February 13, 2008
« Older How about, like, playing a Hoover on my ding dong... | Pop Psychology: Type A / Type B Personalities Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Farther in the future of the internet, maybe the density of wireless devices and mesh networking increases to the point that ISPs are much less relevant (which you already see a bit of with widely available WiFi) and the sort of anonymity you can pull with that is even more interesting.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 11:14 AM on February 12, 2008