VM to monitor File Sharing

[die5el]

if you're using torrents and have forced encryption then i don't think it can be determined what you're downloading other than the fact it's bittorrent traffic,ssl will plug this hole, and it seems like the Cview software is making radical claims way beyond its capabilities.
Avoid the honeypot torrents if you must torrent, otherwise switch to newsgroups.

[Mick Fisher]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Perhaps if people weren't stealing others intellectual property willy-nilly, this would not be such an issue?

Maybe?

It isn't, at least, not for me. I am of the opinion that this "intellectual property willy-nilly" that you speak of is not worth the effort of stealing.

The issue for me is the continued erosion of personal privacy in exchange for Corporate profit.

[bigsanta11]

And when the missing revenue that is so far being redirected back into the wrong peoples pockets,fails to turn up ,even after these new measures have been put in place ,what next mandy ?

[Tarantella]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Perhaps if people weren't stealing others intellectual property willy-nilly, this would not be such an issue?

Maybe?

Why are companies who produce such an easy to copy product suprised and dismayed when people do actually copy it?

[nexy33]

yet another token of moral decay in Stalinist Britain. Some light reading or film material anyone ? 1984 or Equilibrium

[Tarantella]

Back to the topic of the thread with another easy to answer question.


Does VM actually plan to analyse all data passing through its system from its customers to establish what file sharing might be going on?


If the answer is yes then the title of the thread should be changed to


"VM to monitor all data from customers in an attempt to monitor file sharing"

[Sir John Luke]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Perhaps if people weren't stealing others intellectual property willy-nilly, this would not be such an issue?

Maybe?

Indeed, and if VM hadn't shown themselves so eager to steal others' intellectual property (via Phorm) in order to advertise their competitors, there wouldn't be such an outcry.

[BenMcr]

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9906062,00.htm

In CView, web traffic first enters a network device, or 'black box', where IP address information is discarded, Detica media accounts director Dan Klein told ZDNet UK on Thursday. The data packet is then scanned to see if it follows one of the three main file-sharing protocols — BitTorrent, Gnutella and eDonkey — said Klein.

"We don't look at anything else, because we don't have the processing power," said Klein.

If the packet does follow one of those protocols, it is opened to check whether the data inside is licensed. Detica is currently testing different music-fingerprinting products, including Shazam, Gracenote, Digimark and Audible Magic, to gauge whether the file contains licensed or unlicensed data.

[Welshchris]

how can they distinguish between say a legal Peer to peer that u have paid for such as Napster or something like Emule?

---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Perhaps if people weren't stealing others intellectual property willy-nilly, this would not be such an issue?

Maybe?

Phaps if our government didnt wanna screw us at every turn on tax and prices wernt so high then people would think twice and buy the product.

[Sir John Luke]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9906062,00.htm

In CView, web traffic first enters a network device, or 'black box', where IP address information is discarded, Detica media accounts director Dan Klein told ZDNet UK on Thursday. The data packet is then scanned to see if it follows one of the three main file-sharing protocols — BitTorrent, Gnutella and eDonkey — said Klein.

"We don't look at anything else, because we don't have the processing power," said Klein.

If the packet does follow one of those protocols, it is opened to check whether the data inside is licensed. Detica is currently testing different music-fingerprinting products, including Shazam, Gracenote, Digimark and Audible Magic, to gauge whether the file contains licensed or unlicensed data.

...and for completeness:-

Klein added that encryption of data would cause major problems for CView. "Encryption of the data packet would defeat us," he said. "We're not going to put the processing power into defeating it."

and

Detica, told ZDNet UK on Thursday that government plans to force ISPs to identify unlawful file-sharers were not proportionate.

"If the government chose to go down that route, we would come out strongly against," said Detica media accounts director Dan Klein. "It's not necessary or proportionate."

[Welshchris]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9906062,00.htm

In CView, web traffic first enters a network device, or 'black box', where IP address information is discarded, Detica media accounts director Dan Klein told ZDNet UK on Thursday. The data packet is then scanned to see if it follows one of the three main file-sharing protocols — BitTorrent, Gnutella and eDonkey — said Klein.

"We don't look at anything else, because we don't have the processing power," said Klein.

If the packet does follow one of those protocols, it is opened to check whether the data inside is licensed. Detica is currently testing different music-fingerprinting products, including Shazam, Gracenote, Digimark and Audible Magic, to gauge whether the file contains licensed or unlicensed data.

In what way do they mean licenced or unlicenced?
By this i mean copyrighted or digitally licenced etc

[popper]

LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_P4l...layer_embedded
Dan Bull - Dear Mandy [an open letter to Lord Mandelson]

http://freakbits.com/an-interview-wi...ear-mandy-1127

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Welshchris

In what way do they mean licenced or unlicenced?
By this i mean copyrighted or digitally licenced etc

unlicenced=not a licence to send that file via P2P

I'm pretty sure all legal MP3s will have a way of identifying them. So if it is seen being shared on P2P that would be unlicenced

[Rchivist]

Anyone wanting to follow a thread in the rather restricted world of the BT beta user forum, have a look here
https://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/t...14541&tstart=0

There are some links in that thread, that may not be posted here, which lead to a detailed forum discussion elsewhere, of the Detica/VM link and also the Detica/BT link. BT have denied using or trialling CView but are known to be clients of Detica. They have NOT denied using or trialling Detica DPI technology.

We are also not allowed to name other ISPs on the BT Beta forum hence the rather stilted language when referring to other providers.

Various hares have been set off in both EU Commission and UK Parliament this week with regard to the legal issues. There are massive legal issues around the basic interception of communications by the DPI kit, no matter what happens afterwards. In order to "discard" IP data, or to "anonymise" PII you have to have collected it in the first place - and without either consent or a warrant, and if it is not for the technical business of maintaining the actual ISP network function, it is ILLEGAL. So all those weasel words and wriggle room from Detica are exactly that, and sound very familiar to the same excuses used by Phorm many many months ago.

I hope any VM customers aware of this will make a big fuss - especially via the various democratic routes. You need to write to your MPs and MEPs and you need to complain vigorously to VM, and be prepared for a long long fight. Many of us who have bee battling over Phorm elsewhere have learned how to do this the hard way, but with some considerable achievements over the last year.

Best of luck.

[popper]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11...isconnections/
Gov net disconnections could breach EU law
".....
...Edwards said that the Bill itself may break European law.

The E-Commerce Directive, which was made UK law as the E-Commerce Regulations, give network providers immunity from liability for the actions of their users while they are ignorant of those actions.

"This legislation is potentially in breach of the E-Commerce Directive, Articles 14 and 15 in particular, in which Europe has said that hosts and service providers are not to be liable for the acts of others who are the end users of their services," she said.

"I think it hasn't fully been thought through whether that might be a competing principle."

"In the Wi-Fi example isn't that person, the Wi-Fi provider, meant to be protected against the illegal acts of others over whom he has no real effective control?" said Edwards.

The Directive also says that operators have no obligation to monitor networks in the way suggested by BIS.

"Member States shall not impose a general obligation on providers … to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity," says Article 15 of the Directive.

The BIS spokeswoman said: "On the E-Commerce issue, we believe our proposals are fully compliant with all EU regulations.""

---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 18:05 ----------

http://www.detica.com/images/pdfs/de...tion-sep09.pdf

Consultation on legislation to
address illicit P2P file sharing

Detica response
28 September 2009