5th Circuit rules ISP should have terminated Internet users accused of piracy
"Accused of"? Surely they meant, "Proven guilty of" ?? I ask because there are applications that can turn a persons internet connection unknowingly into a proxy or VPN server. It's a shady practice but if all one needs to get terminated is a hit from an IP address then millions of people could get disconnected with little or no recourse, could they not? If this is the case then everyone will need an easy to use UI into an eBPF monitor that records all communications into and out of their system before/after it is encrypted. [1] Not to be confused with a MitM proxy. And everyone would also need to implement something like Little Snitch or OpenSnitch [2] to limit what can talk to the internet and when or one dodgy NPM library could rue the day.
Now, I am European. This means I will never be able to understand American politics. But: isn't the 5th circuit crazy? I mean, crazy way beyond "USA doesn't understand why political control of the jurisical system is bad".
I sat down and read some of the older rulings and almost died of secondary shame. Nobody can think this system is bad unless they think winning is more important than being right.
Slightly related: What's the current state of being able to do all the government-related things in the US without an internet access? It's it all still 100% possible, just harder? Or are there things that effectively require a connection?
Everything can still be done without Internet but it is, in many cases, more difficult.
If I used the USPS to distribute audio tape of pirated material, then the 5th Circuit would argue I should be denied mail service since that's an available remedy? It'll be interesting to see what SCOTUS does with this.
Nah. It's more like you were doing that, but the mail service stopped delivering to both of your neighbours instead.
Because the audio tape piracy agency uses cheapest-bidder outsourced labour that doesn't know (or care) to get the details right.
Is it? What tells you that SCOTUS would rule against their favorite immortal legal individuals in the world, huge corporations?
It's a crap shoot WRT how SCOTUS would rule on this, but we can be reasonably confident some legal contortions are going to be involved. Or maybe they'll surprise us and give a simple, straightforward ruling. Who knows?
BTW, the ancient Chinese curse applies here: may you live in interesting times.
Imagine sharing pirated content on i.e. AWS, which would cause disconnection of whole AWS. Easy way how to get rid of competition.