 noc007
join:2002-06-18
Cumming, GA
 ·Comcast
1 edit | reply to mweisberg
Re: Comcast CAS has to be stopped! It's not necessarily the end of the internets, but it's a big deal in the regards that the **AAs are creeping further on a path to remove people's rights. I really don't like that it's a guilty until proven innocent system. I also don't like that they're going to throw my connection into a walled garden, but I'll be addressing that with Comcast if that ever happens to me. I wouldn't be surprised if it's possible to get around the messages. I don't pirate, but the mechanisms that the **AAs use to detect piracy aren't exactly perfect and I'd imagine they'll get false positives.
There will be a $35 fee to appeal, but I haven't found anything that properly explains where that leads. Some commenters on it say there're legal loopholes in the provision that would let one to become immune to legal action. The thing to remember is Comcast won't be disconnecting your service. They may limit bandwidth for some designated time for the 5th and/or 6th warning, but after that there're no provisions for regular infringers. Any bandwidth limiting is only for that one line and doesn't affect any backup methods one can have. That doesn't stop the **AAs from filing a subpoena to get your information like they've done in the past. Supposedly business lines are excluded from 6 strikes and the methods they've been using with businesses will continue.
What they're targeting are the casual bittorrent pirates. This is more of an educational method to scare those types and know that they aren't going to reach the dedicated pirate. They aren't targeting people pirating off of file sharing websites or even Usenet. Some Usenet providers have a VPN service and many claim to not keep any logs that could be subpoenaed anyways.
As for backup internet services, I think it's a good idea for anyone that would be heavily burdend if bandwidth was limited to the speeds of a couple of ISDN lines. I work from home a few days a week and that situation would make it impossible for me to do my job if I relied on just one internet connection. FreedomPop has a free 1Gb/mo service that utilizes Clear and extra data can be billed. TruConnect has their Walmart exclusive Internet On The Go running on Sprint's 3G network which one can opt for a larger chunk of data to be available for 30 days or a smaller chunk that doesn't expire.
Edit: made some corrections. |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to mweisberg
said by mweisberg:Comcast is using deep packet inspection...basically they are monitoring my entire internet activity.
They probably are, but not for CAS. The way CAS works is MAFIAA agents join torrents to find out if their properties are being traded. They note any offending IP addresses, then notify the corporate owners of those IP addresses via a DMCA notice.
Not one law enforcement agency is taking part in the CAS/6 strike system. Not one local/state/federal law is backing up this system...which means that the entertainment industry and the ISPs are acting as private security forces.
Participating ISPs may, or may not take mitigating steps; but mitigation likely will not include service termination; and no further ISP action will happen at strikes seven, and up. BUT! The CAS agreement does not preclude civil complaints by MAFIAA lawyers in the courts. And admissions of piracy by accepting the CAS "educational" offers, may be construed as an admission of piracy, which may compromise a civil defendants case, if MAFIAA decides to sue.
They cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that it was me that was involved in pirating or copyright infringement.
Unless the public screams bloody murder on this then nothing can be done.
Don't get me wrong; I think it is heavy-handed and oppressive. But until I get a DMCA action, there isn't much that I can do, other than rail against the MAFIAA (which is why I am following the lead of whomever first rammed MPAA together with RIAA, to create a hyperbolic reference to the original protection racket gang. And, because my ISP is not participating in CAS, it is highly unlikely that a MAFIAA fatfinger of my IP address (173.228.0.0/17) instead of the actual offending IP address (173.16.0.0/12, or 173.48.0.0/12) will occur.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
|
|
 KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:7 | said by NormanS:And admissions of piracy by accepting the CAS "educational" offers, may be construed as an admission of piracy, which may compromise a civil defendants case, if MAFIAA decides to sue.
I wonder how many people could successfully play dumb to that sort of thing. Little old Grannie claims the annoying pop-up box won't go away until some number is called, etc. etc. etc.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to mweisberg
said by mweisberg:In-browser notifications can only be done by deep packet inspection. Even if you change dns, this can still be done.
????? In-browser notifications don't require DPI.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 PeteC2Got Mouse?Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
kudos:6
·Comcast
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to mweisberg
While I do see at least the potential for a slippery-slope bent to this thing, as it stands, much ado about nothing...unless you like to illegally obtain copyrighted digital media.
I am no aficionado of "Big Brother", however, the "anything is mine as long as I can get it" mentality that is prevalent only goes to show that some type of action is not only inevitable, but sadly, justifiable as well.
I wish that this were not the case, but it is. 
I am not defending the music/video recording industry of having clean hands and being altruistic...but at the same time they do have a legitimate right to protect copyrighted product.
Anyone thinking that something like this was not going to happen is in deep denial. If it wasn't CAS/6, it would have been something else similar.
--
Deeds, not words |
|
| reply to mweisberg
said by mweisberg:Who will I be talking to? Some lacky making $9 an hour that probably pirates movies and porn at home and is reading from a script on the other end of the phone? What a frigging joke!!! Based on experience you will not talk to ANYONE. When you call these shills you get a voice mail where you have to leave your info and they will call you back. If you tell them to call any number other then the one on your account or to call between certain hours you will spend days going back and forth with phone tag before getting fed up and calling there executive complaint number.
In my case it was these shills that made the decision to move to FiOS that much easier when they could not follow simple instructions and repeatedly lied to me about my bandwidth usage. |
|
KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:7 | reply to PeteC2
said by PeteC2:While I do see at least the potential for a slippery-slope bent to this thing, as it stands, much ado about nothing...unless you like to illegally obtain copyrighted digital media.
I am no aficionado of "Big Brother", however, the "anything is mine as long as I can get it" mentality that is prevalent only goes to show that some type of action is not only inevitable, but sadly, justifiable as well.
I wish that this were not the case, but it is.
I am not defending the music/video recording industry of having clean hands and being altruistic...but at the same time they do have a legitimate right to protect copyrighted product.
Anyone thinking that something like this was not going to happen is in deep denial. If it wasn't CAS/6, it would have been something else similar.
That's a good way to put it, thanks.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. |
|
 DrDrewSo that others may surf.
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:8
4 edits | reply to mweisberg
said by mweisberg:Comcast is using deep packet inspection...basically they are monitoring my entire internet activity.
Comcast is not using DPI. The infringement notifications are coming from a third party, who was able to download the content from the IP issued to the account getting the notification. This is nothing new and has been going on for several years.
said by mweisberg:In-browser notifications can only be done by deep packet inspection.
Actually not in this case. Read this: »tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108
Comcast has been doing in-browser notifications for a couple of years now:
»Update to the Comcast Constant Guard Program
»Comcast Message Code Injection
Comcast already tried controlling pirate traffic through deep packet inspection and modification years ago and they got hit for it:
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···927.html
I doubt they'd try it again. |
|
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| reply to mweisberg
nothing to see here, move along 
Face it people, the frontier always gets cleaned up for the settlers. The old west ends, yet again.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
 MJB
join:2012-01-29
·ACN DSL
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| PEOPLE ... AVOID USING THE INTERNET... US USB JUMP STICKS 32GB in size or more ... IN YOUR LOCAL COUNTRY AROUND YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD... GET OFF THE SPY GRID... THE INTERNET IS DEAD IS BEING TAKEN OVER BY GOVERNMENT... IT'S CALLED INTERNET 2!...
»www.infowars.com
»www.prisonplanet.tv
»twitter.com/RealAlexJones
»www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel |
|
 jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | reply to Tomcat353
said by Tomcat353:Let me let you guys in on a little secret...this entire six strikes policy is easy to defeat by using third party DNS servers...
That will have no effect...
--
JL
Comcast |
|
 egeek84Premium
join:2011-07-28
Livermore, CA
·Comcast
| reply to MJB
|
|
| reply to DrDrew
With regards to RFC6108 and DPI this informational document says it is not DPI but then proceeds to describe methods to implement DPI in layers called something other than DPI. It is nothing more than political word games.
DPI is the drilling down past IP header into packet payload understanding higher and higher layers to make decisions and log activity. This is necessary to MITM web traffic to inject popups.
Instead of a big packet mangling box labeled "DPI" a router sends http traffic to a transparent proxy server (squid) which "proxies" web requests. See no DPI... it is a proxy not a DPI...lol..
As far as I know neither comcast or anyone else is scanning traffic for infringement... most of this is P2P torrent use where you or someone using your IP can be easily identified by participation in a swarm.
On second thought it might even be worse than that... I vaguely remember a paper a few years back about spoofed P2P messages with forged source addresses being enough to cause flagging... »dmca.cs.washington.edu/dmca_hotsec08.pdf
I certainly hope this does not mean a bored hacker can get comcast to harass their own customers just by spoofing a few UDP packets? Of course it does not mean this!! Of course because.... well....um... |
|
jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | reply to DrDrew
said by DrDrew:..snip long post.. Couldn't have said it better myself! Correct on all points, especially the no DPI part.
In fact, ironically enough, per »tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6108#section-1
"In the course of evaluating potential solutions, the authors discovered that the large majority of commercially available systems utilized Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology. While a DPI-based system would certainly work, Comcast and other ISPs are trying to avoid widespread deployment and use of DPI, and are searching for alternatives. Thus, Comcast desired to use a system that is based on open standards and non-proprietary software, and that did not requithe use of DPI."
--
JL
Comcast |
|
MJB
join:2012-01-29 Reviews:
·ACN DSL
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to egeek84
ha ha ... not a conspiracy... dslreports requires the internet to operate... same a piracy and itunes.. more about content control... if someone uploads their own music (not with the riaa or any major record label) to the pirate bay for people to download for free. The person will get a copyright notice for downloading the content that is suppose to be free..
RIAA/MPAA MAFIA Wants to Control The Market Place... |
|
jlivingoodPremium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:1 | reply to dslcreature
said by dslcreature:As far as I know neither comcast or anyone else is scanning traffic for infringement... Correct
said by dslcreature:comcast published RFC 6108 and is therefore being transparent...see...yea...thats it... I'm cool with criticism but challenge you to find another ISP making that level of disclosure...
--
JL
Comcast |
|
| To use an analogy you have created a detailed specification for a glowing signal lamp.
What is missing is what is actually being signaled while the lamp is lit? All of the inputs to the lamp are generated by third parties for which there is no visibility. |
|
 graysonfPremium,MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL | reply to Tomcat353
said by Tomcat353:Let me let you guys in on a little secret...this entire six strikes policy is easy to defeat by using third party DNS servers...
Anyone who relies on this advice is going to be very disappointed. |
|
JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| reply to MJB
said by MJB:PEOPLE ... AVOID USING THE INTERNET..
for illegal things. Thank you.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| reply to MJB
said by MJB:if someone uploads their own music (not with the riaa or any major record label) to the pirate bay for people to download for free. The person will get a copyright notice for downloading the content that is suppose to be free..
Nope, they won't. Unless the person who owns the IP asks comcast to notify specific accounts, simply downloading some file from some location isn't a notification event.
First, you have to steal something. Second, the owner has to identify you as the thief. Third, the owner has to tell comcast. Finally, comcast counts a strike against you.
Obviously the easy party to avoid is the first part.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
