3 Strikes Plan Re-established In Ireland After Court Decides To Ignore Data Protection Commission Ruling
from the protect-what-data? dept
A few years back, IFPI sued Irish ISP Eircom for not waving a magic wand and stopping infringement. It was part of the legacy entertainment industry's strategy to try to force ISPs into kicking people offline under a 3 strikes regime, even if they couldn't get a law to that effect (the two key places where this was tried were in Ireland and Australia). Eircom actually folded and agreed to start kicking its own customers offline on a 3 strikes (accusations, not convictions) approach, as long as the legacy recording industry also pressured its competitors to do the same thing. Of course, once Eircom started, it totally screwed up and sent a bunch of notices to people who were entirely innocent, triggering a governmental review. The end result was that the Irish Data Protection Commission rejected the 3 strikes system, over significant concerns about how it involved spying on customers.The labels fought back... and have now won. A court has rejected the findings of the Data Protection Commission (DPC) and argued, amazingly, that there are simply no privacy concerns at all with having ISPs track what you do online. Well, that's not quite how the court put it. Instead, it said that there's no privacy questions involved in "the detection and punishment of individuals who engage in unlawful Internet file-sharing." Er... considering the whole issue that kicked this off was false accusations against those who did not engage in such things, it seems the judge is pretty confused. Furthermore, the judge seems to think that there's a way to spy on users, but only track their infringing efforts. The problem -- and the main privacy concern -- is not so much in the tracking of infringing activity, but all of the legitimate activity that gets tracked as well.
Perhaps Justice Peter Charleton should open up his own log files to the public so that we can see if he's infringing. There is, according to his version of things, no privacy violations there, because we all promise only to make sure he's not breaking copyright law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ireland, isp, peter charleton, surveillance, three strikes
Companies: eircom, ifpi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I promise
I won't, most certainly, dig through his logs to gather personal data, credit card numbers, passwords and execute narrowly targeted phishing attacks.
I promise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait that's Eircom, they've been sold, what 5 times now. Last I heard some Singaporeans were going to buy them. They offer terrible service and dilly dally around requests from other ISPs to move customers off of their lines. So yeah they have no money at all, no wonder the IFPI was happy to go after them, gave them a small carrot too in letting them offer music downloads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The prosecutors want to open and read every 'letter' sent by the public to make sure none of them contain copyrighted material. Would you want them reading all of your mail?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Since the judge has no problem implementing this invasion of people's privacy, it's only appropriate that his own be compromised as well. After all, in the court's view, protecting intellectual property supercedes protecting people's personal data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
false accusations
But what's terrifying is the thought of being falsely accused of stuff.
How is it possible that we're constantly seeing people on the internet blatantly *saying* they're going to do all kinds of wacky crap, and then they go out and do it and nobody stops them, but then we have all kinds of people not doing anything and getting in trouble?
I'm sure the same thing goes for infringement rules and violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: false accusations
I personally mind quite a lot.
Even if I didn't, however, I still don't see how this kind of tracking provides for a lot of consumer protection or any prevention of violent/hate crimes.
I'm not saying there is zero public benefit to it -- there is some -- but the benefit seems pretty weak to me, and it's hard to see how it balances out the certainty of this power being used abusively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: false accusations
Official bodies lose data/laptops/pendrive, are just as corruptable as anyone else and would become a prime target to actual criminals who can make use of all that data.
This is a thoroughly stupid idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are no privacy concerns here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]