You'd assume that, but merely providing access in many cases seems to tick off copyright holders and those acting on their behalf.
Are you aware of any cases where the ISP was dragged to court for 'providing access' or being negligent ? worldwide
Once logs are provided after a complaint is filed its over & done with.
Because we are the access provider, we hold all your information, and we're supposed to try and prevent bad things from happening, including but not limited to censoring the web.
There are many examples of this
- by blocking access to any questionable content.
- providing logs when any crimes/fraud were committed
In both of these examples things happen after a directive comes from on up high and you comply
Directly, it doesn't. But if you read the copyright law, you'll see that most offenses relate only to domestic (Indian) content, not foreign. This proposal changes that and basically opens up a legal precedent for Indians to get their asses kicked by overseas authorities.
Meaning we would be brought in line with how copyright is enforced in the west. If a complaint was made then you would be expected to comply. I have no problem with this. Reason being these laws are already in effect abroad and i've yet to read of ppl being hauled in front of courts without a complaint.
Not quite. We're expected to try and prevent it in the first place, usually by blocking the sites. The government has real-time monitoring facilities but they're not very open about how, if and when they will use it.
I understand the bit about blocking when given directives to do so. What is not clear was whether you would be expected to work on your own without any directives given out.
Any ISP that performs deep packet inspection is in some way policing what their customers download - in this sense, the attempt is usually to limit the bitrate which is really the best they can do because bittorrent is encrypted,
Meaning if the protocl used was encrypted in anyway then nothing more can be done apart from slowing things down. No more action from your part can be expected.
so there is no way we can possibly know what's being transmitted and it is thus literally impossible to police unless we can literally catch someone in the act of distributing illegal copies of material.
This bolded bit is unclear to me. How would you know they were doing such and is what i mean by ISPs throwing up their hands because it appears unenforceable. Again without any directive from above.
You could use packet inspectors by checking for audio or video file formats and the destination site. But when the site is just another IP then it becomes meaningless, because there may be instances where ppl are uploading their own vids to ppl elsewhere. This is the bit that is impossible to enforce is what i'm trying to say.
You seem surprised at just how preposterous this all is. ISPs already throw up their hands, but that does not absolve their liabilities and responsibilities.
Only when a complaint is given about a specific act and specific customers.
Any ISP that performs deep packet inspection is in some way policing what their customers download
The surveillance in question is really directed more at things which are actually possible - certain websites, child porn - the usual. In addition, any ISP which allows the government to install honeypots in order to catch a user in the act could be considered to be policing.
The thing here is then the issue of what is needed in order to place a user under surveillance. I think these changes take away some of the existing legal barriers required in order to for example get a warrant... or may take away the warrant requirement altogether.
The examples you gave do explain the extra policing but will they also extend to civil issues like copyright when there is no complaint and you are supposed to somehow 'divine & police'
People still believe that the internet is anonymous.
When's the last time you heard of a virus writer getting banged up
Yet there seems to be no end of new virii coming out.