Uncategorised

There's a rather depressing article in Ars Technica (UK ISPs playing Grinch with P2P throttling, surf data, video?)about ISP attitudes to the service they provide (or not) in the UK.  AT focusses on  three areas in which the ISPs want to maximise their profits, in some cases by restricting costs (throttling P2P services), selling our data (by deep packet inspection, such as the vile Phorm system), and by demanding payments from broadcasters such as the BBC (because they have the temerity to introduce a very popular service such as iPlayer).

I'm not a BitTorrent user, but I feel rather anxious that a legal application like BitTorrent, which can of course be used for entirely legal activities such as legal downloading of videos, games, and software can be throttled back on the basis (or rather the explanation used to deflect criticism) that some people abuse it for illegal activities.  Of course this is a bit weasly, the real situation is that the ISPs have pitched their services at a price that doesn't cover the bandwidth people use.  Their solution seems to be to throttle back P2P services under the guise of copyright protection.

Similarly, broadcasters such as the BBC are targeted for releasing a popular product that lots of people want to access.  The ISPs response?  That the BBC should pay us because lots of people want to use the service (within their paid-for download limits in their broadband contracts, remember)!  Bizarre.

My final gripe is one that regular readers might recognise.  This is the application of deep packet inspection techniques to scan all internet traffic to target adverts to their customers.  The Ars Technica article is a bit depressing on the subject, making it sound as though pretty much all ISPs are on board the Phorm train.  As far as I know, the only ISP currently in bed with Kent Ertegrul and his spyware cronies is BT, who've behaved pretty appallingly over this issue.  Over the last few years, BT have:

• Conducted secret tests of the Phorm dpi system in 2006 while lying to their customers about what was going on.
• Conducted secret tests of the Phorm dpi system in 2007 while lying to their customers about what was going on.
• Pushed for customers to be presented with an "opt-out" system, in which the vile Phorm system is presented (in the guise of BT-Webwise) as an anti-phishing system.
• Ignored the requirement from BERR that the system needs to be "opt-in".
• Evading the real issue that all BT internet traffic will be passed through the Phorm-owned hardware in the BT network whether or not the customer has opted in or out
• Clamped down on internet forum discussion of the merits or not of BT-Webwise (so, what have BT gt to hide?)
• Avoided accusations of breach of copyright

The article implies that most UK ISPs are on the DPI bandwagon.  However, as far as I know, only BT have sold their soul to Ertegrul's crew, Virgin Media and Talk Talk are looking at it, Orange have said they are unlikely to use Phorm, and a variety of relatively minor players have committed themselves to not use Phorm or similar systems.

To find out more about Phorm, visit the dephormation website, and in particular these articles:

The Opt in HoaxThe Anonymity HoaxThe URL History HoaxThe Privacy Enhancing Hoax
About Phorm

My response to BT's dalliance with Phorm was to ditch them for Zen internet, an excellent outfit who have no intention to use Phorm (and if they do, I'll be on my way).  Incidentally, I don't know whether this is relevant to data throttling issues, but my download speed more than tripled when I swtiched from BT to Zen).

Well, I have to confess that I have some sympathy with this Iraqi journalist.  One might suspect Bush was lucky they were only shoes, after the mayhem he wreaked on the Middle East.

 [video:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9uIj0YvDBKE 425x340]

Following the the IWF-Wikipedia fracas for the last week or so, will there be any lasting changes to internet censorship in the UK?  I hope so.

Until the IWF saw to it that UK access to editing Wikipedia pages was prevented, I doubt that UK broadband customers were aware their internet service was subject to censorship.  The revelations surrounding the banning of the Scorpions LP sleeve Virgin Killer pushed the activities of the IWF into the public spotlight for the first time, and will perhaps precipitate a change into their operations.

The Open Rights Group has an interesting review of the possible fall-out of this affaire:

Firstly - why are the IPPs claiming that blocked pages do not exist - this is what a 404 message means.  Why not a 403, or perhaps an explicit description of why the page is not available - such as this from Demon:

We have blocked this page because, according to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), it contains indecent images of children or pointers to them; you could be breaking UK law if you viewed the page.

The second point is that we remain at the "could be" level of evidence, because despite the IWF investing in training four individuals to examine all reported incidences, they are not offering legal opinion, and all judgements are that images are "potentially illegal".

Thirdly, this is apparently only the first time that an IWF judgement has been reversed.

Fourthly, shouldn't owners of offending URLs be notified they have been blocked?  It's astonishing that the those affected by the blocked Wikipedia editing had to figure all this out for themselves.  Finally, ORG say:

Finally, we would support introducing judicial oversight to the IWF's decision-making processes. The IWF do have a trained team to assess images against sentencing guidelines, and IWF assessors can contact the police for their opinion. But this system can only ever decide whether an image is "potentially illegal" - it does not replace the independent scrutiny of a judge. This could be seen as an expensive imposition, but we believe it's worth it - censorship should not come cheap in a civilised democracy. 

I entirely agree.  The IWF isn't sufficiently overseen, and their judgements about what should and should not be banned aren't sufficiently regorous that they need not be questioned. 

 

So, is a belief in Santa Claus (he of the Coca-Cola-inspired red outfit) any less resonable than a belief in God (any God)?  The Unreasonable Faith blog thinks not: