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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

8241 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#514839 1-Sep-2011 09:16

freitasm:

You folks seem to have very short memory.

I mentioned it yesterday. And yes, you're absolutely right. Labour are simply trying to score points here knowing that everyone forgets they introduced the original law of which the current one is a slightly better version!

If you oppose this law strongly enough, try voting Green. Unfortunately for the likes of Gareth Hughes the Green party has too many nutters & idealists in it for me to go that path. Truthfully I'm not sure who I will be voting for.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Zeon

3918 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#514852 1-Sep-2011 09:31

Just an idea here but does your provider charge you differently for national/international data? If not, while its going to slow you down you may be able to get a router which supports all WAN traffic being routed across a VPN that terminates in the US.

Speedtest 2019-10-14

BlakJak

1276 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#514856 1-Sep-2011 09:35

freitasm:
kyhwana2:?National snuck it in under Urgency that was supposed to be for bills related to the christchurch earthquake. National seems to have done that a lot. (Hope you're voting this election and at this point it shouldn't be for National, right?)
?

You folks seem to have very short memory.

The Copyright (New Technologies) Ammendment Bill was introduced by Labour (Judith Tizard) in 2006.?

There was some public demonstrations against the S92a (the specific point in the three strikes) in Feb 2009, and the then National government decided to delay its introduction.

And this year whole government (including labour) approved this fine piece of legislation.?

So now you tell me Labour comes out saying they will repel the law if they get the government? And people say they will vote National out because of this law?

Seriously folks, it's the same thing as before. It's one party riding the waves to try to get votes by proclaiming loudly they will repeal a law that they introduced in first place.

Labour has been getting a lot of ... noise... because of their apparent back-pedal on this.
However there's another point that's relevant, I think.
When Labour supported the revised version into law relatively recently they made a bunch of hand-flapping excuses as to why they didn't agree with it but would support it for whatever reason it was (it was a lame excuse at best).
Subsequently however they have (or appear to have) *listened*.

This is what National aren't doing. Listening to the resounding 'piss off' coming from the population.
Instead they're letting the narrow-minded industry folks narrow their thinking.

The fact that Labour have been prepared to change their minds and listen to the populace is endearing enough that I'll overlook their earlier cockup - with the caveat that we would, indeed, have been better off if they'd paid more attention in the first place.

Oh and Judith Tizard was indeed an idiot. There's little disputing that.

No signature to see here, move along...

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8476 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#514866 1-Sep-2011 09:45

SaltyNZ: Yes... it IS a bad law, isn't it?

joefish

32 posts

Geek

#514868 1-Sep-2011 09:48

Well, to give an update from my original post:

Unencrypted P2P is now blocked from the router. I know that it's extremely easy for P2P clients to switch to encrypted mode, but at least this will cut some out. How easy is it for a third party (a copyright holder) to track an encrypted P2P download? Couldn't they just figure out the content of the file by downloading it themselves?
Was actually just trying OpenDNS on my home connection, with a view to use it for the hostel to block some P2P stuff. Is it really that bad?
Need I bother with deep packet inspection? (From a point of view of covering ourselves - bandwidth isn't an issue).
We have a contract with each user saying that if they get caught downloading illegal P2P, they will have to cover any costs we incur through the tribunal. The hard part is tracking which user did what (tracking web traffic is easy, tracking P2P isn't!). I'm not really sure how to track who did what P2P, since a notice/warning/infringement doesn't seem to have to specify the source IP address where the illegal content came from - so keeping iptables logs won't necessarily be helpful in figuring that out.
Since our Internet connection is a wireless one, our ISP apparently has a lawyer investigating whether it can be counted under the current exemption for mobile providers. I didn't think this would be a viable option, but hey, you never know.
Our fallback option is to reword our agreement with our ISP, stating that we provide Internet to hostel users on their (ISP's) behalf (rather than holding an account with them ourselves), then combining this with giving each user their own public IP address (still mapped to an internal address through the firewall, but at least we can then track who did what in case of notices issued). This is obviously overkill in many other respects, but at least it'd get us off the hook. Thankfully we have a good relationship with our ISP and they're willing to help us with this option if needed. It will obviously bring a cost increase to users if we do it.

BlakJak

1276 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#514874 1-Sep-2011 09:58

joefish: Well, to give an update from my original post:

Unencrypted P2P is now blocked from the router. I know that it's extremely easy for P2P clients to switch to encrypted mode, but at least this will cut some out. How easy is it for a third party (a copyright holder) to track an encrypted P2P download? Couldn't they just figure out the content of the file by downloading it themselves?
Was actually just trying OpenDNS on my home connection, with a view to use it for the hostel to block some P2P stuff. Is it really that bad?

CDN's like Akamai use the IP (and source AS) of the DNS resolver that connects to their nameserver platform, to determine which CDN node you're fed from.

If the DNS servers you're using are not located with the ISP you're connected to, you're unlikely to get the best CDN node. Infact using something wildly public like OpenDNS is likely to see you served from a long way away.

To the guy on the ICONZ link using Callplus's DNS: Don't assume that'll work forever. Most ISP's are disabling recursive lookups - so the only DNS servers you're technically 'entitled' to use are the ones your ISP provides, and they'll likely filter things so that queries received from outside their ISP network will only provide answers for domains they host (much like the way SMTP relaying is blocked.)

Need I bother with deep packet inspection? (From a point of view of covering ourselves - bandwidth isn't an issue).

If traffic is moved to non-standard ports the only way to tell what it is is to inspect the payload. Your risk to take, right? You'll be hard pressed to stop those who're genuinely keen to circumvent restrictions.

We have a contract with each user saying that if they get caught downloading illegal P2P, they will have to cover any costs we incur through the tribunal. The hard part is tracking which user did what (tracking web traffic is easy, tracking P2P isn't!). I'm not really sure how to track who did what P2P, since a notice/warning/infringement doesn't seem to have to specify the source IP address where the illegal content came from - so keeping iptables logs won't necessarily be helpful in figuring that out.
Since our Internet connection is a wireless one, our ISP?apparently has a lawyer investigating whether it can be counted under the current exemption for mobile providers. I didn't think this would be a viable option, but hey, you never know.
Our fallback option is to reword our agreement with our ISP, stating that we provide Internet to hostel users on their (ISP's) behalf (rather than holding an account with them ourselves), then combining this with giving each user their own public IP address (still mapped to an internal address through the firewall, but at least we can then track who did what in case of notices issued). This is obviously overkill in many other respects, but at least it'd get us off the hook. Thankfully we have a good relationship with our ISP and they're willing to help us with this option if needed. It will obviously bring a cost increase to users if we do it.

If you're using NAT to translate your real-world IP to private address space internally, this is half the problem. The outside world only gets your IP address and a timestamp. If you can't use that information alone to track back, you're a bit stuck.

Welcome to some of the many reasons this law is stupid.

No signature to see here, move along...

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#515022 1-Sep-2011 13:03

freitasm: was introduced by Labour (Judith Tizard) in 2006.?

It was more Tizard making personal changes that it being Labour policy that made such a bad law,
and look at where Tizard is now, totally out of government and actively prevented from becoming part of government again by the rest of Labour. She made a very very bad choice when she personally change the law that the committee had drafted and added her outrageous sections.

Also from reading the Labour statement, they will only be repealing the clause regarding disconnection, but will also look at what other changes can be made to make this law more workable in these times, like adding a fair use clause so satire isn't illegal.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#515042 1-Sep-2011 13:24

joefish: Well, to give an update from my original post:

Unencrypted P2P is now blocked from the router. I know that it's extremely easy for P2P clients to switch to encrypted mode, but at least this will cut some out. How easy is it for a third party (a copyright holder) to track an encrypted P2P download? Couldn't they just figure out the content of the file by downloading it themselves?

Encrypted or unencrypted doesn't make any difference.. The "rights holders" connect to the trackers and see what IPs are downloading "their stuff". They can also connect to encrypted hosts and get your IP.. So it makes no difference.

BlakJak

1276 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#515090 1-Sep-2011 14:35

http://jtc.blogs.com/just_left/2011/08/skynet-is-over-labour-digital-copyright-announcement.html

Very much worth reading in terms of Labour's revised position and their intentions should they be elected.

Jordan Carter is one of the good ones.

No signature to see here, move along...

graemeh

2078 posts

Uber Geek

#515091 1-Sep-2011 14:35

kyhwana2:
joefish: Well, to give an update from my original post:

Unencrypted P2P is now blocked from the router. I know that it's extremely easy for P2P clients to switch to encrypted mode, but at least this will cut some out. How easy is it for a third party (a copyright holder) to track an encrypted P2P download? Couldn't they just figure out the content of the file by downloading it themselves?

Encrypted or unencrypted doesn't make any difference.. The "rights holders" connect to the trackers and see what IPs are downloading "their stuff". They can also connect to encrypted hosts and get your IP.. So it makes no difference.

They can (and should) connect to your IP and download the file too, after all, that's how P2P file sharing works!

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#515135 1-Sep-2011 15:38

So, is it still a "He downloaded my stuff, send him a letter!" sort of deal or does the ISP actually download what you download and look at what you are downloading is copyrighted or not.

Say I uploaded my own e-book that I said was copyrighted, then downloaded it myself over and over and over again for arguments sake...Would I still get a letter because I downloaded something that was copyright?

I know it seems stupid. ISP's can't have a database of everything copyright. Someone would need to complain. They could have done that before the bill came in, so I really don't get what this is supposed to be achieving anymore.

I read somewhere Unitech said they would have to stop providing Wifi/internet all together because investigating each claim is unsustainable.

...We run a motel and provide free wifi to all customers. I know we get plenty of bit torrent users in. So basically, we are totally screwed.

That's nice to know.

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#515158 1-Sep-2011 16:13

DravidDavid, if you uploaded your copyright material to a torrent, then logged all the NZ IP addresses that downloaded that book, then as the copyright owner, you could have notices sent out.

The ISP is neutral, an allegation is sent to your ISP with info like IP address, data time of alleged infringement, the material of the infringement and some other stuff. The ISP then looks up that IP address and I think confirms that the activity described was happening and send on the notice to their user.

graemeh, the rights holders are fake sharing on torrents, but are really only harvesting IP address of users on that torrent. You don't have to get the whole file to get a warning.

I was thinking on doing an arts project called on the edge of torrents, where I would only download the legal sections of illegal torrents, basically collecting the nfo files and not the main movies. This would generate a false positive that would mean I would have to go to court to defend these and that just became too costly in reality.
Might look at creating a http://www.kickstarter.com/ project to raise some funding for this conceptual work.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek

#515162 1-Sep-2011 16:27

hellonearthisman: DravidDavid, if you uploaded your copyright material to a torrent, then logged all the NZ IP addresses that downloaded that book, then as the copyright owner, you could have notices sent out.

So it is just the same as the whole "honey pot" situation...Except ISP's are forced to do something about it now.

This is all so unnecessarily complicated and....retarded!

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#515171 1-Sep-2011 16:46

hellonearthisman: I was thinking on doing an arts project called on the edge of torrents, where I would only download the legal sections of illegal torrents, basically collecting the nfo files and not the main movies. This would generate a false positive that would mean I would have to go to court to defend these and that just became too costly in reality.
Might look at creating a http://www.kickstarter.com/ project to raise some funding for this conceptual work.

you have my support and money.

graemeh

2078 posts

Uber Geek

#515525 2-Sep-2011 09:49

hellonearthisman: graemeh, the rights holders are fake sharing on torrents, but are really only harvesting IP address of users on that torrent. You don't have to get the whole file to get a warning.

I should have said the rights holders should download a part of the file from you to prove that you were actually sharing the file you appear to be sharing.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4