Let’s also not forget that some ISPs choose to nerf their routers so that the end user has virtually no controls whatsoever. My Virgin router only allows the changing of the admin password (doesn’t actually work) and the Wireless Network Key.

To change the key one must either leave the admin password at it’s default setting, or factory-reset the unit.

ACS:Law is an ass.

Likely the same thing will happen with ACS:Law. A lot of their tactics as mentioned in the Slyck.com thread about this are quite similar.

The one thing these shysters do not want is a strong defense. That would make their entire extortion plot fall apart like a house of cards. Thus they go after those who aren’t defending themselves (even going so far as to make imaginary claims).

PPUK FTW I guess?

It’s now governing law here that anyone with an unsecured connection is acting english-law-term-for-unresponsibly and therefore INDEED can be punished for any crime in relation to his/her connection, simply by not making sure it’s secure. It’s simply turning around the whole legal system on it’s head, but thanks to a financially rich copyright lobby, that’s what you get in rulings.

So this means that they expect any mom and pop PC-illiterate moron to be able to secure their WLAN better than the cracker skills of the interested 15 year old.

Yea, there’s realistic law making.

Wake up people, the current state of democracy and law is SH T and if we don’t start up and vote into place pirate parties, then we will get NOWHERE and only have things a LOT worse within years, not decades.

Funny to think this is still called democracy. You know, that thing where the people lived by mutually agreed upon rules and in a kind of self-determination.

Now it’s been left to rot so long that the system is simply so old and long-forgot that anyone with an agenda and contacts can go and abuse it to further himself limitlessly.

Good job we did in our own evolution.

The industry can get a court order to place software that logs IP’s that try to connect to certain services, is doable and easy so why not?

Once you service provider appears on a list of IP connecting to a P2P client that is managed by the industry how difficult it would be to make a judge and law enforcement agree to these kind of thing?

So no VPNs are not secure and you can go down. Right now the chances are slim but if people start using it a lot you can expect the industry to follow right behind and if you think it is safe good luck just don’t advertise that it is a secure option because it is not, you are putting your security in the hands of statistics and probabilities and not in real measures that will guarantee your safety and if any of those parameters turns out to be wrong you are screwd.

It’s Mel Gibson not Mil Gibson. The movie is called BraveHeart and not A Brave Heart.

:)

rubbish, if you are using a vpn that keeps no records then all the authorities have is the IP of the vpn, not yours, wherever it is. They can ask for records but as none are kept (no obligation too) they won’t get anywhere.

Well the problem lies right in the part “a VPN that keeps no records”.
The majority of countries out there have laws that make it unlawful not to keep records.

Besides to trust a third party and hope they will fight for you is naive to say the least. Because any judge can force any server to be monitored and generate logs for law enforcement agencies.

So VPN are great to get around simple things not to guarantee your privacy and anonymity for that you have darknets.

People who think VPN is an anonymous solution are mistaken and more if people depends on the encryption of the service they are even more exposed, one should never put encryption in the hands off others if one wants privacy, one should encrypt their own streams of data independently of any encryption that is already in place.

A great example of this is cellphones they use a weak encryption that can be broken, it is hard to do it from the outside but from the inside of the service carriers it is very much possible and probably it is done by governments all over the world.
http://www.gsm-security.net/faq/gsm-a5-broken-security.shtml

Am I a “communist” or “Unamerican bastard” for the simple fact of saying the truth about ‘USA copyright law’?

And YES, ‘USA copyright law’ is FASCIST and ILLEGAL by nature; at the same way as your words are.

These cowards are outnumbered and outgunned. It will only be a matter of time before they crumble and fall.

The law isn’t fascist or illegal.

You, sir, are a communist.

Unamerican bastard. TO THE BRIGS WITH YOU.

you fucking spell anywhere
“any where” …

I hope to fuck you dont defend me if I get caught! lol

I mean, the truth is that USA copyright law is a gross and extreme violation to my basic right of private property; because this prohibits my legitimate right and freedom of choice TO SHARE my possessions with who I want and as I want.

It’s from any point of view something illegal and a open and gross violation to my basic civil liberties as a citizen. For this reason, the people and organizations (as The UK government) who support openly USA copyright law are fascists and criminals at the same time, because USA copyright law criminalizes to each citizen (without exception) on the planet, because each citizen (without exception) on the planet has shared copyrighted material with others, independently if they are aware of that or not.

I (as a citizen of the world) openly and totally disagree with USA copyright law, and moreover, I don’t recognize it, because this is a fascist and illegal law which violates and doesn’t recognize some of my basic civil liberties and rights.

YUP hes another lawyer boys n girls DO WE FRAKING NEED MORE FRAKING LAWYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greedy has bin lawyers now have lots a working suing everyone in the UK
…
related article
UK unemployment skyrockets as no one can afford there bills and thus have no where to live and thus cant goto work.

…..
Lawyers are happy

Face it, todays internet society has evolved past a lot of todays copyright laws. The music & movie industry has to reinvent themselves, the technology will force these changes some day… Just wait. It’s a tradition that times must, and do change. Someday we will look back at this and realize how conservative the industry was.

You’re holding on too a pretty picture from the past, just let it go my friend :)

And it’s embarrassing that Iv’e been able to download movies for SO many years, and i’m STILL not able too buy a movie online, live in Denmark, i mean.. Come on. At least try to compete with the piracy, seems too work so far….

Its purley a cash cow!!! on the backs of those that cant defend themselves.

Those on here shouting about been lawyers, having money, having a defence is all well and good, but what is needed is a class action from all those contacted, where a single case, funded by the thousands can stand up to them.

They target individuals because, truely how many who read this or download could actually afford a decent lawyer or afford to lose on top of the expense.

Why would they be shut down? They’re not doing anything that’s illegal. In fact, they’re actually upholding the law.

Props to them.

@50
and wifi cracking? It’s such a grey area here that you can’t make generalizations like that.

I can connect any router to my bt line and i do not need to configure a user name or password, it more or less sorts itself out.

Now whats to stop anyone from tappin into my line after it leaves the exchange when my own router is off – say at night???????

And, I don’t mean the Nesson sort of help. If you didn’t directly carry out the act or acts in the claim, your case would be of significant public interest. While the accuracy of the evidence can be questioned, ACS:Law also put forward the highly contestable position that the account holder of a residential Internet connection is liable for all the actions of everyone else using that connection. On the other hand, we’ve seen the so-called ‘wireless defence’ used successfully in both Denmark and Germany.

If an English court were to find an account holder liable for the actions of another, it would have a hugely chilling effect on Internet use. The Internet refuseniks, whom the government is trying to persuade to get online, could say they’re vindicated. The country could even see a reversal, with some middle-income families giving up the Internet as too financially risky.