In reference to BERR response “p2p – 01 – FOI.PDF”
This response is typical of a medium to heavy user, and would appear to be teens or early twenties. The respondent is clear that a contract should fulfil it's advertised role, and that the ISPs shouldn't be selling and promising what it can't, or doesn't want to, deliver. The user is also quite forthright in pointing out that there are options and legislations already in place to deal with the problem – a civil suit through the courts. That it is either costly, or slow does not mean that it is ineffective (it's the norm in civil suits, party to prevent frivolous suits). It is quite rightly pointed out that removal of the courts means that the basics of law and order are circumvented, and that the paper is asking for comments on vigilantism.
There are no major factual inaccuracies, although no deep understanding of the law is evident, the legal understanding is consistent with a layman's perspective.
Consultation analysis overview
Spreading the underlying truth about P2P on both sides of the argument, from Neuron to Neuron
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
BERR Consultation Responses – An Analysis
I must admit, with my current role at TorrentFreak, I've let N2N get quiet. I now plan on partially reviving it, but more as a sort of repository of analysis I've conducted. Firstly, I'll be starting with the recent BERR consultation responses. This is stuff that just won't fit in with TorrentFreak but which I feel is important to get published in some form, so that it's out there, for people to read.
I'm going to start in filename order on the responses, so it will be the numbered responses from individuals. I'll add each one as and when I have time to, so there won't be a regular update. If you wish to reference or quote these results, by all means, this site is under a Creative commons BY-NC-SA license.
I'm going to start in filename order on the responses, so it will be the numbered responses from individuals. I'll add each one as and when I have time to, so there won't be a regular update. If you wish to reference or quote these results, by all means, this site is under a Creative commons BY-NC-SA license.
Analysis
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
A Lack of reality...
The P2P news/filesharing community is a small one, and there's not that many of us. However, the first thing you need when reporting ANY news, is a firm grasp on reality. This is what makes this blog post by Zeropaid writer Drew Wilson so unfortunate.
If you check the google trends for the 4 main p2p news websites (torrentfreak, zeropaid, slyck and p2pnet) you'll see that his success hasn't been as great as he makes out. However, if you have low expectations you'll be pleased at the little things. Personally I'm delighted that last week, TorrentFreak broke the half million subscriber barrier in our RSS feeds, just as last week Drew was pleased an Italian site picked up on a comment in his oink story. Then again, we can't all have major British newspapers favourably commenting on the calibre of the reporting on the topic, versus the BBC.
This past year has been a blast though. I can't wait to see what 2009 brings, but I can only hope it'll be interesting.
If you check the google trends for the 4 main p2p news websites (torrentfreak, zeropaid, slyck and p2pnet) you'll see that his success hasn't been as great as he makes out. However, if you have low expectations you'll be pleased at the little things. Personally I'm delighted that last week, TorrentFreak broke the half million subscriber barrier in our RSS feeds, just as last week Drew was pleased an Italian site picked up on a comment in his oink story. Then again, we can't all have major British newspapers favourably commenting on the calibre of the reporting on the topic, versus the BBC.
This past year has been a blast though. I can't wait to see what 2009 brings, but I can only hope it'll be interesting.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Another example of the problems with Blocklists
By now, most of you will know I'm no fan of blocklists. The simple fact is that even with the best will in the world, they're still often wildly inaccurate. Generally, the people you target with blocklists don't tend to be very cooperative with those that want to block them.
I've mentioned before how ineffective P2P blocklists have been, and even the website ones don't work. The Italian block of the Pirate bay has been overturned, and if anything drew more traffic to the site, as did the Danish block. The Fin's have decided to go one better though, and block a site in the name of protection; protection from the scourge of the internet – Child Pornography.
It's such a shame then, that the site blocked by Finnish ISP DNA is that of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The W3C is a standards body, that amongst other things sets the standards for the HTML that created this page. To presume that such a site would distributing child porn is ludicrous in the extreme, however customers of DNA that attempt to visit the site of the standards body get redirected to this site.
The Finnish Pirate Party (or Piraattipuolue) also objects to this, with party spokesman Kaj Sotala saying “If the website of a large, well-known and significant organization can end up blocked, is there any reason to believe that some smaller and less known sites doesn’t share its fate? Based on experience so far, none whatsoever”. They also call on the government to stop wasting resources on these lists, which just try and cover up the problem, rather than trying to address it.
I heartily agree. I've seen countless times that people rely on blocklists to try and defer judgement. “The list said it's bad, so it must be”.There are doubtless going to be people who will think their computers have been compromised as accesses to a highly regarded site bring child porn warnings. In the same way, people who use programs like PeerGuardian think that they are being bombarded with connections from antip2p companies. “It said that MediaDefender was hitting me with 20 requests a minute” is the typical response when asked to elaborate, “so that's how I know they've been doing it.”
The response is the same in both cases – how accurate is the list? If the list is not accurate, not reliable, no matter what it says you can't believe it. If you replace every MediaDefender label on a PeerGuardian blocklist with “God”, when you torrent, are you not only proving the existence of God, but that he likes to download Heroes as well? Both blocklists are just labels on IP addresses that someone has created. The Finnish list is on a definitive subject, by a government agency, with accountability, and it still gets it wrong. Are a couple of paranoid kids, having to guess at IPs and refusing, ever to be accountable going to be more accurate?
I've mentioned before how ineffective P2P blocklists have been, and even the website ones don't work. The Italian block of the Pirate bay has been overturned, and if anything drew more traffic to the site, as did the Danish block. The Fin's have decided to go one better though, and block a site in the name of protection; protection from the scourge of the internet – Child Pornography.
It's such a shame then, that the site blocked by Finnish ISP DNA is that of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The W3C is a standards body, that amongst other things sets the standards for the HTML that created this page. To presume that such a site would distributing child porn is ludicrous in the extreme, however customers of DNA that attempt to visit the site of the standards body get redirected to this site.
The Finnish Pirate Party (or Piraattipuolue) also objects to this, with party spokesman Kaj Sotala saying “If the website of a large, well-known and significant organization can end up blocked, is there any reason to believe that some smaller and less known sites doesn’t share its fate? Based on experience so far, none whatsoever”. They also call on the government to stop wasting resources on these lists, which just try and cover up the problem, rather than trying to address it.
I heartily agree. I've seen countless times that people rely on blocklists to try and defer judgement. “The list said it's bad, so it must be”.There are doubtless going to be people who will think their computers have been compromised as accesses to a highly regarded site bring child porn warnings. In the same way, people who use programs like PeerGuardian think that they are being bombarded with connections from antip2p companies. “It said that MediaDefender was hitting me with 20 requests a minute” is the typical response when asked to elaborate, “so that's how I know they've been doing it.”
The response is the same in both cases – how accurate is the list? If the list is not accurate, not reliable, no matter what it says you can't believe it. If you replace every MediaDefender label on a PeerGuardian blocklist with “God”, when you torrent, are you not only proving the existence of God, but that he likes to download Heroes as well? Both blocklists are just labels on IP addresses that someone has created. The Finnish list is on a definitive subject, by a government agency, with accountability, and it still gets it wrong. Are a couple of paranoid kids, having to guess at IPs and refusing, ever to be accountable going to be more accurate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)