FACT's secret P2P spy program launched
Reading Hard News about Russb gallivanting around 'Frisco and having a good time, there was one item in particular in his blog that tickled my curiosity.Russell writes:
This story from the Herald, about copyright interests reaching new heights of privacy abuse seems to be missing a few key facts. What is this software they're using to track personal searches? Does it really work like the story says? And who the hell do these people think they are?
It's quite an alarming piece about NZ FACT again showing total disregard for the boundaries of privacy, and generally behaving like a law unto themselves. It looks like the NZ judiciary has died and made NZ FACT judge, jury and executioner, basically.
Now NZ FACT claims to have some sort of pirate tracking program that can work out who is looking for what, and based on that, prosecute people. Linked to the story is NZ FACT's statement about what the program is, and Tony Eaton says:
The proprietary content filtering system [PCFS] is basically a search engine that searches the search engines – that is all it does, it does not have access to anyone's computer, therefore it is not and cannot be spyware or a virus. The PCFS uses an intelligent system similar to Google. It uses a 'series of bots' that are designed to seek out material relating to 'peer 2 peer' file sharing. So for example if someone in New Zealand keyed 'Chicken Little' into Google and requested to download the movie using Bit Torrent – the PCFS which is searching the search engines may detect that google search and request, it would then log the IP number and the download request.
The PCFS search perimeters are set up in such a way that it filters key words such as DVD, VCD and the names and digital codes of current movie titles that have not been released to DVD/video yet.
Someone should explain the difference between perimeter and parameter to Eaton.
So what is the Proprietary Content Filtering System or PCFS that NZ FACT refuses to show to the Herald, yet asserts does not have access to anyone's computers and therefore cannot be spyware or a virus according to Eaton?
NZ FACT talks about "search engines" in its statement, but I don't think that'll be Google, MSN, Yahoo or any of the other sites that the term normally refers to. Instead, it'll be P2P tracker portals that are targetted.
However, how does NZ FACT get precise numbers like 1,153 "active requests to make Chicken Little available for file sharing" and work out that the requests were from New Zealand? Also, the PCFS can, according to Eaton, confirm if a computer succeeded in connecting to another machine and provides NZ FACT with IP addresses and other information.
It's hard to see how NZ FACT can obtain the above data without accessing computer systems somehow, or sniffing ISP customers' network traffic. If this is what's happening, is it really legal for NZ FACT and its employees to do so?
There's also the possibility that NZ FACT is simply making it all up to frighten people, but doing so would undermine the organisation's credibility so it's a safe bet to assume that some kind of spying is going on.
I actually think Patrick Gower at the Weekend Herald did a good job with that story, speaking to not just Tony Eaton of NZ FACT, but also Marie Shroff, Privacy Commissioner, and Maarten Kleintjes, the head of the NZ Police electronic crimes lab. Fred von Lohmann from the EFF also gets a say on NZ FACT's plans, and I'm pleased to see that neither Ihug nor Orcon intends to hand over customer data willy-nilly - what about the other ISPs though? Will they hold or fold fast when an aggressive NZ FACT armed with expensive lawyers comes a-knocking?
I think more ISPs should come out and tell their customers what their position on this is.
Also, it's time for MPs to seriously think about whether or not it's right for NZ FACT to behave like this. Unfortunately, our elected representatives aren't very interested in little things like wholesale invasion of privacy, so we'll have to wait until an MP gets done for requesting a file to be made available for sharing I guess.
Just kidding of course, but we really need to be told now exactly what NZ FACT's network spying comprises.
Tag(s):
Other related posts:
Megaupload and the US grand jury
Filesonic disables file sharing; due to MegaUpload?
An industry plundered by pirates
Comment by 10layers, on 27-Aug-2006 23:56
Yep. It is all about FUD, not FACT. :-)
NZFACT would almost certainly be operating illegally if their claims were indeed
Comment by Simon, on 17-Dec-2008 09:42
Wow ok so I understand that the technology used in this program is based on ip tracking? If a user enters particular details in a search engine or p2p program(I doubt) that he could be tracked? Well I am not a computer wizard but have a few qualifications though... IP tracking is irrelevant if firstly the infringement is not on your home connection or its on someone elses connection. ISPs are the only people who can record what ip they have assigned to you and I dont think HIDEMYIP programs could protect the user if ISPs have decide to collude with NZFACT to effectively track their customers albeit lose customers. Tracking IPs has its limitations...more effective would be to track the computer MAC address!
Simon
Add a comment
Please note: comments that are inappropriate or promotional in nature will be deleted.
E-mail addresses are not displayed, but you must enter a valid e-mail address to confirm your comments.
Comment by Philip, on 26-Aug-2006 21:31
This is a disgraceful attempt by FACT, an organisation whose very name is a lie, to intrude into peoples' privacy and create offences that don't exist in NZ.
First, despite what FACT loudly asserts, there is no such thing in New Zealand law as "copyright theft". Our copyright law, feeble and flawed as it is, admits the possibility of copyright infringement, a civil matter, and allows police to prosecute for egregious infringement of copyright. Theft charges might also be pursued for the removal of phýsical items, like master disks or tapes.
Theft is defined in our law as taking something away with intent permanently to deprive the owner of the thing taken.
There is no justification for ripping off peoples's work, and no reasonable person will endorse the behavior of those that profit by selling or distributing what they don't own.
But we need to be careful not to allow the content owners the kind of free access to our private lives that they are demanding - and de facto awarding themselves.
No film company has the right to come snooping into my house and rooting through my files without due process. No music publisher has an automatic right to ferret through my computer files and accuse me of "stealing" without first going though due process, and demonstrating just cause for suspicion.
We do not need the RIAA and MPAA scattershot threat American-style lawsuits in New Zealand. These actions do nothing to help our film makers - and everything to bring the content owners into contempt. We should be deeply suspicious of the huge figures they quote in "losses to piracy". Mostly, these figures are made up and exaggerated.
And remember, these are the same film companies that invented the crap "region code" system and relegated New Zealand and Australia to the minor league - down there in "Region 4" along with our cultural compadres in Latin America.
Copyright is one thing - telling us what we can do in our own homes with material we legally own is something else - and it's time now for New Zealanders to stand up and tell the content industry to butt out.
Philip