Swedish ISP Refuses To Give Up IP Addresses; Appeals Court Order
from the fighting-IPRED dept
Earlier this year, you may recall that strict new “anti-piracy” legislation went into effect in Sweden, which required ISPs to hand over IP addresses and other info they had on people. Because of this, some ISPs have been proactive in deleting log files. But, a bigger question may be whether or not such rules violate user privacy. It appears that the Swedish courts are going to need to sort this out. The first ISP who was asked for IP address info in Sweden under this new IPRED law, Ephone, is appealing the court order to hand over the data, even though it faces huge fines for not complying. The case is a little different than a typical file sharing case in that it involves an attempt to find out who’s running a particular server on which certain content was stored. However, Ephone points out that the server itself required a password to access, and thus the content was not made publicly available — and thus, was not copyright infringement. Not surprisingly, Ephone’s customers have made it clear to the company that they support it in protecting their privacy.
Filed Under: file sharing, ip, ipred, privacy, sweden
Companies: ephone
Comments on “Swedish ISP Refuses To Give Up IP Addresses; Appeals Court Order”
I think this falls in the category of “if you aren’t willing to turn over the records, we have to assume you are running it yourself”.
An ISP should be transparent in all directions, in that it shouldn’t filter content, but it also shouldn’t attempt to play legal games such as this. The server is on your network (and in your data center), you are responsible for it. If you want to pass that responsibility onto a customer (who is leasing the server space), then you need to name them or provide relevant information.
Re: Re:
I guess you aren’t familiar with the swedish legal situation but there hasn’t even been any ruling of whether a criminal act has been committed. Ephone is appealing the request since they want a clear and proven case that the law has been broken before they hang their customers out to dry. Pretty much the way I want my suppliers to act if they are going to get my business.
/M
Re: Re:
while I do agree that ISP’s should be transparent both ways, they also do need to take some action to protect their users from privacy invasion. If anyone can just ask the ISP to had over data that is just wrong. I do think that the ISP should cooperate with anyone that has a legal and valid warrant.
Re: Re: Re:
exactly – read the story, “court order”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that they’re arguing whether the warrant is legal and valid.
Re: Re:
“An ISP should be transparent in all directions”
The privacy of citizens is more important than the profit margins of the RIAA.
Re: Re:
“An ISP should be transparent in all directions, in that it shouldn’t filter content, but it also shouldn’t attempt to play legal games such as this.”
When most people use the word “transparent” they are often referring to things that affect public policy at large, like the fact that Obama shouldn’t be discussing the ACTA in secret but he should be more transparent on the subject ( http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090614/1819325224.shtml ).
When modern republicans use the word “transparency” they mean the authorization of rich and powerful entities to arbitrarily invade the privacy of poor and powerless people any time they want without good reason or warrant (ie: George Bush and his wiretapping agenda) for the sake of exploiting them for political and economic gain and for them not to punished for doing so. This use of the word by modern republicans is deceptive at best and isn’t going to help me vote republican (though I’m not voting democratic either, so don’t think I’m defending democrats).
Re: Re: Re:
sp/and for them not to punished for doing so./and for them not to be punished for doing so.
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry. Transparancy in this case is either the ISP accepting personal responsiblity for the sites they host, or answering a court order to produce information that indicates who is running the site in question.
This isn’t about personal privacy. Oh yeah, the pirating people would like you to think that, but really it is just about the pirates trying to find another way to steal stuff and be hidden. Obviously, they wouldn’t be so bold if their hosting company was more honest about who is using a given server.
Nobody is asking for a widespread invasion of privacy, just asking that the hosting company in question provide the information as the courts have deemed needed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Sorry. Transparancy in this case is either the ISP accepting personal responsiblity for the sites they host, or answering a court order to produce information that indicates who is running the site in question.”
Provided that there is probable cause which is exactly what’s being disputed at the moment.
“This isn’t about personal privacy.”
Yes it is.
“Oh yeah, the pirating people would like you to think that, but really it is just about the pirates trying to find another way to steal stuff and be hidden.”
It doesn’t matter what the “pirating people” would like me to believe, society shouldn’t allow an invasion of personal privacy without probable cause just to support the profit margins of special interest groups.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, I think you may be in the employ of the RIAA. Since your post does not disclose that, it may be misleading readers of this site. I don’t have the resources to compel a court to order you to provide us with your name, address, and SSN, but if you would be so kind as to do so? In the interest of transparency and accepting personal responsibility for your own posts, of course…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh yeah, the pirating people would like you to think that, but really it is just about the pirates trying to find another way to steal stuff and be hidden.
i couldn’t agree more. it’s hard enough keeping my piratebay money hidden in offshore accounts as it is.
Huh????
“Ephone points out that the server itself required a password to access, and thus the content was not made publicly available — and thus, was not copyright infringement.”
Wow! That may be the poorest understanding of copyright law that I have ever seen…..
Re: Huh????
Care to explain your bullshit?
Re: Huh????
And you’re an expert on Swedish copyright laws?
Re: Huh????
So you’re saying that if I have a bunch of songs on my computer, that I am guilty of copyright infringement regardless of whether I actually file share or otherwise make them available to others?
Password Protected?
If the server was password protected, how on earth did the copyright holders find out about its content? So either a) they illegally hacked into the server, or b) the server’s owner made the login credentials public, which, if that’s the case, it seems to nullify any argument about the content being private. The article seems to be lacking in a lot of details, so it’s difficult to know for sure.
Re: Password Protected?
Example, one of the users with a password downloads a file, shares it with their friends for free, inside it says “download this file at (servername)”. One of those friends puts it on a torrent. End issue.
Like many of the stories Mike links to, this one does lack a ton of information, makes it easier I think for Mike to make his points later on (this story will be linked in the future as “ISPs refuse to give up data”).
Re: Re: Password Protected?
And yet, here you are, not offering the information (or where to find it) yourself. See how that works?
why not go after whoever is listed on the whois?
The thing is this, some people believe that the anti-pirates have broken into the server, which of course is illegal. And that’s pretty much what Ephone is pursuing.
Exactly what happened, no one knows because the anti-pirates doesn’t want to share their “methods” with the world. For some reason. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they either payed someone to give them their login, or hacked in. The anti-pirates in Sweden have a history of unlawful and unethical methods.
But back to Ephone, of course, this is just ONE side of the story. As some one already pointed out, they want a “clear and proven case”. And also, many swedes have anyother perspective to this. The new law is just one of many laws that either has already been implemented or will be, that is viewed as a violation of integrity.
Re: Re:
by anonymous swede – Jul 16th, 2009 @ 8:19am
“Exactly what happened, no one knows because the anti-pirates doesn’t want to share their “methods” with the world.”
by Anonymous Coward – Jul 16th, 2009 @ 5:39am
“An ISP should be transparent in all directions, in that it shouldn’t filter content, but it also shouldn’t attempt to play legal games such as this.”
The anti pirates would like all alleged pirates to be transparent and have everything about themselves revealed to the public but then they themselves want to be opaque and are OK with it.
Sounds like they are saying the court order is basically a “fishing expedition”, as whatever is on the site is behind security. As it’s behind security how can the publishers know (legally) if anything on the site in violation of copyright.
Court Orders are meant to be backed by “probable cause ” before they granted.
Otherwise anyone could get them at anytime to invade someone else privacy
Though the whole “not publicly available because behind a password thus not a copyright violation” argument sounds so dumb I highly doubt it is accurate, sounds more like reporter not understanding what he is talking about
People really need to get some sense of the situation. Sweden is NOT the US, or whatever. We have another tradition, other values. Even people who don’t pirate see this law as violating integrity.
The ISP has ONE responsibility, above all others, and that is to its users. Why the hell should it give out information on one of its users to the content industry, when the law is just brand new, never been tried.
I forgot to mention earlier, this new law also, weirdly, goes against another law (or so the ISPs claim). The “Data Protection Directive,” which says that personal information should not be stored digitally, or something like that.
Ephone won the appeal
Today Ephone won the appeal since the court didn’t feel that it had been proven that anyone else than the Anti-piracy agency had accessed. In short, there can be no “making public” without the public having access.
The decision was not unanimous (3 against 2). One of the judges who supported the overturning of the previous decision was Kristina Boutz who has as of late been accused of bias in the Pirate Bay trial (although I think those allegations have been dismissed).
The court’s press release (in Swedish)
Imagine that, a company fighting to protect customer data for reasons that are not entirely un-noble..Still, it is funny that password protected files change everything. In the US there is a law that says the police can search your computer for information if you are a suspect in a crime, but if that information is encrypted or under some other form of data protection, then they are not allowed to save it. There is no stipulation protecting that info that, in fact, needs a password at the OS level (a login password) to be accessed. Yes, it is incredibly contradictory.
Thanks
Thanks for the information you give
Reply
Care to explain your bullshit?