Talk:Encrypting Your File Sharing

From InfoAnarchy
Jump to: navigation, search

Adding encrypted transfers to an exisiting public filesharing network would not provide any protection for copyright infringers. Copyright enforcement bodys are gathering information by pariticpating in fileshring networks, not by passivly monitoring transfers over the internet. The peer receiving a file has to have the decryption key so uploading a file to a copyright enforcement agent over an encrypted connection can still be seen to come from your ISP account.

You lack of understanding on the topic. Not every method used by "copyright enforcement bodies" is to go on the network and download files. Sometimes its done passively by your ISP as you download it, who does not have the key. "Copyright enforcement bodies" have been sued by KaZaA for misusing the EULA that you agree to when you sign up for the product. Adding encryption, in addition to this sort of litigation against the RIAA and other groups, effectively protects file sharers.
There's also such a thing as Public-Key Cryptosystems you should read up about before you post on this topic again. Webfork

I understand this topic. Childish name calling does not help.

"You are a moron" is childish name calling. Where in the above entry did I stoop to childish name calling?

On consideration, I should have written "Adding encrypted transfers to an exisiting public filesharing network would not provide any worhtwhile protection for copyright infringers in most cases".

Please provide some links to back up your claim that ISP's passivly monitor for copyright infringment. ISP's generally don't care. Someone using a corporate or university connection might be subject to monitoring and subsequent actions but ISP's do not care if their customers are breaching copyright. They just do what they have to avoid liability when they receive a complaint.

Currently, some ISPs turn a blind eye but when will AOL/Time Warner (the largest cable Internet providers in the US and a member of the RIAA) decide to change their mind about that? After all, the music industry is a trillion dollar business. How big is the ISP business? Its not as if ISPs delete your information. It is more than possible to keep file hashes of whatever you download and then use it against you later. Moreover, file sharing networks are constantly changing and developing. That information would be watched on the ISP level. Absolutely file encryption is a useful protection. Also, sharing a minimal number of files is also a protection, as described in RIAA/Boycott.
Thus, the statement "would not provide any protection for copyright infringers" is incorrect. Posting that at the top of the page as you did made the entire page invalid and its mentioned clients worthless so I moved it to Talk. It is however fair to say that no action other than abstaining from any sort of file sharing is a true defence. That phrase would be an effective and inclusive disclaimer.

Encryption would provide some protection against a third party getting a search warrant to capture someones internet traffic however that dosn't happen due to the resources required.

I'm aware of what public key crypto is. Public key crypto makes it possible to exchange keys over an insecure channel. Without public key crypto it would be necessary to exchange keys by other means such as giving someone a floppy disk. This does not change the fact that encryption currently does not provide worthwile protection for the users of public filesharing networks.

I was wrong here - I read this statement: "peer receiving a file has to have the decryption key so uploading a file to a copyright enforcement agent over an encrypted connection can still be seen to come from your ISP account." I took it to mean that file sharing systems all use the same key and are therefore insecure. My fault. Webfork

which they do not, individual clients exchange keys