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

A new YouGov poll commissioned by the Open Rights Group provides a response to Government proposals to force ISPs to disconnect suspected illegal downloaders.   Nearly 70% of those surveyed said someone suspected of illegal downloading should have a right to a trial in court before any restrictions on internet use were imposed.

Sion Simon, the minister for the internet, insists that disconnection is a last resort.   The growing backlash from internet users, camnpaign groups and now an all-party Parliamentary motion urging a rethink of the policy.   Barely 16% of respondents to the YouGov survey supported automatic curbs based on accusations by copyright holders such as musicians.

The core complains from ISPs is that the proposals require them to bear the costs of protecting a third party’s rights, namely the rights of the copyright holder.   In a context where illegal filesharers can avoid detection by encrypting traffic, or by hijacking someone else’s IP address or Wi-Fi network you can imagine the nighmare involved in policing the proposals.

In other results from the survey, 73% of respondents said they would find their ability to use vital commercial services, such as shopping and banking, completely disrupted or fairly harmed if they were disconnected.  

Last week’s inquiry into the issue of file sharing by the all-party Parliamentary communications group concluded:

“much of the problem with illegal sharing of copyrighted material has been caused by the rightsholders, and the music industry in particular, being far too slow in getting their act together and making popular legal alternatives available . . . . We do not believe that disconnecting end users is in the slightest bit consistent with policies that attempt to promote eGovernment, and we recommend that this approach to dealing with illegal filesharing should not be further considered.”

Ministers continue to stress that requiring Ofcom to demand ISPs take technical measures against people who repeatedly ignore the law, such as capping broadband speed or filesize, is a last resort.

• File Sharing: The Risks
• Music for life – get 50 free downloads

In a narrowly won vote, the French National Assembly passed a draft law that means that illegal downloaders will be disconnected from the internet.

The French policy on piracy has drawn global attention and seems to confirm the hard line stance taken by Lord Mandelson, here in the UK.

The French Socialist Party will appeal to the French Constitutional Court, the highest in France, in the hope that this draft law – like an earlier version – will be declared unconstitutional.

The proposed legislation operates under a three strikes system similar to that mooted by Lord Carter’s Digital Britain report. 

Consumer groups in France have warned that innocent people may get punished.    In addition, the European Parliament is currently considering whether depriving people of their internet access is a breach of human rights.

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.”