http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2008/12/davenport_lyons_threatening_le.html

The UK are interpreting their “…”s far more broadly than the 2002 E privacy directive allows. Note that a directive *requires* member states to achieve a particular result, just without dictating the means of achieving that result. The E Privacy directive *requires* governments to legislate proportionately. The UK is not.

Italy, Germany and Spain are interpreting it correctly, as backed up by the EJC. This needs to be fixed in the UK.

Of course, writing to government never works – there is no true democracy, yaddah yaddah yaddah. We may as well just sit at home and not bother and have all our personal details sold to the highest bidder and not make a squeak about it.

Or not.

“UK ISPs were ordered … by the High Court”
“Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by … order of a court.”

Unless the high court stopped being classed as a court, that falls squarely within the exemptions.

The stuff about the EU is just waffle. Member states are “not obliged” to hand over details in copyright cases, but that is nothing like saying that member states must not hand over the data.

The rest of the text about the EU is non-binding decisions, opinions and “ought to’s”. Hardly enough to make the ICO tell the high court where to stick it.

WiFi networks are flawed by design, the only secure protocol is WPA2 with the advanced encryption algorithm and even then you would probably want to use certificates.

There are many `undocumented` -1 exploits in the world, I say -1 exploits as there not even underground public. ARP has many weaknesses by design (reading RFCs will show the cracks).

Bottom line there are many tricks that whilst hinted and bubbeling arn;t actualy out in the clicky clicky form, hence its good to actualy understand how things work fully first, then and only then can you see how broken it all is.

Also peer networks are kinda a client and AP in one – they peer so one client on one AP is a AP with the other showing as its client, SO if you inject into the peer level (IE your a muppet and didn’t pick a client but actually a peer’d paired AP, then nuff said).

Every idiot under the sun uses WiFi for their broadband connections and they inevitably immediately choose WEP to secure their connection as its the easiest to setup.

However WEP is not a secure protocol.

They may have the IP address of the person they believe to be responsible but what is to stop any hacker worth their salt from cracking their WEP key then using their IP address to upload or download porn over the poor unsuspecting victims IP address?

I hope they get counter sued for wrongful prosecution.

Roze

My 2c – http://www.torrenthub.org

“Well, I am more sensible than you are”

That shows how far Roze’s head is up his ass better than most things.

“Are you a complete moron?”
You, uksucks, are indeed a complete moron.

“The number one ill in this world are those who feel they are somehow moraly superior to those around them, that would be you.”
Yeah, like you are any less self-righteous, saying how “file-sharers are guilty and and just want innocent people as their scapegoat.” Talk about hypocrite. You feel morally superior to file-sharers and fan-artists and fan-editors. You are quite pathetic. Why don’t you get your head checked, as I have last said?

Roze

What the hell kind of logic is that? Are you a complete moron? And you accuse me of not making any sense. I never said anything about Korea, at all. You seriously need to lay off the crack. The number one ill in this world are those who feel they are somehow moraly superior to those around them, that would be you. Self ritious and arrogant and frankly no longer worth even conversing with. You’d be quite funny if you were not so pathetic.

“Regardless of your opinion on copyright, it is THEIR right and untill that changes whining about your information being shared while you defend your ?right? to do the same is a contradiction, that makes YOU the hypocrite.”
Works are not information about others. For example, fan-art is not sharing any information. Equation fan-art, fan-edits, fan-fiction, fan-subtitles, amongst other things with privacy breaches makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You make absolutely zero sense whatsoever. You should get your head checked.

“You can blah blah all you like about slavery, communism, whatever, the fact that you even consider filesharing to be like them in any way only proves how perverted your views are.”
The fact that you are okay with the RIAA suing disabled teenagers proves how perverted your views are.

“Pull your head out your ass.”
That’s what you should do.

“Either everyone has the right to protect what belongs to them or no one does, that includes your right to privacy.”
I guess you should includes “that includes your slaves” as well. The fact that you equate private information with well-known public cultural symbols proves how distorted your world-view is. How is sharing the latest episodes of a TV show and creating fan-edits of it sharing any private information? What you are saying is absolutely ridiculous.

Roze

It is just bullying.

I wonder if the bad publicity is harming them.

It certainly does not dispel the fact that many lawyers are greedy dishonest and lack integrity

You think that it is “treading on others’ rights”? No, it does not. How could doing something with one’s private property possibly be treading on other’s rights? The ridiculousness of what you are saying is astonishing. It is like saying that slave owners had the “freedom” to control their slaves, and that for slaves to escape “violated” their rights. Same here. You are saying that these copyright owners have the “freedom” to control vast amounts of the population in what they do with their private property, and the failure to obey is somehow “violating” this right.

I will tell you that you did get one thing right. File-sharing is indeed abusing the copyright holders’ rights. It is abusing their right to control others, and it is abusing their right to take away other people’s liberties. Copyright is essentially a right to abuse other people’s liberties. Some rights just have to be taken away in order to protect individual freedoms. For example, the right for government to take away freedom of speech is restricted. Unfortunately, copyright, the right to take away other people’s right to do whatever they want with their private property, like copy it and give it to someone else, has not been restricted yet.

You are confusing “guilty in the eyes of the law” and “guilty in the eyes of morality.” Indeed, Rosa Parks was guilty in the eyes of the law. She was guilty of violating the Jim Crow laws. File-sharers are also guilty in the eyes of the law. I bet you thought that Rosa Parks was someone who should have been thrown in jail. Well, I am more sensible than you are, and I do believe in what is right, whereas you support the law when it also goes wrong. I bet that you support the dictatorship in North Korea – after all, it is the law there.

You are the hypocrite.

Also, people rallying together have made a difference. Marches and protest may or may not have made a difference, but the effort itself is important at the very least. Gatherings may not be sufficient to effect a change, but they are necessary.

Roze

A few years back, 750,000 rallied together in London to oppose Britains involvement in Iraq, did that achieve a damn thing? No. So what exactly do you think a few thousand filesharers will achieve? Nothing, thats what.

Roze

Roze

Roze

How do you know your bank is the owner of the webpage you give your password to? By that nice little Verisign/Thwate signed certificate! Now THAT’s proof, and lets be honest it’s pretty tricky stuff and wouldn’t have been implemented if an IP address would have done instead…

There should be an international Technological High Court I think… geez I wouldn’t expect a normal Judge (no offence, much respect) to understand PKI, MD5 hashs, or the difference between AES and TKIP – I mean, if you’re reading this you’re probably a techy and I bet even you are a little hazy on these things… they ain’t straightforward and they are very esoteric…

I think perhaps the various international courts are going through phase now… a setting of precedents… just one UK court case of this ilk that sets the precedent that IP address is not sufficient will be all it needs… no wonder DL are so careful not to let their evidence be properly challenged…

All the above is purely personal opinion – of course.

The people in power are so old and out of touch that they don’t understand new tech and how it works,

WE know that an ip can’t really identify you, but i bet the MAFIAA rep who explained it to the judge spun it to sound like it was like DNA or a fingerprint.

It’s not as simple as that really. First of all, ISPs *should* try their best to protect their customer data. That goes even BEFORE the court order is issued, when they are approached by the solicitor firm. What’s even more upsetting however, is that the majority of ISPs have signed a declaration that they would not object to releasing the information, subject to the court order. This document was handed down to the court when asking for the order.

My personal interpretation is therefore that they ISPs could have at the very least NOT sign that form, or file some form of a statement saying they do in fact object to releasing personal data. Perhaps the fact that they actually charge money to extract this information has somehow clouded their judgments??

Another point I would raise is that at no point in time were the real accused people (those whose data was released) given a chance to defend themselves and AVOID their data being disclosed. This is to a large extent the role of the ICO, but clearly it failed all those individuals here.

Roze

and 2006/2007 surely?

As has been said before: “The law is rigid for certain folk, but it bends for the people at the top.”

Roze