Privacy activist "will quit job to take on Virgin Media"

Improve, do not try to change the market.

I am wondering: Why is the director of Universal Music, better than I am?
She/he must be better then the rest of us since she/he is given the rights and powers to intrude in our lives and waste our time.
These individuals should be singled out, and their work made public. They should not be allowed to hide behind companies.
I have no intention whatosever to waste my time defending anything just because there was no one with enough vision, education and intelligence in Universal Music, or elsewhere, to change according with the world. Now they want to change the world because it does not suit them.

How do we came to this ridiculous point?

Kudos to Alexander Hanff.

By dusanjovanovic on 2 Dec 2009

Still trying to get a job ?

I see that Alex Hanff is still trying to get other people to finance him to pursue his hobby.
Back in the minicab Pieman !

By Atbuthnot on 2 Dec 2009

Shocked

I am, I have to admit, surprised that Alex has a job. Who knew! I always assumed he just wanted to hide behind his moral outrage at large companies.

By TomWatson on 2 Dec 2009

Bright spark

So, rather than fighter ISP's and saying what's wrong, blah, blah. Has the bright spark Alex, come out with a good idea to stop thieves from stealing copyright material. Because if you can stop that, then Virgin and other ISPs might not be so bothered about huge amounts of bandwidth disappearing on their networks.

By treadmill on 2 Dec 2009

Criminal acts

"Virgin insists the technology won't be used to identify individuals, but to monitor the degree of illegal file-sharing that's taking place."
interesting , they are stating they will commit criminal acts Deep Packet Interception without a valid warrant or informed consent of the other partys to to monitor and only monitor the data packets these partys are generating...

"We feel it is a breach of our rights, our right to privacy in our digital communications"

it does far more than that, Under RIPA the illegal interception of communications without prior consent and without a warrant Is Deemed a Criminal Act, and if found guilty of the offences ,a jail term is is the outcome, as Redbus and Demon founder "Stanford" found out when he was convicted of interception of electronic datastreams communication offences in 2005.

"Legal search

A spokesman for Virgin Media insists the company's use of DPI isn't illegal. "There are exceptions [in the RIPA regulations] for network management purposes and this falls into that category," he said.
"

Ohh No it Doesnt as Virgin Media legal Know all to well IF they actually did a simple search of current statute

again for ease ill refer to the stanfard RIPA case law as PCPro should find it Very easy to research this and provide Accurate reporting...

"At trial, Stanford had sought to rely on a section of RIPA that gives a defence to a person who intercepts “a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a private telecommunication system” if either: (a) he is a person with a right to control the operation or the use of the system; or (b) he has the express or implied consent of such a person to make the interception.Stanford relied on the position that he had gained access to the emails through a company
employee. The employee apparently was given access to usernames and passwords on the email server.
Therefore, Stanford argued, he was entitled to access the emails as “a person with a right to
control the operation or the use of the system”.



Geoffrey Rivlin QC, the trial judge had a different view. He pointed out that “right to control”
did not mean that someone had a right to access or operate the system, but that the Act required
that person to of had a right to authorise or to forbid the operation.



Stanford appealed the judge’s decision. However, the Court of Appeal upheld Rivlin’s view. It
pointed out that the purpose of the law was to protect privacy. Therefore Stanford’s sentence of 6
months imprisonment (suspended for two years) and a fine of £20,000 with £7000 prosecution costs
were upheld.



Daniel Doherty

"

By storm311 on 2 Dec 2009

to many laws for you to cope with dear sheeple, but try and learn anyway...

"Has the bright spark Alex, come out with a good idea to stop thieves from stealing copyright material."

apparently so , but hte problem is the CPS etc are having problems finding the criminal file he submitted to them ....

that also covered i beleave the use of Deep Packet Inspection to make derivative works of copyrighted material (that copyrighted matterial being the piracy of your unique personal data streams)for commercial gain, thats a criminal offence BTW..

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/legislation/legislat
ion.pdf

when its copyright piracy for commercial gain, it clearly falls under criminal law not civil/tort law, as downloading for personal use for instance as any first year law student would know.

and the actual use and or supply of the DPI kit without to perform a criminal act is covered there too.

see:

S.107 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 ("CDPA") established the following categories of offences: making or dealing in infringing copies of copyright works;
making or possessing an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of copyright works; and
causing a work to be performed, played or shown in public.


Making or Dealing in Infringing Articles
It is an offence under s.107 (1) of the CDPA to
(a) make for sale or hire,
(b) import into the United Kingdom otherwise than for private and domestic use,
(c) possess in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing copyright,
(d) in the course of a business
(i) sell or lets for hire,
(ii) offer or expose for sale or hire,
(iii) exhibit in public, or
(iv) distribute, or
(e) distribute otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
an article which is, and which is known to be or where there is reason to believe it to be, an infringing copy of a copyright work. Anyone convicted of such making, importing or distribution may be fined or sentenced to up to 2 years in prison upon conviction on indictment or 6 months imprisonment and a fine up to the statutory minimum on summary conviction, or both (s. 107 (4) CDPA). The maximum penalty for any other offence under s.107 (1) is 6 months imprisonment or a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale on summary conviction, or both (s. 107 (5)).

Making or Possessing Specially designed or adapted Articles for Making Infringing Copies
It is an offence under s.107 (2) to make an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a particular copyright work, or possess such an article, knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies for sale or hire or for use in the course of a business. The maximum penalty for an offence under this sub-section is 6 months imprisonment or a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale on summary conviction, or both (s.107 (5)).
Communicating the Work to the Public
The new offence of communicating a copyright work to the public is provided by a new s.107 (2A). The penalty for that offence is a imprisonment not exceeding 3 months, a fine up to the statutory maximum or both on summary conviction, or 2 years imprisonment, a fine or both under a new s.107 (4A).
...

By storm311 on 2 Dec 2009

If something isnʼt “communications data” it is almost overwhelmingly “content” and so requires a warrant

and if your still not clear on the why the use of DPI is wrong outside these normal business duties for the purpose of fulfilling the contract is deemed illegal and very Bad for this countrys long term future, I.E Your Jobs and Your Wages. CO some bloke?

read the 'All Party Parliamentary Group On Privacy' paper

http://privacyappg.org.uk/Documents/appg_IMP_brief
ing.pdf

All Party Parliamentary Group On Privacy
.....
" P14

What is “communications data”?
In their consultation paper regarding the Interception Modernisation Programme,
Protecting the Public in a Changing Communications Environment the Home Office says:
“Communications data is information about a communication.


It does not include the content of a communication.


It can show when a communication happened, where it came
from and where it was going, but it cannot show what was said or written […]
For a given telephone call, communications data can include the telephone numbers involved, and the
time and place the call was made, but not what was said. For an e-mail it might include the
e-mail address from which the message was sent, and where it was sent to, but not the
content.......

....
" P21

the current separation of “communications data” from “content” looks unworkable: interpretations in
individual cases are difficult; even when an interpretation is forthcoming, the practical
problems of separating the one from the other are considerable.



If something isnʼt “communications data” it is almost overwhelmingly “content” and so requires a warrant
from the Secretary of State and is inadmissible in evidence.16


This is surely not an outcome a law enforcement investigator wants....."
"

"P63

A Chilling Effect?
As the general public becomes aware of the practice of collecting and collating all this
personal information, the risk is that it will generate a chilling effect on the individual's right
to free expression, association and might dissuade people from participating in
communications transactions.


Already, following from the media coverage of
the Government 'wanting to get access to social networking profiles' there has been a rising
concern about what people do or say on social networking sites. As we try to build 'Digital
Britain' we may in fact be creating a barrier to people accessing online services and
applications out of fear of surveillance.



This chilling effect could, in turn, have serious ramifications for industry.


If developments like 'cloud computing' and increasing virtual communications and modes of work are
placed under similar scrutiny then the policy of modernising policing powers could restrict
innovation, or drive infrastructure out of the UK.


Every time an individual shares a
document with a colleague, this process generates communications traffic data. Every
online video conference or sharing of knowledge through discussion boards across
organisations will generate communications traffic data over public networks. This will
result in a level of surveillance never seen before, with ever weakening safeguards."

By storm311 on 2 Dec 2009

leave the bloke alone, would you have the courage to take on the bigger fight for the Uk's end users rights while still dealing with bereavement, dont think so...

so give the man a break

"
November 20, 2009, 07:49:50 PM
I will not be available for the next week or so, sadly my mother in law has just passed away.

I will be checking emails but won't be around to deal with any issues should they arise. Hope to be back within 7-10 days.

Alexander Hanff"

By storm311 on 2 Dec 2009

the stanford RIPA case law URL

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_art
icle.asp?name=../articles/Cliff%20Stanford.htm

By storm311 on 2 Dec 2009

the stanford RIPA case law URL

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_art
icle.asp?name=../articles/Cliff%20Stanford.htm

By storm311 on 2 Dec 2009

"Logical next step..."

Alex. Can I please ask, sorry demand, that you leave your doors unlocked when you next go to crusade in court?

I suspect you have some nice gear I'd like to 'share', and anyone who tries to watch, let alone stop me is an evil agent of State Oppression.

I see it as the "logical next step..."

What a prat.

By woodface6 on 3 Dec 2009

Once a copyright violator....

This Alex Hanff - the same one who owes the US Courts the $40k fine for copyright violation.
No wonder he has a massive chip on his shoulder.

By Atbuthnot on 3 Dec 2009

How

How does the system decide whether the download is legal. Say from Sky Songs or is it illegal if it does not come from Universal Music.
I (as a Virgin Customer)will not use Universal as I am quite happy with the 3 legal entities I already download music from.

By delturner1 on 3 Dec 2009

Overwhelm them.

I am not getting into the argument regarding the sharing of files, that is not the issue here, it is the privacy issue which concerns me, and henceforth I will be downloading large DVD images of my fave operating system, all on bit torrent, if they want to wade through gigs and gigs of totally legal data packets to see what I am doing then so be it.
Those that think it is ok for DPI, how would you feel if someone was looking through your mail before you got it? If you are doing nothing wrong then surely it's ok?
I say get national security right,then make the web safe to shop on and for our kids to surf on, then go after the file sharers.

By Master_Simon on 3 Dec 2009

Overwhelm them.

I am not getting into the argument regarding the sharing of files, that is not the issue here, it is the privacy issue which concerns me, and henceforth I will be downloading large DVD images of my fave operating system, all on bit torrent, if they want to wade through gigs and gigs of totally legal data packets to see what I am doing then so be it.
Those that think it is ok for DPI, how would you feel if someone was looking through your mail before you got it? If you are doing nothing wrong then surely it's ok?
I say get national security right,then make the web safe to shop on and for our kids to surf on, then go after the file sharers.

By Master_Simon on 3 Dec 2009

Lord Lucas has a point.

Lord Lucas expressed doubts over the Government's plans to disconnect illegal file-sharers, claiming that the entertainment industry hadn't done enough to encourage people to pursue legal methods.

"We need to bear in mind that the problems now facing the industry are, to quite a large extent, of their own creation," he said. "The industry has been extremely slow to listen to the demands of its customers, and has had something of an abusive relationship with them, seeking to punish them before thinking of how to serve them better.

"It has taken a decade for the industry to produce sensible alternatives to illegal file-sharing, and the fact that a generation of people have become used to an illegality comes down to the industry’s sluggishness. It is still slow."

By dusanjovanovic on 3 Dec 2009

WIll people REALLY purchase content???

The argument, as far as I can see it, states that this sharing of copyrighted material results in millions, if not billions of £/$'s of lost revenue. But will the users who currently share actually buy legit material???

I fear the answer is probably not, which means that the revenue was never there to be lost in the first place.

By sinster70 on 4 Dec 2009

And wil DPI simply not mean that shreing will eveolve???

There are already various method that will thwart DPI.

Encryption should render the contents of the packet useless to someone eves dropping, although of course headers could still be read, meaning that the sniffer could tell where the packets where destined.

In that case, multiple proxy systems (such as TOR - although slow) could be utilised.

I'm sure other methods are avaliable.

By sinster70 on 4 Dec 2009

the end is ....

easy vote with you cash dump vigin and use alternative isp.

By andbax on 4 Dec 2009

There is no privacy on the internet

Due to the way the internet works, your data can take any number of paths, through any number of servers, countries etc.
Any one of these server can be used to intercept your message or data.
They may be in countries with no privacy laws or even controlled by criminals.

You should consider all email content the equivalent of writing on a post card which anyone can read on route.

The same goes for web content, ftp, psp and other data.

It is like reading the paper on a busy train with anyone able to look over your shoulder.

Get real.

I suspect that the real reasons are that this person, who may have been passing copyrighted material wants the rest of us to pay him a fat salary for him to persue VM so that he can continue such illicit and improper practices.

Well done VM, use DPI with your target list and determine the scale of the problem.

But you must get a court order gain evidence on any subscriber.

By DavidPladgeman on 4 Dec 2009

There is no privacy on the internet

Due to the way the internet works, your data can take any number of paths, through any number of servers, countries etc.
Any one of these server can be used to intercept your message or data.
They may be in countries with no privacy laws or even controlled by criminals.

You should consider all email content the equivalent of writing on a post card which anyone can read on route.

The same goes for web content, ftp, psp and other data.

It is like reading the paper on a busy train with anyone able to look over your shoulder.

Get real.

I suspect that the real reasons are that this person, who may have been passing copyrighted material wants the rest of us to pay him a fat salary for him to persue VM so that he can continue such illicit and improper practices.

Well done VM, use DPI with your target list and determine the scale of the problem.

But you must get a court order gain evidence on any subscriber.

By DavidPladgeman on 4 Dec 2009

There is no privacy on the internet

Due to the way the internet works, your data can take any number of paths, through any number of servers, countries etc.
Any one of these server can be used to intercept your message or data.
They may be in countries with no privacy laws or even controlled by criminals.

You should consider all email content the equivalent of writing on a post card which anyone can read on route.

The same goes for web content, ftp, psp and other data.

It is like reading the paper on a busy train with anyone able to look over your shoulder.

Get real.

I suspect that the real reasons are that this person, who may have been passing copyrighted material wants the rest of us to pay him a fat salary for him to persue VM so that he can continue such illicit and improper practices.

Well done VM, use DPI with your target list and determine the scale of the problem.

But you must get a court order gain evidence on any subscriber.

By DavidPladgeman on 4 Dec 2009

Anyone who isn't concerned about the potential privacy implications of what virgin and thinks that this is just about file sharing is a f u c king idiot. I for one do not want to be profiled and categorised like some sort of consumer drone although it may suit Mr Pladgeman.

By dodge1963 on 5 Dec 2009

quote
"Nicholas Bohm | December 8th, 2009 at 15:31 UTC
Does using CView involve interception under RIPA?

Yes. The question of whether a human needs to see something before it counts as interception is answered in my paper on Phorm at http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf in paragraphs 14 to 17. No human access is necessary - machine examination of content is still interception, and unlawful unless justified.

It remains to be seen whether a convincing case can be made for an ISP’s need to know how much of its traffic infringes copyright - is this really required for purposes connected with the provision or operation of its service?
"

By storm311 on 9 Dec 2009

quote
"Nicholas Bohm | December 8th, 2009 at 15:31 UTC
Does using CView involve interception under RIPA?

Yes. The question of whether a human needs to see something before it counts as interception is answered in my paper on Phorm at http://www.fipr.org/080423phormlegal.pdf in paragraphs 14 to 17. No human access is necessary - machine examination of content is still interception, and unlawful unless justified.

It remains to be seen whether a convincing case can be made for an ISP’s need to know how much of its traffic infringes copyright - is this really required for purposes connected with the provision or operation of its service?
"

By storm311 on 9 Dec 2009