ISP in file-sharing wi-fi theft

[DaBees-Knees]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8305379.stm

UK ISP TalkTalk has staged a wireless stunt, aimed at illustrating why it thinks Lord Mandelson's plans to disconnect filesharers is "naive".

TalkTalk has long been an outspoken critic of government plans to cut off persistent file-sharers.

The stunt demonstrates how innocent people could be disconnected from the network if the plans become law.

Presumed guilt
File-sharing is not illegal. It only becomes illegal when users are sharing content, such as music, that is protected by copyrights

There are plenty of legitimate services which use file-sharing technology such as some on-demand TV services

Q&A: Disconnecting file-sharers
But ISPs have argued that it is not their job to police the network. In previous court cases it has been ruled that ISPs are "mere conduits" of content.

Furthermore, they argue that under current plans anyone with unsecured home wi-fi could potentially be stolen by those intent to download music illegally. They would face the penalties even though they might be unaware their network had been used for nefarious purposes. The fact that the music industry would presume guilt rather than innocence is a step away from the due process of law in the UK, they say.

"The Mandelson scheme is every bit as wrong-headed as it is naive," said Andrew Heaney, director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk. "The lack of presumption of innocence and the absence of judicial process combined with the prevalence of wi-fi hacking will result in innocent people being disconnected," he said.

Which? Computing magazine has highlighted several cases where net users were wrongly accused of illegally sharing video games.
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) remains confident that its "robust" evidence-gathering system will not allow innocent people to be caught in the net in the same way as has happened in the video game industry.

For those who have had their wi-fi connection hacked into, there would be no immediate threat of disconnection, said BPI spokesman Adam Liversage. "The account holder would receive a notification in the first instance, which would represent an opportunity to discuss filesharing with others in the household and which would provide the account holder with the information and tools to help ensure that the account is not used illegally again," he said. "This information would extend to explaining to the account holder how they can secure their wireless router to ensure that it isn't accessed by unknown third parties," he added.
'
But ultimately, householders will be held to account for what happens on their own networks, he added. "The responsibility for ensuring that an internet account shared throughout a household is not being used for illegal filesharing clearly lies with the account holder," he said.

A statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: "We realise it's possible for mistakes to occur or for people to have their wi-fi connection hi-jacked. So it's important we have an independent and easy route of appeal at all stages in the process. At the moment we envisage a tribunal system to which people would have recourse before any action was taken against them."

"But ultimately, householders will be held to account for what happens on their own networks, he added."  It would appear that you now need to have a crystal ball to tell you what hackers are doing with your connection !!!!!! Stupid is a word that comes to mind regarding the BPI's comment.  Either they have no technical understanding of the position that an innocent user can find themselves in, or what's more likely they just don't care.

[Bluey_412]

interesting that in all this nonsense going on, its BPI, RIAA et al, that are doing all the pushing and shoving

'R-e-c-o-r-d-i-n-g I-n-d-u-s-t-r-y'

The greediest pigs of all, and no mention of 'Artists' or 'Performers' of 'Writers' allegedly losing out...