Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought this statement below was true. If so, it seems to me that is grounds for lawsuits.
"The ISPs do have access to everything a person browses on the internet, but they are legally unable to share that information with third-parties without explicit consent from users."
Because it's none of their damn business. Their job is to connect me to the Internet. Period. It is not their job to monitor what goes over their network beyond what is required to protect their own equipment from attack.
I'm sure as you already know your ISP logs your actions and keeps those records for a substantial amount of time. Having said that as I already posted they won't be the one doing the monitoring. This will mostly effect services like torrents where the ISP can monitor this type of activity, http traffic over websites will be unaffected unless the web site is owned by or in collusion with the RIAA.
What will happen is the current way people share files illegally will move to another sytem, I think it was plwhit posted an article on service that uses encryption and is based on "friends" which would be much harder to infiltrate.
I thought this statement below was true. If so, it seems to me that is grounds for lawsuits.
"The ISPs do have access to everything a person browses on the internet, but they are legally unable to share that information with third-parties without explicit consent from users. "
They have access too and log all your actions, technically they could intercept anything that is not encrypted. If for example you you get a private message here since it's not over https they could read what it is. If you log into Gmail account they are only going to know you visited Gmail but will have no clue what the email contains since the communication is encrypted. You'll probably see a lot of sites moving to https for private things like private messages and control panels in the future.
Again AFAIK they won;t be sharing any information with anyone, even if they were I don't know why that would be illegal especially if they were disclosing it because in reality it would no different than what most websites do. As noted in your quote "explicit consent from users". There is probably already language in their TOS to this effect.
Last edited by thecoalman; 03-26-2012 at 07:16 AM..
If what you say is true than a simple peerblocker will work fine. For those that dont know, its basically a program that blocks ISP's from connecting to your ISP when downloading a torrent. In essence they can't see who is downloading if they are on the block list. They must connect to the same torrent to see what ISP's are downloading illegally. Its what "we" have been using for years as well as VPN's and proxies, although VPN's don't really work since once they are subpoeanad(spelling?) they turn over that information to the courts.
I'm sure as you already know your ISP logs your actions and keeps those records for a substantial amount of time. Having said that as I already posted they won't be the one doing the monitoring. This will mostly effect services like torrents where the ISP can monitor this type of activity, http traffic over websites will be unaffected unless the web site is owned by or in collusion with the RIAA.
What will happen is the current way people share files illegally will move to another sytem, I think it was plwhit posted an article on service that uses encryption and is based on "friends" which would be much harder to infiltrate.
Of course I know they have that info. As things stand today, they need a warrant to disclose that information. That put the government in a position to show a judge they have a reasonable expectation of finding evidence before the go look at what you are doing. That is as it should be. It is not the government's job to protect RIAA unless RIAA brings law enforcement enough evidence to convince a judge to sign a warrant. I thing the government should continue to be required to treat us as innocent until proved guilty.
I haven't made up my mind about this yet. But I do want to comment on this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit
You download a picture off the Internet that's copyrighted ---OOPS
You save off a picture of Mickey Mouse so your daughter can color it ---OOPS2
You download a copyrighted icon for your desktop ---OOPS3
You can't seriously believe this is what they are after? You and I both know what they want to stop:
Limewire, Lizardwire, Frostwire or whatever other *wire* service that pops up to allow people to steal:
MUSIC
MOVIES
Thats's all. That's what this is about.
You can thank MegaUpload for this. Did they really think they could do that forever and not get in trouble?
Apparently.
That makes no sense. How is an ISP going to demand records from themselves.
And its a subpeona the courts need, not a warrant.
LE? Edit: Oh you mean law enforcement online
Last edited by skel1977; 03-26-2012 at 09:45 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
