Internet Monitoring to Happen July 1st

[godfist88]

so how does this affect people who stream copy written material. Cause there's a lot of that stuff on YouTube. In fact i'm watching a live stream of Mario Party 5 right now.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well for starters, there's the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. To quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Offhand and mind you, I'm no law student, so this is a rather uninformed supposition one could possibly argue that the process entailed by this constitutes a violation of this amendment due to the way it neither requires probable cause or warrant to monitor people.

*Puts on hipster sunglasses*
Hey man. It didn't stop J. Edgar Hoover.
*Removes hipster sunglasses*

 

[Dr. Cakey]

I honestly doubt this will happen people have a constitutional right for privacy.

Please point out where in the constitution it says you have a right to privacy. It says your home can't be used by soldiers and your property can't be taken from you unless it is fairly paid for by the government. I don't recall anywhere in the constitution saying you have a right to privacy.

Well for starters, there's the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. To quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Offhand[footnote]and mind you, I'm no law student, so this is a rather uninformed supposition[/footnote] one could possibly argue that the process entailed by this constitutes a violation of this amendment due to the way it neither requires probable cause or warrant to monitor people.

This doesn't really qualify as unlawful search and seizure. Nobody owns the internet, and you can't own stolen goods. This is more like a stake-out, if anything. They watch traffic, see who downloads what, and then bust them. They don't search through your computer to find the files, they get a ping when you are in the process of downloading them, supposedly. That's not unlawful, nor is it even really an invasion of privacy.

I'm not a law student either, but the "right to privacy" was pieced together by the Supreme Court from several rights ensured by the constitution, the "search and seizure" amendment probably being the most important ingredient. Since it's not expressly written, it's even more blurry than, y'know, all other kinds of law, so what is considered private and when something stops being private etc. is pretty up in the air. That said, they seem inclined to consider information like that to be private, although I don't think it's really been tested.

I think there's some piece of information missing from this story...

 

[Kenbo Slice]

Specifically, they?re coming for you on Thursday, July 1.

Oh good, so not until 2021!

July 1 of this year falls on a Sunday.

They said it's a typo, and the actual date is Thursday July 12. But does anyone really think this is true? I'm sure we would've heard much, much more about this if it were true.

 

[Nimzabaat]

I honestly doubt this will happen people have a constitutional right for privacy.

If there's anything recent years have proven, it's that human rights mean fuck all to copyright holders and the people who make money sucking off copyright holders.

Well on the one hand, you have no "right" to break the law. It's kinda funny how many people are going "how dare they try to stop us from stealing!". Now i'm not siding with "The Man" necessarily, people are stealing movies and music because the prices ARE TOO DAMN HIGH!!! Sorry, that just slipped out. It just seems there are better ways to fight the problem;

Include gift codes with dvds for prizes, maybe even a code with your movie ticket that "has a chance of winning" something, concessions, whatever. Try thanking people for paying for things etc.

Oh and get some frikkin accountability in the movie biz. If it wasn't for the shady accounting that goes on there, people would feel actual guilt for downloading movies. Seriously, everyone knows that the gaffers and best boy grips have already been paid for their work.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

I honestly doubt this will happen people have a constitutional right for privacy.

If there's anything recent years have proven, it's that human rights mean fuck all to copyright holders and the people who make money sucking off copyright holders.

Well on the one hand, you have no "right" to break the law. It's kinda funny how many people are going "how dare they try to stop us from stealing!".

I never said a word about whether pirating anything was wrong; it's the "guilty until innocent" mindset that's been developed, and allowed to be maintained, because it means cash in the pocket of the people who write the laws, that I'm truly fed up with.

It's the witch hunts, and the constant punishment through collateral damage of people who mind their own business that grinds my nerves, the total, blind ignorance of the fact that for the most part, the people who are really costing companies money aren't the ones that get punished by these laws, because they're the ones that know how to circumvent them. They're basically just setting up a checkpoint with a flashing neon sign, inconveniencing everyone who walks through, while the people misbehaving just walk around it and continue what they were doing. It doesn't work.

What would work is giving consumers more incentive to buy the product. Stop wasting money on development costs, then using it to justify making the consumer a ridiculous amount for the end product, for example. Consumers are expected to adjust and adapt, rather than developers and publishers considering that perhaps it's them that needs to change.

 

[DoPo]

OK, so what about countries where it totally is legal? Are the FBI going to track them down as well because "America is the world"?

It's only USA ISPs that would to the monitoring, and, of course, only on their subscribers. So we, the residents of the rest of the world, are unaffected.

Yeah, bro, I'm sure they're going to be monitoring every single packet for millions upon millions of users.

Not only that, they'll have to check it against a huge list of what is allowed or not allowed.

"Let's see, use #623567 - recently downloaded How To make a Bomb, Homemade explosives cookbook, I hate society - a misantrope's dreams of revolution and murder and a video of Real humans being sacrificed to Satan - lots of blood and gore (real). Yeah, he's fine. Next, user #623568 - Lady Gaga - Poker face...oh you're in trouble, buddy" *hits the panic button*

So VPN services and Tor would throw them off? I always heard Tor wasn't that great.

Well, I'm not entirely sure the ISPs can snoop on encrypted traffic. So there is that option. And there are some VPNs that offer it. Also I don't think they can monitor everything. I doubt whatever they use would easily distinguish between an illegal and a legal live stream of stuff. And there are just too many flaws in how such a system would work.

 

[Kroxile]

Yeah, fuck the MPAA and the RIAA.

The bands who make the music don't get jack squat for each record sold anyway, why do you think there are so many who make their music free?

And movies? I won't lay down $20+ for something that is gonna be used one time and then become a paperweight, unless its really really good... I mean, like, The Avengers good. And we all know movies that good are very few and far between.

 

[AstylahAthrys]

Hell, my understanding (source: Gavin Free) is that in the UK they have cameras EVERYWHERE and the government monitors far more of the daily lives of people than would ever be considered "acceptable" by US citizens. I can't say whether this is okay with all Brits, but Gavin said it was just something they lived with and if you didn't break the law, you had absolutely nothing to worry about.

Using Gavin as a source? I'm not so sure that's a good idea! That guy could out-dumb Caboose. (Though, as far as I know, Gavin is right about the cameras. I think.)

I think the difference here is that the cameras are in public areas, while people have the expectation that what they do in their homes is private, that includes websurfing. I'd feel kind of weirded out if I knew dudes were watching me write on Google Docs, or watching me watch cartoons on Youtube. Fortunately, I haven't found that my ISP is partaking in this anyway. Anyone know if Charter is on that list? Please tell me Charter isn't on the list.

 

[Edible Avatar]

Assuming that this is true:
Wouldn't it be funny if one could somehow convince millions of people to not only torrent the hell out of everything, but also to start sending each other messages, posting articles, videos etc. about how they're going to overthrow the government at the same time?

Let's do it!
Who's with me? Anyone... no...?

Wellll, in the US, advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government will land you in federal prison, as per the Sedition Acts and the Smith Act of 1940

But it'll be a fun time, right?
TREASON, AHOY!!!

Spoiler

 

[malestrithe]

This is bull. I think that ISP providers would have already trotted this out for their investors to show them their money is safe with them. Why haven't they done that.

Either way, to get the hundreds of millions of people, you are going to need a deeper infrastructre.

Also, has anyone bothered to ask the ISP providers for confirmation of this? i guess not because the stock answer would be they would lie anyway.

 

[ShadowEvangel]

Besides the technical and resource limitations, any ISP even remotely in touch with the internet will know that if it actually implements such policies, not only will it cost them a fortune to put it into effect, but they'll lose a major section of their subscriber base to the people who will flee in droves. Not just the people who want to pirate, but those who dislike the idea of their ISP watching their every move on the internet.

Captcha: Magical Realism? Huh...

 

[Nimzabaat]

I honestly doubt this will happen people have a constitutional right for privacy.

If there's anything recent years have proven, it's that human rights mean fuck all to copyright holders and the people who make money sucking off copyright holders.

Well on the one hand, you have no "right" to break the law. It's kinda funny how many people are going "how dare they try to stop us from stealing!".

I never said a word about whether pirating anything was wrong; it's the "guilty until innocent" mindset that's been developed, and allowed to be maintained, because it means cash in the pocket of the people who write the laws, that I'm truly fed up with.

It's the witch hunts, and the constant punishment through collateral damage of people who mind their own business that grinds my nerves, the total, blind ignorance of the fact that for the most part, the people who are really costing companies money aren't the ones that get punished by these laws, because they're the ones that know how to circumvent them. They're basically just setting up a checkpoint with a flashing neon sign, inconveniencing everyone who walks through, while the people misbehaving just walk around it and continue what they were doing. It doesn't work.

What would work is giving consumers more incentive to buy the product. Stop wasting money on development costs, then using it to justify making the consumer a ridiculous amount for the end product, for example. Consumers are expected to adjust and adapt, rather than developers and publishers considering that perhaps it's them that needs to change.

Thanks for grabbing the one comment from my post and parroting the rest. Imitation huh? Well I guess i'm flattered then.

More to the point. If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Period. It's like people complaining about speed traps. If you don't speed it's not an issue and you'll barely notice them. So far every instance where they've fined someone, the person is question was guilty, even if they got off on a technicality.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Thanks for grabbing the one comment from my post and parroting the rest. Imitation huh? Well I guess i'm flattered then.

Thanks for using your point of view to be a dick.

Actually, wait, no thanks. If you were aware of everything I said, you wouldn't have said the sorts of things as below. That out of the way,

More to the point. If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Period.

This isn't true and you know it, especially when people are fined simply for being blamed, like these sorts of laws are trying to go for. Not everyone has the money or clout to dispute such things. It's a lot easier to prove you're speeding than if you're doing something wrong online that you're personally responsible for, besides; your car can't pick up a virus that causes it to be a drug van when you're not looking, for example.

 

[Lord Kloo]

See this is how it all starts, in the name of profit and copyright..

- Soon you won't be able to view pages relating to the Soviet Union and Communists

- Then all the porn will be gone

- Then wikimedia will be lost to the cyberpolice

- Then all mentions of half-life ep.3 will cease to exist..


But seriously, this is still pretty shit if its true

 

[Tanis]

I just don't see this being REALISTICALLY possible given the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of factors.

 

[Syzygy23]

Sooooooo.... it's July 1st.

Who's had a SWAT team crash through the windows and beat them senseless for "Downloadin' on the internets"?

I just got done with my third unexpected beating since this morning. I'm just gonna leave the doors and windows open for the next one, I'm alrady tired of having my crap wrecked every time I navigate away from the google homepage.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Thanks for grabbing the one comment from my post and parroting the rest. Imitation huh? Well I guess i'm flattered then.

Thanks for using your point of view to be a dick.

Actually, wait, no thanks. If you were aware of everything I said, you wouldn't have said the sorts of things as below. That out of the way,

More to the point. If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Period.

This isn't true and you know it, especially when people are fined simply for being blamed, like these sorts of laws are trying to go for. Not everyone has the money or clout to dispute such things. It's a lot easier to prove you're speeding than if you're doing something wrong online that you're personally responsible for, besides; your car can't pick up a virus that causes it to be a drug van when you're not looking, for example.

You have some examples of people being fined for being blamed? All i've seen are people with 300+ illegally downloaded movies having to pay fines of up to $5,000 (though I have heard of a case in which they actually tried for the $150,000 stated on the warnings). So they're fining people that they've caught with their hands so far in the cookie jar that they've got chocolate chips in their armpits. As for the virus turning ones car into a drug van? Once again the cases that they've pursued involve stored data on personal hard drives. You're sounding like one of those crazy conspiracy types, just so you know.