Hadopi's Secret Internet Spying Spec Leaked

from the now-doesn't-that-make-you-feel-good dept

As a part of France’s three strikes law, the organization in charge of implementing the program, Hadopi (which, we should remind you, was caught infringing itself in using a font it did not license for its logo), has been tasked with figuring out a way to actually block people from the internet, or to stop them from using certain file sharing programs. While there were public consultations on how to do this, the actual technical spec was supposed to have been kept secret. Not surprisingly, that didn’t last very long. Glyn Moody points us to the news that the tool’s spec has leaked. Basically, it’s your everyday snooping software, that will monitor all internet traffic, including searching through files on your computer, and checking the router configuration. It will also act as a creepy form of Big Brother, with an alert system which, if it notices you using a file sharing program, says things like: “You are about to download a file using a P2P protocol – do you want to continue?” One hopes that it would include a button that says “Yes, Dammit, I’m Downloading Linux” or something of the sort, but that seems unlikely. The link above also notes that this appears to violate EU law, which prohibits a “general obligation to monitor.”

Filed Under: ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Hadopi's Secret Internet Spying Spec Leaked”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
ShadowSix says:

Encrypted everything

The web is moving to a uni protocol stream anyway. Websockets over SSL will be the new internet, and encryption routines will be scaled up until the burden of decryption becomes too CPU intensive… then the governments of the world will have to ban encryption for non certified parties… that’s where were going folks… Criminals, sentenced for privacy not piracy. Funny, that used to be unthinkable. Now it just seems likely.

Ivan says:

Re: Re: Re:

“any government can have access to the certificates servers that is why they don’t need to ban them.”

Irrelevant. A Certificate Authority is never handed more than a *public* key (In a PKCS#10 Certificate Request). Once they assert you are who you claim to be, the PKCS#10 cert req is signed and the appropriate X.509 certificate is sent back to the requestor.

No – I repeat – NO *private key* is ever sent to the CA – and the CA is no more capable of decyphering encrypted traffic than anybody else having access to the Public key – which as its name implies – is public and does not need to be hidden.

The sole role of the CA is to assert (with its own signature – signed with their OWN private key) that the private key owner of a Public Key present in a X.509 cert is indeed the entity present in the X.509 cert (usually the CN field).

Charlie says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your right, but a friendly CA makes man in the middle much easier. I was looking through the CA list in a recent product and it seemed there were a great deal of government CA’s in there. Unless people are paying attention to who signed the certificate of the web site they visit, I am sure man in the middle attacks are already happening.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

> I am sure man in the middle attacks are already happening.

People have been saying this for a long time. Show me at least one certificate, signed by one of these CAs, which does not belong to the entity named in the certificate, and which was being used for MITM attacks.

Even better, post it to Mozilla’s bug tracker – it will cause them to seriously consider removing that CA from the trusted list. The story will be picked by Slashdot and the rest of the tech media, and everybody will know.

Or, in simpler words: pics or it didn’t happen.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Self-signed certificates are less secure.

Anyone can make a self-signed certificate which says “yes, I am http://www.example.com, honest”. Only one of the hundreds of trusted CAs can make a signed certificate which says “I certify the one with the private key corresponding to this public key is http://www.example.com“.

Still not as secure as it should be (hundreds of CAs can make one), but much more secure than self-signed certificates (anyone can make one).

Of course, both protect against passive interception; the difference matters only for active attacks.

Dan says:

Re: Re:

HADOPI nor Gov will force you to install this crap.
But if your IP is “seen” by the “Hadopi dogs”, you can be charged for illegal use of a P2P software, or maybe downloading from Rapidshare…. You are done.
You don’t have the possibility to discuss even if you were downloading the latest Linux distro , once your IP caught, your ISP has 15 days to give all your personals details to the Hadopi.
Then, without any lawyer or court, your Internet will be cut for a year, and you will receive a fine from € 45.000 to € 300.000 !!

Hephaestus (profile) says:

“The link above also notes that this appears to violate EU law, which prohibits a “general obligation to monitor.””

About half of whats in ACTA violates EU law. Which it why it is so easy to screw with it. Read a section of ACTA. Read EU law. Contact the correct office via e-mail, express your concerns and ask for clarification, CC a bunch of people in the press, watchdog groups, and rights organizations. Like magic people take notice, and unlike the US people actually do something.

3 strikes, ISP monitoring of citizens, high fines, disconnection from the internet, criminalization of infringement, searches of iPods and mp3 players, etc, will all be struck down by the EU courts. Agreements to do any of these things between rights holders and ISP’s will also be struck down.

In the beginning the only countries that ACTA will affect are Canada, Australia, America, South Korea, and Mexico. In South Korea, Australia, and Canada the level of internet access and communications will scare politicians into dumping or not enforcing large sections of ACTA. Piss off 80% of the population and you dont get re-elected.

vivaelamor (profile) says:

Is this even possible?

They want: “a system of alerts warning users if they are about to use a P2P connection: for example, “You are about to download a file using a P2P protocol – do you want to continue?””. How the hell do they expect to remotely inform a user that they are about to do anything? They could replace a web request with their own message but that’s not going to be able to tell when you’re clicking on a magnet link, or do anything while you’re in a p2p application.

Jonnie D. says:

Here in M?xico some hardcore downloaders use a certain program to use/steal your IP so they can keep downloading in servers like rapidshare without restrictions. I supose it happens in another countries too…

What would Hadopi would do at this case? Will it punish me or the Ip’s Burglar?

In the case of ACTA, I’m in the understanding that if someone uses your wi-fi connection without asking permission, they will punish you.

Let’s hope Hadopi and Acta soon die…

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...