Blog.Ivacy.com

What’s worse than an ISP throttling your peer-to-peer traffic? An ISP throttling your peer-to-peer traffic while stepping on your privacy.

Late last week, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) fired a letter to the country’s privacy czar, urging an investigation into the traffic shaping practices of mega telco Bell Canada. The University of Ottawa-affiliated law clinic suspects that Bell is not just throttling BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer traffic, but illegally monitoring the activities of millions of Canuck web surfers.

SenatorLuddite writes

“From January 20, 2008 new content laws introduced by the Federal Government will force sites to verify the age of users before accessing content intended for mature audiences (MA15+ and R18+). The laws bring internet classification into line with Film and Book classification laws and completely prohibits X18+ and RC content from the internet. ACMA (The Australian Communications and Media Authority) claims that adults will not be affected by the new laws, yet user-generated and even chatrooms are required to be assessed for classification and powers are granted to ACMA to send ‘take down’ notices to offending sites.”

Stony Stevenson writes

“The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) is offering consumers up to $500 for reporting software counterfeiters who sell their goods on online auction sites like eBay. Under the plan, anyone who unwittingly buys fake software from an online fraudster can receive up to $500 if they report the scam. SIIA said the program is a ‘don’t get mad, get even’ approach to stopping software piracy. It’s ‘a way for unsuspecting buyers to get even with auction sellers who rip them off,’ said SIIA VP Keith Kupferschmid. The campaign, launched December 13, is slated to run through January 30, 2008.”

“The Motion Picture Association of America last month sent letters to the presidents of 25 major universities (pdf), urging them to download and install a ‘university toolkit’ to help identify students who were downloading/sharing movie files. The Washington Post’s Security Fix blog reports that any university that installs the software could be placing a virtual wiretap on their networks for the MPAA (and the rest of the world) to listen in on all of the school’s traffic. From the story: ‘The MPAA also claims that using the tool on a university network presents “no privacy issues — the content of traffic is never examined or displayed.’ That statement, however, is misleading. Here’s why: The toolkit sets up an Apache Web server on the user’s machine. It also automatically configures all of the data and graphs gathered about activity on the local network to be displayed on a Web page, complete with ntop-generated graphics showing not only bandwidth usage generated by each user on the network, but also the Internet address of every Web site each user has visited. Unless a school using the tool has firewalls on the borders of its network designed to block unsolicited Internet traffic — and a great many universities do not — that Web server is going to be visible and accessible by anyone with a Web browser.”

Read more…

rdavison writes

“According to a recent article on the Financial Times site, ‘internet users in France who download music and films without paying for them could find their web access shut down by a government body.’ The proposal originated with FNAC, an entertainment retailer. According to the article, the proposal has a good chance of being accepted. ‘In exchange for the clampdown on illegal downloading, the music industry has agreed to make individual downloads of archive French material available on all types of players by dropping digital rights management protection. The French film industry has agreed to release DVDs more quickly after a film’s first cinema screening, reducing the delay from 7½ months to 6 months. However, consumer groups and even some of Mr Sarkozy’s own members of parliament on Thursday attacked the proposal for a new internet policeman as a threat to civil liberties.’”

An anonymous reader writes with a link to an article at P2P Net about the very first victim of the RIAA’s file-sharing litigation sweep. The site gave Jammie Thomas the chance to explain in her own words what the last two years have been like. She recounts her experiances with subpoenas, Best Buy, and most of all, stress. Even after all this time, her case is still in legal limbo:

“As for what’s next, my attorney filed a motion to have the verdict thrown out or to have the judgment reduced based on the constitutionality of the judgment. This is not an appeal, this is a post trial motion. We are currently waiting for the plaintiffs to file their response to our motion. The judge will not make a decision on that motion until after the plaintiffs have filed. The timeline for appeals is we have 30 days after the judge decides all post trial motions before we file any appeals … I do know personally I cannot allow my case to end this way, with this judgment. My case will be used as a sledgehammer by the RIAA to force other people caught in the RIAA’s driftnets to settle, even if they are or are not guilty of illegally sharing music online.”