After a mountain of bad publicity, the ISP released a statement admitting that it had been “exceeding the expectations of copyright owners, the media and internet users.” Announcing a change in policy, Karoo said in future it would provide customers with three written notifications before their service was temporarily suspended.

Although this rethink was fairly well received, at TorrentFreak we wanted to find out more. How does Karoo – indeed any ISP – know that it is acting on accurate information from the copyright holders when it chooses to accuse its customers of acting illegally on their behalf? How does an ISP know that the anti-piracy companies haven’t made a terrible mistake?

We put this question to Karoo and after a few back-and-forth emails, finally received back a rather interesting statement, which included the following paragraph:

“Going forward, we will provide customers with three written notifications to make them aware that a copyright owner has alleged that their internet account has been used to infringe their copyrighted material. These letters do not accuse the customers of any wrongdoing and will offer help and support so that those customers whose internet access is being used unknowingly are able to address it.”

So far so good, but what about the earlier threat of 3 strikes and disconnections? What about the accuracy of evidence from the anti-piracy tracking companies?

“We will no longer suspend a customer’s service unless we receive a court order from a copyright owner taking legal action. As a result it is the responsibility of the legal system, not Karoo, to ensure the accuracy of the information provided by the copyright owners.”

Common sense prevails. Well done Karoo, you got there in the end. But we still haven’t had our question answered.

How does an ISP know that they are acting on accurate information when passing on copyright warnings to its customers or threatening disconnections?

If any ISP anywhere in the world is prepared to answer this important question, please feel free to get in touch. We’ve asked a few already with no success – we’re starting to think this issue is a very delicate one indeed, judging by the apparent reluctance to answer.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Instead of notifying its customers that they have received a letter from a copyright holder, with the claim that their IP-address is associated with illegal downloading – Karoo customers are immediately disconnected without any prior warning. As we reported last year, Karoo doesn’t even allow users to have an open router.

Andrea Robinson is one of the Karoo customers who was accused of downloading illegally, Terminator Salvation in her case. She lost her Internet connection and the only option she has to get her Internet access reinstated is by signing a form sent to her by Karoo, which says she admits guilt.

“The form basically said ‘if I admit my guilt you’ll reconnect me’. So I didn’t sign it and walked out. I’m still not reconnected,” she told the BBC. With Karoo being the only ISP in her neighborhood she is now left with no Internet, and clueless what to do about it. According to the BBC she is not the only one, as there are similar cases at Karoo dating two years back.

In the United States there is one ISP that employs a similar strategy – Cox. When Cox receives a takedown request from a copyright holder, it will disconnect the customer associated with the IP-address, if they don’t admit to being guilty. If a customer receives three takedown requests their Internet is cut off entirely.

The real problem with Karoo and Cox’s methods lies in the fact that they act upon accusations made by anti-piracy organizations who employ evidence gathering methods that are shoddy, to say the least.

In the UK, the BBC consumer show Watchdog revealed how easy it is to point the finger (and pull the plug) on the wrong person. For Karoo this means that these wrongfully accused customers will lose their Internet access, unless they admit to an offense they were not involved in.

Since Karoo is the one and only Internet provider in the area, some will feel that they have no alternative, and they will sign the “guilty” form just to get back online. The anti-piracy groups must be proud of Karoo and their reckless tactics but the ISP should stop to consider the future. Monopolies don’t last forever and the Internet has a long memory.

Update: After today’s reports Karoo decided to change their policy. Instead of disconnecting alleged pirates directly, they will operate a a three strikes and you are out rule.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

In copyright infringement cases, having an unsecured wireless router creates plausible deniability. In recent months, we have seen several cases where accused filesharers have successfully argued that someone else may have used their WiFi to share copyrighted material. Because anyone could have accessed the network, it is impossible to prove that the defendant was the one who shared files illegally.

Not all ISPs are happy with customers who have open WiFi, however, and some even threaten to disconnect those who do. In the September 2008 terms and conditions of UK ISP Karoo, we read (pdf):

“We shall be entitled to terminate the Service immediately if We discover that you have permitted (whether knowingly or not) a third party (or third parties) to access the Service using a wireless connection over Your Communications Line.”

Should an ISP be entitled to demand this? Karoo leaves its customers no choice, and simply forbids them to leave their network unsecured, or use a FON router, despite the fact that this will be practically impossible for them to enforce. Not only that, people who have no idea about router security are now wide open to summary disconnection by this ISP. UK lawyers Davenport Lyons are actively encouraging that service providers of various types enforce their own terms and conditions against copyright infringers, so if you’re with Karoo and get a complaint, you can forget about 3 strikes. Even if you did nothing illegal, it’s one strike and you’re out.

Some would argue that having an open wireless network is the right thing to do. Earlier this year, security expert Bruce Schneier wrote an extensive essay on why it’s a good thing. Some of his key arguments were that it is basic kindness, and that the risk of running into abusers is extremely low. Also, when someone abuses the open WiFi to do something illegal, it is easy to defend yourself.

Schneier’s post led to a flood of responses, and most of them agreed with the security expert. Of course, there are pro’s and con’s to having an unsecured network, and whether it really is a wise choice can be debated. But, disconnecting your users simply because they, knowingly or not, have an open wireless network is a bit too strict for our taste. Nevertheless, Karoo thinks otherwise.

Karoo didn’t respond to our requests for comment.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.