Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Pirate Bay Plans Servers In the Sky

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the cloud-pirates dept.

Cloud 329

1sockchuck writes "The Pirate Bay says it plans to deploy servers on airborne drones several kilometers above international waters. The site said it was experimenting with servers using Raspberry Pi, a credit-card sized Linux computer. April Fools come early? Torrent Freak says the plan is real. It's apparently a literal approach to cloud computing."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I've seen that movie... (5, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404151)

and it sucked. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091964/ [imdb.com]

Re:I've seen that movie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404229)

The first hing I thought of was this game [ludocraft.oulu.fi] .

CLOUD COMPUTING!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404601)

It's apparently a literal approach to cloud computing

Herp a derp. You am SO FUNNY! HUR HUR HUR man where do you come up with such insightful, yet hilarious prose? Have you thought about joining a writer's guild? Seriously!!!

Re:I've seen that movie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404505)

It couldn't have been as bad as this was. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1695403/ [imdb.com]

Re:I've seen that movie... (4, Funny)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404591)

Who would have thought Skynet would first be created in the sky

Search warrants not needed... (4, Insightful)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404157)

Because they'll just get shot down or have an "accident".

Re:Search warrants not needed... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404223)

$1000 server in the sky vs $1,000,000 cruise missile

Cruise missile wins.

US Taxpayer loses.

Re:Search warrants not needed... (4, Informative)

f3rret (1776822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404277)

Cruise missiles aren't intended for an Anti-air role...

Re:Search warrants not needed... (2, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404821)

There are such things as Sea-to-air cruise missiles. They're original purpose was for the U.S. Navy to defend itself from incoming Russian airplanes at ~200 miles range. They should be able to kill a drone plane too, as long as it's large enough to get a radar lock.

There are also nuclear-tipped cruise missile Tomahawks, designed for killing subs (the pressure wave crushes them) or above surface targets like ships and planes (ditto). Of course that would be overkill for a drone. ;-)

Re:Search warrants not needed... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404285)

I don't think the cruise missile would be a good weapon of choice against an airborne target.

Re:Search warrants not needed... (2)

Garnaralf (595872) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404417)

Most likely either a RIM-156 or a RIM-162, depending on the range. The RIM-156 range is about 100 nautical miles, and the RIM-162 is about 50 nautical miles. That, or they'd just shoot it down with a fighter jet.

Re:Search warrants not needed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404527)

cost? I think the OP's point stands.

Re:Search warrants not needed... (0)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404777)

Iran recently showed us how easy it is to take control of a drone and land it wherever you'd like. In this case, perhaps they'd be landed somewhere in the arctic or at the bottom of the atlantic?

Re:Search warrants not needed... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404597)

Most likely either a RIM-156 or a RIM-162, depending on the range. The RIM-156 range is about 100 nautical miles, and the RIM-162 is about 50 nautical miles.

That, or they'd just shoot it down with a fighter jet.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mister Tom Clancy!

Re:Search warrants not needed... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404779)

A fighter jet would be way overkill - they could just send out a boat with a minigun.

Re:Search warrants not needed... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404325)

even worse $25 server in the sky, USA has 10'000 missiles MAX (10 billion worth) and all it takes is to sacrifice 10'000 Raspberry Pi ($250'000 worth)

Re:Search warrants not needed... (1)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404583)

Er, yes, plus the cost of the thing carrying it - likely to be in the $10k to $100k region at a rough guess. Or haven't you noticed that the Raspberry PI doesn't, erm, fly?

Re:Search warrants not needed... (5, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404795)

":Or haven't you noticed that the Raspberry PI doesn't, erm, fly?"

You are not throwing it hard enough.

Re:Search warrants not needed... (2)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404667)

...all it takes is to sacrifice 10'000 Raspberry Pi ($250'000 worth)

...bbbbut, 10000 that's the entire production run! I don't think raspberry pies were intended to serve as cheap skeet shooting targets...

Re:Search warrants not needed... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404301)

Ironically, such an action by the RIAA/MPAA in international waters would technically be an act of piracy.

Re:Search warrants not needed... (2, Insightful)

s_p_oneil (795792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404433)

So would an act of anti-piracy that's also an act of piracy cancel itself out?

Re:Search warrants not needed... (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404363)

Any drone that has a Raspberry PI as its payload is probably not all that expensive. I imagine they could get another back up in short order or have enough redundancy that shooting enough of them down would be a non-trivial problem. Well, shooting enough of them down without causing any collateral damage, at least. You can't exactly be firing guns into the air (or straight down from the air, as from a chopper or plane) anywhere near a coastline or city without some risk of a bullet or missile going stray and causing collateral damage. EWAR might be right out as well for fear of interfering with maritime navigation or accidentally firing a super-powered interference beam and clipping something like a hospital or airport control tower.

Re:Search warrants not needed... (1)

Cosgrach (1737088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404467)

These are meant to be in INTERNATIONAL waters - far from any coastline and thus, collateral damage. Unless some unlucky bastard happened to be directly under the falling debris...

Re:Search warrants not needed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404513)

Don't worry, we plan to program them with collective intelligence.
They will replicate themselves at a steady rate, increasing bandwidth based on demand.

Every time they are shot down, the collective will improve to better withstand the attack. Nothing can possibly go wrong.

Re:Search warrants not needed... (4, Insightful)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404689)

My first torrent share to it will be a remake of Norman Greenbaum's Spirit in the Sky, instead it'll be Server in the Sky.

But if there aren't any clouds in the sky... (2)

FreedomOfThought (2544248) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404163)

But if there aren't any clouds in the sky, can you still access TPB? This sounds like an interesting project, though... I would love to see it work for technology sake.

Clear skies? (2, Insightful)

FreedomOfThought (2544248) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404187)

But if there aren't any clouds in the sky, can you still access TPB? This sounds like an interesting project, though... I would love to see it work for technology sake.

In all irony, though, if there were LOTS of clouds in the sky, how would the site perform then?

Re:Clear skies? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404453)

I wish there was a -1 retarded mod because you, sir, are a fucking retard.

MODERATORS!!! DIAL 911!!!! EMERGENCY!!!!!l!!!!!!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404699)

mod parent up

Re:Clear skies? (2)

hort_wort (1401963) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404463)

In all irony, though, if there were LOTS of clouds in the sky, how would the site perform then?

From your subject heading, I immediately thought "Lok Vah Koor!" This is also an answer to your question. ;)

Re:Clear skies? (5, Funny)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404617)

But if there aren't any clouds in the sky, can you still access TPB?

We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, pirates were dependent on solar power. It was believed they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.

Erm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404199)

So you only need like 5,000 drones in the sky at any given time, and they have to be disposable so you don't land illicit material on sovereign territory?

Sounds legit.

Re:Erm... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404539)

Not too hard to do - just need enough money.

Note: given the sheer amount of pollution, you should probably only do the following to prove a point, and little else.

First, buy hundreds, if not thousands of cheap mylar helium balloons. Then, strap a tiny computer, a geek stick full of pirated material, a cheap wifi WAP /w antenna booster, and a battery pack to each bundle of balloons. Release them over the area by the hundreds over the west coast of a continent, doing so from pickup trucks at random locations. The mylar balloons last for well over a week, and (at least somewhat) reflect radar signals so that aircraft could avoid them if need be.

Pros: They're too small to waste A/A or SAM weaponry on, if you knock one down there's hundreds more, and they can be launched with some modicum of stealth.

Cons: Not certain how reliable any given one would be, they could be hijacked (though they could be hardened), and you'll have little control over their flight path. In aggregate, it'll be a bit pricey to do, and you'd have to buy your helium a little at a time to avoid notice.

Re:Erm... (1)

Rasperin (1034758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404731)

Honestly, I'd go with a small wind and solar power generator with a battery pack. Then you wouldn't have to worry about them becoming dead-in-the-sky (dits).

Re:Erm... (5, Funny)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404811)

I'd suggest just under 100 of them. Be sure they're reflective of light in the 630-740nm range.

I guess when they crash... (4, Funny)

tscheez (71929) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404225)

they really *crash*.

Pirating must pay really well (5, Insightful)

s_p_oneil (795792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404237)

Pirating must pay really well. I can't imagine how much it would cost to manage those servers and keep them up there 24/7.

Re:Pirating must pay really well (1)

Troke (1612099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404335)

If it needs a hard reboot, staff needs a really tall ladder.

Re:Pirating must pay really well (1)

s_p_oneil (795792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404399)

Maybe they could install robot fingers positioned over the power buttons. Although if they can be controlled remotely, the MPAA will try to hack into the fingers. ;-)

Re:Pirating must pay really well (1)

the_leander (759904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404367)

I imagine you could do it relatively cheaply if you used a helium balloon. Need to fix it, go out there on a boat, swap over the electronics package, let it go back up. If it's done right it could make for some very interesting developments.

Re:Pirating must pay really well (2)

s_p_oneil (795792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404451)

How do you keep the helium balloon from being blown around by the winds? If you can't do that, you can't keep it over international waters.

Re:Pirating must pay really well (1)

the_leander (759904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404545)

Well I was thinking an anchor with a length of rope, but I imagine if you wanted to get fancy you could rig up some gps gear and a couple of propellers powered by solar electricity and batteries...

Re:Pirating must pay really well (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404797)

Well I was thinking an anchor with a length of rope

So the MAFIAA could just sail there, and reel them in...

But with 'loons the point is moot anyways: dart guns are much cheaper than cruise missiles with much less potential for collateral damage...

Re:Pirating must pay really well (2)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404435)

A single weather balloon will carry a raspberrypi, so the airborne part is the easy part. The difficult part is the ground station that has to track and manage the things.

Re:Pirating must pay really well (1)

s_p_oneil (795792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404535)

Weather balloons are blown around by the wind, which tends to be pretty fast (and consistent) high up where there are no trees or mountains to slow it down, so they wouldn't stay where TPB wants them (over international waters) for very long.

Re:Pirating must pay really well (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404807)

They probably don't intent on creating such ground station, as it would defeat the porpouse of lifting the servers. If you want to contact a baloon, you can use an RF kit.

But I don't understand why they plan to keep the servers at internationa waters. Shouldn't they get near coast to be useful? And wouldn't it be simpler to just put the servers up there, and forget about them?

Yeah, but the PR is free (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404717)

They have no intention of actually launching this, anymore than they're going to put servers on Sealand [theregister.co.uk] . But the announcement gets them lots of free PR.

Brings a whole new meaning to... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404241)

"Server Crashed"

Stratovision (4, Informative)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404245)

It's been done before with Stratovision [wikipedia.org] . The model doesn't work with current fuel sources and repair times.

Re:Stratovision (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404305)

Two new ideas:
1) solar powered glider (doesn't have to get anywhere fast, just has to stay up)
2) a legal service could be mounted on random jet passenger craft.

GOOG or APPL should buy wireless bandwidth and mount the nodes on passenger planes.

Re:Stratovision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404371)

The servers don't really need much energy. The platform would be a solar plane that flies above the clouds and captures enough energy by day to stay up through the night. And then you add less than 100g of computer hardware that consumes less than 10W, both a small fraction of the mass and energy consumption of the plane. The whole thing should be cheap enough that you can keep sending new ones up for a week while they keep getting shot down.

What's next? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404257)

Pirate satellites? Are we going to see SOPA 2.0 giving the government the authority to shoot down private satellites?

Re:What's next? (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404327)

No, but we are going to see a lot of fighter pilots trained by the MAFIAA to shoot down these drones. Since they are in international waters there is no law from stopping the copratocracy from purchasing the resources to take them down.

Re:What's next? (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404383)

Because there's no law stopping you from shooting down a passenger jumbo jet flying over international waters, right?

Re:What's next? (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404497)

I'm just saying, be careful what you download on long international flights.

Seriously though, there are international treaties against murder of innocent civilians and what not so I think that would be a pretty powerful force for NOT shooting down manned jets or passenger planes. However since these are unmanned drones I don't think those same laws apply. It might be construed as an act of war, but between whom? Two corporations? Which side of that equation do you think the bought and paid for governments of the world are going to fall into?

Re:What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404751)

Put a sign 'baby on board'. If they blow it up, argue there was a child on board.... Yes, it was terribly irresponsible. But today is a tragic day. Think of the children! Jail the corporate terrorist!

Re:What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404425)

I think that most nations will have something to say about the selling and operation of military aircraft. I think that mounting some .50 cal machine-guns in merchant vessel a reasonable thing to do in pirate (the other kind) ridden waters but is still forbidden.

Re:What's next? (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404571)

I worked for a company whose CEO recently died in a plane crash. This CEO personally owned a F-16 which he routinely flaunted and flew at air shows and what not. He bought this piece of hardware as a private individual. It was not armed AFAIK, but that is a simple thing to remedy. Also, it's not like large caliber guns are hard things to come by in certain countries. The attacking jets don't have to be launched from the US.

Re:What's next? (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404823)

Well if the flying servers (servlets?) carry a flag then it could possibly be criminal. Just find a country with a strong position on destruction of property to fly under.

Re:What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404459)

Pirate satellites? Are we going to see SOPA 2.0 giving the government the authority to shoot down private satellites?

From the summery:

The Pirate Bay says it plans to deploy servers on airborne drones several kilometers above international waters.

Exactly what government are you talking about?

silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships... (1)

neurocutie (677249) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404339)

lots of problems with servers in the air... much easier to put servers on ships in int'l waters... like pirate radio...

Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404385)

Technically the weather should be more stable in the sky if they set it up properly.

Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404495)

I've had it with these mf'ing servers on this mf'ing ship!

Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. (1)

defnoz (1128875) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404549)

This was my first thought - what's the advantage of an aircraft rather than a ship (or buoy)? Two or three strategically placed should minimise the chances of weather putting the service offline. Also - using Raspberry Pi? I'm not in IT, but I'm thinking that the server power and bandwidth required by TPB is in the order of "quite lots".

Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404849)

Putting it at a higher altitude lets the radio reach farther, presumably. I doubt you'd want to use commercial wi-fi for this since the range would only be on the order of hundreds of feet without a good directional antenna.

Re:silly idea, far easier to put servers on ships. (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404767)

lots of problems with servers in the air... much easier to put servers on ships in int'l waters... like pirate radio...

Just be careful to not put them anywhere near Somalia...

Why not a balloon? (2)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404343)

Seems like it would be cheaper than drones.

Rough design (5, Insightful)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404355)

I assume we're looking at:

  • Solar-powered drone with enough battery to last overnight - it's been done but it's not easy
  • Satellite modem for data comms
  • Thunking great sat dish on the back of it - not good for aerodynamics
  • GPS navigation with auto-navigation to keep it in the right place
  • Stabilised platform for the sat dish with something to auto point it at a satellite
  • Some very-low-power, very-low-weight server

I guess there are more compact antennas available, but they're likely to be both more expensive and more power-hungry than a dish.

Any sort of real server iron is going to cause both weight and power-consumption problems.

The main challenge is going to be to get enough solar panels fitted to the thing to both keep it flying and keep it talking.

Launching the thing is going to be a challenge - I'm pretty sure the FAA isn't going to approve it, so it either needs to be clandestine or off a boat. And since presumably TPB's finances don't run to aircraft carriers, that introduces challenges all it's own.

Server reliability is going to become a major issue. If you have no way of recovering the thing then you'll need to treat them as disposable - when one fails, crash it into something and replace it with another one. Unless your budget is large, you'd better hope that doesn't happen too often.

And, as others have commented, while removing yourself from every legal jurisdiction does mitigate your risk of having a search warrant issued, it only replaces it with the risk of being shot down. And it's getting to the stage where it's cheaper for a government to take military action than legal action, especially when they know no-one's going to shoot back.

Re:Rough design (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404481)

TL;DR summary? INTERNATIONAL waters are not usually governed by the FAA, and these guys are not likely to live in the USA either.

Re:Rough design (1)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404635)

Way to read a comment before you respond...

The problem with certification is not where they lurk, but where they are launched. Either you need somewhere with land to launch them, or you need an aircraft carrier, or you need to be able to launch them without a runway. The carrier is expensive. If the thing is a solar powered aircraft, vertical takeoff is unlikely to be feasible. So you're left with something land-based, which means either certification form the relevant authority (and lots of these just rubber-stamp FAA certs) or doing it clandestinely.

See my point?

Re:Rough design (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404673)

Solar-powered drone with enough battery to last overnight - it's been done but it's not easy

There is the option of gliding at night and making sure you have enough altitude to last through the night.

Would you want satellite comms? Surely you only need to communicate with a ground station and other drones.

Launching the thing is going to be a challenge - I'm pretty sure the FAA isn't going to approve it, so it either needs to be clandestine or off a boat.

Don't see this as a problem. Many countries will start allowing pilotless drones, so if this is based off a standard civilian design, no special license will be required. Remember, there are other aviation authorities than the FAA. I'd have thought the American authority would be the last group they would apply to.

Even if it is launched of a boat, some types of pilotless drones are launched by throwing.

And, as others have commented, while removing yourself from every legal jurisdiction does mitigate your risk of having a search warrant issued, it only replaces it with the risk of being shot down. And it's getting to the stage where it's cheaper for a government to take military action than legal action, especially when they know no-one's going to shoot back.

I doubt the US would really want to shoot down a Swedish registered aircraft over copyright infringement. Would set something of a precedent.

saw that movie on cable (2)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404359)

They're going to put Philip Seymour Hoffman in a blimp in the stratosphere?!!!

Re:saw that movie on cable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404715)

They're finally making The Splendiferous Zeppelin Escapades of Filliam H. Muffman?

why not? (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404429)

Once solar panels can provide enough power for the drones to stay aloft indefinitely this seems feasible.

Pi in the sky (2)

FreeSpeechForTheDumb (1823322) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404431)

This whole plan is a little too "Pi in the sky" for me ...

Re:Pi in the sky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404729)

This whole plan is a little too "Pi in the sky" for me ...

ELO? [sing365.com]

Someone suggested balloons [slashdot.org] instead. How about solar powered zeppelins. Any light weight long lasting rechargeable batteries yet? They ever get good printable/paintable solar cells yet?

I've heard this song before (5, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404441)

Hast du etwas Zeit fuer mich
Dann singe ich ein Lied fuer dich
Von 99 Luftboxens
Auf ihrem Weg zum Horizont
Denkst du vielleicht g'rad an mich
Dann singe ich ein Lied fuer dich
Von 99 Luftboxens
Und dass sowas von sowas kommt

99 Luftboxens
Auf ihrem Weg zum Horizont
Hielt man fuer Ufos aus dem All
Darum schickte ein General
'ne Fliegerstaffel hinterher
Alarm zu geben, wenn's so war
Dabei war'n da am Horizont
Nur 99 Luftboxens ...

Offtopic? People don't like '80s German pop music? (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404843)

What's wrong with Nena?

OK, How about 70s American pop music? Norman Greenbaum:

When I die and they lay me to rest
Gonna go to the place that's the best
When I lay me down to die
Goin' up to the server in the sky

Goin' up to the server in the sky
That's where I'm gonna go when I die
When I die and they lay me to rest
Gonna go to the place that's the best

Prepare yourself, you know it's a must
Gotta have a friend in Jesus
So you know that when you die
He's gonna recommend you to the server in the sky ...

That's nice and all... (1)

Sydin (2598829) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404499)

But I was under the impression that drones do eventually need to be refueled and repaired? Which means these things need to come back through national waters and national airspace, where they suddenly fall under the jurisdiction of whatever country they're in to be refueled. Not to mention whoever is doing the refueling is putting themselves at risk. It won't be hard to track where the piracy drone is heading to for its maintenance. Sounds like a fun idea in theory, but I'm not to sure about the practice.

Re:That's nice and all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404517)

Gives a new meaning to 'up time'

Re:That's nice and all... (1)

s_p_oneil (795792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404569)

Maybe TPB plans to create/acquire its own aircraft carrier. It would fit with the pirate image, after all. Maybe they could purchase the USS Enterprise, which is about to be decommissioned.

Connectivity (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404515)

Ok, TFA conveniently neglects to mention how they plan to get an accessible IP address.
Who wants to be their ISP? And how long do you think that'll last?

traceroute (4, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404523)

This wouldn't do them a whole lot of good. The key to shutting them down isn't getting physical access/jurisdiction to them in some country, but shutting down their link to the internet. Like with any pirate, if you know where their home port is, you can easily cut them off there. Never mind radar and satellite imaging; all you'd need is traceroute and a someone in the country it leads to who is willing to sign a legal order to disable their internet access.

Re:traceroute (1)

Barbara, not Barbie (721478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404695)

Like with any pirate, if you know where their home port is

Their home port is 127.0.0.1:80 - feel free to DDoS them off the net!

I for one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404531)

I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

And Skynet is born.

Another idea (4, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404561)

We could set up our network of orbiting drones as node relays and create our own internet. Take that AT&T!

It would work great until AOL launched their own drone, which would be the size of the Hindenburg, immediately swamping the other nodes with traffic and requiring users to type all in caps.

Tor Browser Bundle for Linux (2.2.35-8) "EVIL bug" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404565)

There is an EVIL bug in at least the Linux (2.2.35-8) Tor Browser Bundle start-tor-browser script. It will log things like domain names to a file in the root of the browser bundle.

https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5417 [torproject.org]

Ticket #5417 (new defect)

RelativeLink.sh in Tor browser bundle has small typo causing debug mode to be always turned on

Reported by: cypherpunks
Priority: critical
Component: Tor bundles/installation

Description

TBB starts in debug mode disregardless of --debug switch used or not. This is caused by small bug on line 208 on RelativeLink.sh, where it says

if [ "${debug}" ];

where it should say

if [ "${debug}" == 1];

or

if [ ${debug} -eq 1 ];

Solar powered servers epoxied to walls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404575)

The problem with TBP is that they only provide torrents, not seeds.

I have been thinking over seed servers - what BitTorrent calls a downloader - that would have no moving parts, be very small, easily disguised and solar powered.

You'd glue then to the outside of a building within range of 802.11. You'd need an alternative way to access them remotely in case the SSID or password ever changes.

Do raspberry pis work with USB storage? a four gig commodity stick is about six bucks.

Re:Solar powered servers epoxied to walls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404791)

You'd glue then to the outside of a building within range of 802.11. You'd need an alternative way to access them remotely in case the SSID or password ever changes.

This is trivial -- you can either install the aircrack-ng suite and a small amount of scripting to automate cracking WEP, or play by the rules and program it for two networks -- the internet connection, plus an encrypted net that your laptop is a softap base station for. You pull up, and if it's lost it's main connection, it'll connect to you as soon as it sees a beacon.

Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404593)

The Drone Wars have started!

Nifty ideas (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404627)

You can't but love the concepts these guys come up with, all just for the sake of piracy. Didn't they a couple of years ago have a plan of buying their own island. It's a pity it didn't pan out (can't recall the reason), it would have been interesting to see where it would have led things.

Now I know why..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404637)

I was unable to purchase a Pi when they went on sale.. The Pirate Bay crashed the two resellers buying theirs....

Uplink? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404681)

How would the server uplink with the rest of the Internet? It would have to connect either by long range wireless or satellite link. For wireless, you'd need a ground station in a nation, also satellites usually fall under the jurisdiction by the nation they are launched by. To shut them down, the RIAA/MPAA/others would just need to petition whichever country the access is coming through to pressure them into cutting the link. There is no truly independent option for connecting to the web.

The only thing this will do is help protect the server from being confiscated.

I think the easier solution, assuming that the data on the server is not that important (assuming if it's going on drones that there are already countless backups of it), would be to just create cheap throw away servers, then install them in a redundant network in various countries. By the time the legal process goes through to seize one of them, just setup another one elsewhere and wait for the slow progress of the law to catch up to it again. I'm sure some of the people behind The Pirate Bay, are competent enough to setup dummy accounts and stuff to ensure that even if one of the throw-away servers are seized, that they can't be traced back to them.

Makes no sense to me (4, Insightful)

AC-x (735297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404697)

I can't think of any reason to do this (other than an elaborate April fools), to make these servers available to the internet they will need to either connect to ground infrastructure somewhere directly or rely on a wireless service provider (cellular or satellite).

If they're relying on a wireless internet provider they could just shut access to the servers off, if it's connected to ground infrastructure (which would of course need to go through 3rd party internet providers as well) then access can just be cut off from there instead. They may as well, if using miniature low cost servers, just create small self powered self contained servers that can be hidden at multiple locations.

Or, are they suggested that to access The Pirate Bay you will now need your own dish antenna to contact the server drones directly? :)

Cloud computing in the clouds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404721)

What goes up.....
Unless these drones have nuclear reactors in them, they have to come down some time?
This seems like a lot of wasted energy to me.. what is the point, the purpose of this?
If they are afraid of being blocked or their assets being frozen, the military can shoot down drones, and governments
can still block RF traffic. I don't see any advantage.

Wouldn't the MAFIAA just take out the base station (4, Insightful)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404747)

All these raspberry birds need to link to a base station somewhere (or how else would would customers communicate with them). And this station needs to be on firm ground, in some jurisdiction, and be connected via some backbone to the rest of the internet. Quite a number of potential points of failure to lean on without ever needing to take a single bird down.

DO NOT WANT (1)

psydeshow (154300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39404783)

Oh great, that's all we need: an excuse to weaponize copyright enforcement.

I'd rather the MPAA and RIAA didn't have anti-drone drones, thank you very much. Please keep your servers in datacenters or come up with a better plan, like distributing them over millions of peoples' iPhones.

BoiOIoiOIoiOIoiOIoiNG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39404841)

True or not, it definitely gave me a nerd/brain boner.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?