dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Tuesday Morning Links
by Revcb 08:25AM Tuesday Sep 01 2009

view:
topics flat nest 

Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:2

Digiprotect Admits It Shares Files To Find People To Extort

Let me see if I can adapt their plan. I set a big screen TV on the front lawn with a "Free" sign on it, then when someone picks it up, I sue them for 80,0000 times the price of the TV. Atleast in my case, I'd be suing for the loss of a tangible product.

I think I might just look into this.
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: Digiprotect Admits It Shares Files To Find People To Extort

Digiprotect. These companies, sheesh. They are criminals.
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink

Digiprotect Admits It Shares Files Just To Blackmail People

This article: Serial Anti-Spam Lawsuit Filer Loses Appeal... And His Possessions. In techdirt.

»www.techdirt.com/articles/200908···54.shtml

He was counter sued by a spammer as a professional litigant. The court found on behalf of the spammer because of a flaw in the law and the defendant lost everything.

It looks like Digiprotect is doing the same thing. They are acting as a professional litigant not trying to stop file sharing just trying to entrap broadband users. Since the Copyright Mafia has our government in their back pocket I don't see to much hope for individuals defending themselves from Digiprotect.
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink

How Far Should Google Go To Protect User Privacy In Lawsuits

Google and services like them are turning out to be a resource for litigants. The first amendment is of no value if one has to pay tens of thousands of dollars to protect their right to free speech. Unfortunately most broadband users do not take into consideration that everything that the send or receive through the internet is stored somewhere or their activity is recorded. Most sludge judges will force a company like Google to reveal information for a litigant and force someone speaking out against an issue to spend countless dollars to retain their right to anonymity.

The Schmucks at Google retain a record of all users activity making it easy for courts to review a persons activity. Litigants can use that activity against them in a prosecution. Look up the effects of some sedative and if a loved one accidentally dies by an overdose by accident from the use of that sedative, some dirtbag prosecutor may try to build a case that the overdose was murder.

Broadband users need new search engine. One that does not retain a record of a users searches. I would prefer to use a search engine like that. If one becomes available, Google can put their search service where the Sun Does Not Shine.

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

4 edits

Re: How Far Should Google Go To Protect User Privacy In Lawsuits

said by Mr Matt:


Broadband users need new search engine. One that does not retain a record of a users searches. I would prefer to use a search engine like that. If one becomes available, Google can put their search service where the Sun Does Not Shine.
Search privacy tips:
»www.worldprivacyforum.org/search···ips.html

A search tool(StartPage/ixquick) that does not save any IP info on those using search:
»www.ixquick.com/ (multi-lanquage version) OR
»www.startpage.com/ (English version)
You can also set it to do all searches encrypted.

2 BBR Security threads on this search tool:
»Ixquick......the new Google?
»What Google knows about you

»www.startpage.com/eng/protect_privacy.html
FF Addon for ixquick: »addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/12389
Review: »semibeta.com/08/24/search-the-in···ixquick/

What it looks like in Expert mode and with HTTPS security on:

»www.startpage.com/

ixquick/startpage is a metasearch engine that provides privacy while gathering its search results from the following search engines:
* All the Web * Digg * Open Directory
* Ask/Teoma * EntireWeb * Qkport
* Bing * Exalead * Wikipedia
* Cuil * Gigablast * Yahoo

--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
google should go as far as needed to hide what they collect. sadly the laws are being purchased by the goons in the media industry or being pushed through in the name of "protecting the children" or "fightning terrorism" that soon all a cop will have to do to get data is goto 1800Subpoena.com fill out the form and collect.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

astroboi

@rr.com

Digiprotect Admits It Shares Files Just To Blackmail People

Another forum, I forget where, had some posts from people who had been contacted by this company. The posters stated that they just ignored the letters or emails and nothing happened. Digiprotect sounds like the phony bill collectors who, for the last few years, have bought old, junk debt, like defaulted record and book club memberships and then tried to collect using telemarketer tactics.

While these people rant and threaten, they apparently never follow through since a loss in court could bring down their scam. I myself was called three times a day for almost two years by such a company, or at least my phone blocker was. Result; they just faded away. But I read on web forums that some folks had paid them just to stop the calls. Ironically, that didn't stop the calls. The con-men simply demanded more money.

I might fear the RIAA but I have my doubts that Digiprotect really intends to pursue their questionable case in court. Rather, like any blackmailer, once they find a good mark they will milk the sucker dry.

DOStradamus
MVM
join:2003-11-04
Santa Rosa, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast

[Alert] "Three Strikes" Campaign Exibits Scam-like Behaviour

Reading the article on the BSA's statements regarding their support of "Three Strikes" legislation, the "Danger, Will Robinson!!" alert went off in my head, when I realized that there are three topics to that issue, and they were given the exact opposite amount of attention that they deserved:

#3. Due Process. Serious (stuff) when we're dealing with a penalty that could deprive an individual of his ability to engage in his profession and support his family. Made it way too easy for those scheming, "Sacks of (stuff)" to set the topic of the debate and deprive the other two, the most important one completely, of their proper attention in the debate:

#2. "Three Strikes", applied to?? While it was touched upon that 3 incidents of illegal activity by different members of a family could get that family's connection terminated, what about other settings, such as business or institutional? Could three students cause their whole high school to lose its connectivity, or worse, could three disgruntled employees sabotage their employer by intentionally earning one each?

Oh, they don't want that brought up! Figures.

#1. Evidence Standards: "WHAT Constitutes PROOF that, for example, the "strikee" was actually engaged in downloading the infringing file he is accused of?" This is a sore spot for me, and, the mechanism in my example is based on an actual FALSE POSITIVE DMCA complaint filed with my ISP. I have, however, changed the type and name of the file in my example, to better show the flimsy EXCRETA a movie distributor considers "proof":

Say, someone is contracted by Adobe to hunt for those downloading pirated copies of their software via BitTorrent. Deciding to go after those downloading "Acrobat", they know, obviously, that can't be a search term, so they search torrents instead for "After Effects".....

Their search nets them a few thousand torrents with "After Effects" in one of their filenames. Deciding that actually looking at the name of the file that has "After Effects" in it, they don't bother to check if the file size is large enough to actually hold what they are about to accuse someone of downloading (which could be done by software). Needless to say, the payload is not bothered to be positively ID'd.

They commence collecting IP addresses of those participating in each torrent.

Kinko Schmuck is an aficionado of offbeat movies. He reads about an amateur "short" called "The After Effects of Nasal Sex" had been posted to The Pirate Bay, by its maker, as a way to get it out there to the masses. Finding the title irresistibly tasteless, 10 minutes later he's downloading it.

5 days later, he receives a *harsh* email from his ISP that Adobe has filed a DMCA complaint alleging that Adobe Acrobat was illegally downloaded by someone at his IP address.

I was accused of downloading the full-length move, "The Fountain", a few years back, in .FLAC format(!), that managed to compress it to a tiny 50 MB.

The evidence standard must be "Topic #1", then, those not involved in illegal activities need a "Safe Harbor" they can qualify themselves for, after only which it would be finally be appropriate to discuss dragging those accused of being actually responsible for the illegal act through the legal process.

"First things first!", *A-holes!

-NK
--
It's absolutely certain that any given database will eventually corrupt itself -- that's why we make backups.

Too much data in one place is absolutely corrupting -- that's why we have the Second Amendment!