ethericalzen writes "An article from BBC News online states that ISPs in the UK are resistant to the government's desires for monitoring their users' data. The government seeks to have ISPs turn off the access of users who are 'persistent pirates'. The ISPs are citing technical and legal reasons for why they do not wish to do this. Legals reasons include surveillance laws which prohibit ISPs from monitoring a user's data unless compelled by a warrant. Technical reasons include an inability to accurately identify copyrighted material that is legally being transferred over p2p clients, and copyrighted material that is being transferred illegally over p2p clients."
A spokesman for the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) said the 2002 E-Commerce Regulations defined net firms as "mere conduits" and not responsible for the contents of the traffic flowing across their networks.
No, it sounds like they're actually applying something of a legal term to them. Instead of some dumb-ass congressman trying to explain what they are, they're explaining the regulations that apply to them.
Well, "mere" is the old English word for lake or large body of water. A conduit is a transport system. So, net firms are therefore responsible for the pipes linking reservoirs together.
"If you exceed that threshold we will drop your speed for five hours from when the excess is recorded,"
This is what happened at the university I went to. It only applied to your upload bandwidth but if you exceeded whatever imaginary number they didn't disclose to you, you would get an email and your bandwidth slashed for a day or two. I'm sure a percentage of this was due to people's computers getting hijacked by trojans/viruses because they insisted that you not connect to the network without having some sort of AV (if you ran windows) and would target specific IPs in the dorms that were either hijacked or simply uploading via p2p.
I'm not quite sure what would happen if any ISPs did that here since no one yet has any pay per usage service, although Time Warner [slashdot.org] is proposing something like that. It'll be interesting to see what effect, if any, the situation in the UK will have over in the US.
I know where you're coming from but that excuse doesn't fly with a large proportion of the populace after 30 years of republican terrorism and the government knows it.
Seriously, is someone getting paid by the word here?
Technical reasons include an inability to accurately identify copyrighted material that is legally being transferred over p2p clients, and copyrighted material that is being transferred illegally over p2p clients.
Try this:
"Technical reasons include an inability to accurately identify the legality of copyrighted material that is being transferred over p2p clients."
Someone in the UK protesting more monitoring of its people? I don't believe it.
United Kingdom: Twenty million people watching another twenty million people. A final twenty million kicking each other to death for fake Burberry baseball caps.
I'm glad the UK government is cracking down on file sharing. In particular, I'd like them to crack down on their own habit of sharing my personal information with every single bloated, inefficient, fuckwitted, semi-competent IT services provider who made a sufficient donation to the Labour party at the last election (Crapita, this means you)
Lets not forget junior members of staff downloading entire databases onto unencrypted DVDs and dropping them down the sofa or the Navy losing laptops with the details of an entire years worth of potential recruits...
How about MI6 workers getting shit faced at lunchtime and leaving a laptop with state secrets in the pub? Not something you'd see James Bond doing is it.
Those idiot lobbyists and corporate CEOs think ANYONE that uses BitTorrent is a pirate. But are they? Let's see, here's what I (at least attempt to because I have Comcast) use BitTorrent for:
1. Downloading large Linux install DVD images 2. Download legal, open-source programs 3. Download legally free files
The problem with this is that I bet NO ONE will actually sit there and read all the traffic logs. A computer will just flag customers who even so much as transfer a packet through a BitTorrent port as a 'persistent pirate' and cancel their service.
A computer can only say YES this person is using BitTorrent or NO he's not. The computer CAN NOT find out exactly what someone is downloading, and weather it's legal.
So if the UK wants to fall behind everyone in the Internet age and cancel EVERYONE out of the Internet, not much we can do but hope it doesn't happen.
What they seem to forget is that p2p is used by everyday average joes and janes.
The stuff they really want to stop but can't is the mass downloading and selling.
What are they gonna kill after p2p? well thats ftp of course.
If p2p stops then ftp will rise again but will return underground.
Darknets work well, also. WASTE is fairly popular, for instance, though finding the right network is sometimes a bit of a slow process--they're secretive by nature and all that.
I suppose this could lead to a bit of a class system online--those who know where to find all the interesting bits, and those who are just regular users. Moreso than usual, anyway.
Deep packet sniffing can be employed, but that would be terribly costly. Considering the amount of traffic that a typical UK ISP would be dealing with, you're already talking about some massively parallel computer just to handle that. To then go and do some pattern matching stuff on every packet to see if it's a case of copyright infringement would not only be hell to actually code, it would take a ridiculous amount of computing power. What's worse, this could be defeated by encryption.
Some kind of shallow packet sniff could be done to check for hashes of copyrighted material, and ban people referring to that hash. That requires a database of infringing hashes, and new materials could be appearing all the time. It would also require knowledge of how every P2P protocol communicated these hashes. There is always the chance of mistaking some unrelated innocent communication with an illicit one, that will increase with the size of the copyright database and the number of protocols checked. And this can be defeated with encryption too.
There is another way of approaching this problem. Take a protocol, say, BitTorrent. You could use your database of copyrighted works, and check out trackers of those works for whether UK IP addresses are connected. You have a problem choosing which trackers to check, as you usually only get a name and a description. This one can't be beaten by encryption, but some elaborate series of proxies could elude it.
One of the common weaknesses with all of these approaches, beyond what has already been mentioned, is that the infringing works must first be identified. This could be done by downloading all the files and then manually checking them or by using some kind of fingerprinting technique. This is going to be either expensive in terms of equipment (big server farms for fingerprint analysis) or in terms of people checking the files manually.
The problem here isn't really technical, it's economic. Although most of the costs of blocking customers will have to be done by the ISPs, it will probably be up to the media companies to pay for identifying (say) trackers/hashes for copyrighted works. As this brief analysis seems to suggest that most of the cost is in the identification stage by a long margin, there would have to be a significant payout to justify this investment. I'm not convinced that it's there.
The other aspect of this is that the actual costs of P2P file sharing can only be guessed. Without at least some kind of checking described above it will remain that way. You don't know how many people are sharing this stuff, and you don't know how many of them would have bought it if they couldn't share the stuff. These are unknown risks, so deciding what kind of effort should be expended in avoiding them is a very very difficult task. It's hard to tell whether you've spent more money preventing the risk than the risk would have actually cost. Inevitably, they will have to choose whether to step off the ledge and actually do something on a big scale, or give up altogether. It seems to me that option with least risk business-wise would be to give up trying to stop it and use other means to reduce the probability of it occurring such as lowering prices or offering a better service than pirates.
Sure they can, and in a way that would make government types drool. All they have to do is set up a government-maintained white list of all "legitimate" torrent trackers, and force ISPs to block access to any tracker not on the list. Of course, anyone with enough money/influence will be able to buy himself onto that list, which is why I said officials will like the idea. Plenty of opportunity for more bribes.
Actually, I've legally downloaded non-open source programs with the blessing of the copyright owner, because I bought the software key from them and they like to distribute the binary via bittorrent.
Hey, if it were the US they would comply and keep it under wraps... after all, the government agencies will do what they can to get you immunity later, amirite?
The ISPs are citing technical and legal reasons for why they do not wish to do this. Legals reasons include surveillance laws which prohibit ISPs from monitoring a user's data unless compelled by a warrant.
But, looking at the American example of attempting to make illegal surveillance being retro-actively legal/non-impeachable (I'm not a lawyer so that may be entirely the wrong term), how long until we brits see the law changed to reduce by half the obstacles?
They create 90% of that traffic by buying the highest rate packages, which by far have the highest margins on them.
Overhead makes up a high percentage of the charge for the lower tiers ; so if you're paying four times the charge for the top tier, you're giving them a much higher profit margin. By necessity, those top 10% must be on the top tier, so they're more like 30% of their profit margin.
Bargain basement ISP Tiscali have already operated a similar scheme in cahoots with the BPI, but it's all fallen apart because Tiscali want the BPI to pay for the privilege of sending warnings and chucking people off. The most intriguing part is that the BPI are doing the investigation and instead of monitoring the packets of each connection they are monitoring the known torrents and connections to those torrents, which is clearly a far more practical idea than monitoring all packets. The Register have the full story [theregister.co.uk]
As always , the government - usually due to absolutely severe lack of knowledge - have to comply with the business out there that usually FEAR more than actually KNOW whats going on.
Fact is:
1) The industry have NO clue if the "piracy" either gains or damages their sales, it's pure guessing - no statistics. 2) The government have to enforce the law, if someone breaks it - they create new laws so it won't happen again, unfortunately this is often based on fear rather than knowledge. You listen to the corporates that doesn't have a clue, and you certainly won't listen to the thieves (eg. pirates). 3) No way in this life or the next one will ANY ISP or the government EVER be able to monitor the petabytes of data that flows trough their lines each day, there would not even be enough workers for that...even in an overpopulated world. Even if you write intelligent software...someone has to decipher all that information and only a "human" so far . can make the final judgement on whatever case. 4) You'll only sort out the "clean people" from the "pirates" as the pirates usually are the "savy ones" that only will go deeper (tor anyone?) while the "common morons" are left to take the fall for the rest with their amateur mistakes.
Man....I sometimes wonder who the "clowns" who got the bright idea to make it the law to force ISP's keep records of all user data-transfers 1-2 years on backlog, it most certainly wasn't anyone with any computer knowledge whatsoever.
You're making the assumption that the government (any government) will bother with anything complex or intelligent (since lawmakers are rarely either, it seems.) All they'll do is decide what a "normal" Internet user should be allowed to do, and kick-off/arrest/imprison anyone that tries to do anything they don't think is acceptable. So that would include email (forced through the ISP's mail server, so that it can be properly monitored and recorded), browsing (only through government-approved ports and usin
Buy some webspace on a *nix provider, one that insists on SSH for management. Get approval. Tunnel all your traffic through a secure proxy outside the UK.
3) No way in this life or the next one will ANY ISP or the government EVER be able to monitor the petabytes of data that flows trough their lines each day, there would not even be enough workers for that...even in an overpopulated world. Even if you write intelligent software...someone has to decipher all that information and only a "human" so far . can make the final judgement on whatever case.
The great Chinese firewall seems to be pretty close.
You must be new here. Read all about it. [slashdot.org] Try the first post, +5 Insightful. Care to make any other ridiculous attempts at an indignant response.
How about some relevant evidence, instead of that half-stuffed strawman you just trotted out? You claimed that, in paraphrase,/. would happily demand that governments destroy ISP users' privacy rights at whim in order to catch spammers. Please show us an example where this allegedly happened.
ISP blocks trojan-infected machines back in 2003? Gee... that's relevant (not).
No actual spammers being cut off then, eh? No suspected spammers being disconnected at the behest of an outside party (which is what you and the IFPI are advocating)? Nothing even remotely relevant at all aside from the fact that if a trojaned machine is sending out spam it therefore gets cut off?
Thought so.
Wow, look at all the "Insightful" comments.
Wow indeed... most of them discussing the current state of ISP abuse desks, I even found this cool comment [slashdot.org]... think
Um, actually, the headline reads "Swedish ISP Blocks Computers That Send Spam." You're assuming that they are trojaned computers and not voluntary installs of "Make millions working from home" bots designed to send spam, just like the submitter did. What we know with certainty is: ISP blocks computers that send spam. The rest is conjecture. And with that came plenty of cheers from the slashdot crowd happy that they were doing it with no regard to privacy.
(infected) Spamming computers don't get shut down because somebody's spying on them. Spamming computers get shut down because somebody's complaining about them.
I've written scripts that rip apart (spam) emails, peel apart the headers, figure out which ISP is responsible for the machines that sent them to my MX (via the ICANN records) and (where possible) sends an automated complaint email to the 'abuse' address of the responsible provider.
If they get a couple of hundred such complaints from various sour
Err, you do know that there is a difference between voluntarily downloading something between two consenting parties (P2P user and peer(s)), and blasting unwanted crap out to unwilling recipients (spam), right?
One is a normal (albeit sometimes infringing) transaction, while the other is an unwarranted invasion of others' file storage space and bandwidth.
Err, you do know that there is a difference between voluntarily downloading something between two consenting parties (P2P user and peer(s)), and blasting unwanted crap out to unwilling recipients (spam), right?
That's nice doublethink you have there.
So in other words, you have no idea.
I didn't realize the RIAA was consenting to your file sharing. Oh, that's right... they aren't.
I don't know or care what the RIAA thinks about the files I share (hint: the only ones I've ever bothered sharing are all CC, copylefted, pub-domain, or GPL-licensed), so how about you not ruin what little credibility you might have by making stupid assumptions like that, m'kay?
Meanwhile, any two points in a P2P session are still made voluntarily. Weasel all you want, but you cannot change that primary fact - and the IFPI affiliate owns neither of those connections, so they don't get any say-so - aside from launching a lawsuit against the distributor once a determination is made that the distribution was an infringement (and even then they must remain within the bounds of law).
Besides, what does the Recording Industry Association of America have to do with asking (let alone demanding) anything from a British ISP, genius?
Just like slashbots would propose that ISPs disconnect anyone suspected of illegally sending unsolicited email.
An example (relevant this time, plz) would be nice. Of course, trying to get you to stop with gross generalizations, and idiotic attempts to prove a flamebaited point with wildly unrelated strawmen arguments? Well, it would be a lost cause, but see if you can overcome them anyway, my dear little troll...
No, I believe I followed that by pointing out you are assuming legal traffic on P2P and illegal traffic on email to justify your stance. There are both spam and legitimate mailing lists. How does an ISP know the difference? They don't know any more than they know the difference between a Linux ISO and a copy of a hollywood movie. It's doublethink. Sorry if you weren't bright enough to catch that one. I'll try to spell everything out for you in this post so you can keep up.
Meanwhile, any two points in a P2P session are still made voluntarily.
No, I believe I followed that by pointing out you are assuming legal traffic on P2P and illegal traffic on email to justify your stance. There are both spam and legitimate mailing lists. How does an ISP know the difference? They don't know any more than they know the difference between a Linux ISO and a copy of a hollywood movie. It's doublethink. Sorry if you weren't bright enough to catch that one. I'll try to spell everything out for you in this post so you can keep up.
And now you're doing it too. I'm not arguing the right or wrong of P2P. That is off topic. I'm pointing out that/. readers, on the whole, are a bunch of hypocrites. They are against disconnecting users for suspected illegal P2P use, but in favor of disconnecting users suspected of sending unsolicited commercial email. Legitimate and illegitimate uses of both protocols are equally difficult to distinguish. Yet most of you are perfectly fine with that, or at least you will be until some legislator exploits y
Tubes again? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tubes again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Tubes again? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Traffic management (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not quite sure what would happen if any ISPs did that here since no one yet has any pay per usage service, although Time Warner [slashdot.org] is proposing something like that. It'll be interesting to see what effect, if any, the situation in the UK will have over in the US.
Didn't use the magic word! (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly UK government! The secret password to get around the law isn't "piracy", it's "TERROR"!
Re: (Score:2)
I know where you're coming from but that excuse doesn't fly with a large proportion of the populace after 30 years of republican terrorism and the government knows it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
9/11 TERRORISTS WITH US OR AGAINST US 9/11 THINK OF THE CHILDREN TERROR TERROR!
There, did that turn your brain off? No? Shit! Why does this crap only work in America?!
Re: (Score:1)
Verbose = 1 (Score:2, Redundant)
"Technical reasons include an inability to accurately identify the legality of copyrighted material that is being transferred over p2p clients."
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, right (Score:1, Insightful)
United Kingdom: Twenty million people watching another twenty million people. A final twenty million kicking each other to death for fake Burberry baseball caps.
Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Funny)
They're actually kicking each other so that they can film it and put it on youTube. So they're all watching each other as well.
Parent
I welcome this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lets not forget junior members of staff downloading entire databases onto unencrypted DVDs and dropping them down the sofa or the Navy losing laptops with the details of an entire years worth of potential recruits...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly ... (Score:1)
'persistent pirates' == everyone... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Downloading large Linux install DVD images
2. Download legal, open-source programs
3. Download legally free files
The problem with this is that I bet NO ONE will actually sit there and read all the traffic logs. A computer will just flag customers who even so much as transfer a packet through a BitTorrent port as a 'persistent pirate' and cancel their service.
A computer can only say YES this person is using BitTorrent or NO he's not. The computer CAN NOT find out exactly what someone is downloading, and weather it's legal.
So if the UK wants to fall behind everyone in the Internet age and cancel EVERYONE out of the Internet, not much we can do but hope it doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I suppose this could lead to a bit of a class system online--those who know where to find all the interesting bits, and those who are just regular users. Moreso than usual, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of cyber-punk isn't it?
Re:'persistent pirates' == everyone... (Score:5, Insightful)
Deep packet sniffing can be employed, but that would be terribly costly. Considering the amount of traffic that a typical UK ISP would be dealing with, you're already talking about some massively parallel computer just to handle that. To then go and do some pattern matching stuff on every packet to see if it's a case of copyright infringement would not only be hell to actually code, it would take a ridiculous amount of computing power. What's worse, this could be defeated by encryption.
Some kind of shallow packet sniff could be done to check for hashes of copyrighted material, and ban people referring to that hash. That requires a database of infringing hashes, and new materials could be appearing all the time. It would also require knowledge of how every P2P protocol communicated these hashes. There is always the chance of mistaking some unrelated innocent communication with an illicit one, that will increase with the size of the copyright database and the number of protocols checked. And this can be defeated with encryption too.
There is another way of approaching this problem. Take a protocol, say, BitTorrent. You could use your database of copyrighted works, and check out trackers of those works for whether UK IP addresses are connected. You have a problem choosing which trackers to check, as you usually only get a name and a description. This one can't be beaten by encryption, but some elaborate series of proxies could elude it.
One of the common weaknesses with all of these approaches, beyond what has already been mentioned, is that the infringing works must first be identified. This could be done by downloading all the files and then manually checking them or by using some kind of fingerprinting technique. This is going to be either expensive in terms of equipment (big server farms for fingerprint analysis) or in terms of people checking the files manually.
The problem here isn't really technical, it's economic. Although most of the costs of blocking customers will have to be done by the ISPs, it will probably be up to the media companies to pay for identifying (say) trackers/hashes for copyrighted works. As this brief analysis seems to suggest that most of the cost is in the identification stage by a long margin, there would have to be a significant payout to justify this investment. I'm not convinced that it's there.
The other aspect of this is that the actual costs of P2P file sharing can only be guessed. Without at least some kind of checking described above it will remain that way. You don't know how many people are sharing this stuff, and you don't know how many of them would have bought it if they couldn't share the stuff. These are unknown risks, so deciding what kind of effort should be expended in avoiding them is a very very difficult task. It's hard to tell whether you've spent more money preventing the risk than the risk would have actually cost. Inevitably, they will have to choose whether to step off the ledge and actually do something on a big scale, or give up altogether. It seems to me that option with least risk business-wise would be to give up trying to stop it and use other means to reduce the probability of it occurring such as lowering prices or offering a better service than pirates.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of glad I don't have mod points at the moment. I'd go nuts trying to choose between interesting, insightful or informative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm; some ISP sanity at last (Score:3, Insightful)
But, looking at the American example of attempting to make illegal surveillance being retro-actively legal/non-impeachable (I'm not a lawyer so that may be entirely the wrong term), how long until we brits see the law changed to reduce by half the obstacles?
Who would have thought it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm, how about not wanting to be forced to abondon ten percent of their paying customers as a reason not to wish to do this?
Re: (Score:2)
Overhead makes up a high percentage of the charge for the lower tiers ; so if you're paying four times the charge for the top tier, you're giving them a much higher profit margin. By necessity, those top 10% must be on the top tier, so they're more like 30% of their profit margin.
There's always Retroactive Immunity! (Score:2)
Isn't there anything the PEOPLE can do to have this and other such attrocities repealed?
But in practice, they're all for it (Score:5, Interesting)
too little too late... (Score:2)
Re:too little too late... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of knowledge makes this a bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact is:
1) The industry have NO clue if the "piracy" either gains or damages their sales, it's pure guessing - no statistics.
2) The government have to enforce the law, if someone breaks it - they create new laws so it won't happen again, unfortunately this is often based on fear rather than knowledge. You listen to the corporates that doesn't have a clue, and you certainly won't listen to the thieves (eg. pirates).
3) No way in this life or the next one will ANY ISP or the government EVER be able to monitor the petabytes of data that flows trough their lines each day, there would not even be enough workers for that...even in an overpopulated world. Even if you write intelligent software...someone has to decipher all that information and only a "human" so far . can make the final judgement on whatever case.
4) You'll only sort out the "clean people" from the "pirates" as the pirates usually are the "savy ones" that only will go deeper (tor anyone?) while the "common morons" are left to take the fall for the rest with their amateur mistakes.
Man....I sometimes wonder who the "clowns" who got the bright idea to make it the law to force ISP's keep records of all user data-transfers 1-2 years on backlog, it most certainly wasn't anyone with any computer knowledge whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Buy some webspace on a *nix provider, one that insists on SSH for management. Get approval. Tunnel all your traffic through a secure proxy outside the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot cheers the murder of suspected spammer (Score:2)
You must be new here. Read all about it. [slashdot.org] Try the first post, +5 Insightful. Care to make any other ridiculous attempts at an indignant response.
How about some relevant evidence, instead of that half-stuffed strawman you just trotted out? You claimed that, in paraphrase, /. would happily demand that governments destroy ISP users' privacy rights at whim in order to catch spammers. Please show us an example where this allegedly happened.
Re: (Score:2)
No actual spammers being cut off then, eh? No suspected spammers being disconnected at the behest of an outside party (which is what you and the IFPI are advocating)? Nothing even remotely relevant at all aside from the fact that if a trojaned machine is sending out spam it therefore gets cut off?
Thought so.
Wow, look at all the "Insightful" comments.
Wow indeed... most of them discussing the current state of ISP abuse desks, I even found this cool comment [slashdot.org]... think
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
ISP blocks trojan-infected machines back in 2003?
Um, actually, the headline reads "Swedish ISP Blocks Computers That Send Spam." You're assuming that they are trojaned computers and not voluntary installs of "Make millions working from home" bots designed to send spam, just like the submitter did. What we know with certainty is: ISP blocks computers that send spam. The rest is conjecture. And with that came plenty of cheers from the slashdot crowd happy that they were doing it with no regard to privacy.
I noticed you conveniently ignored the score
Re: (Score:2)
I've written scripts that rip apart (spam) emails, peel apart the headers, figure out which ISP is responsible for the machines that sent them to my MX (via the ICANN records) and (where possible) sends an automated complaint email to the 'abuse' address of the responsible provider.
If they get a couple of hundred such complaints from various sour
Re:If it were "spammers" instead of "file sharers" (Score:4, Insightful)
One is a normal (albeit sometimes infringing) transaction, while the other is an unwarranted invasion of others' file storage space and bandwidth.
QED, no hypocrisy.
Parent
Re:If it were "spammers" instead of "file sharers" (Score:4, Insightful)
That's nice doublethink you have there.
So in other words, you have no idea.
I don't know or care what the RIAA thinks about the files I share (hint: the only ones I've ever bothered sharing are all CC, copylefted, pub-domain, or GPL-licensed), so how about you not ruin what little credibility you might have by making stupid assumptions like that, m'kay?
Meanwhile, any two points in a P2P session are still made voluntarily. Weasel all you want, but you cannot change that primary fact - and the IFPI affiliate owns neither of those connections, so they don't get any say-so - aside from launching a lawsuit against the distributor once a determination is made that the distribution was an infringement (and even then they must remain within the bounds of law).
Besides, what does the Recording Industry Association of America have to do with asking (let alone demanding) anything from a British ISP, genius?
An example (relevant this time, plz) would be nice. Of course, trying to get you to stop with gross generalizations, and idiotic attempts to prove a flamebaited point with wildly unrelated strawmen arguments? Well, it would be a lost cause, but see if you can overcome them anyway, my dear little troll...
Parent
Re: (Score:1)
So in other words, you have no idea.
No, I believe I followed that by pointing out you are assuming legal traffic on P2P and illegal traffic on email to justify your stance. There are both spam and legitimate mailing lists. How does an ISP know the difference? They don't know any more than they know the difference between a Linux ISO and a copy of a hollywood movie. It's doublethink. Sorry if you weren't bright enough to catch that one. I'll try to spell everything out for you in this post so you can keep up.
Meanwhile, any two points in a P2P session are still made voluntarily.
You keep ignoring that th
Re: (Score:2)
Must people don't try and add stre
Re: (Score:2)