ISPs Soon Forced to Police Your Internet Behavior?

[sstym]

[citation][nom]omnimodis78[/nom]A landlord owns the property, whereas the internet is not owned - but you and I pay to get access to it. Legally speaking, there is distinction between those two things. [/citation]

My bad. What I had in mind was illegal activities from a subscriber managing a web site hosted by the ISP. That's where my metaphor made sense.

With the wider case of someone accessing the Internet through an ISP and doing something that is illegal, the ISP should not be more liable for the subscriber's illegal activities than a company managing a toll road would be if a bank robber drove on their roads after a heist: They can't know what's in that robber's trunk. All they see is the car clearing the toll booth (hell, they can weigh it if they want, but that's the extent of their power).

Is that a better metaphor for you?

 

[david714]

ISPs don't have the technology to do this level of policing. If copyrighted content is compressed or encrypted how on earth will they be able to tell what it is? They may suspect you are donwloading that new movie, but that's it...

 

[Honis]

Slashdot has a little better coverage on this issue:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/04/144240/Secret-Copyright-Treaty-Leaks-Its-Bad-Very-Bad

Americans need to keep in mind, Congress is the only authority in signing treaties. Which means the people and ISPs will have a chance to openly oppose it before the USA joins or ignores it.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, because people shouldn’t be responsible for misspelled words the manufacturers of the pencil (or word processor programmers) should be. That just feels right to me inside and makes sense in my head.

 

[cappster]

*wipe* *flush* Sounds like the Bill of Rights is being attacked once again.

 

[steiner666]

This will never go through. It's just stupid. It's like blaming the workers that pave the road for ppl driving drunk on it.

 

[Guest]

So the big cats have finally woken up to the fact they can't sue Joe Average for $1.4 billion for downloading a poor cam of a movie he'd never pay to see in the theater.

Now to take it to the next level in the hope of an unjustified payday...

Remind me why I'm even buying movies again? True, it's only when they're $12 for three and I can find some I like in the local grocery store but still.

 

[jalek]

I want the telco execs fined every time a telemarketer calls me.
I'm on the no-call list, why should their exemption stand?

They can set up block lists, listen in on calls to see what the nature of the calls are, and allow or deny call attempts.

Is it that much different?

 

[climber]

Holding the ISPs accountable for the actions of their subscribers is going to create a precedent where computer manufacturers could be held accountable or even automobile manufacturers held responsible for deaths caused in auto accidents. To me it just seems that the RIAA and MPAA and their lawyers are displeased with the meager sums their are able to get in judgments in lawsuits therefore they are going after bigger fish with deeper pockets, which in turn will be passed onto everyone in higher fees for internet access to cover the costs ISPs must account for in lawsuit insurance.

 

[roofus]

So somewhere in the near future if I make a threatening phone call, will Sprint be liable? This is so stupid it is hard to even digest. I know we aren't talking telephones here but why stop at internet traffic? Lets turn stupid into stupid supreme!

 

[Guest]

The idea is not surprising, personally I think the ultimate solution is a change to copyright laws. In my opinion someone who pirates a movie around or prior to its release in cinemas can be legitimately prosecuted, but a year or two later when the movie has been aired on free to air TV? I think at that point it is wrong to distinguish between people using their VCRs and people downloading.

Of course the idea of suing ISPs is flawed, if they legislate that then they will copy the business model of the UK magazine Private Eye...they will make sure their company is only worth £1 - the media can sue all they like!

 

[megamanx00]

Useless, especially if it won't affect countries where piracy is most rampant. I mean really, someone in Russia will have it on the internet and then all it takes is for someone else to to put it on a darknet that is not easy to monitor. Not only that, but what's gonna happen to places with free wifi? Is it the fault of Carl's Jr. if some kid goes in there with a laptop and downloads a bunch of crap while they eat their six dollar burger? That's just screwing things up for the rest of us. Down with this bill. Email your congressmen and Senators and tell them to shred this thing.

 

[dextermat]

Do you think companies gonna spend million of dollars on that project .... i don't think so: unless government does so

 

[mlopinto2k1]

As I see it, anyone who thinks this is a bad idea pirates software. Why else would anyone be against it? If your activities on the internet are harmless, this won't affect you ONE BIT. To sit here and come up with EXCUSE after EXCUSE makes me want to vomit on my keyboard.

 

[brendano257]

[citation][nom]sstym[/nom]The responsibility of the ISP should be similar to that of a landlord. If you weren't aware of your tenant's illegal activities, you shouldn't be liable for them. If you know some your tenants are doing that kind of thing, evict them.The party accusing the subscriber should have to prove the subscriber behaved illegally, but if they are also planning to hold the ISP liable, they should have to prove that the ISP blatantly ignored the activities the subscriber.[/citation]

This is the problem. They aren't actually going to hold the ISP liable in most cases. They will just hold it over their heads to make sure pirates and such are given notices and service denials. They will only sue when the ISP refuses to give out notices for illegal activity or punishments. However a stand up from the ISPs about this kind of control would be amazing.

 

[Guest]

mlopinto2k1: You're remarkably naive.

If you have nothing to hide you should feel quite comfortable running a public webcam inside your bedroom 24/7 and have an always-on tracking device in your car with receivers given to the police as well as all your friends, family and neighbors.

Who knows, it might just save your life.

I'm of two minds about this myself. Needless to say it's absurd and retarded in the extreme but over the last decade the need for a violent revolution to turn back the clock on the totalitarian society our elected representatives are creating for us have been growing increasingly obvious.

An unabridged implementation of something like this would take us a step closer to the point where the general public has had enough, which would be a good thing in the long run.

 

[Guest]

Anyone else want to get into the encryption as a service business? Decode this... Free market = encrypted traffic = no way to track what i'm doing. And don't try to say that due to the extreme bandwidth I'm "hogging" I must be doing something illegal. Fine get a warrent and then try to crack the 1024 bit encryption that covers my PC (Finally something that will acutally use the other 3 cores). Technology is always ahead of any law they can make. Bring it on.

 

[potatolord]

This is ridiculous. Are ISPs vicariously liable for the actions of their customers? If so, to what extent?

Are ISPs responsible for the actions of customers even where the customers were aware that the ISPs terms and conditions forbade them from acting illegally and ignored those instructions?

 

[feenyxfire]

With the growing usage of LEGAL download services like Steam, Netflix, Hulu, and the like, it will be virtually impossible to tell what type of data you're handling without deep packet inspection and heavy decryption, as sheer volume isn't an indicator anymore. If the ISPs want to snoop on my data stream, two things will happen: bandwidth will go in the tank (as if it didn't suck already - 10Mbps my @$$) and there will have to be a new clearinghouse for warrants for wiretapping, as that's exactly what it will be. Besides, the last time I checked, downloading wasn't technically illegal, it's duplication and distribution that will get you in trouble. But if a source gives me a piece of data and claims that they are not retaining a copy, that's a retail transaction and perfectly legal - I can't be held responsible if they're lying.

 

[gorehound]

If they do thisd law in the USA will all you folks join me in boycotting Hollywood finally ? You can still watch movies by buying them used so you won't lose but Hollywood will.And they will have to be shot down a few pegs for doing this type of BS.Forcing ISP's to be accountable is BS at the most.Why ? Is the ISP a criminal ?
Hollywood will screw themselves doing this move and I can finally laugh.I hate these RIAA,MPAA,Hollywood..........They have ripped us off for decades and ripped off their artists as well.
If they do this in USA BOYCOTT their Industry.