VM to monitor File Sharing

[Stuart]

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/article/...itoring-system

VM is to trial system called CView for monitoring illegal FileSharing.

They will be using DPI technlogy (actually the same system Phorm would have used) to find any known p2p packets and open them to determine (using data provided by the Recording Industry) if they are carrying illegal content.

As with Phorm, VM stress this data will be anonymised..

Discuss..

[broadbandking]

I can see this coming its a start for traffic shaping plus cracking down on illegal contents been downloaded, I wonder if it can track SSL.

[Ignitionnet]

Hmmm 40% of the network.... that would be roughly the same % that resides on ex-Telewest. Coincidence that

Yes it is easy to shape once you have the appropriate kit to identify traffic.

I thought CView seemed familiar... http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/200...e-sharers.html

From that story...

It's understood that Detica is hoping to run beta trials with an unknown UK ISP sometime in the near future, though major ISPs like Virgin Media , Sky Broadband and BT claim not to be involved. Indeed you'd have to be a little crazy, after the Phorm palava, to volunteer for something like this.

Be amusing to hear the usual VM suspects playing word games to pretend that the denial wasn't a lie. 'Well it wasn't a 'beta' trial this is an 'alpha' trial, clearly totally different.'

[Sir John Luke]

Stuart's 'news' story is slightly inaccurate, though his post here is accurate. CView is not itself the technology which would have powered Phorm. Rather both the proposed Phorm system and CView use the same (DPI) technology.

[greeninferno]

Is there any evidence to suggest this "trial" has already started ?

Also , does this include newsgroup downloads including their own service ?

And another question !! does this DPI work on SSL encrypted downloads from Usenet ?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Sir John Luke

Stuart's 'news' story is slightly inaccurate, though his post here is accurate. CView is not itself the technology which would have powered Phorm. Rather both the proposed Phorm system and CView use the same (DPI) technology.

My news story is now accurate..

[NoKnowledge]

Originally Posted by greeninferno

Is there any evidence to suggest this "trial" has already started ?

Also , does this include newsgroup downloads including their own service ?

And another question !! does this DPI work on SSL encrypted downloads from Usenet ?

I wouldn't worry, they're not going to do anything, going by the news, just monitor the traffic, presumably to see how big a problem, illegal file sharing is.

[popper]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/article/...itoring-system

VM is to trial system called CView for monitoring illegal FileSharing.

They will be using DPI technlogy (actually the same system Phorm would have used) to find any known p2p packets and open them to determine (using data provided by the Recording Industry) if they are carrying illegal content.

As with Phorm, VM stress this data will be anonymised..

Discuss..

arrr yes wonderful 'CView' , i had a streaming video URL clip showing some of its many capabilitys when the Phorm initative and its legality and the laws covering its use was openly debated here, but cant seem to find it now.

i remember it showed the CView operator realtime clicking YOUR personal data flows and looking at your copyrighted content, that included looking inside P2P dataflows, news server services dataflows, and even "drilling Down" to , re-constituting the data packets in to order and actually viewing peoples realtime private email reading.... technically very interesting......

OC from a 'commercial interception for profit' RIPA and related legislation of 'commercial piracy for profit' prosecution POV.

actively using CView to intercept and make derivate works of a paying users IP dataflows, to later attemp to anonymise this interceptioned data derivative work, and call it anonymised, from the realtime data is A very dangerous thing to do for the operator and his executives that signed off on these illegal interception operations.

Very Dangerous for them indeed without clear and comprehensive information and written signed agreement with 'the user I.e the copyright owner' of the personal realtime dataflows in UK law prior permission and agreements to intercept that data flow OC, to be clear the executives and operators stand a good chance of Real imprisonment if found guilty of such RIPA criminal charges...

[NoKnowledge]

Detica, the business and technology consultancy, has launched Detica CView™, a powerful tool to measure copyright infringement on the internet. Detica today announced that Virgin Media, will be the first ISP to trial the solution as part of the technological platform for its planned music service.

http://www.detica.com/index.php?opti...2009&category=

Their website also lists the government, BT, Vodafone and 3 as their clients.

[warescouse]

It is still a data interception of communication traffic without a warrant. No different to listening in on all telephone conversations and making a note of how often a word is mentioned. Of course they will claim anything else will be ignored.

This is the start of the demise of VM as a trusted broadband provider (some will claim it has already begun). VM will argue that IP addresses are not personal information when trying to put the behavioural adverts on customer HTTP pages using cookie collected information yet on the other hand they will use these same IP addresses to 'report' or identify people who may be illegal file sharing and consequently adopt the guilty until proved innocent approach.

Talk about using a sledgehammer to crack a nut!

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by popper

actively using CView to intercept and make derivate works of a paying users IP dataflows, to later attemp to anonymise this interceptioned data derivative work, and call it anonymised, from the realtime data is A very dangerous thing to do for the operator and his executives that signed off on these illegal interception operations.

By that token all DPI is legally dubious which isn't the case. For all the furore over Phorm, etc, CView will, of course, have options to ensure it isn't holding identifying data and if it is only looking at the contents of certain packets then discarding them once it has made a match all is fine.

Illegal 'interception' is a very different thing from using data for analysis and shouldn't be confused. Using CView to identify and run comparisons on signatures in packets is not 'interception' it is 'inspection' and no more legally dubious than those ISPs which use DPI equipment for shaping.

If Virgin started using it to start replaying their customers flows there would be legal issues, but that's not what they are saying they are going to do with it so it's a non-issue. Showing off a technology's capabilities as a 'lawful intercept' tool is something very different from that same tool being used as a traffic identifier. All DPI kit can be used for 'lawful intercept', doesn't mean all the ISPs using it are doing so. Heck one could do reconstruct data flows using port mirroring on a switch and a Wireshark filter, we aren't going to suggest use of switches and Wireshark is illegal.

[popper]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

Hmmm 40% of the network.... that would be roughly the same % that resides on ex-Telewest. Coincidence that

Yes it is easy to shape once you have the appropriate kit to identify traffic.

I thought CView seemed familiar... http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/200...e-sharers.html

From that story...



Be amusing to hear the usual VM suspects playing word games to pretend that the denial wasn't a lie. 'Well it wasn't a 'beta' trial this is an 'alpha' trial, clearly totally different.'

Only if they didnt run the alpha trials in the lab, and the beta trials are on live data flows as it must be to be werth a few lines in a top secret document to get the official stamp..

Ohh wait, they say they didnt use real peoples data flows for phorm Deep Packet Interception trials and they will say the same about these trials too you can be sure of that...

[afraser2k]

Didn't VM deny plans for using this (or a system like it) a while back after one of the CF members had leaked the trial, or is this a different type of inspection system?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by warescouse

It is still a data interception of communication traffic without a warrant. No different to listening in on all telephone conversations and making a note of how often a word is mentioned. Of course they will claim anything else will be ignored.

If you'd care to bring a test case into the courts on those ISPs who are engaging in this 'data interception of communication traffic without a warrant' specifically those ISPs using DPI equipment to identify and shape certain traffic then this would be interesting.

Before anyone mentions that this is used purely for identifying the protocol and doesn't go as 'deep' as CView some equipment shapes encrypted Bittorrent by monitoring communication between client and tracker and using the information downloaded from the tracker. To me exactly the same just with a different end in that action is actually taken based on the information.

[popper]

Originally Posted by Broadbandings

By that token all DPI is legally dubious which isn't the case. For all the furore over Phorm, etc, CView will, of course, have options to ensure it isn't holding identifying data and if it is only looking at the contents of certain packets then discarding them once it has made a match all is fine.

Illegal 'interception' is a very different thing from using data for analysis and shouldn't be confused. Using CView to identify and run comparisons on signatures in packets is not 'interception' it is 'inspection' and no more legally dubious than those ISPs which use DPI equipment for shaping.

but even before all that , its the very first 'actual act of Interception without permission' thats the main criminal act in RIPA, Not just the later secondary civil act of making a derivative work from the users copyrighted dataflows without permission , or the 3rd criminal act of doing that act against the copyright owner of the data For 'commercial gain' with out renumeration AND a clear signed contract as above to use that holders data, thats the point many DPI for profit advocates do not consider....

no IF its holding data created by the paying user or the web site they have asked for a personal copy for personal use and is tracable to an IP address and or account holder, to then be supplyed to a 3rd party for commercial gain by making an unauthorised copy of the original or a derivative work, and then calling it anonymised then it is legally dubious.

for your average network practices of getting the private data flows form point A to point B delivery, then DPi is perfectly fine and indeed covered by its own laws already so no problem in that explicit case...

it ironic that you have to use the very same law that they are trying to use against you, but in their case its 'a commercial piracy For Profit' criminal case, wereas they are trying to convict you of, and for a civil act of Non commercial personal use...

to get down to basics, the ISPs are being asked to commit a real current and 'criminal act' to prevent a potential, and only a future potential 'civil act' from taking place for the benefit of a 3rd party commercial profit ORG... and potentially be allowed under the table to sell on these derivative works to other 3rd partys willing to pay for the data to offset the costs incured while doing these crimial acts of interception....