this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
1151 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

59080 readers
4093 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It feels dirty to agree with an ISP on something. But even the worst corporations are on the right side of something from time to time I suppose.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This is less than interesting.

ISPs don't want to cut off their income here. I'm certain they have a very good idea of how many of their customers, especially those paying for higher tier plans, are either getting constant DMCA requests, or have a persistent connection to a VPN service. They have a good idea of how much money they're making from people pirating content, so this position for them is hardly surprising.

At the same time, I'd rather they fight with the copyright trolls than me. Regardless of the reason for why they're doing it, it's a good thing to fight for.

IMO, they shouldn't be responsible for this because they're not tasked with enforcing laws. They must abide by them, and they have a legal, or at least, moral obligation to report any felonies/crimes that they're aware of (with varying degrees of obligation depending on the severity of the crime. Eg, I'm less bothered if they don't report, say, piracy, than I would be if they don't report CP/murder/violent crimes, etc).

If the LEO's want a service cut off for a good reason, then let them get a court order for it. They should not be obligated by law to enforce such laws. Any enforcement should be handled by an independent organization, and be filtered through the court system as a check/balance for the whole cabal. They shouldn't be forced to both find and enforce infractions. Reporting suspected infractions, maybe. Forwarding legal requests to customers, sure (like DMCA notices). Oblige disconnect requests from law enforcement by request (when confirmed necessary by courts in the presence of reasonable evidence), absolutely.

But having the ISPs do all that themselves with little oversight, is both a danger to their clients, to their liability, and to the public at large, mainly in the context of free speech. The ISP is just the middle man, the messenger. They don't host the content, nor should they police it, or the access you can get to it. I'm all for collaboration in the interest of enforcing the law, but putting the entire obligation on the ISP seems foolish to me.

Cyber crimes is one area of law enforcement that I don't think should be defunded. It may be that ACAB, but those doing the investigative work, away from public interaction (and possible abuse), are not the root of the problem there.

I dunno, just my opinion man.

[–] would_be_appreciated@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago

those doing the investigative work, away from public interaction (and possible abuse), are not the root of the problem there

They're the root of privacy problems, which is a non-trivial issue for many of us.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Even a broken 12-hr analog clock is right twice a day

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If a one handed monkey claps in a forest, can anyone hear the tree falling on a lawyer?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

This is capitalism 101: whatever makes the most money is what they support. It doesn't matter who is hurt (or not hurt), or what is right/wrong. As long as they can make more money than they are losing by lawsuits, they will keep doing this. If they can avoid doing anything at all and not get sued while getting paid by customers, that's even better.

[–] C126@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Shut down their access to computer stores and the power companies while you're at it. Only fair. No piracy without computers or power.

The road that we're slowly headed down actually leads to a reality not too far from what you describe.

Computers are increasingly becoming a nested-doll situation wherein the end user is only given access to a lower privileged portion of hardware that exists within a larger supervisory system, of sorts. It will all be (and currently is) marketed as "for your security" "features" while owner control of computer systems is slowly being eroded.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bulwark@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (7 children)

So I've rented a server for years. It's in the US and it's a couple bucks a month. It's fun to play with and I use it however I want. I've had an email server, a next cloud instance, and an open VPN instance to name a few things on it. Well I decided to connect a torrent client from my home to the openvpn instance on my server to see if I could do it. It worked really well until the company I rent from forwarded the DMCA hit back to me for downloading Rick and Morty. I should've known better but I thought a nameless faceless server farm wouldn't be worth the hassle of a DMCA but I was wrong.

you paid for that with an identity attached im guessing, i'm not really sure what else you expected to be honest.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›