About seven million* homes and small businesses are vulnerable to Wi-Fi hijacking and so at risk of being wrongly disconnected from the Internet according to a new study into broadband security released today.


The study coincides with today’s launch of a campaign against Lord Mandelson’s plans to disconnect people suspected of illegal filesharing without a trial.


Don’t Disconnect Us (www.dontdisconnect.us) has been initiated by TalkTalk, Britain’s biggest provider of broadband to homes. The campaign’s website sets out three principal objections to Lord Mandelson’s plans;


1.  It by-passes the courts and gives rightsholders quasi-judicial powers


2. It exposes millions of people to false prosecution since it is based on an approach where those suspected of illegal filesharing will be presumed guilty and have to prove their innocence in order to avoid being falsely disconnected


3. It will do little to tackle illegal filesharing since the main offenders will easily avoid detection by using other people’s broadband connections to download content or encrypting their activity.  Indeed the proposed measures will increase Wi-Fi and PC hijacking and so increase even further the chances of innocent customers being wrongly cut off


The risk of innocent people being disconnected is not hypothetical. Consumer organisations such as Which? have been contacted by dozens of people who have been wrongly accused of filesharing by rightsholders who used a similar method to the one Lord Mandelson is suggesting.


Last week a knowledgeable Parliamentary committee, Apcomm, came out squarely against Mandelson’s disconnection plans saying “this approach [disconnection] to dealing with illegal file-sharing should not be further considered”


The Don’t Disconnect Us website provides a hub for people to learn the latest views on tackling illegal filesharing from around the world, a forum to discuss the issues and a link to a petition on the No 10 website where opposition to the plans can be registered.


The survey of 1,083 Wi-Fi connections, which was conducted by TalkTalk, found that 5 per cent of connections were completely open (ie no security at all), 36 per cent used WEP which is easily hackable and 56 per cent used WPA which is currently fairly secure, though a vulnerability has already been detected meaning it could become hackable soon. Only 3 per cent used the most secure form of protection, WPA2.

Find out more

The proposed ban on access to the internet for repeat offences related to illegal downloading, announced yesteday, drew criticism from both civil rights groups and internet service providers.

Treasury Minister Stephen Timms said that previous plans to restrict users’ broadband speed didn’t go far enough.   Instead the Government proposed the possibility of blocking offenders’ access to download sites as well as banning them from the Internet altogether.

The Open Rights Group, which protects civil liberties in the area of digital technology, said any suspension would “restrict people’s fundamental right to freedom of expression.”

The British proposals shine a spotlight on those Internet Service Providers (ISPs) which host file-swapping sites and requires them to identify and take action against offenders.

The new government proposals require ISPs to issue written warnings to subscribers whose IP address has been spotted on an illegal download site.   Copyright holders would use court orders to access details of any warnings issued by the ISPs, leading to the possibility of civil lawsuita against a suspected offender.

It is relatively easy for determined filesharers to mask their identity or their activity to avoid detection.   In addition, ISPs are understandably uneasy at being asked to ‘police’ the Internet and their members’ Internet usage in this way.  Moreover, there is the blurred issue of content that is available to copy, and defining that from among the massive proliferation of content online will be an expensive and ongoing process.  As usual, the costs of administering such a scheme will fall to ISPs as will the burden of having to explain to users why their connections have been terminated.

The Open Rights Group, which protects civil liberties in the area of digital technology, said any suspension would “restrict people’s fundamental right to freedom of expression.”

But the British Phonographic Industry, which represents the recorded music industry, said the move was “a step forward that should help the legal digital market to grow for consumers.”

As we reported when the Government’s Digital Britain report was released, this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut in that it appears to crompomise all our right to privacy to protect commercial interests.

Related Article – File Sharing: The Risks

UPDATE

In a letter to the Guardian today (27 August 2009), Lord Mandelson has denied that his meeting with David Geffen influenced  the government move to cut-off illegal peer-to-peer filesharers from their internet connections.

He wrote: “The subject of internet piracy was not discussed during our meeting”

“Work on this started long before my holiday in August, with officials submitting advice to DCMS ministers and myself on 3 July. This set out a possible change in thinking and was not the result of any single conversation but followed engagement with a wide range of stakeholders.”

According to the Digital Britain report recommendations ISPs operating within the UK will be required to cut illegal file sharing on their networks by 70% within a year.   New powers will be granted to the communications regulator Ofcom, the report says.

ISPs will be asked to collect data about alleged infringers of online rights.   This infringement can take the form of downloading or uploading content without the prior permission of the rights holder.   ISPs will also be asked to notify infringers that their conduct is illegal.

Persistent infringers may see their details shared with rights holders.   These could include music, film,  games and software companies.   Legal proceedings would follow.

The proposals are set out in chapter 4 of the 245-page report, which is titled “Creative Industries in the Digital World”.

If Ofcom does not see the 70% reduction in filesharing it expects,  government will require it to use its powers to introduce further measures such as the blocking of particular sites and methods of transferring data online in addition to capping the speed and capacity of offenders’ connections.

Your ISP and the Data Communications Bill

What internet users really think about P2P and file sharing

The exponential growth of the internet has led to more opportunities for all of us.

Consider these facts and figures:

– In OECD countries, 267 million people are now broadband subscibers (OECD)
- Information, communications technologies and broadcasting account for between 6% and 8% of UK GDP (DCMS)
- These industries generate a turnover of over £52 billion a year (DCMS)
- The same industries employ 500,000 people in the UK alone (BERR & DCMS)
- By 2012, it is estimated, £1 in every £5 of new commerce in the UK will be online (BERR)
- 94% of UK businesses want higher speed broadband for business (Communications Management Association)
- By 2010 over 80% of UK businesses would want broadband speeds of 10Mbps as standard (Communications Management Association)
- The Government’s ‘Digital Britain’ review, sets a baseline of 2Mbps broadband by 2012 for every home (BERR & DCMS)

It is abundantly clear that decent broadband has economic implications for consumers and commerce. The £3billion price tag of achieving the government’s stated aims is less than the cost of bailing out a bank. Government, rightly, hopes to narrow the digital divide, while boosting British commerce and industry. Who should foot the bill? The Government proposes an ISP tax to enable its ambition and to inform and educate consumers about content copyright on behalf of the creative industries.

The acceleration of internet speeds, according to content publishers, has led to the growth in illegal file sharing. The Government wants ISPs to crack down on persistent illegal file-sharers. This, it is believed, will ensure that the creative industries can sustain revenues which are migrating towards digital delivery mechanisms rapidly. It seems the creative industries want ISPs to act as policemen in this regard.   Why?   How would this work in practice and what implications does it have for privacy?

The Government is proposing that ISPs slow the internet connections of persistent illegal file-sharers. The view of many ISPs is that such measures wont deter pirates. Pirates will just disguise their traffic or turn to other ways of sharing content. The only way to secure the creative industries is by building compelling services that consumers will pay for. Rupert Murdoch believes so. Other digital broadcasters also seem headed down that road. But the creative industries’ intransigence in engaging in a dialogue with ISPs makes this difficult.

As BT recently reported, bandwidth costs money, and files like movies and music take up a lot of that. Tiscali made just that point last year. The situation at the moment is that the ISP picks up the tab whilst content owners get away with free distribution. A possible solution put forward by ISPs is to charge content providers a bandwidth fee for delivering programmes like video and music over their broadband networks. Think about it, it makes more sense than ISPs footing the bill (and passing on the costs).

Of course Government plans will need to be managed and there will almost inevitably arise a new quango for the purpose. “We also intend to require ISPs to collect anonymised information on serious repeat infringers (derived from their notification activities), to be made available to rights-holders together with personal details on receipt of a court order,” states the interim report on Digital Britain. Nice. So ISPs will also have the privilege of paying to snoop on their customers?

As always in these discussions it’s worth pointing out that many South Koreans enjoy speeds of up to 100 Mbps. If they can, why can’t we? Well, in South Korea the Government paid for the infrastructure that enables such high Broadband speeds.

What is your view on Digital Britain and the issues it raises? Who should foot the bill for the expansion of Digital Britain and why? Should ISPs act as internet policemen where copyright infringement is concerned and why? How comfortable would you be with your ISP snooping on your every move by Government dictat?

You can find the interim report at the DCMS website