If you're not already using a VPN you might want to start
- Thread starter Unarmed Gunman
- Start date
I agree with your initial assesments but you seem to have the bad habit of thinking that the free market is alive and kicking here in the USA.
It is not.
"Free to move to another" ISP means "Settle for a NON-broadband connection" (!) in most of the country. There are very few places where multiple companies have taken the trouble to lay competing high-bandwidth lines over the same area. It's a big investment and apparently the government is only willing to subsidize one company at a time. :disgust:
Not to mention, if you're using a VPN, your pipe is automatically too small already so broadband is 100% necessary.
SO, the way it is going to play out, regardless of using a VPN or not, is thus:
- Joe Innocent gets a warning that he dowloaded some shit the MPAA isn't thrilled about. He's told to stop or switch.
- Joe doesn't like his choices, and shops around. He finds out that he'd have to give up a lot of bandwidth to settle elsewhere and could no longer watch netflix or hulu because it would be SRSLY glitchy.
- Joe is trapped, being a slave to whatever existing appeal process is offered by his ISP until a day comes that he has a choice.
- MPAA & RIAA realize that they don't want all the Joes out there to have a choice, and LOBBY CONGRESS AS MANY TIMES AS IT TAKES to ensure each geographical region stays completely monopolized forever.
- Joe becomes a couch potato that watches waaaaaaaaaaay too much american idol because he knows at least that won't get his precious internet connection taken away.
Which reminds me: Anonymous's list of approved VPNs.
You SHOULD be scared. Don't underestimate the opponent here... Need I remind anyone of how much they control the white house?
Edit: LMFAO at the Tag. Good one, Barman!
....or instead of shelling out money for a vpn which will likely have shitty speed, you can sub to a decent newsgroup provider with 900+ days binary retention and SSL encryption and get the fuck off torrents all together.
If you can't find your shit on the newsgroups, then most likely no one gives a fuck about what your downloading through a torrent anyways.
If you can't find your shit on the newsgroups, then most likely no one gives a fuck about what your downloading through a torrent anyways.
^ luke - I completely agree with everything you said (except the part about me believing the free market is alive and well)
The part you highlighted was phrased poorly. My primary point throughout the whole thing was that if you use a VPN you aren't going to have to worry about any of this shit.
In order for your ISP to know what you're doing while the VPN is enabled, they would have to get the records from the VPN and then sort through and decrypt the packets. If you're using any service that will willingly hands off your private browsing, sharing or search patterns with an identifier you shouldn't be using them in the first place. But I haven't heard of too many ISPs, let alone VPNs, that will willingly do that unless faced with legal pressure anyway. Furthermore, should your ISP request this information and your VPN complies without your consent or a subpena they're putting themselves in the crosshairs for a lawsuit, specifically if users are using the VPN for business reasons where IP and proprietary business wares are potentially present.
My point wasn't that I'm okay with this, because I'm not. My point was in response to a comment that insinuated this would give the ISPs some kind of legal authority enabling them to get a subpena for the encrypted data transferred while you were using a VPN without anything more than high bandwidth usage or the websites you visit as probable cause. That simply isn't the case, not too many courts are going to even come close to touching the 4th and 14th amendment protections because of high bandwidth use, and if they did, another court would likely overturn the original subpena order and then any evidence obtained from the VPN would be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" and not allowed to be used against you anyway. And for the reasons I pointed out in my previous post, all of this is unlikely to happen anyway.
Like I said, they'll attempt to make an example out of a few people like they did during the early days of assault on Napster. Then everyone will move on, except this time the public will be in an uproar over the charges existing and how they came about the information used to bring those charges/civil suits in the first place. The web is a vastly different place than it was 10-12 years ago. It is more regulated and a lot of that is probably a good thing. But the public perception about an over intrusive government and an even more intrusive private sector has also changed.
In the end, ISPs will find that complying with this will ultimately be bad for business. People will get fed up and start tethering their phones to the pc and skip going through traditional net providers altogether. Wireless carriers aren't going to cut people off no matter what they're doing because the service plans are the only reason people stay with them and not a less expensive pre-paid or pay as you go option. If their internet gets cut off from the phone, more people will start using pre-paids that include texting, because that's a viable and less expensive alternative because if their internet gets cut off from their mobiles, having a smart phone is pointless.
As soon as enough people, and it wouldn't take all that many in the grand scheme of things, left traditional ISPs and their subscriptions started moving on a downward trend, they'd quit playing ball with Hollywood and start trying to regain their customers. It's not a free market, it's a manipulated one and as soon as the customer base starts manipulating it in the same way the service providers do it will be a balanced market. I think a balanced market is about all we can hope for in the foreseeable future.
Besides, the only people that are going to be caught up in this stuff are going to be "middle class" parents and their kids and old people. They'll get sued, the media and internet will cover it. The public will go apeshit. The ISPs will get all kinds of bad press. And then they'll quietly stop sending red flags to the MPAA and RIAA and no one will even remember this conversation happened in 5 years.
The part you highlighted was phrased poorly. My primary point throughout the whole thing was that if you use a VPN you aren't going to have to worry about any of this shit.
In order for your ISP to know what you're doing while the VPN is enabled, they would have to get the records from the VPN and then sort through and decrypt the packets. If you're using any service that will willingly hands off your private browsing, sharing or search patterns with an identifier you shouldn't be using them in the first place. But I haven't heard of too many ISPs, let alone VPNs, that will willingly do that unless faced with legal pressure anyway. Furthermore, should your ISP request this information and your VPN complies without your consent or a subpena they're putting themselves in the crosshairs for a lawsuit, specifically if users are using the VPN for business reasons where IP and proprietary business wares are potentially present.
My point wasn't that I'm okay with this, because I'm not. My point was in response to a comment that insinuated this would give the ISPs some kind of legal authority enabling them to get a subpena for the encrypted data transferred while you were using a VPN without anything more than high bandwidth usage or the websites you visit as probable cause. That simply isn't the case, not too many courts are going to even come close to touching the 4th and 14th amendment protections because of high bandwidth use, and if they did, another court would likely overturn the original subpena order and then any evidence obtained from the VPN would be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" and not allowed to be used against you anyway. And for the reasons I pointed out in my previous post, all of this is unlikely to happen anyway.
Like I said, they'll attempt to make an example out of a few people like they did during the early days of assault on Napster. Then everyone will move on, except this time the public will be in an uproar over the charges existing and how they came about the information used to bring those charges/civil suits in the first place. The web is a vastly different place than it was 10-12 years ago. It is more regulated and a lot of that is probably a good thing. But the public perception about an over intrusive government and an even more intrusive private sector has also changed.
In the end, ISPs will find that complying with this will ultimately be bad for business. People will get fed up and start tethering their phones to the pc and skip going through traditional net providers altogether. Wireless carriers aren't going to cut people off no matter what they're doing because the service plans are the only reason people stay with them and not a less expensive pre-paid or pay as you go option. If their internet gets cut off from the phone, more people will start using pre-paids that include texting, because that's a viable and less expensive alternative because if their internet gets cut off from their mobiles, having a smart phone is pointless.
As soon as enough people, and it wouldn't take all that many in the grand scheme of things, left traditional ISPs and their subscriptions started moving on a downward trend, they'd quit playing ball with Hollywood and start trying to regain their customers. It's not a free market, it's a manipulated one and as soon as the customer base starts manipulating it in the same way the service providers do it will be a balanced market. I think a balanced market is about all we can hope for in the foreseeable future.
Besides, the only people that are going to be caught up in this stuff are going to be "middle class" parents and their kids and old people. They'll get sued, the media and internet will cover it. The public will go apeshit. The ISPs will get all kinds of bad press. And then they'll quietly stop sending red flags to the MPAA and RIAA and no one will even remember this conversation happened in 5 years.
Dont, they are in germany.
Get a VPN where you can pay anonymous and dont log or get a server in Russia where you can pay anon and setup a VPN Server yourself.
I hide behind multiple VPNs so when they Subpoena my VPN provider, they get the Address only of my second VPN who only has the address of the third VPN who has the address of the first VPN.
Also It is not Hollywood and the record companies..
It is clickbank..
Why u all been torrenting ebooks..
Also It is not Hollywood and the record companies..
It is clickbank..
Why u all been torrenting ebooks..
Nice to see somebody's concerned - when you're stealing movies the best seeders are always in the US, eh?
Didn't Tower Records go out of business 7 years ago? The shut down in my city at least.
Also, who has a recommendation for a good off shore VPN company. Maybe something in Russia or China perhaps??? I'm sure there's bullet proof VPN somewhere already.
Perfect Privacy — Encrypts your Internet at Home and While Away on Business, SSH Tunnels, VPN, Anonymous High Security and Elite Squid, SOCKS 5 and CGI Proxies, Safe Offshore Servers on Different Continents
No logs, no personal details on signup, anon payment with ukash,PSC or pre paid CC. If you are concerned with privacy and anonymity, they are top notch.
If all you want/need is a secure way to torrent,it may be too slow; probly all VPNs are if you dont setup your own vpn server.
If this isn't a law, it seems like this would be a great opportunity for a competing ISP to seize a huge amount of market share by advertising that Verizon/Comcast/etc are spying you and they aren't.
Problem is, they would probably be overrun with people switching to them and they wouldn't be able to support the traffic.
Problem is, they would probably be overrun with people switching to them and they wouldn't be able to support the traffic.
guess its time to stop watching streamed movies, but that doesn't seem to be the problem. Never know though with this government.
