How "safe" is Usenet

iLOVENZB said:
If I recall correctly, a DCP scanner got a DMCA notice and had his posting privileges revoked.

PS, Source: http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=39476

That was back in 2007, with the advancements of SSL and other security measures, Usenet is probably the second safest form of getting Linux ISO's. First would be from FTP's with friends.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.

Although, I have to mention that sometimes my friend's FTP is slow and getting Ubuntu off of Usenet is much quicker.
 
Most usenet providers have SSL already, don't need a VPN for that. Not to mention that they use multiple ports, including nonstandard ports. Don't see a need for a VPN.

Your ISP doesn't care what you download until they get a C&D letter, and you won't get one by downloading on a common carrier protected service.
 
Isn't the problem here more on the side of the usenet service provider? After all, they are the ones that hold the logs of what you upload/download? Linux ISOs, no problem. But, for leechers, they should be more concerned about the usenet provider logs than they are with ISPs. Use SSL and the ISP can't see your traffic and likely doesn't care. But logs can exist forever. Most usenet providers claim to not retain them, but how does one really know? Especially considering the consequences of being wrong.
 
cola said:
I never said that your ISP won't care about how much you download, but its not like they're looking at your usenet traffic going "uh oh, he's downloading LotR.
Click to expand...

Uh, here in the US that's what got Comcast into trouble with the FCC; then the courts decided that the FCC didn't have the authority since the internet was changed from a telecommunications service to a 'message' service a few years ago.

This week, the FCC changed it back to a telecom service (where it had been since the 1970's through 2003), with a few changes.

But during that period (2003 until a couple days ago) the ISP's could do whatever they wanted with your traffic. And yes, if you dug down in their respective AUP's (acceptable use policy's) you'd find that usenet traffic (allong with P2P) was specifically singled out as that traffic they were dead set against.
 
Ted-Celle said:
Isn't the problem here more on the side of the usenet service provider? After all, they are the ones that hold the logs of what you upload/download? Linux ISOs, no problem. But, for leechers, they should be more concerned about the usenet provider logs than they are with ISPs. Use SSL and the ISP can't see your traffic and likely doesn't care. But logs can exist forever. Most usenet providers claim to not retain them, but how does one really know? Especially considering the consequences of being wrong.
Click to expand...


Usenet providers don't log downloads, and they don't log uploads (thats what X-Trace header is for). ISPs don't care what you're downloading either, until they're hit with a C&D.
 
link2009 said:
I agree with you.

Although, I have to mention that sometimes my friend's FTP is slow and getting Ubuntu off of Usenet is much quicker.
Click to expand...

Depends on the location of the server I guess, if you're throttled, how many 'friends' are sharing it etc.

Now I come to think about it, Usenet probably is the safest, with FTP's your IP is revealed in the log to the master.
 
Ted-Celle said:
That's my point, how do we REALLY know that? Astraweb says they do not log up/downloads, but how do we know? ... How does one really know they do not keep logs? I think it just comes down to trust.
Click to expand...

The main reason why usenet providers do not keep download logs is to PROTECT THEMSELVES from copyright infringement claims, which could get very expensive, if not bankrupt the company. Obviously, a list showing the number of times an infringed work was downloaded could be used as not just evidence proving infringement, but would likely form the basis of any financial settlement.

By not keeping download logs, a usenet provider can always claim plausible deniability in a lawsuit - 'we honestly don't know what people download. Perhaps Linux releases?'

In the recording industry's lawsuit against Usenet.com, it was revealed that Usenet.com had indeed been logging downloads (a stupid move!) and using that knowledge gained to adjust individual group retention as well as tailor their business around this customer profile.

And then, not wanting to reveal this 'smoking-gun' evidence of infringement to the court, Usenet.com deleted these download logs and then wiped the disks clean. (getting caught destroying evidence did not go over well with the judge, and since this judge declared Usenet.com 'guilty' of direct copyright infringement, under the DMCA they could conceivably be forced to pay from $750 to $150,000 for every single infringing download. Ouch!)

A few years ago, just before they shut down, Torrentspy was ordered by a judge to start logging downloads - and they refused for obvious reasons.

Given the adverse legal liability that download logs would bear on any usenet provider, I'm confident that the vast majority of providers do not log downloads. It's not a question of trust - its a matter of the provider's self-preservation. Any that are so stupid as to log downloads deserve to go out of business, just like Usenet.com
 
Using SSL etc will def make it harder for any one to find out that you are downloading a 'linux OS' but I'm wondering how long before they start hitting Newsgroup Providers now they have dipped their toe into indexing sites.
 
UK ISPs told to collect filesharers' data


UK internet users who are caught downloading copyrighted material three times within a year will have their names passed to the copyrights owner for possible legal action, under new rules proposed by Ofcom.
file-sharing.jpg_e_6045a905c37c83509735c04f2ec99564.jpg





The UK's largest ISPs will start collecting the details of customers who unlawfully download films, music and TV programmes from next year, under proposals announced by regulator Ofcom.
ISPs including BT, Talk Talk, Virgin Media, Sky, Orange, O2 and Post Office will be required to send warning letters to customers who illegally file-share.
Customers who are caught downloading copyrighted material three times in the same year will have their names passed to the copyrights owner who could take legal action against them.
Regulator Ofcom said the proposed legislative measures aimed at reducing online copyright infringement form part of its new duties under the Digital Economy Act 2010.
It said: "Ofcom is proposing a three stage notification process for ISPs to inform subscribers of copyright infringements and proposes that subscribers which have received three notifications within a year may be included in a list requested by a copyright owner."
UK consumer and citizens' rights groups have warned that there needs to be sound evidence of wrongdoing before any action is taken against a consumer.
Robert Hammond, head of Post and Digital communications at Consumer Focus, said: "Consumers face considerable confusion while Ofcom tries to work out how to implement new laws under the Digital Economy Act. The aim should be to encourage suspected copyright infringers to use legal alternatives and achieving this rests on the process of notification being seen by consumers as fair and helpful."
Anna Bradley, Consumer Panel chair said: "It is imperative that a system that accuses people of illegal online activity is fair and clear. By publishing these principles we want to make sure that customers get fair treatment, are fully informed of what's happening to them and that they have real rights of appeal."
Ofcom has opened consultation on its draft of the code of practice, which also needs approval from the European Commission, until the end of July.
Read Ofcom's Online Infringement of Copyright and the Digital Economy Act 2010 consultation document.
 
cola said:
Usenet providers don't log downloads, and they don't log uploads (thats what X-Trace header is for). ISPs don't care what you're downloading either, until they're hit with a C&D.
Click to expand...

That's my point, how do we REALLY know that? Astraweb says they do not log up/downloads, but how do we know? Are they a reputable company or a small shop being run out of a basement that has grown due to demand? They don't even use encryption on their login page to the website. Not the sign of a professional company. I'm not against Astraweb here, but just using them as an example. How does one really know they do not keep logs? I think it just comes down to trust.
 
IMO ISP's have so many torrent users who are sticking to postive ratio rules that this is the traffic they will monitor, and hand over when required. Its far easy to identify the packets of a torrent than newsgroup transfers.

Plus, if you're not posting, then they are really not interested at all.

There are not a shortage of users to make examples of, or to hand over upon request - Its not effective in anyway to make the identification of the users traffic more complex than they need to, and indeed the case.

Newgroups are far to messy and insignificant compared to the alternatives. Its the 'safest' option.... Unless you want to get into renting a server to do you downloading / ratio maintenance.
 
cola said:
Your ISP wouldn't care what you're downloading anyways.
Click to expand...

As of a court ruling just today in the U.S., ISP's can limit, delay, or cut you off if you d/l from somewhere they don't 'like', including completely legal sites that don't pay the ISP 'connect' or 'transfer' charges.

It all came about over torrents, of course, where the ISP's said it was 'within their network management prerogatives' to mess around with the traffic.

That escalated into some ISP's blocking connections to commercial sites that didn't pay the ISP's 'up front' to carry their traffic (to, it must be said, their 'customers' who paid for the connection).

'Double-Dipping'. Now totally legal. 'Network Neutrality' is DEAD.
 
I think you guys are safe for years to come. The law is barely understanding bittorrent, they are pretty stupid about it. No worries!
 
As far as I can tell literally no one gets in trouble for downloading. At least in the US there actually appears to be no legal construct called "illegal downloading." I think the only reason you even see the term "illegal download" or "download" in any civil or criminal action is a lazy, uninformed or likely in some cases intentional, conflation of downloading with uploading.

In every case where I have seen a press report on a case, or MPAA ir RIAA press release on a case or series of cases, looking at official transcripts and/or actual court filings on FindLaw or Lexis one sees that in fact the case relies on uploading, and it is uploading that is traced and uploading that is the actual issue being cited for damages.

OK on p2p the activities are combined, but on Usenet they are not. I think that is why there are None, not some, not few, but no actual cases in the US of anyone charged for any USENET downloads.

If anyone feels anything else is the case I would appreciate actual case citations , and not prior or subsequent press releases, or lazy reporting, using the term, but actual decisions where someone solely downloading has suffered a civil penalty and where solely downloading is the charge in the actual filing or decision.
 
Back
Top