by tracking accused "downloaders" hollywood has the ability to steal my intellectual property

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER

my country uses ultra deep packet inspection,
so they can easily target any protocal or standard they choose,
the fact that they can "capture" in real time the contents of packet data is widely know here in NZ


xploder


I guarantee you New Zealand's "NSA" can't protect you. It used to be software was used to spy on people and get into their computers to steal their data. Read about "Intel Insider", they have hidden things running on your chipset to steal your data. "Intel vPro" is the hidden stuff running on processors now to tap into people's computers.

The New Zealand NSA can't intercept what they can't see. Those Intel secret programs running inside hardware now have a very special communication system so they can't be intercepted/hacked/or even identified.

The US NSA likely shares a little bit about those 2 with New Zealand....but they ain't sharing their full capabilities. If say China got ahold of how those 2 worked they could shut down every piece of hardware running today.

Any Computer Scientists KNOWS if you want to keep secure what you are working on...you better be using a self made hardware computer with absolutely no connection to the world what so ever. Or one of the old commercial computers with pre-spyware hardware inside it (pre-1996ish).




posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
Any Computer Scientists KNOWS if you want to keep secure what you are working on...you better be using a self made hardware computer with absolutely no connection to the world what so ever. Or one of the old commercial computers with pre-spyware hardware inside it (pre-1996ish).

Or do not connect it to a network.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by XPLodER
the holloywood lobby want to be able to accuse people of infringement, then force ISPs to give my private personal communications to them JUST IN CASE i am steeling their IP (intellectual property).

Does that underlined "want" means that this is something that is not implemented yet? If it's not implemented I suggest you look at all the possible ways of preventing it from happening, at least on your side of things.

Do you have any source for what they want?


we have implemented a three strikes policy,

A man charged with his "third strike" has no incentive to plead guilty and could subject his alleged victim to a needless trial, a legal expert says.

Under the three strikes legislation, an offender must be sentenced to the maximum sentence without parole regardless of their plea.

The Herald on Sunday revealed last week a 20-year-old from Wellington is believed to be the first to be charged with his third strike.

President of the Criminal Bar Association, Tony Bouchier, said: "There is no discount for early guilty pleas, no discount for remorse, it's just black and white.

"We are simply going to fill our prisons with people who are required to do very long terms of imprisonment."


www.nzherald.co.nz...

they want people to be convicted at the most extreame end of the scale and maximum prison time.

to get the info to prosecute, the isp is required to "pass" all requested info to the third party lawyers,

even the isps themselves leak the info,

The Daily Telegraph Australia 2012-07-26: INTERNATIONAL hacking group Anonymous says it has stolen 40GB worth of Australian user data from internet service provider AAPT and is threatening to publish it online. The attack is the second stage of a campaign protesting against proposed changes to privacy laws which would force ISPs to store user data and make it available to intelligence agencies for up to two years


article.wn.com...

you are presumed guilty and must proove innocence


In New Zealand, for example, a presumption of guilt lies on the alleged infringer, and if they can't disprove the charges, they can face fines up to NZ $15,000 or a maximum six month internet disconnection for repeat infringement.


nakedsecurity.sophos.com...

so if they (anycopy holder) "accuses you" the isp is compeled to hand over user data, and you are guilty unless you can prove innocence.

in gaing the information from isps the copy holder has more right to invade my privacy than our own internal security or police, (they require probable cause and a warrent)

what stops my competitor from claiming infringement to gain an attack vector on me?
why does my intellectual property have to be exposed and my privacy invaded to protect the IP of hollywood?

this is crazy and will hurt the net and innovators.

xploder



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


so to protect movies and music,
science and innovation must move "off the net"

[ex


Any Computer Scientists KNOWS if you want to keep secure what you are working on...you better be using a self made hardware computer with absolutely no connection to the world what so ever. Or one of the old commercial computers with pre-spyware hardware inside it (pre-1996ish).


so science becomes harder to do innovation is stunted,
and many programs return to paper rather than have patentable products stolen or leaked by isps or third parties.

hollywood slows down progress,
puts people in jail,
and removes privacy

so some dumb movie can make a few more dollars

WTF

xploder



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I understand it now, and I can only say that I'm glad to live in a country where downloads are legal (at least for now), only the uploading is illegal.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I understand it now, and I can only say that I'm glad to live in a country where downloads are legal (at least for now), only the uploading is illegal.


the model legislation forced upon us makes no distinction between uploading or down loading,
both are more time in prison than assault.

and you dont even need to be guilty of anything,
they can just "accuse you" and you HAVE TO PROVE innocence

does the average new zealand computer user even know how to prove their computer was not involved?
how much is computer forensics per hour?

this could be used as a tool against protestors,
this could be used against competitors to the usa
this could simply be a "legal way to spy" on us

this is really bad news,
they are building lots of new jails here, at tax payers expence,
wounder why?

xploder



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Yes, that's extremely worrying, with things working that way they can do whatever they want.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Yes, that's extremely worrying, with things working that way they can do whatever they want.


the stats say upto 80% of people regularly infringe some form of copyright,
and that anyone who becomes successful could be targeted,

you cant make laws that turn 80% of the internet users into criminals and not expect that power to be abused.
our country relies on IP to make money,
now without proof i can be made into a criminal till i prove otherwise,
and my competitors can use this information to find my suppliers and sources,
and under cut me on purchases.

or design better innovation to "block me from the market"

this is the greatest threat to privacy and science (in my fields) in corporate espionage history.

yay

xploder



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


Indeed, why not just encrypt your stuff? Do it twice, once for the attachments and again for the actual email. Unless you do something that will make them force you to decrypt it you will be fine.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by aivlas
 


That would solve (I suppose) the privacy problem, but it doesn't solve the root problem. If they have those laws I don't see what will stop them from:
a) see people that encrypt communications as suspicious/guilty.
b) change the law to force people to decrypt/do not allow people to encrypt communications.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


A) They must have a lot of people on radar already then
B) They can do already (UK) but you have to get busted first, I don't think they could get away with making encryption illegal.
edit on 7-10-2012 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by aivlas
 


That would solve (I suppose) the privacy problem, but it doesn't solve the root problem. If they have those laws I don't see what will stop them from:
a) see people that encrypt communications as suspicious/guilty.
b) change the law to force people to decrypt/do not allow people to encrypt communications.


exactly,
if i encrypt my comms i become suspect for copyright downloads,
if i dont my resurch is at risk by wrongful claimed infringment.

long and the short of it is

THIS FORCES ME TO ENCRYPT EVERYTHING AS A MATTER OF COURSE

not to pirate movies but to keep my IP safe from exposure to third parties



that will cause alot of disruption but privacy can be key to successful world wide patent attempts.
thing is if everyone uses encryption law enforcement is adversely effected

hey they brought this upon themselves

xploder
edit on 7-10-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


This is why I'm against copyright laws as they stand today. Governments give companies like movie houses and music companies far too much power.

I'm all for protecting intellectual property but at what costs? The cost of my privacy? Nope. The cost of your privacy? Nope. Someone needs to reel in the reigns here and get things under control.

Hollywood isn't that important.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


In the United States encryption can backfire upon one. So US citizens need to be aware of this fact. If you fall under investigation for anything computer related and have effective encryption, you can be held in contempt of court for as long as it takes for that encryption to either be broken - or until you give up the keys.

Contempt our court is no minor thing. In fact in the US a contempt charge removes all due process:


Sanctions for contempt may be criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then the contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then punishment (such as a fine or, in more serious cases, imprisonment) is imposed unconditionally. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically incarceration in the custody of the sheriff or similar court officer) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continues: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. The imposed party is said to "hold the keys" to his or her own cell, thus conventional due process is not required. The burden of proof for civil contempt, however, is a preponderance of the evidence, and theoretically punitive sanctions (punishment) can only be imposed after due process but the due process is unpublished.
In civil contempt cases there is no principle of proportionality. In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), a U.S. court of appeals held that H. Beatty Chadwick could be held indefinitely under federal law, for his failure to produce US$ 2.5 mill. as state court ordered in a civil trial. Chadwick had been imprisoned for nine years at that time and continued to be held in prison until 2009, when a state court set him free after 14 years, making his imprisonment the longest on a contempt charge to date.


Source

And that would be in addition to any criminal charges one faced and would also likely add new charges such as withholding evidence. The court may or may not choose to look at time served for contempt when contemplating sentence on the other charges.

So any notions folks might have about "I'm safe - as they'll never break my encryption and find evidence to use against me" is illusory and not well advised.

I, BTW, and not stating any position on Copyright or DMCA issues. Only discussing legalities. Just Google the words "encryption" and "contempt of court" to see.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Auricom
reply to post by XPLodER
 


This is why I'm against copyright laws as they stand today. Governments give companies like movie houses and music companies far too much power.

I'm all for protecting intellectual property but at what costs? The cost of my privacy? Nope. The cost of your privacy? Nope. Someone needs to reel in the reigns here and get things under control.

Hollywood isn't that important.


at the moment some dumb movie is more important than my research,
how does that scale when my country NZ is supposed to be developing IP for income?

i agree hollywood isnt that important

and they lie about their importence


Have we lost 41 percent of our musicians? Depends on how you (the RIAA) count



Disturbed by this revelation, I followed the trail of comments stemming from Resnikoff's missive, which quarreled over the ethics of illegal file sharing and the efficacy of various business models. But what struck me was that none of these debaters double checked the arithmetic construed from the table. After all, if you think about it, this is an astounding claim to make: that the United States has lost something approaching half of its paid musicians since 1999.

So I checked the figures myself, using the basic percentage change formula that I was taught in high school (which, admittedly, was a long time ago): (P2 - P1) / P1 x 100 = percentage change.

If you look at the Digital Music News version of the chart, it looks like the orange bar over 1999 comes to about 49,000 "musicians & artists." Let's call that our P1. The orange bar over 2011 comes to around 34,000 or so. That's our P2.

Next, plug in the numbers: 34,000 minus 49,000 equals negative 15,000, that difference divided by 49,000, then multiplied by 100 equals negative 30.6 percent.

In other words: a 30.6 percent decline. To be fair, a 30 percent drop isn't 41 percent, but it is still a big fall. Given the discrepancy, however, I began wondering about the numbers themselves. So I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' web site myself. The first and most obvious numbers I found were the Occupation Employment Statistics National Cross Industry figures for "musicians and singers" in 2011 (zip / excel): 42,530, and the OES figures for 1999 (zip / excel): 46,440.

And I ran that formula again.

42,530 (P2) - 46,440 (P1) / 46,440 (P1) x 100 = 8.4 percent decline.

8.4 percent, I'm sure most readers will agree, is a long way from 41 percent.


arstechnica.com...

they lie about losses and about artists and about how their IP is more valuable than my rights or privacy

they intentionally ignore the financial downturn to exaggerate their losses,
and ignore the re-clasifycation of what an artist is to make it look like piracy is this massive problem,

and their solution is to destroy trust in the internet,

and force mass encryption of everyone to protect their over reach

xploder



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


If your that worried about people stealing your work you should be doing that anyway.

And encrypting your stuff does not make you suspicious and isn't going to flag you for investigation.
edit on 7-10-2012 by aivlas because: (no reason given)


EDIT
Also just because you encrypt your traffic it does not mean you are pirating and I don't think anyone would jump to that conclusion.
edit on 7-10-2012 by aivlas because: (no reason given)


EDIT
See
www.abovetopsecret.com...
for law enforcements answer
edit on 7-10-2012 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


thank you very much

i was not aware of this

In the United States encryption can backfire upon one. So US citizens need to be aware of this fact. If you fall under investigation for anything computer related and have effective encryption, you can be held in contempt of court for as long as it takes for that encryption to either be broken - or until you give up the keys.

Contempt our court is no minor thing. In fact in the US a contempt charge removes all due process:


please be aware that encrypting your hard drive is not an option for scientists or pirates in the continental USA.

thank you for bringing this to our attention.
even with hard drive encryption you have no right to privacy.

look i have no problem with ligitamite law enforcement for serious crimes,
but to lose all rights to privacy so some hollywood hot shot can have ANOTHER boat steams my brain.

yes american IP is valuable,
but to remove my privacy and call me guilty before i have to prove myself innocent,
all the while my personal IP (internet protocal) is given to third parties without safegaurds,

is saying american movies are worth more than my inventions and my privacy

and they should have more powers of prosecution for copy right infringement than my own government or their police force does for murder.

how does that make sense?

xploder



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

It makes sense my friend because they have far, far more money than you.

Once you've sold your invention and made yourself a gazillionaire, you too will be able to buy off the police, the courts and even the politicians.....It's called capitalism!



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
exactly,
if i encrypt my comms i become suspect for copyright downloads,
if i dont my resurch is at risk by wrongful claimed infringment.

Well, I guess that what you need is an encryption method that makes it look like there's no encryption.



posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by XPLodER
exactly,
if i encrypt my comms i become suspect for copyright downloads,
if i dont my resurch is at risk by wrongful claimed infringment.

Well, I guess that what you need is an encryption method that makes it look like there's no encryption.


i like how you think bro...
but talk like that will get you into serious trouble

while your right ubiquitous encryption is really the only solution,

xploder





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join