ISP's ability to detect and therefore limit bittorrent traffic with DPI is reserved for those customers that chose to disable the default torredo tunnelling and encryption on utorrent. I suspect that Xtra found this to their dismay when they pulled their 'big time' plan. The last bastion of hope for ISPs these days is to use heuristic traffic pattern analysis to detect usage behaviour. In any case the content remains encrypted. -----Original Message----- From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Paul Brislen Sent: Friday, 2 September 2011 6:43 a.m. To: Daniel Richards Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] Don't quite get this? Let me jump in here also... I wasn't trying to imply that ISPs know what's in the file, i was just using The Terminator as an example of a file. The 13 points the rights holders have to supply include the file name, where it was downloaded from, IP address etc and right down to the time of download to the second. If the rights holder gets any of that wrong, the ISP will reject the application. I have heard from at least one ISP that they will consider some kind of deep packet inspection capability in future if this round of action doesn't curb downloading. Sent from my iPad On 1/09/2011, at 9:23 PM, "Daniel Richards" wrote:

The ISP can't verify you've downloaded exactly what the rights holder says you have.

ISPs don't generally capture every single bit of every single packet that goes through their routers.

A) That's a LOT of data and B) It would cost A LOT (More than ISPs would be willing to spend!) to capture that with no dropped packets. (Which is technically feasible, but again, would cost too much)

So realistically, ISPs can't prove you did or didn't _actually_ download the Terminator.

(Note that the NSA/GCSB/GCHQ/etc may or may not be capturing every single packet! That's up to you to figure out..)

On 1/09/2011 8:08 p.m., Bruce Kingsbury wrote:

...

Re: Paul Brislen: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1 0748747 ] " The ISP doesn't. It's up to the rights holder to determine that you've downloaded that file called The Terminator and that it's a movie and that they have the rights to it and that you haven't got the rights to download it. if they can't demonstrate that to the ISP (which will then check its records to determine if that file was downloaded and if so at what time and by whom) then the ISP rejects the claim."

I don't quite get this. I know the ISP will have records of who had what IP address and perhaps even fairly detailed logs of how much throughput over the day, but if they get told that whatever IP at 8:08:45 pm was observed downloading The Terminator, are any of the the ISP's able to refute that? Do they even log what kind of traffic I was doing at the time? Do they keep track of http vs. torrent vs. skype traffic?

Sorry to ask here, but it seemed like the best place to get an informed answer. Also, beer... _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

On 2011-09-02 08:17, Bruce Kingsbury wrote:

Ignoring torredo though, let's say that I downloaded a torrent yesterday (which I did..) via plain old ipv4 using transmission. How much would most Kiwi ISP's be able to tell me about that download? Would they have logged that I was using bittorrent? Would they know the filename?

That is the so-called rights owner's problem. The ISP's problem should be helping their own customers to prove their innocence when they contest the alleged infringement under the guilty-until-proved-innocent regime. Brian

On 09/02/2011 08:09 AM, Tim Price wrote:

ISP's ability to detect and therefore limit bittorrent traffic with DPI is reserved for those customers that chose to disable the default torredo tunnelling and encryption on utorrent. I suspect that Xtra found this to their dismay when they pulled their 'big time' plan. The last bastion of hope for ISPs these days is to use heuristic traffic pattern analysis to detect usage behaviour. In any case the content remains encrypted.

I would be interested in knowing how the various firewall products that claim to provide L7 filtering of P2P manage this. Apparently Fortinet (as an example) can even pick P2P when the connection is using TLS or SSL. Call me a skeptic but I am not sure how they can do this. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Glen Eustace GodZone Internet Services, a division of AGRE Enterprises Ltd. P.O. Box 8020, Palmerston North, New Zealand 4446. Ph: +64 6 357 8168, Fax +64 6 357 8165, Mob: +64 27 542 4015 http://www.godzone.net.nz "A Ministry specialising in providing low-cost Internet Services to NZ Christian Churches, Ministries and Organisations."

On 2011-09-02 08:44, Patrick Jordan-Smith wrote:

On 2/09/2011, at 8:36 AM, Glen Eustace wrote:

...

I would be interested in knowing how the various firewall products that claim to provide L7 filtering of P2P manage this. Apparently Fortinet (as an example) can even pick P2P when the connection is using TLS or SSL. Call me a skeptic but I am not sure how they can do this.

A lot of DPI engines include behavioral analysis of traffic now since most protocols follow a predictable behavior it allows them to identify what flows are with reasonable certainty without actually looking in the packets.

But not beyond reasonable doubt, which is why this crappy law need to be tested in court. Brian

On 2/09/2011, at 8:36 AM, Glen Eustace wrote:

...

I would be interested in knowing how the various firewall products that claim to provide L7 filtering of P2P manage this. Apparently Fortinet (as an example) can even pick P2P when the connection is using TLS or SSL. Call me a skeptic but I am not sure how they can do this.

A lot of DPI engines include behavioral analysis of traffic now since most

The behavioral analysis is unfortunately still marketing talk with most DPI technologies. What most firewall vendors do is detect the headers they know are from P2P applications and identify the traffic based on this. Detection of P2P over SSL or TLS is actually detection of https encapsulated P2P traffic. I don't think no one has got to detect the file names within P2P traffic yet. But I'd really like to know if it's the case yet as I'm sure it will happen some day. Florent On 2 Sep 2011 08:44, "Patrick Jordan-Smith" wrote: protocols follow a predictable behavior it allows them to identify what flows are with reasonable certainty without actually looking in the packets.

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

That's really key to all this. If the ISP can't identify what the customer was downloading, how can the rights holders claim it was their material? The law sidesteps this by saying unless the customer can prove they are innocent (that is, "m'lord I downloaded legal content at that time, here are my logs, etc") then they're assumed to be guilty. sub optimal. Sent from my iPad On 2/09/2011, at 8:52 AM, "Dave Mill" wrote:

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Hamish MacEwan wrote:

...

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 20:08, Bruce Kingsbury wrote:

...

if they can't demonstrate that to the ISP (which will then check its records to determine if that file was downloaded and if so at what time and by whom) then the ISP rejects the claim."

...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10748747

AFAIK, the IPAP will only check its records at that time for that IP address to identify the account holder.

This is correct, but there is another phase later on where the ISP could be involved.

Once things have hit the copyright tribunal, it is possible that the ISP involved could be asked to supply further information during the actual hearing. This could be to further prove that Customer A was on IP address B during the time on the infringement notice. Or it could be to supply further information, to EITHER the rights holder or defendant/customer, that the ISP may hold.

Which I find it scary. Looking back at a particular day, say 3 months ago, we could take a pretty good stab at whether a customer's IP flows were mainly HTTP, mainly torrent, or mainly something else. But just because the customer was torrenting that day does not mean they were actually breaking the law. We cannot identify what the customer was torrenting, even if we looked at traffic flows in real time.

Dave _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

I don't know if the tribunal would be able to understand the argument from a technical point of view but yes, you'll need to prove what you were doing at that specific time was legit. Sent from my iPhone On 2/09/2011, at 9:07 AM, "Al Twohill" wrote:

On 2/09/2011, at 8:56 AM, Paul Brislen wrote:

...

The law sidesteps this by saying unless the customer can prove they are innocent (that is, "m'lord I downloaded legal content at that time, here are my logs, etc") then they're assumed to be guilty.

So, the defendant supplies the logs, from their computer?

"Sure m'lord, here are the logs. I promise I didn't make any of them up. I am actually a seeder for *nix ISOs"

No. The default is that you're guilty. Sent from my iPhone On 2/09/2011, at 9:20 AM, "Sam Sargeant" wrote:

On 2/09/2011, at 9:07 AM, Paul Brislen wrote:

...

I don't know if the tribunal would be able to understand the argument from a technical point of view but yes, you'll need to prove what you were doing at that specific time was legit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

I don't believe anyone is going to be able to prove that. It will reduce down to "my word against yours"; in which case would the tribunal side with the account holder?

Sam.

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Paul Brislen wrote:

No. The default is that you're guilty.

Not quite. <quote source=legislation> 22N Infringement notice as evidence of copyright infringement (1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, in relation to an infringement notice, it is presumed— o (a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constituted an infringement of the rights owner's copyright in the work identified; and o (b) that the information recorded in the infringement notice is correct; and o (c) that the infringement notice was issued in accordance with this Act. (2) An account holder may submit evidence that, or give reasons why, any 1 or more of the presumptions in subsection (1) do not apply with respect to any particular infringement identified in an infringement notice. (3) If an account holder submits evidence or gives reasons as referred to in subsection (2), **the rights owner must satisfy the Tribunal** that, in relation to the relevant infringement or notice, the particular presumption or presumptions are correct. </quote> 122N(3) is the key point. If the AH asserts that there's a flaw in the notice, the RH must counter to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. So there's a presumption of correctness on the RH's part, but as soon as the account holder presents countering facts the onus is right back on the RH. Which, coming back to my earlier post, would suggest that submission of a ruling from an NZ court that the process followed by the RH is invalid would be an irrecoverable death blow to the RH's case. -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

Jeremy Brooking wrote:

What stops someone who holds a grudge against you, from lying? (yes i know theyd need to know a little more than 'I dont like this Paul fulla')

But based on what I am hearing, the right people in the right place with the right knowledge... youre 15k out of pocket.

Yeah, but nah. $15k is the **maximum** penalty, and you'd have to be facing some hefty evidence of repeated, extensive infringement before they nailed you with that. Yes, in theory you could be stitched up in the process. But it would require conspiracy on the side of the ISP (to get valid log details or inject fake ones) and the rights holder (to submit the three infringement notices necessary to get you before the Tribunal, with correct log details via your ISP). So, no, I don't consider it to be terribly likely. If you've annoyed someone **that much** that they'll go to so much trouble to get at you, you'd be better off worrying about the kind of person you are who attracts such virulent dislike. -- Matthew Poole "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

Yeah, but nah. $15k is the **maximum** penalty, and you'd have to be facing some hefty evidence of repeated, extensive infringement before they nailed you with that.

Evidence? So if evidence is required, before a user can be fined or loose their internet... What exactly is the problem?

Yes, in theory you could be stitched up in the process. But it would require conspiracy on the side of the ISP (to get valid log details or inject fake ones) and the rights holder (to submit the three infringement notices necessary to get you before the Tribunal, with correct log details via your ISP).

Say I am the ISP, and I hold the copyright, and I dislike you. I do realise what I am saying isnt completely realistic, but all the ISP's ive worked at, that average helpdesk worker has access to the information required. I was merely posing a hypothetical situation.

So, no, I don't consider it to be terribly likely. If you've annoyed someone **that much** that they'll go to so much trouble to get at

Not sure what world you live in, but the one I do has nutjobs and wackos who beat babies to death without solid reasoning. Crazy people do crazy things.

you, you'd be better off worrying about the kind of person you are who attracts such virulent dislike.

Yes, because nutjobs often have valid reasoning behind forming a dislike for someone, right?

On 2 September 2011 10:13, Bruce Kingsbury wrote:

Refute this;

IP address 130.216.178.37 at 2 Sep 2011 09:57:15 +1200 (NZST) was seen downloading Hurt Locker.axxo.avi via bittorrent

Subsequent Information from University of Auckland identifies Matthew Poole as the holder of the IP address at that time.

Mail headers. Gotta love 'em.

In this case, it's easy... There's no way you satisfied all the criteria for lodging the notice with the relevant IPAP. You at the very least aren't the rights holder or an authorised agent of the rights holder. I think the law sucks, but I also think 99% of people complaining about it are doing so because of a massive sense of entitlement and because they disagree with the distribution and licensing models chosen by the private organisations that own the material. Regards N

On 2/09/2011, at 10:23 AM, Jay Daley wrote:

On 2/09/2011, at 10:18 AM, Neil Gardner wrote:

...

I think the law sucks, but I also think 99% of people complaining about it are doing so because of a massive sense of entitlement and because they disagree with the distribution and licensing models chosen by the private organisations that own the material.

I think that is entirely unfair. The objections that bring the strongest complaints are:

- this is disproportionate - in the punishments available, the cost of the process, and the priority given to the list

"given to this law" Jay -- Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840

----- Original Message -----

What is to stop the ISPs just shredding the notices? I have not seen anything in the Act about punishments for the ISP if they just put all the notices in the shredder? There is plenty in the Act about the accused but nothing about punishments for the ISPs if they don't comply.

Are the notices posted or emailed? If they're emailed, does the law require our mailservers must accept mail from all RH?

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Jeremy Brooking wrote:

Are the notices posted or emailed?

If they're emailed, does the law require our mailservers must accept mail from all RH?

That is up to the IPAP. Section 4 (5) “If an IPAP specifies a process by which rights owners can provide rights owner notices to the IPAP, then as long as that process is consistent with the Act and these regulations, right owners must comply with the process specified by the IPAP, unless otherwise agreed by the IPAP.” We're choosing to make Rights Holders login to a web system. Dave

On 2/09/2011 10:40 a.m., Hamish MacEwan wrote:

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:30, David Robinson wrote:

...

What is to stop the ISPs just shredding the notices? Bye bye safe harbour, hello copyright infringement liability.

The less than novel twist is that first what should be common carriers are made liable for their clients actions, then given immunity if they give their clients up.

Or worse (for the general public) the ISP might be forced to hand over contact details for their client to the RH, as opposed to passing on the notice. I would hate to think of the spam generation that would ensue if for the mere sum of $25 a RH agent could get a legitimate known email address. Rights notices we've received and passed on in the past have resulted in 'no, no, not here' statements followed by significant drops in bandwidth usage, or the customer initiated closure of the account. Fear, it's a powerful thing. Gerard

On 9/1/2011 4:32 PM, Mark Foster wrote:

- In general folks who have a legal option that is reasonable to pursue, will use it. Piracy is a byproduct of this not really being feasible. iTunes is the most obvious example of this, isn't it? Onceuponatime it was MP3's that people were exchanging. I never really hear of this anymore. - The Rights Holders and the NZ Media Industry could stomp out a significant amount of illegal downloads by providing legal means that are reasonably priced. Netflix anyone?

[..snip..]

2) Content needs to be made more available to consumers. Doing this will actually remove the demand for much of the illegaly copied material.

Yes. I live in a location where I can watch all of the content I want to watch via Hulu/NetFlix/Apple TV, using a medium that's both convenient and priced appropriately for me. I can't emphasize enough how much a difference having content available in this manner changes the consumer behavior. My spend on content (and the amount of content I watch, including advertisements...) has probably increased 1000%. Amazing how the simple solution is never pursued first...

On 9/2/2011 1:24 AM, Barry Murphy (iPhone) wrote:

How illegal is service provider Nat to the USA via a tunnel to hulu/Netflix via a USA tunnel to their AS numbers? Is it legal I pay for content and this is done??

I Am Not A Lawyer, but I assume it isn't "illegal", but will be against the terms of service for Hulu or Netflix since they're only licensed to deliver content to people who actually reside in certain geographies. Certainly the Apple TV/iTunes Store makes this clear in their ToS.

On 09/02/12 00:52, Liam Farr wrote:

Hi,

Hi,

Just been allocated 103.247.152.0/22 by APNIC, it would be appreciated if I could get a few of you to _traceroute 103.247.152.1_ and reply back off list, this is my first IP Allocation and I want to ensure there is no retarded routing happening because ISP's haven't updated their route filters. (i.e. national going via San Jose instead of a local IX).

Also if you have the ability to run a _show route 103.247.152.1_, that would be interesting.

As general information, you may want to try this tool http://www.ris.ripe.net/cgi-bin/debogon.cgi What you are asking has been called "Debogon", or test the ability to reach prefixes that were bogon not long ago. Cheers,

Cheers

-- Liam Farr Sent with Sparrow http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- Sebastian Castro DNS Specialist .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 495 2337 mobile: +64 21 400535

I think the law sucks, but I also think 99% of people complaining about it are doing so because of a massive sense of entitlement and because they disagree with the distribution and licensing models chosen by the private organisations that own the material.

Youre completely right, and thats why the UN agrees its wrong. They also feel everyone should be entitled to download stuff for free as human right!

On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Neil Gardner wrote:

I think the law sucks, but I also think 99% of people complaining about it are doing so because of a massive sense of entitlement and because they disagree with the distribution and licensing models chosen by the private organisations that own the material.

Not quite. Some are doing it because they dispute the morality of the very notion of "ownership" in the sense you've just quoted. People keep forgetting, these are "rights holders", NOT "possessors", and therefore not "owners" in the traditional sense. Any notion of "ownership" that isn't directly tied to "physical possession" is just a social contract, codified in law. Some people think that entire social contract has become corrupt to is core, and thus the "ownership" being asserted by the rights holders has no moral weight, and so such people feel liberated to ignore it, regardless of what the law of the land might say. If we want English-style riots, let's just carry on ignoring ordinary people's notions of equity and morality, and punish them for flouting laws that have dubious moral backing. -Martin

The TCF has been drawing up a process for its members/IPAP's to deal with this Law, and have been actively involved with the MED & rights holders to make best of this situation. From the outset, the TCF did not want ISP's to be judge or jury pertaining to anything with the allegations, nor did they want any additional costs for ISP's based on dealing with allegations. ISP's are just the highways/roads, they do not want to turn into the police. For some more technical information about detections, just to clarify, as I've read things about honeypots etc Initially, most of the notices coming into IPAP's will be from DTECTNET (http://dtecnet.com/), which represents rightholders. Rights holders representatives in NZ, have to agree with each NZ IPAP separately the format of each notice, however they are pushing the ACNS format (http://mpto.unistudios.com/xml/) My understanding of how it finds infringements, is that it works for torrents only (at present), and will look to see if someone is serving content, rather than having honeypots for people to download. In terms of a court challenge, there are so many variables that could be tested - how do we know the time of the Dtectnet system is correct at time of allegation? Additionally how do we know the ISP's times were correct at time of allegation, and have matched the IP address correctly? These types of things are almost impossible to prove, which is why the judiciary may have some interesting initial cases. Cheers -----Original Message----- From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Bruce Kingsbury Sent: Friday, 2 September 2011 10:14 a.m. To: Matthew Poole Cc: nznog Subject: Re: [nznog] Don't quite get this?

Yes, in theory you could be stitched up in the process. But it would require conspiracy on the side of the ISP (to get valid log details or inject fake ones) and the rights holder (to submit the three infringement notices necessary to get you before the Tribunal, with correct log details via your ISP).

Refute this; IP address 130.216.178.37 at 2 Sep 2011 09:57:15 +1200 (NZST) was seen downloading Hurt Locker.axxo.avi via bittorrent Subsequent Information from University of Auckland identifies Matthew Poole as the holder of the IP address at that time. Mail headers. Gotta love 'em. _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

On 2/09/2011, at 9:28 AM, Glen Eustace wrote:

It is my understanding that RHs will be using techniques such as honey-pots, i.e. torrent storage claiming to have all or parts of files that the RH has an interest in and then jumping on anyone that attempts to request a byte-range from their server.

Hmmm. If it doesn't have the file then no infringement has taken place. If it does have the file then either - the site supplying it does not have the rights to it, in which case they are illegally supplying it and that undermines their case; - or the site supplying it does have the rights to is, in which case the downloader is not infringing because the RH has supplied it to them. ?? Jay

So, if a client does try to pull from a trojan source, the RH will have evidence of the connection. The only defence being 'I was not using that IP address', which is where the ISP comes in. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Glen Eustace GodZone Internet Services, a division of AGRE Enterprises Ltd. P.O. Box 8020, Palmerston North, New Zealand 4446. Ph: +64 6 357 8168, Fax +64 6 357 8165, Mob: +64 27 542 4015 http://www.godzone.net.nz

"A Ministry specialising in providing low-cost Internet Services to NZ Christian Churches, Ministries and Organisations." _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840

On 2011-09-02 09:20, Sam Sargeant wrote:

On 2/09/2011, at 9:07 AM, Paul Brislen wrote:

...

I don't know if the tribunal would be able to understand the argument from a technical point of view but yes, you'll need to prove what you were doing at that specific time was legit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

I don't believe anyone is going to be able to prove that. It will reduce down to "my word against yours"; in which case would the tribunal side with the account holder?

That's why it's a Bill of Rights issue that needs to be escalated to the Supreme Court. As Juha said, it will take someone with deep pockets, even if the alleged infringer is a pauper. I'm afraid this is out of scope for an operational list, so I will shut up now. Brian

Issue of pre-pay mobiles, from memory? (can't track the account holder) Jordan On 2 September 2011 11:40, Jeremy Brooking wrote:

...

I'm afraid this is out of scope for an operational list, so I will shut up now.

To bring it back on track, Beer :)

And a potentially operational related question, I am curious as to why this law wont apply to cellular mobile networks until 2013? _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- Jordan Carter Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 442 649 jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter To protect and promote the Internet for New Zealand.

Because with the current data plans and pricing nobody in their right mind is silly enough to torrent to their phone? -----Original Message----- From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Jeremy Brooking Sent: Friday, 2 September 2011 11:40 a.m. To: nznog List Subject: Re: [nznog] Don't quite get this?

I'm afraid this is out of scope for an operational list, so I will shut up now.

To bring it back on track, Beer :) And a potentially operational related question, I am curious as to why this law wont apply to cellular mobile networks until 2013? _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

On 2/09/2011, at 9:07 AM, Paul Brislen wrote:

I don't know if the tribunal would be able to understand the argument from a technical point of view but yes, you'll need to prove what you were doing at that specific time was legit.

In my previous job I received many complaints from specialist contractors working on behalf of rights holders (relating to domain names not downloading) and they always demonstrated poor technical competency by those contractors. I doubt this has improved and so it is likely that a thorough examination of the technical details of the complaint will turn up significant flaws in the way they complaint has been generated. It would be useful if there were a volunteer team ready to conduct this examination that the first set of accused could call on. That way we might be able to discredit the methodology at an early stage. Jay -- Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840

I would very much like to see this level of independent input from a volunteer team. Otherwise it really will bowl down to one person's word against the other. Sent from my iPhone On 2/09/2011, at 9:27 AM, "Jay Daley" wrote:

On 2/09/2011, at 9:07 AM, Paul Brislen wrote:

...

I don't know if the tribunal would be able to understand the argument from a technical point of view but yes, you'll need to prove what you were doing at that specific time was legit.

In my previous job I received many complaints from specialist contractors working on behalf of rights holders (relating to domain names not downloading) and they always demonstrated poor technical competency by those contractors.

I doubt this has improved and so it is likely that a thorough examination of the technical details of the complaint will turn up significant flaws in the way they complaint has been generated.

It would be useful if there were a volunteer team ready to conduct this examination that the first set of accused could call on. That way we might be able to discredit the methodology at an early stage.

Jay

-- Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840

On 2 September 2011 09:44, David Robinson wrote:

What could be an interesting experiment to do would be to have two connections. Connection 1 has just the router, no computer etc. Connection 2 injects connection 1's IP address into a bunch of Trackers. Wait for connection 1 to get notices even though it did no sharing.

What if someone did this experiment, but with only one connection. The experimenter's connection would take the role of connection 2 in your scenario. MPs who supported this legislation would be in the role of connection 1. Other set-ups include: Connection 1 = critic of big corporation Connection 2 = big corporation or Connection 1 = political party A Connection 2 = political party B (rival of A) The potential for abuse is incredible. Yuri de Groot

Having been on the receiving end of "Cyber laws" in this country I can attest for the lack of technical competency amongst the judiciary and worse still the "Cyber crime center". If the way those guys operate is anything to go by then : 1.) They don't need evidence 2.) With anything that relates to tech in the courts you are presumed to be guilty. 3.) You cannot prove yourself innocent because no body you talk to will understand you, and because they don't understand you they don't believe you. These new laws are the typical reaction taken by people who don't understand something - outlaw it! On 2/09/11 9:27 AM, "Jay Daley" wrote:

On 2/09/2011, at 9:07 AM, Paul Brislen wrote:

...

I don't know if the tribunal would be able to understand the argument from a technical point of view but yes, you'll need to prove what you were doing at that specific time was legit.

In my previous job I received many complaints from specialist contractors working on behalf of rights holders (relating to domain names not downloading) and they always demonstrated poor technical competency by those contractors.

I doubt this has improved and so it is likely that a thorough examination of the technical details of the complaint will turn up significant flaws in the way they complaint has been generated.

It would be useful if there were a volunteer team ready to conduct this examination that the first set of accused could call on. That way we might be able to discredit the methodology at an early stage.

Jay

-- Jay Daley Chief Executive .nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited) desk: +64 4 931 6977 mobile: +64 21 678840

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

Hi List, On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 12:16:05 +1200 (NZST), Martin D Kealey wrote:

On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Paul Brislen wrote:

...

That's really key to all this. If the ISP can't identify what the customer was downloading, how can the rights holders claim it was their material?

Because they (have already) set up honey-traps that participate in the torrent swarms.

That will only get the the uploaders, but they only _need_ to get the uploaders to impair the efficacy of the swarm.

Does anyone have any good data on how Rights Holders are / will be gathering this information? You mention setting up a honeypot and participating in the swarm to gather seeder IPs, however based on my investigations of the torrent protocol you can simply request a list of peer IPs from the tracker without even participating in the swarm... or do the rights holders deem this insufficient proof? Just out of curiosity, really, if anyone has some solid info. -- -Michael Fincham System Administrator, Unleash www.unleash.co.nz Phone: 0800 750 250