"The plan does not prevent content owners from suing internet subscribers"
In other words, in addition to facing the risk of ludicrous damages, you can have your Internet access disabled, hampering your ability to find and communicate with a lawyer. Naturally, the Obama administration backs such a plan -- the thought of people actually defending themselves in court never occurred to them anyway.
"On the third and fourth infractions, the subscriber will likely receive a pop-up notice "asking the subscriber to acknowledge receipt of the alert.""
Hm, if I did this to communicate with my neighbors, I might go to prison. Nice to know that ISPs are not expected to follow the same laws I am.
On the plus side, it's a good time to be in the VPN business. :P
I recall a lot of lawsuits that looked terrible for the RIAA/MPAA because they ended up going for elderly people, or parents of a young child who didn't know better. This helps prevent those situations.
I agree and would prefer some sort of protections against the double whammy - but I really believe that this move is more to get the news out to inform people that they are pirating, and what to do about it.
None of the six steps involve disabling your internet. Some ISPs have said they will disconnect you after you've been through the six steps, but others claim they won't.
Everything I've heard about this is that the monitoring is being done by the ISPs themselves, not the content owners.
"Can this system see what sites I visit online?
No. There is no monitoring of any Internet traffic by ISPs. The identification of alleged infringement is done by Content Owners on peer-to-peer networks only. The Copyright Alert System applies only to peer-to-peer networks and not to general Internet use."
There's a lot of misinformation going around, spread by people who probably have good intentions but don't understand that by arguing against a straw man, they're actually making it easier for their opponents to discredit them. There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike this plan, we don't need to be making up fake ones.
Edit: Fixed quoting.
That's what I think whenever an Internet lynch mob forms (TCPA, SOPA, etc.) but somehow it never matters. There's hardly any backlash against the hyperbolic scaremongering.
My ISP owns a number of entertainment companies...
Presumably if I'm using OpenDNS or Google DNS for my recursive DNS it's going to be impossible to browse my interwebs if this ever happens. I'd need to assume this might be the case, and then switch back to the ISP's recursive DNS just to proceed through their acknowledgement page. Derp.
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 10.2.2.1
will send all your DNS requests to 10.2.2.1 no matter what your actual destination IP was. If Comcast did something like this at their level, it wouldn't matter what your router/modem DNS setting was. This is assuming you're destination port is still 53.
Or to paraphrase the Matrix, what good is knowing the right IP of a server, if you're unable to reach it?
Since a large portion of DNS isn't signed in order to function on the Internet most resolvers with DNSSEC enabled will still allow results from domains which aren't signed for instance google.com. The easiest thing for Comcast to do is to return their false result indicating that the domain is not signed.
Since they can intercept all DNS traffic you send they could actually emulate all the way up to the root servers and sign with keys they generated themselves. This is probably overly complex but is possible and would allow a false dns entry to be accepted even by resolvers configured to only accept responses for domains which are signed.
this is not how DNSSEC works, if it did work this way it would be trivial for anyone to mitm it, thus render its entire purpose null and void.
Resolvers are preloaded with the dns root public key, that key signs the tld root keys, which sign your registrars key, which sign your domain. There is no effective way for comcast to spoof replies in this setup, as they have no access to any of these private keys.
Maybe altering your IP address to a private block that routes everything to a splash page (a la public wifi where you have to accept the ToS)?
On top of this you are going to have so many cases of people using open networks to download torrents. They may claim that they will still shut these connections down, but I really don't think they want to go through that PR nightmare of every coffee shop getting rid of wifi because of stupid policy.
This is going to be loosely enforced at best, and most likely a complete failure.
Any type of editing software (open source or not) has some kind of "project file." Trent Reznor was called the first open source musician because he shared his .band files from Garageband.
If it's a first "offense", how can s/he be a scofflaw? And, shouldn't it be allegation instead of offense? What the hell is wrong with this guy?
scofflaw |ˈskôfˌlô, ˈskäf-|
a person who flouts the law, esp. by failing to
comply with a law that is difficult to enforce
I'm just doing a little startup with me and my friends, I'd like to have a website, or broadcast to everyone around the world, but I can't afford to broadcast information to all the people like the big fat-cats who have paid off the government can.
This is step 1 of 10 in turning the Global internet in a controlled apendage of the american government, to be metered, spliced, diced, fast-laned, slow-laned and policed. There will be "pay me money to use this part of the internet" signs everywhere. And the taxes will be reasonable, at first.
The government will own the internet, and you will have to pay them dearly to use it. Even when the internet is simply a data transfer between two consenting adults that stand next to eachother.
The government then took a large step to becoming a God, omnipresent. Privacy? Out the fucking window. Kthx
But it was, and is, inevitable that this clash happens. Democracy is not achieved and then chiseled into stone permanently; it must continually be earned and fought for by real humans, every damn day.
In this case, that means getting regular people on board with encrypted communication. Yes, it's an uphill battle, but we all got our friends and family to migrate from IE to Firefox. Now it's time to get them on PGP email, VPNs, etc. As geeks, we need to be educating users, creating one-click auto-privacy tools, and doing whatever else we can as Binary Minutemen to maintain a balance of power against threats to open communication.
I've been doing what I can, but so far I've discovered no significantly new monitoring techniques that are being introduced.
Couldn't find it with a google, can't really remember any good key words, so the site may have been a bad source (probably) I don't remember. What I do remember about the article is how it was mentioned that it was a revival of a plan they tried to implement back after September 11, but the plan was leaked and there was enough public out rage the US congress squashed the plan. THAT I remember had reputable sources, I remember checking that out on google. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the project to get you an article.
Maybe someone who knows what I'm talking about (mainly the later) could link it?
Anyway we won't know what if anything extra they're doing until someone leaves and blabs about it in 20-30 years time.
While I wasn't sure how true that was, I did throw it in the realm of possibility because it sounded feasible.
But I wouldn't blame anyone for considering this more hear say and rumors. :)