ISP's are coming to terms with this, cant think of the last ISP supplied router I saw that didnt come security enabled. It's still far from clean cut though, like you say a secure wireless network is only so secure.
Davenport Lyons bullying again
- Thread starter the shadow
- Start date
Is this you?
B@
No.
I know it's not workable it would just be nice for once not to have to listen to people trying to legitamise there download habits and hide behind yet more convuluted arguments. It does my head in and itso *****.
I would love to see the day where there are no illegal downloads but the way to make that happen is not to employ some law firm to go and try to scare people into giving them money with no real proof that they have done anything wrong.
Both WEP and WPA - the current wireless security standards - have been proven to be hackable. Sorry a1ex2001, but until security on wireless becomes both water-tight and as easy to use as a kettle the law will NEVER be able to make users accountable for the security of their broadband - like an earlier poster said, pensioners who can't even program a VCR use the internet nowadays and could never be expected to configure a router securely. So I'm afraid you're just going to have to either put up with all the news about pirates getting away with it, or - and here's a novel idea - stop reading them and getting so wound up. 
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Innocent until proven guilty?
Evidence?
Beyond reasonable doubt?
How come "Entertainment" companies are above the law?
Evidence?
Beyond reasonable doubt?
How come "Entertainment" companies are above the law?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,638
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I'm with you.
Once we get rid of computer piracy then there will be no more terrorism or paedophilia.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Also SUVs. Everybody knows the Internet supports terrorism and those dirty SUV DVD downloading &"£%ers are supporting them.
are you sure? you're absolutely positive you don't have "leave" tendancies? of the "Britney alone" variety?
because based on compelling evidence I think that, beyond reasonable doubt, you're that whiney hysterical geezerbird. All in favour say "Aye"!
Aye!
B@
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,355
- Location
- Around Town
The BBC picks up the story, explaining, "The lawyers in the Atari case turned to anti-piracy firm Logistep, which finds those people illegally sharing files via their IP address - the unique numbers which identify a particular computer.
"With this number, rights owners can apply for a court order which obliges internet service providers to hand over the account holder's details."
That is all well can good until the realisation that just because an IP address is part of a trail, does not mean it has actually been used to file-share. As the Beeb points out, sites such as Pirate Bay regularly insert random IPs into its roster of downloaders.
Atari has dropped the case following pressure from Which. However, we would expect to see more action taken in future by Davenport Lyons among others.
"With this number, rights owners can apply for a court order which obliges internet service providers to hand over the account holder's details."
That is all well can good until the realisation that just because an IP address is part of a trail, does not mean it has actually been used to file-share. As the Beeb points out, sites such as Pirate Bay regularly insert random IPs into its roster of downloaders.
Atari has dropped the case following pressure from Which. However, we would expect to see more action taken in future by Davenport Lyons among others.
No amount of security, wireless or otherwise, will protect someone against IP address injection (e.g. faking torrent tracker requests on sites known or likely to be monitored). If you've got a fixed IP address then even unplugging all your hardware won't necessarily help.
All this talk of wireless security is diverting people from the real issue - lawyers using bully tactics to scare people into paying up. If you've done the crime then that's your problem. If you haven't, then you shouldn't have to turn to Which? to get the lawyers just to 'back off' (let alone issue an explanation or apology - neither of which appear to have happened).
All this talk of wireless security is diverting people from the real issue - lawyers using bully tactics to scare people into paying up. If you've done the crime then that's your problem. If you haven't, then you shouldn't have to turn to Which? to get the lawyers just to 'back off' (let alone issue an explanation or apology - neither of which appear to have happened).
People mentioned about the whole beyond a reasonable daubt thing, But doesnt it differ for cival matters compared to criminal?
I could be thinking of USA, but i thought to convict a person in a criminal court you have to be 99% sure (beyond a reasonable daubt), where as in cival court you only have to be 51% sure that a person is guilty, which is why its much easier for companies like davenport lyons and the RIAA to make money out of cival court cases.
Also as for people who say about making connections secure, you have to remember that a lot of these companies catch people using torrents, as they can easily harvest IPs of people who not only download, but upload too. The problem is that its possible for people to send an IP other then their own to the torrent tracker, and people would try to connect to that IP to download whatever the torrent was. The RIAA and such wont bother to check if the IP is a legitimate uploader/downloader, or if its an innocent person whos IP has been put into the tracker by someone else. All they care about is that the IP was on the tracker, so its a potential money maker.
I could be thinking of USA, but i thought to convict a person in a criminal court you have to be 99% sure (beyond a reasonable daubt), where as in cival court you only have to be 51% sure that a person is guilty, which is why its much easier for companies like davenport lyons and the RIAA to make money out of cival court cases.
Also as for people who say about making connections secure, you have to remember that a lot of these companies catch people using torrents, as they can easily harvest IPs of people who not only download, but upload too. The problem is that its possible for people to send an IP other then their own to the torrent tracker, and people would try to connect to that IP to download whatever the torrent was. The RIAA and such wont bother to check if the IP is a legitimate uploader/downloader, or if its an innocent person whos IP has been put into the tracker by someone else. All they care about is that the IP was on the tracker, so its a potential money maker.
Jesus christ you're an idiot. If you're "Sick to the back teeth" of hearing about such things then why click on this forum post and then reply to it numerous times forcing yourself to read about it more often?
P.S Go and take some spelling lessons if you're sick of the internet and piracy. It will take your mind off it all and help you to learn the difference between "their" and "there". I'm sick to my back teeth of people not knowing the difference
Jesus christ you're an idiot. If you're "Sick to the back teeth" of hearing about such things then why click on this forum post and then reply to it numerous times forcing yourself to read about it more often?
P.S Go and take some spelling lessons if you're sick of the internet and piracy. It will take your mind off it all and help you to learn the difference between "their" and "there". I'm sick to my back teeth of people not knowing the difference
would it be reasonable to say that you just want it all to go away?
B@