Discover Habbo's history
Treat yourself with a Secret Santa gift.... of a random Wiki page for you to start exploring Habbo's history!
Happy holidays!
Celebrate with us at Habbox on the hotel, on our Forum and right here!
Join Habbox!
One of us! One of us! Click here to see the roles you could take as part of the Habbox community!


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    /etc/passwd
    Posts
    19,110
    Tokens
    1,139

    Latest Awards:

    Default Digital Economy Bill passed through Lords.

    Yep, that one that means ISPs have to spy on our web traffic and report any suspicious activity and all sorts.

    It's gunna be rushed through Parliament I guess.

    http://twitter.com/PiratePartyUK/
    Quote Originally Posted by Chippiewill View Post
    e-rebel forum moderator
    :8

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    2,810
    Tokens
    6,894
    Habbo
    Marriott0.02

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    I doubt it will be passed, there has been criticisms saying that it is completely unconstitutional.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,087
    Tokens
    138

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Well, if this gets passed, we are ******.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Breaking into your house
    Posts
    1,377
    Tokens
    50

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Isn't this the one that makes open Wi-Fi illegal or something?
    AMD Phenom X4 955 BE - 8GB RAM - Asus M5A97 - MSI HD6870 HAWK - Windows 8.1 Pro 64 - Samsung 840 Pro 256GB
    -----------------------------------------------------------


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,795
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Not really. There is no 3 strike rule (i.e you can't be disconnected) and even the simplest encryption on data is enough to thwart DPI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Johno! View Post
    Well, if this gets passed, we are ******.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    /etc/passwd
    Posts
    19,110
    Tokens
    1,139

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomm View Post
    Not really. There is no 3 strike rule (i.e you can't be disconnected) and even the simplest encryption on data is enough to thwart DPI.
    You can be parmanently disconnected without three strikes, part of the anti-piracy part of the bill
    Quote Originally Posted by Chippiewill View Post
    e-rebel forum moderator
    :8

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,795
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    I can't seem to find any of this in the bill though - it only mentions that the is a obligation for OFCOM to investigate technical measures to prevent illegal downloading which measures include:

    A “technical measure” is a measure that—
    (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber;
    (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use;
    (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or
    (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.
    And from what:

    The assessment and steps that the Secretary of State may direct OFCOM to carry out or take under subsection (1) include, in particular—
    (a) consultation of copyright owners, internet service providers, subscribers or any other person;
    (b) an assessment of the likely efficacy of a technical measure in relation to a particular type of internet access service; and
    (c) steps to prepare a proposed technical obligations code.
    There appears to be nothing set as to what action should be taken.

    Also the ISPs are only obliged to inform customer's of alleged copyright infringement by the copyright holder submitting a "copyright infringement report" to the ISP. As far as ISP monitoring goes:

    (1) An internet service provider must provide a copyright owner with a copyright infringement list for a period if—
    (a) the owner requests the list for that period; and
    (b) an initial obligations code requires the internet service provider to provide it.

    (2) A “copyright infringement list” is a list that—
    (a) sets out, in relation to each relevant subscriber, which of the copyright infringement reports made by the owner to the provider relate to the subscriber, but
    (b) does not enable any subscriber to be identified.
    Note 2B where it says "does not enable any subscriber to be identified."

    Although I'm no legal expert so it is only my interpretation of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Recursion View Post
    You can be parmanently disconnected without three strikes, part of the anti-piracy part of the bill

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    159
    Tokens
    0

    Default

    Hi there,

    The bill enables ISPs to disconnect customers who are suspected of file sharing. This can be done without evidence - and this is quite a concerning issue.

    Also, it enables the creation of punishment schemes outwith those outlined within the bill.

    -Stephen

    Essential Links . Homepage . Our Services . Client Portal

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    /etc/passwd
    Posts
    19,110
    Tokens
    1,139

    Latest Awards:

    Default


    6.
    b) the copyright owner may require the provider to disclose which copyright infringement reports made by the owner to the provider relate to the subscriber;

    c) following such a disclosure, the copyright owner may apply to a court to learn the subscriber’s identity and may bring proceedings against the subscriber for copyright infringement;
    Which contradicts with 2B
    Last edited by Recursion; 15-03-2010 at 07:26 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chippiewill View Post
    e-rebel forum moderator
    :8

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,795
    Tokens
    0

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    No it does not as the 2B I listed is the information that ISPs are required to collect about all their customers and provide on demand to copyright holders - they can do this without any evidence that any of the ISPs customers have been downloading their content illegally and does not identify customers.

    The section you listed refers to complaints made by copyright holders with evidence + IP address to show that a ISP's customer has been illegally downloading their copyrighted material.

    Quote Originally Posted by Recursion View Post
    Which contradicts with 2B

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •