Letters from Ministry Of Sound - Who had had one?

OpenToSuggestions · 19 Jul 2010 at 21:12

I have spoken to a good friend who is at one of the London law firms (they all sound the same tbh I forget the name!).

She said something along the lines of they cannot prove it unless they take your hard drive and they aren't going to get a warrant to search the house for a downloaded song. She didn't comment on whether the method of charging people is moral or legal though ie// letter demanding money or see you in court.

deuse · 19 Jul 2010 at 21:20

Morgoth said:
SSL encrypted usenet.

I belive that Cview on the line can bypass that(I maybe wrong) and VM have been using it for months now.

Castiel · 19 Jul 2010 at 21:32

doofer said:
IANAL but would offering to pay only when they provide written proof of their loss not work? They can't offer proof as the loss can never be known, so how can they make claim against anyone? And if you offer payment, what can they take you to Court for? (Offering to pay?)

Offering to pay would be seen as an admission of guilt.

Rainmaker · 19 Jul 2010 at 21:37

deuse said:
I belive that Cview on the line can bypass that(I maybe wrong) and VM have been using it for months now.

AFAIK Cview is simply a DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) tool to analyse traffic as it flows through the network. To see what's inside an SSL connection you'd have to basically man-in-the-middle attack that connection. Illegal, surely?

deuse · 19 Jul 2010 at 21:41

Rainmaker said:
AFAIK Cview is simply a DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) tool to analyse traffic as it flows through the network. To see what's inside an SSL connection you'd have to basically man-in-the-middle attack that connection. Illegal, surely?

They asked the Gov first and yes they do use Deep Packet Inspection.
BUT they are not sending out any letters because that would break the law. More info here

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49304424,00.htm

http://www.virginmedia.com/myvirginmedia/cview/

EDIT= They say this "CView data Will be completely anonymised, and cannot identify individuals or households"

Rainmaker · 19 Jul 2010 at 21:45

deuse said:
They asked the Gov first and yes they do use Deep Packet Inspection.
BUT they are not sending out any letters because that would break the law. More info here

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49304424,00.htm

http://www.virginmedia.com/myvirginmedia/cview/

That first link says nothing of hijacking SSL connections? The second (VM) link doesn't either, but it does say this:

Q. Are the various regulatory bodies aware of Detica/CView?

A. Yes. Detica and Virgin Media have taken advice to ensure that CView is developed and trialled in line with applicable legislation, and have briefed the relevant authorities, which have absolutely no concerns with CView.

So basically since SSL attacks are illegal, they're not snooping on them? Else they'd be DPI-ing everyone's banking data, credit card transactions...

masterluke · 19 Jul 2010 at 21:49

deuse said:
I belive that Cview on the line can bypass that(I maybe wrong) and VM have been using it for months now.

Cview can't see inside ssl encrypted packets.

re: the letters - they dont have a leg to stand on. The evidence that they have (which is purely the torrent connection log, probably combined with a dhcp record from your isp) is not enough to prove that you infringed copyright. File the letter in the bin. If they had the evidence then they would take you to court. They don't - hence the letters.

deuse · 19 Jul 2010 at 21:51

I think they are looking at the packets to see if music is downloaded and how much as their new Music product starts soon.

But there again who knows

feedtheram · 19 Jul 2010 at 21:57

didnt that bird in america get done for £300k or something ridiculous?

i bet one high profile case over here would scare a lot of people into stopping. i think mass letter sending is not the way to go tho - its just not possible to police properly.

masterluke · 19 Jul 2010 at 21:59

the wife just asked me what i was typing - i told her it was about "deep packet inspection" - she snickered and suggested we go upstairs for some "deep packet inspection"

so goodnight guys

jp_bl_68 · 19 Jul 2010 at 22:05

masterluke said:
the wife just asked me what i was typing - i told her it was about "deep packet inspection" - she snickered and suggested we go upstairs for some "deep packet inspection" so goodnight guys

Pics or it didn't happen. Lots of pics. Bring me back a flip-book

philip2009 · 19 Jul 2010 at 22:19

Castiel said:
Forgive me for being a dumbass, but how does that work and how would I go about it?

Here is a guide to using newsgroups. SSL is the same but with data encrypted between client and server.

Energize · 19 Jul 2010 at 22:32

The Mad Rapper said:
No, they wouldn't. They still have to prove the case, regardless of whether it's a criminal or a civil offence.

They have proven it, they have IP logs.

Windle · 19 Jul 2010 at 22:51

The Mad Rapper said:
No mate. If an allegation is made, the prosecution have to prove that the user downloaded the suspect data. So, for example, not only would you need to prove that the data was downloaded on that PC, they would also have to prove that it was a specific individual. There are certain ways of doing that, which I am happy to explain if anyone is interested.

This section applies if it appears to a copyright owner that—
(a)
a subscriber to an internet access service has infringed the owner's copyright by means of the service; or
(b)
a subscriber to an internet access service has allowed another person to use the service, and that other person has infringed the owner's copyright by means of the service.

Ofcom specifically repeat the fact that the "Subscriber", that is the person whose name is on the Broadband access can only appeal on the grounds that

the subscriber took reasonable steps to prevent other persons infringing copyright by means of the internet access service.

Therefore under the Digital Economy Act as it currently stands, the "Subscriber" can be prosecuted if they have let other people infringe copyright unless they can prove they had put measures in place to block that happening.

Rainmaker · 19 Jul 2010 at 22:57

Windle said:
Ofcom specifically repeat the fact that the "Subscriber", that is the person whose name is on the Broadband access can only appeal on the grounds that

the subscriber took reasonable steps to prevent other persons infringing copyright by means of the internet access service.

Therefore under the Digital Economy Act as it currently stands, the "Subscriber" can be prosecuted if they have let other people infringe copyright unless they can prove they had put measures in place to block that happening.

How do you prove that your wifi was hacked? Given that WEP, WPA and even WPA2 can be cracked rather quickly with the tools available lately, it's not unreasonable that one could be compromised despite best effort, let alone for Johnny Noob. As for having 'proven' it via a DHCP log; does nobody else remember the team who succeeded in having a network printer receive a DMCA take-down notice for content it couldn't possibly be serving? Shaky at best.

Windle · 19 Jul 2010 at 23:00

Rainmaker said:
How do you prove that your wifi was hacked? Given that WEP, WPA and even WPA2 can be cracked rather quickly with the tools available lately, it's not unreasonable that one could be compromised despite best effort, let alone for Johnny Noob. As for having 'proven' it via a DHCP log; does nobody else remember the team who succeeded in having a network printer receive a DMCA take-down notice for content it couldn't possibly be serving? Shaky at best.

Again, I draw attention to the "Reasonable steps" section. If your wifi was secure, you'd blocked your kids access to p2p sites/torrent sites etc you have taken reasonable steps and you have good grounds for appeal.

The subscriber only has to prove that reasonable steps were taken, they don't have to prove their wifi was cracked.

Rainmaker · 19 Jul 2010 at 23:02

Windle said:
Again, I draw attention to the "Reasonable steps" section. If your wifi was secure, you'd blocked your kids access to p2p sites/torrent sites etc you have taken reasonable steps and you have good grounds for appeal.

Yes, but in real life? "Yes Sir, (there are no 'your honours' in county court) I secured my wireless so I must have been hax0red. I have no proof, as it's impossible to prove, but there you go"...

"Can you prove that your wireless connection was secured?"

"No, how can I prove it was secured it the past? Can you prove that it wasn't?"

And so on ad infinutum. The DEA sucks.

philip2009 · 19 Jul 2010 at 23:39

Rainmaker said:
Given that WEP, WPA and even WPA2 can be cracked rather quickly ...

I thought WPA/2 could only be broken with a dictionary attack on a weak password - am I wrong ?

Rainmaker · 19 Jul 2010 at 23:43

philip2009 said:
I thought WPA/2 could only be broken with a dictionary attack on a weak password - am I wrong ?

By capturing two parts of the four-part handshake in a WPA2 wifi transaction, you can run various 'rainbow tables' to rather quickly find the passphrase in many cases. Remote-Exploit (the guys who release Backtrack Linux) have several tools available, in addition to the usual aircrack-ng and snort etc, which make this almost trivial.

Great for penetration testing of your own network, but of course there are always those who'll use them to get at your network and your bandwidth. Proving that in court, however?... :\

Mattus · 20 Jul 2010 at 02:23

Assuming this is BitTorrent, the use of encryption isn't going to make a lot of difference. These people only have one piece of evidence - that your IP address was participating in a particular torrent swarm. Your IP is going to be revealed whether you encrypt or not.. regardless of encryption, these parasites have the same shaky case and will come after you regardless.

If you want to be safe, don't use P2P.