It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Illegal downloaders face life net ban

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Faiol
 


Yeah, if somebody within range has an unsecured and broadcasting hotspot.

You wouldnt be able to subscribe to your own service but youd still be able to get onto somebody elses.

Unless some sort of mandatory security was enacted and anyone with a "banned" user using their connection were treated as enabling criminal activity.



This would be akin to holding you responsible if someone stole your car. Wireless encryption isn't all that hard to get around. (see previous post on Kismet) And with the number of non technical people setting up their insecure microsoft networks it really is trivial to exploit most networks.

..Ex




posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Nobody is useing torrents anymore if you want to share your files use nzb files, download with grabit,most isp providers provide a free news service which you can use as a fast way for file transfer , so use a news service which you need to join then get grabit and join heres an how to.

I am not advocateing this i am just pointing out people are doing this with nzb files make your own mind up do research, also newsgroups allow files to be encrypted this way.
miftahcomputer.co.cc...

torrentfreak.com...
what are nzb files.
www.binaries4all.com...

binaries.coolbegin.com...


paulstamatiou.com...
some forum chat
www.filetransit.com...

www.ehow.com...


be sure not to do anything illegal








[edit on 4/9/2010 by dashar]

[edit on 4/9/2010 by dashar]

[edit on 4/9/2010 by dashar]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
thefrontline.v3.co.uk...


" Red faces for Labour as it uses copyrighted work illegally

Despite months promoting the rights of copyright holders with its Digital Economy Bill, the government has caused something of a furore after revelations that its recently crowdsourced campaign poster has breached copyright laws. "



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by getso
thefrontline.v3.co.uk...


" Red faces for Labour as it uses copyrighted work illegally

Despite months promoting the rights of copyright holders with its Digital Economy Bill, the government has caused something of a furore after revelations that its recently crowdsourced campaign poster has breached copyright laws. "

good find



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dashar
Nobody is useing torrents anymore if you want to share your files use nzb files download with grabit,most isp providers use a news service which you need to join then get grabit and join file shareing sites that use nzb filles there are quite a few now its un traceable as its binary,heres an how to.
torrentfreak.com...

www.ehow.com...

[edit on 4/9/2010 by dashar]


OMG, nzb files are specific to Newsbin (product for purchase), and Usenet was bought by google a long time ago. They are COMPLETELY traceable, and your connecting to your ISP's nntp server so every transaction can be and is logged.

Please , no offense..but grow a clue before you start handing out advice.

..Ex



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Are you sure there are lots of web sites for shareing then new nzb type file what are nothing to do with the newsgroups ,have you a link to backup your claim

just saying miftahcomputer.co.cc...

V3 i changed the way i posted to not be advocateing it which is right
i am not telling people to use nzb, just pointing out torrents are on way out


[edit on 4/9/2010 by dashar]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by v3_exceed
This would be akin to holding you responsible if someone stole your car.


Definitely is but the fine print from my ISP says just that. I am responsible for any user accessing my wifi. Do those sort of fine print clauses hold up?

Over in the UK there's quite a push to criminalize the victim. What with the whole "leave your sheds open and let them steal" thing they were pushing. They didn't want the criminals getting hurt.

Personally I keep the broadcasting off and use MAC filtering to allow only my devices to connect. Should I/could I be doing more? God forbid some perv in a van across the street downloading kiddie porn lands me in prison.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


I know that everything works by packets, but I think they would be able to check if you tried a connection to the website that have that file avaliable and let me use an example
(ISP can keep logs about all connections you made, so they would be able to to some filter and find out the users ... there are a lot of ways)

lets say rapidshare hosts a lot of illegal files, and they keep a log of users that downloaded every file for 10 days ... so, when they find out a file is illegal, they can send it to some ORG that could use that LOG to find the users

but, if the file is encrypted, or they dont know if its illegal or not, they wont be able to find out ... thats what I meant ... I wont talk about packets here since it wouldnt make sense to anyone ...

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Faiol]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faiol
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


I know that everything works by packets, but I think they would be able to check if you tried a connection to the website that have that file avaliable and let me use an example
(ISP can keep logs about all connections you made, so they would be able to to some filter and find out the users ... there are a lot of ways)
[edit on 9-4-2010 by Faiol]


Ok, your getting confused between what an ISP does, and what a web host does. The web host, can and does keep logs of all connections and accesses to files, but that is actually expected. Rapid share is a web host and could behave in the manner you suggest pertaining to logs. Honeypots and tar-pitting are examples of web hosts that adjust behavior based on traffic patterns.

ISP's do not log your every connection. That is inane and not even close to logistically possible. ISP's that are not using a centralized proxy do not even have the capability to log in the manner you suggest. Maybe AOL might be able to...or GENIE, but not a real ISP/cable company/telco. If it were possible as you suggest, spam would have been rubbed out long ago without the need for inbound mail filters.

..Ex



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
This so laughable... this should have been released on April 1st cause its a joke.

How can people in charge not have consultants that tell them that this is impossible to enforce???

I download using Rapidshare / Megaupload + other hosting sites.

The files I download are split file rar's

I download over https....

Exactly how are they going to know what is legit and what isn’t?

The answer is they can't.

Surely they must know how many terabytes of data are transferred each day??

I think this is a fear spreading campaign to shack off those who have little knowledge to stop before they face the music (pun intended)

The truth is most of us Downloader’s do not share our downloads... and we are technologically savvy... We know how a proxy works, we know how to use encryption and we know which ISP's don't throttle our connections with a FUP...

If I need a file and I think its risky, i'll drop my connection and pick up one of the many unprotected connections available in my street and download using this.

So I say don't worry, keep downloading... Buy cheap terabyte hd's and fill them to your heart’s content... There will never be any retribution unless you are dumb enough to burn to cd/dvd and sell em on the open market!!

Peace out,

Korg.


[edit on 9-4-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
hi all

some good information here but i would like to ask a few things. People on the forum are saying it is an unworkable bill because people could just go to a wifi hotspot and download there. But surely the point is that the bill is going to wipe out wifi hotspots in cafes, bars etc. The bill appears to make it the responsibility of the providers of hotspots to stop such downloads or face i think a huge fine. Faced with this prospect i think most hotspot providers will simply say the risk is not worth it.

www.techradar.com...

So it seems to me that the only way to access the internet will be from your home or as people here have pointed out to access other peoples wifi that have stupidly not secured their connections.

Korg trinity, you said:
"If I need a file and I think its risky, i'll drop my connection and pick up one of the many unprotected connections available in my street and download using this."

Yes, this is easily done and people should learn to take responsibility for their own connections but, i like to download stuff and i'm really not comfortable with this. I don't want to be responsible for getting a neighbour in trouble with the new draconian law just because they are stupid and not tech savvy.

And anyway, once people start getting disconnected and/or fined, then i think its reasonable to assume that people will start to use WPA or WPA2 security in much greater numbers and thus, there goes yet another way to connect to the internet.

Anyway, certainly interesting times. Let's hope people in the UK get angry enough about this to stop it. Although sadly i can't see that happening, or being viable as both parties that have any chance of being elected in the upcoming election appear to fully support the bill.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wootwoot

Korg trinity, you said:
"If I need a file and I think its risky, i'll drop my connection and pick up one of the many unprotected connections available in my street and download using this."

Yes, this is easily done and people should learn to take responsibility for their own connections but, i like to download stuff and i'm really not comfortable with this. I don't want to be responsible for getting a neighbour in trouble with the new draconian law just because they are stupid and not tech savvy.

And anyway, once people start getting disconnected and/or fined, then i think its reasonable to assume that people will start to use WPA or WPA2 security in much greater numbers and thus, there goes yet another way to connect to the internet.


Nope what will happen is everyone will drop their security, just so they can say that it was someone else downloading from their connection.

This law is totally unenforceable.

What’s more is, the law only affects p2p sharing. torrents...

But downloads have moved from torrents onto file hosting sites such as rapidshare / megauload etc...

There hosting sites rely on down-loaders and up-loaders alike to survive so they have made a happy medium by taking down files when asked by intellectual rights owners. The truth is more often than not the files are split into 40 rar files and uploaded to different servers.

The only way that its location is known is through protected links, on various forums that people frequent.

If you are clever you can build quite a sizable collection of movies / games / music / Applications.

There is zero need to pay for any of it.

Eventually the Media Business will get the message and change their model to a subscription service.

Korg,



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by freebourn
LOL!

If this happens there will be a revolution before morning (As... someone important.. once said)

May the day come when all information is FREE!


[edit on 9-4-2010 by freebourn]


Haha yea..

If they want people to stop downloading their stuff, then they need to put out better quality stuff! I won't pay 20 dollars for a movie that I'm only going to watch once, and maybe once more in the future if a guest wants to see it.

It's cheaper to rent it each time I want to view it. So the only people losing money are the rental companies.

Movies may be one thing, but music is far worse.

Artists put out one or two hits, try to sell their CDs for 15-20 bucks and little do we know that the rest of the CD is garbage. Not all artists are like this, but most are. Even worse, their radio hits usually suck.

I'm supposed to pay up to 20 bucks for a CD full of songs I haven't heard yet, when most of those songs are probably garbage?

I don't care what the social value of movies/music is, the financial value doesn't match.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Maybe this will upset Anonymous and the legions of online vigilante hackers will descend upon the corporate dictators of our world to free information for all?



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
This is a joke, anybody knows there's ways around this, I alone was "permanantly banned" from AOL and have had it multiple times since....lol. Just sounds like they're blowing a lot o' smoke up the ol' whazoo. Plus how do they think they can enforce this? There really would have to be a chip in everyone.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
One thing i've never understood is how can they prove it was even you DL the material in the first place?
I mean in this crazy world you could say you left your computer on, "someone" (you don't know who) went onto the computer and then got the music/movie/whatever and you didn't know about it. By law and statistics anyway this could easily happen to just about anyone with open access. Especially wi-fi which can be remotely hacked into.

I say they should give the people who DL Exessively the chance to delete what they have and/or make a contribution to charity as a form of acknowledgement for what they've done. Rather than simply branding them amongst drug dealers/prostitues and "terrorists."



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
well now if they want they can frame whoever they want with these bs laws



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
CYRAX
'well now if they want they can frame whoever they want with these bs laws'

exactly!

these laws are not workable i know. at least, if you have an ounce of computer savvy, you can get around them....hence, why there will not be a revolution. most young people will know how to get around the law and continue to download.

But in my opinion these laws are really nothing to do with illegal downloading. that is just the convenient cover for what is essentially a nanny state controlled internet. You might be able to get around the laws, but equally the government can use them to take anyone they dislike down. (even the technologically literate)

and in the process, many innocent people, or just plain daft people will be caught in the crossfire and charged and fined because of supposed copyright infringement.

I notice everything about this issue on ATS has gone quiet. And in the mainstream media too. sigh



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


Great post! Starred!


If you use encryption (I mean real encryption, not toy encryption) there is no way in hell they can see what you're transferring.

As you rightly pointed out - RIAA and others are hosting file servers themselves and are nailing anyone who connects to and downloads copyrighted material from them. It is the only way they can know so much about you so quickly.

To clarify, ISPs *DO* use deep packet inspection, and even have special hardware (now a legal requirement) that intercepts all traffic and copies it off to a special server on demand.

[edit on 18-4-2010 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


I use AES 512 Encryption on all my Operating Systems , if I wan't to DL some Copyrighted Material off the Net , I would have no problem doing so . Good Luck trying to Find Out what it was too Big Brother..........




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join