In recent months we've reported constantly about the ever disputed "3-Strikes" legislation in the UK, and the disastrous audacity of the bill. Many have protested this piece of legislation calling it outright ridiculous, unfair, and biased toward the bittorrent protocol. Now, an internet service provider, Talk Talk, has come out with strong evidence further proving why this bill is not going to work, and will be unfair to many of it's customers as well as the entire networks of the United Kingdom.
Talk Talk, supposedly the largest of all of the UK's ISP's, with a reported 4.25 million subscribers, has recently conducted an large survey regarding to the security of wireless networks and wifi hotspots. It said that it was "dismayed" by the government's "u-turn on illegal file sharing", after they had first called the tough act "too draconian".
Talk Talk has suggested that people themselves will not be accused or charged for the "illegal" sharing but IP addresses themselves would be. Which in fact totally discredits the bill, as there are so many open and unsecured networks globally as well as in the UK, that it would be unfair to blame a solid IP address, as some of us know how easy it is to use an unsecured network.
In my neighborhood alone, I can read almost 12 unsecured networks, and in fact it is not "illegal" to access an unsecured network, but it's only "illegal" to tap into a secured network that is locked via security key. Typically, all wireless networks come default w/ no encryption, and that makes them unsecured, so if you have a wireless card or transmitter, or even a built in wireless ready laptop, all you have to do is connect, and you're on another person's network.
So assuming that many people "steal" or "borrow" an unsecured network form their neighbors, and they were to download "illegal" material via the BitTorrent protocol, then that person whom pays for the original service, would either be charged or disconnected for something they did not even do. Does that sound fair to you? No, it doesn't to me at all.
A few days ago, the government of the UK sent a security team of experts to a road in Stanmore, Middlesex, and within a few hours, discovered that more than one third of all the wifi connections in that area were unsecured and easily vulnerable to hijacking. They had stated they even downloaded a few songs to prove their point (interesting that they broke the law to prove a point).
Last week it conducted a similar survey about wifi networks in Central Ealing in West London, and found that an astounding 41% of 1,083 wireless customers, were using unsecured and easily hijacked networks. This is proof as to how vulnerable the country's networks are to illegal use and operation by unknown assailants.
Talk Talk’s Executive Director of Strategy and Regulation, Andrew Heaney, stated “The clear implication is that millions of people would be at risk of ‘superhighway robbery’ under Mandelson’s plans, and the risk of innocent people being disconnected is not hypothetical. Consumer organizations such as Which? have been contacted by hundreds of people who have been wrongly accused of file-sharing using a similar method to the one Mandelson is suggesting."
The point that Mr. Heaney is making here, is that an IP address itself does not identify and individual person in any way, shape, or form. All an IP address does, is pinpoint the service agreement one has with an ISP. In fact, you could compare this with someone buying a ticket to a movie theater, and then trying to pinpoint which person sat in what seat. There is no solid evidence that anyone sat in any particular seat.
Mr. Heaney went on to state that “This is why we think the Mandelson scheme is wrong-headed and naive and lack of presumption of innocence and the absence of judicial process combined with the prevalence of Wi-Fi hijacking will result in innocent people being disconnected.” I 100% agree with this statement.
By the government of the UK proceeding with a plan like this, and leaving out all the loopholes and misguided measures, then in fact, it would be as if it was encouraging the "illegal" file sharing crowd to use other people's unencrypted or unsecured wireless networks. Obviously, any unbiased person would know that this is not what the government wished for, but it would be an unintended action taken by people directly linked to the governments stance. There will always be a means of avoiding the ruling, regardless of what the final bill may look like. People are simply too smart, and always will outsmart the law.
Mr. Heaney finished his statement in saying, "We will continue to strongly resist any approach that does not protect the innocent." Talk Talk has refused to regard any legislation that forces them to act unwillingly against their clients, and for this, they should be praised. If more and more ISP's decide to stand up for their users and customers, then in fact, it will deduct further from the government's stranglehold on their citizens. Talk Talk is fighting the power, let's hope others follow their lead.
October 17th, 2009Posted by: Date:
Saturday, October 17th, 2009
|posted by (2009-10-17 18:54:59)|
|nice obs i liked that read and it is about time net providers stand up for their customers!|
|posted by (2009-10-17 19:24:16)|
|y its a nice post i read it on other site ncie tho for all the ppl who dont read ect|
|Right on obs!!!! great read!|
|I love it when a govt' knocks their on dick in the dirt!! nice one OBS|
|posted by (2009-10-18 09:58:04)|
|Nice read ob but has pain said talk talk crap, might be a crap provider but a huge voice , its about time somebody grew some balls and spoke up so i am giving Talk Talk a review and 5 points for them.......|
|I agree with macbeth, it's about time they stand up. Sad thing is they are only standing up so as to protect profit. Still good to have another group to fight with us though, Good Stuff Obs.|
|My service was cut for piracy. They asked me if I had wireless I stated yes. He the asked me if it was secured. I told him NO. He said well you better secure it, because it it happens again you will be held liable. So I ask how do you do that. You know what he said... I cant tell you that sir. You need to find out for yourself. That is a bunch of BS if you ask me. I was playing dumb the whole time but still its like they wanted me to get my service turned off. Needless to say I switched providers|