Hacker News Reader

You apparently haven't been keeping up with the news, as this kind of "remote prosecution" already happens. It is not theoretical.

If you want a quick intro to these attacks, I suggest watching the most recent John Oliver episode.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john-...

Did you link to the right video? We still have plain tobacco packaging in Australia. Can you tell me where to skip to in the video that talks about remote prosecution of individuals with regard to piracy.

Keep watching - the corporate stuff starts a few minutes in, with the tobacco industry throwing around threats to various countries legislatures to stop those legislatures from passing Australian-style packaging laws and other public-health regulations.

edit: if you're in a hurry, try starting at about 5:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6U...

Can you tell me where to skip to in the video that talks about remote prosecution of individuals with regard to piracy.

They will likely throw a few major offenders in jail as exemplars. For the rest they will probably use various (im-proportionately) large fines to continue to discourage people from filesharing.

"How can law enforcement possibly police this?"

Given that breaching copyright would be classified as a criminal offence with the TPP, and meta-data access is only for criminal purposes, meta-data and an automated system can be used. So once the system is in place, very easily.

"C'mon, seriously? Is there anyone who doesn't know risk of imprisonment doesn't act as deterrent. There are Australian's about to be executed in Indonesia for drug trafficking. Should be pretty obvious."

Risk of imprisonment may not deter some, but it may deter enough for them to feel its worth it.

> Given that breaching copyright would be classified as a criminal offence with the TPP, and meta-data access is only for criminal purposes, meta-data and an automated system can be used. So once the system is in place, very easily.

Okay sure. But this requires me to believe that software developers won't come up with a protocol that anonymises and encrypts my pirate downloads, thereby rendering meta-data and automated systems ineffective.

The risk of imprisonment thing is just nonsense. We've already seen people go to jail for trivial 'hacks', yet cybercrime is still a huge industry.

Your tech savvy mates (that's me and you) will show you how to download pirated media in a way that's safe from the prying eyes of the law, and life will continue.

These proposed laws are farcical because they're dependant on the current way of doing things, a way of doing things that leaves a meta-data trail. I smell a software solution, and we already know how quickly the entire world can switch file sharing protocols.

I don't think Hollywood thinks it can catch tech savvy people like us here. They want to catch and deter non tech savvy people.

Sure, the non tech savvy people can learn how to circumvent detection by using a VPN from others who know, but this then creates a barrier. It requires an account with montly/yearly subscription. This also leaves a trail. If enough people are using a VPN povider (thats within the US reach) just like ISP's they can request user details, linking a credit card to an IP address. Of course you could use bit coins, but then this is another barrier which will likely deter many people.

Even if it only works for a few years becuase some amazing crypto software is developed and makes it imposible to track people, they will have gotten the message across to most people in the mean time. It will also likely only be a matter of time before someone figures out a way to circumvent the crytpo.

Stating hackers don't stop from the threat of jail even for minor things, and implying it will be the same for filesharing is stretching it. Cybercrime is fundamentally different to filesharing. Different people and different scenarios.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SelectiveEnforcem...

"SpongeBob SquarePants: In Bikini Bottom, harassing your business rival to near-suicide, destroying stuff because you've got the IQ of a turnip, or being an all-around annoying jackass with No Indoor Voice is perfectly acceptable. Littering, however, can get you an orange jumpsuit. Just ask Squidward or Mrs. Puff."

How I Met Your Mother: Marshall talked his way out of a ticket by offering to bring the cop to his barbecue. Robin, being a pretty girl, can get out of a ticket easily. Barney? No way. It doesn't help that he takes getting out of a ticket as a challenge and proceeds to get a dozen tickets as a means of proving that he can get out of one.

We don't need TPP for law enforcement to enact Selective Enforcement. David Hicks' case should be evidence enough of that.

If your / my government wants to detain you fairly indefinitely for no reason whatsoever, it can already do that.

I tend to believe the only way through this mess, probably, is through it. Things like this are probably going to have to get a bit worse before they get better. The average person -that is to say, a person who doesn't read a lot of tech related news- doesn't really know, doesn't really care.

It's like some kind of bizarre paraphrasing of Douglas Adams: Having you committed three felonies today? Why not make it four with breakfast at the end of a pirated film.

I realise expressing my lack of concern over this probly isn't very popular in this forum. Like I'm supposed to be drastically and irrationally concerned about some law and a slippery slope argument.

I'm not though. I cross on the red light, occasionally smoke marijuana, habitually exceed the speed limit, and pirate media.

If Government thinks it can legislate, or intimidate, away minor infractions of victimless crimes, jokes on them.

I just can't take it seriously. I think the appropriate response isn't to be all "omg, draconian government, panic panic panic", no. The appropriate response is to laugh at the politicians and bureaucrats who come up with this nonsense.

If this this proposed legislation actually gets enacted then perhaps what we should all do is voluntarily turn ourselves in Flash Mob style. Probably while smoking reefers.

That's not incompatible with asking your US representative to block Fast-Track and encouraging more transparency and debate on the proposals :)

If software is eating the world, these IP and copyright issues need to be addressed in a sensible manner that encourages future innovation, without being constrained by legacy thinking and economics. The issues are bigger than any one agreement and will affect many startups and people on HN.

I agree.

Have you missed Kim "Dotcom" being arrested in New Zealand at the behest of the FBI?

Did you miss the bit where Kim Dotcom is a free man and running a file sharing company with better user privacy that the previous iteration.

I think the Kim Dotcom saga demonstrates my point of these types of laws being farcical.

He is not free, he's under bail.

I sit corrected.

This is the kind of legislation that can be enforced selectively. Don't like the guy? Is he with the opposition or is he a journalist? This makes it dangerous to democracy.

> I honestly can't see the Australian judiciary sending people to jail, or issuing large fines, for sharing media.

You'll either be right, or you'll be wrong. If the latter...