Help w/ 3 strikes law from perspective of hostel proving net access to users

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Help w/ 3 strikes law from perspective of hostel proving net access to users

joefish

32 posts

Geek

Topic # 89241 29-Aug-2011 13:34
I help a small non-profit university hostel with providing internet access to their users (around 60 people). Under the three strikes law, there's no way we're considered an IPAP (because of the requirement of internet access not being incidental). We meet all the other requirements. How should we be dealing with this? If we get to the stage of three notices, we'll be liable. It's very difficult to block P2P traffic, and even if we could, P2P does have it's legitimate uses. Other than removing internet access completely, what protection do we have?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

3602 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 513453 29-Aug-2011 13:36
not a lot. Your best option, if you don't want to block P2P, is to wait until you get your second infringement notice then change ISPs. Lather rinse repeat.

joefish

32 posts

Geek

Reply # 513460 29-Aug-2011 13:43
Changing ISPs when you have a connection that provides access for 60 users isn't an option, especially when that's a specially negotiated deal with the ISP, so that said access is affordable for the users...

SaltyNZ

2087 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 513461 29-Aug-2011 13:44
Yes... it IS a bad law, isn't it? iPad + iPhone 4S + 2degrees 3G data 4tw! These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

trig42

1244 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 513462 29-Aug-2011 13:44
I don't think you have a lot of choice other than to block p2p, even for legitimate reasons. A 60 user network you should have some sort of decent gateway that allows you to block traffic.

freitasm

BDFL
43665 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Subscriber

Reply # 513470 29-Aug-2011 14:02
If you are providing a free service and don't want to get tangled, then block P2P. If this is not possible, then stop providing the service. If this is not possible, consult a lawyer. IANAL. Mauricio Freitas (Geekzone Admin, Devil's Advocate, my blog, technology disclosure, my tweets, Web Performance Optimization) Geekzone Price comparison \| Amazon Kindle order page \| How to get the best out of Geekzone \| New Zealand IT Jobs \| Geekzone News \| Jinglebugs

hellonearthisman

1682 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 513479 29-Aug-2011 14:25
Outsource your Internet to a dummy company, after 2 notices, change to a different dummy company, rinse and repeat.

PaulBrislen

167 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

TUANZ

Reply # 513484 29-Aug-2011 14:34
This is exactly the kind of problem the government hadn't considered when drafting the legislation and all providers of wifi (or indeed any kind of internet access) to a wide group of people will find themselves in. You're not an IPAP because you don't meet the criteria, you're an account holder. EVEN IF you could identify each and every user on your network and EVEN IF you could monitor so that should you get a notice you could hand it over to an end user IT WON'T MATTER because you as account holder are legally responsible for the notice. Get three of them and you're off to the Copyright Tribunal which will most likely result in a fine. You can volunteer to appear in person (in Wellington) and argue the case, but most cases are expected to be settled by email. Once the decision is reached there is no appeal other than to the High Court on matters of law only. As for advice, unfortunately as I see it there's very little you can do. You can: Block all P2P (legit or otherwise); Introduce some for of software that allows deep packet inspection and then block only material that seems to be copyright (not cheap, not easy, will result in revolutionary zeal among your users); Argue the toss at your first notice and go to the Tribunal and argue about how stupid this is; Hire a lawyer and challenge the first notice on the grounds that guilty until proven innocent is a breach of the Bill of Rights and form a test case for the rest of us; Remove wifi access for your residents. None of these are ideal. Ideally I'd ask that you write an angry public letter to your MP, copying in the minister responsible Simon Power and myself at TUANZ and we will make the whole thing very noisy, but I accept that may not be possible depending on your circumstance. Good luck and keep us posted Paul

wreck90

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

Reply # 513490 29-Aug-2011 14:47
NonprayingMantis: not a lot. Your best option, if you don't want to block P2P, is to wait until you get your second infringement notice then change ISPs. Lather rinse repeat. I thought it was impossible to block p2p.

PaulBrislen

167 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

TUANZ

Reply # 513492 29-Aug-2011 14:49
I gather they just pick on the ports that BitTorrent uses and focus on those... not ideal.

garvani

1482 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 513507 29-Aug-2011 15:17
There are ways of dealing with this, we have had to do it for a hostel/backpackers. We are using zentyal which is a software Firewall/transparent proxy , it has deep packet inspection, mixed with blocking .torrent file types, using opendns as the dns server to block p2p trackers, proxy servers and a lot of the torrent hosting sites has basically nuked all p2p, there are ways around it but you will have to be fairly knowledgeable to do so. Only problem so far that we havn't got an answer for is that it has also killed Skype as it uses p2p ports.. working on that one

PaulBrislen

167 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

TUANZ

Reply # 513513 29-Aug-2011 15:27
And for a sneak peak at just how stupid this all is, Gareth Hughes (Green MP and occassional Geekzone poster) has uncovered this foulness: The racist/facist group Right Wing Resistance have thrown their support behind the copyright infringement act that fully comes into force as of tomorrow. In an email sent out to their membership list the RWR people point out that, “All you have to do is find any foreigner with internet and download a copyrighted item or torrent protocol.”

Dratsab

1387 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 513525 29-Aug-2011 15:55
PaulBrislen: ...Hire a lawyer and challenge the first notice on the grounds that guilty until proven innocent is a breach of the Bill of Rights and form a test case for the rest of us;... Good luck and keep us posted Paul I've seen a bit of people getting hung up on "it's a breach of the [New Zealand] Bill Of Rights [Act 1990] - however, section 3 of the Act is very specific in describing how the Act is to be applied: 3 Application This Bill of Rights applies only to acts done— (a) by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the Government of New Zealand; or (b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. Copyright holders and/or persons representing or claiming to represent them do not fit into either category specified by subsections a or b. It seems to me, the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act 1990 therefore does not apply. IANAL Chuck Norris has abolished the periodic table of elements. The only element he recognises is the element of surprise!

SaltyNZ

2087 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 513528 29-Aug-2011 15:57
Dratsab: PaulBrislen: ...Hire a lawyer and challenge the first notice on the grounds that guilty until proven innocent is a breach of the Bill of Rights and form a test case for the rest of us;... Good luck and keep us posted Paul I've seen a bit of people getting hung up on "it's a breach of the [New Zealand] Bill Of Rights [Act 1990] - however, section 3 of the Act is very specific in describing how the Act is to be applied: 3 Application This Bill of Rights applies only to acts done— (a) by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the Government of New Zealand; or (b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. Copyright holders and/or persons representing or claiming to represent them do not fit into either category specified by subsections a or b. It seems to me, the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act 1990 therefore does not apply. IANAL The law was enacted by the legislative branch of the Government, and will be enforced by the judicial branch. Seems to be covered to me. iPad + iPhone 4S + 2degrees 3G data 4tw! These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

PaulBrislen

167 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

TUANZ

Reply # 513531 29-Aug-2011 16:04
(long answer deleted) what he said. introduced by the executive, therfore has to comply with BoR. Quite what the BoR says about innocent until presumed guilty is beyond me but I'm sure someone will post.

scuwp

1068 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 513546 29-Aug-2011 16:52
Dratsab: PaulBrislen: ...Hire a lawyer and challenge the first notice on the grounds that guilty until proven innocent is a breach of the Bill of Rights and form a test case for the rest of us;... Good luck and keep us posted Paul I've seen a bit of people getting hung up on "it's a breach of the [New Zealand] Bill Of Rights [Act 1990] - however, section 3 of the Act is very specific in describing how the Act is to be applied: 3 Application This Bill of Rights applies only to acts done— (a) by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the Government of New Zealand; or (b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. Copyright holders and/or persons representing or claiming to represent them do not fit into either category specified by subsections a or b. It seems to me, the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act 1990 therefore does not apply. IANAL Like the other said. 3(b) seems to apply nicely IMO. The ISP's are a 'body' that is performing a 'public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law'. IN short the ISP's are enacting a law required of them by the government' Section 25(c) BoR Act provides that anyone charged with an offence has "the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law" There are also references to it in the foundation of British Common Law, upon which most on NZ's laws are founded. I look forward to the first defended case when the legislation comes crashing down around the ill-informed MP's feet. IANAL...but just about should be Artificial intelligence is no match, for natural stupidity!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4