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!

German Court: ISPs Must Hand Over File Sharer Info

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the but-i-thought-sharing-was-caring dept.

Piracy 136

itwbennett writes "The German Federal Court of Justice has ruled that ISPs have to turn over to rights-holders the names and addresses of illegal file sharers, but only 'if a judge rules that the file sharer indeed infringed on copyright,' said the court's spokeswoman, Dietlind Weinland. The ruling overturns two previous rulings by regional courts and is significant because the violation doesn't have to happen on a commercial scale, but applies whenever 'it is possible to know who was using an IP address at the time of the infringement,' the court said."

cancel ×

136 comments

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

"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (4, Interesting)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40992737)

So, how do they know how many people live at the residence serviced by the named account? And by extension which one was using the computer at the time the alleged offence is supposed to have occurred?

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (4, Interesting)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40992781)

There is nothing wrong in questioning the person to whom the service is registered to. However, I agree automatic guilt assumption is wrong, but I repeat if your name is on it then you should be questioned.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40992883)

There is nothing wrong in questioning the person to whom the service is registered to. However, I agree automatic guilt assumption is wrong, but I repeat if your name is on it then you should be questioned.

Are they still allowed to plea the 5th Ammendment?

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0, Flamebait)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40992895)

Most of Europe doesn't have an equivalent to the 5th Amendment. They, for whatever reason, do not see this as a problem. We are quickly ceasing to have it even here in the US.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (5, Informative)

fisted (2295862) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993265)

How did this become +5 Insightful? WTF? Is it because it contains the magic words "Europe doesn't have"?
Except that our juridical System (fortunately) doesn't include a ridiculous entity like a "Grand Jury", the rest of the 5th Amendment does have an equivalent in Germany. The main difference being perhaps that it isn't an "Amendment" over here, which speaks for itself.

Whatever.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993327)

You Germans don't know how to fish candy bars out of the Pool of Heroes!

You're all a huge disgrace! Get out of my sight!

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993473)

I wish there was a -1 Rambling Idiot.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (-1, Flamebait)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993435)

You realize that the United States effectively defined "amendment" and "constitution" in the sense you understand them, right? And that the Bill of Rights was effectively a part of the constitution, despite being posed as amendments." You also realize that you are attacking the US for a minor distinction made 200 years ago, in a country with many more serious and recent problems along the same lines? And that after that small mess, we effectively rewrote your constitution to how it is now?

God, Slashdot has gone to shit. Yesterday 2 trolls modding themselves up to +5, now people with no substantiated facts being modded up simply because they imply the United States is somehow evil. I think it is time to leave this place to burn itself down.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

fisted (2295862) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993607)

Actually i was just wondering how it became +5 Insightful, while being a ridiculous and obvious false statement. You're doing a great job at ignoring that in your otherwise very entertaining rant about how the US is right and /. is shitty.

YOu ignoring what the OP said (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993625)

"most of europe does not have" which is wrong and what the GP was railing against. Instead you cocnentrated on the minutia. The fact is that that 5th amendment you seem so proud of, come mostly historically from the magna carta and UK law , hundreds of year before the US was even "discovered".

"The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to Magna Carta in 1215. For instance, grand juries and the phrase due process (also found in the 14th Amendment) both trace their origin to Magna Carta."

So before you ask people to learn about history.... learn about yours. That 5th amendement you seem so proud of, comes from europe.

Re:YOu ignoring what the OP said (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40994773)

Contrary to what some anglocentrists may believe, Great Britain certainly is not most of Europe. Also, common law is not in use anywhere in Europe other than GB.

Re:YOu ignoring what the OP said (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40995081)

That 5th amendment you seem so proud of, comes from Europe.

Wrong. It comes from England. Europe is on the other side of the Channel.
:)

What are you talking about? (1)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993669)

The Constitution was ratified in 1787. The amendments to the constitution came some years later once they realized they forgot a bunch of shit like basic human rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org]

Here in Germany, we just went ahead and included the basic human rights from the beginning.

Re:What are you talking about? (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993971)

However you have to admit that the German constitution was made in a situation where a massive violation of human rights had just been done, so everyone was exceptionally well aware of the importance of them. Which is why the human rights are right at the start of the constitution and are specially protected.

Re:What are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40995041)

However you have to admit that the German constitution was made in a situation where a massive violation of human rights had just been done

Are you talking about 1848/1871 or 1919?

Re:What are you talking about? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#40995035)

Actually, the US constitution was ratified in 1788 (it was created 1787), and the Bill of Rights was proposed in 1789 (and ratified in 91). Two of the thirteen states, North Carolina and Rhode Island didn't ratify the Constituion until the Bill of Rights had been proposed. Complaining about at what could at most be a four year gap (and ignoring that the states protected many of those rights already via their own constitutions) is rather nitpicky, especially given the environment.

Also, the statement that all people had inalienable rights via the Declaration of Independence predated the US Constitution by more than a decade, and the DoI is far more celebrated in American culture than the Constitution.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (3, Interesting)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994013)

What? That's an odd way of saying "thanks for the correction."

But instead you just made MORE wrong claims! Great.

You realize that the United States effectively defined "amendment" and "constitution" in the sense you understand them, right? [..] And that after that small mess, we effectively rewrote your constitution to how it is now?

Citations needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_development [wikipedia.org]

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40994647)

I agree here - I see this quite a bit on Slashdot.

A lot of US bashing.

I think I will be leaving as well. There are other websites out there.

Bye.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (4, Informative)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | more than 2 years ago | (#40995117)

I am a US basher, so let me defend that position: All nations are bad, some are worse than others. The US is not the worst. The US probably rates about 18th on my list of evil governments, and it gets a special boost because of it's wide reach. If the DRC or north Korea had the global reach of the US they would be many times worse. They don't though. The US has military bases in the country I live in. They have CIA/NSA spy bases in the country I was born in (two seperate countries). They permeate all our public broadcasting with US culture/news/entertainment. They stand on a soapbox and shout out to the world phrases like 'land of the free', 'leader of the free world', 'greatest nation on earth'... etc. ad nauseam. I bash the US for the same reason that people bash Charlie Sheen for taking drugs, or Bill Clinton for getting a blowjob. Are they the worst? No. Could you find someone in every crackhouse in every city in the world that both does more drugs than sheen, and gets more blowjobs than Cli'ton? Yes. But when you hold yourself up in the public eye, and try to gain fame and recognition, when you put yourself in a position of power and influence over others, you are under more scrutiny than most. If you get the US to pull all it's forces out of the hundreds of countries they are in, and to stop interfering in our justice systems, or foreign affairs and our economies, then I will go after someone else. Russia and China are next on my list, and they would just love to take your spot. So quit complaining.

To be fair, this thread is about Germany. All governments are liars and murderers. So let me share the love: Fuck Germany. I am sitting here in the poor district of Berlin with no money, no work, and no food in my house. The state owes me over 1000 Euros, but they wont pay it because they have deliberately lost the paperwork I filed to claim it. After they first returned it to me complaining that I filed it a few days early. Everyone who deals with this government branch knows they deliberately lose paperwork, and do their best to screw you. No one can do anything about it though. Fuck Germany.

I am sorry that rant wasn't more on topic but the way Germany deals with copyright law in the context of individual breaches through filesharing is fair and reasonable, and I have no complaints about it. They screw over the entertainment and hospitality industry, not to mention the artists with their GEMA [wikipedia.org] (local branch of the mafiaa), but that is offtopic too as this article is about filesharing.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

Monkier (607445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993383)

..and this appeared in an Australian newspaper just yesterday "'Right to silence' law changed" http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/right-to-silence-law-changed-20120814-2462p.html [smh.com.au]

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993805)

Thankfully both questions ask "Do you understand?" - I wonder what happens if you don't understand? I guess the next step is to make ignorance a crime as well...

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993445)

Amazing. 3 score point drop in approximately 5 seconds. Yeah, that's legit. Slashdot's moderation system has been hijacked. See ya.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993699)

This is no hijacking of the moderation system.
Just like first-posters rarely RTFA, initial moderations are usually kneejerk reactions without reading the entire post nor the parents it referes to.
The second wave of moderators does generally read more thoroughly and therefore recognized your posting doesn't quite warrant a +5.
Scale this up to the Slashdot-scale and you can see wild fluctuations happen before settling down on the real score.
Right now it's at "+2 insightful", I'm guessing your comment may still drop one or two points before finally setting on it's true "value".

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994025)

What? You didn't complain when your completely false comment got modded to +5, did you? Then why complain when it reaches equillibrium at -1 where it belongs? You've got it exactly backwards. Speaking of which, don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993073)

Since when was Germany bound by the US Constitution?

"Since when...." (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993203)

Since when was Germany bound by the US Constitution?

Pretty sure it started in 1945? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied-occupied_Germany#American_Zone_of_Occupation [wikipedia.org]

Re:"Since when...." (1, Troll)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994057)

All of that lasted 4 years, while your "started in" implies it's still the case. So unless you offer more, I'm pretty sure you haven't got the faintest fucking clue, just flag flag flag.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40992959)

Eventually if these ever get to court...

The copyright holders will have to have some real evidence. Not just a list of IP addresses and a file name. A file name is NOT a copyright violation. I don't know how they can just pull a list from a tracker and legally verify you were actually distributing their copyrighted works. Wouldn't they have to actually download the file from you and you only and provide a complete trail of custody to verify the file is what they are saying it is? ride_the_lightning.mp3 that is 3.75MB in size means nothing. I know for convenience they want to carpet bomb file sharers in masse but it really has to be done correctly. No assumptions by them at all. Throw in some twists like copyright holders purposefully putting up fake mp3 files to water down the pool and the whole thing is a mess.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#40992981)

Questioned by whom? The MAFIA/RIAA payment enforcers/debt collectors? Or somebody else?

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (3, Interesting)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40992983)

And if they don't like the answer?

eg 1. There are a number of people in my household, including friends that visit regularly and all have access to the wifi network.

eg 2. The wifi node at the local coffee shop is accessible by anyone within range.

eg 3. The wifi at the place where I work is accessible by hundreds of employees and clients.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993091)

Agents of the law never don't the answer: I didn't do it, or I had nothing to do with it. That is irrelevant, if they want to take you to court anyhow, then regardless of your answer you are still going to court. Look at it from this point of view: A crime has been committed and the police know the criminal used a rental car from the X agency. Why wouldn't they go and question the owner of agency X ? He might be the one who did it, he might know who did it or can offer information, or (most probably) knows nothing about the incident. And if they have a specific rental date or car model they can even demand the information about people who rented that specific date or that specific car. Why in one case is acceptable but in another is not ?

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993415)

Law enforcement personnel can ask you about anything they want at any time. That doesn't mean you have to (or can) tell them what they want to hear.

They can try to get a warrant (or in the case of the MAFIAA, a subpoena) and turn up at your place with a forensic team and search it. But, that isn't going to help them if they don't find what they want. You still don't have to tell them who you think might have committed the crime, and the fact that you can't or won't accuse someone else doesn't automatically imply that you are the guilty party.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994371)

And if they don't like the answer?

eg 1. There are a number of people in my household, including friends that visit regularly and all have access to the wifi network.

If they give you one or several timestamps, you should be able to recall the people around.

eg 2. The wifi node at the local coffee shop is accessible by anyone within range.

Coffee shop's wifis in Germany are typically run by 3rd-party companies, and have a habit of requiring a telephone number for registering (although the law is that telecommunication providers must not obtain more data than is required forwarding data).

eg 3. The wifi at the place where I work is accessible by hundreds of employees and clients.

The IT department will identify you, because the company doesn't want to pay so they'll make you pay.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993085)

Should be questioned? Perhaps if there was a murder that took place. This is merely copying. What a waste of time and money that will prove in the end to be futile.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993117)

This is a different discussion, I agree that it is stupid. But copyright holders have a right to pursue their rights regardless of our opinion on said rights or what the law allow and doesn't allow. If they want to pursue it, then do it in a way that both conserve their rights and yours. You have a right to presumption of innocence and they have a right ( by the proxy of police or something else) to pursue every information they have.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (5, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993215)

But copyright holders have a right to pursue their rights

Why? Where does that notion come from? The very existence of copyright is a choice by society, it is not supported by any natural law. In fact, as Thomas Jefferson figured out almost 200 years ago, ideas are fundamentally incompatible with the concept of ownership and private property. You have no right to control how your ideas are used, spread, or altered after they leave your own mind. The only way you can protect an idea from being spread is to keep it to yourself. Once it's out, you can't put it back, you can't take it away from people whom it has spread to. An "idea" can be an invention, a song, a novel, just about anything that is the product of human imagination or ingenuity (not in physical form).

"Intellectual property" is a fiction. It's a mass-delusion. It's a choice. It is not inevitable, it is not necessary, and it has not been an aspect of civilization for most of human history. We've accepted it because it was a useful compromise for a long time, but it is rapidly losing relevance and efficacy. As you can plainly see, attempts to maintain the entrenched system are leading to abuses of civil and privacy rights in the name of enforcing copyright law. It's no longer an enabling force for human creativity, it has become a threat to human freedom.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (3, Informative)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993387)

"Intellectual property" is a fiction. It's a mass-delusion. It's a choice....

IP is none of these. IP is a variation of a business model known as rent-seeking in economics. Basically, a natural or legal (such as IP) monopoly creates excess profits, which allow those making them to engage in various tactics that extend the monopoly. Since the profits and the harm from such tactics are distributed very unevenly (few get very rich, while the huge majority loses a little), the incentives and resource availability may prevent political corrective of the rent-seeking even in a democratic society.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993405)

"Intellectual property" is a fiction. It's a mass-delusion. It's a choice. It is not inevitable, it is not necessary, and it has not been an aspect of civilization for most of human history. We've accepted it because it was a useful compromise for a long time, but it is rapidly losing relevance and efficacy. As you can plainly see, attempts to maintain the entrenched system are leading to abuses of civil and privacy rights in the name of enforcing copyright law. It's no longer an enabling force for human creativity, it has become a threat to human freedom.

Amen brother!

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (2, Insightful)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993545)

Why? Where does that notion come from? The very existence of copyright is a choice by society, it is not supported by any natural law.

Why? Because it is a "choice by society" of course!

The very existence of alienable private property, especially in land, is also "a choice by society." Now I do prefer being a holder of property in a "free" society rather than being a middle-European peasant bound to the inalienable estate of a seignour, as my ancestors were (bound peasants that is), but the study of history show that "natural law" is anything but natural. Property is not, as Locke argued, an admixture of nature and labour, but the ability to assert proprietorship by whichever societal mechanism exists for its enforcement. In the bad old days that was the sword and/or the consent of Church. Today it is by appeal the the courts and thus ultimately the coercive force of the state. A right is only a right inasmuch as you can enforce it. It's the idea that rights exist in 'nature' that is the "fiction" here.

"Intellectual property" is a fiction. It's a mass-delusion.

Arguably all law is a shared delusion. More practically however, intellectual property is a state-granted monopoly, the intention of which is to repair, inter alia, a well-understood market failure, namely the 'free-rider effect.' Inasmuch as it is enforceable in the courts it is a right.

You are correct, however, that it is not 'property' in all the senses we use that term in regard to the more traditional species of property: 'personal property' and 'real estate' ... As "Big Tobacco" discovered today in the High Court of Australia.

It's a choice. It is not inevitable,

Agreed, nor is alienable real estate, gun ownership or universal suffrage.

it is not necessary

It is necessary inasmuch as the market left to its own devices creates a disincentive towards R&D. It is unnecessary as there are alternatives to encourage research, as was shown, for instance, in the old Soviet Union (which famously required no copyright law).

... and it has not been an aspect of civilization for most of human history.

Nor has digital media, the internet or alienable real estate. Humanity is permitted, one hopes, to progress?

As you can plainly see, attempts to maintain the entrenched system are leading to abuses of civil and privacy rights in the name of enforcing copyright law. It's no longer an enabling force for human creativity, it has become a threat to human freedom.

I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Yes there is a good argument to be made that IP has overreached to the point that it has become corrosive to the very aim it was conceived to serve. Yes the increasing criminalisation of IP law and the ever more draconian penalties being dispensed for the relatively minor injury any individual infringement constitutes are certainly inimical to liberty. However, and especially in the context of the every increasing ease by which media can be reproduced, until we can devise a new system which suffers from none of the evils and still ensures reward of intellectual labour, our best hope is to point out how badly the system has gone wrong and attempt to steer it back towards health.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993579)

Baby out with the bathwater? Sounds like a good idea if the baby is costly (to freedom) and unsustainable. Look at the current state of copyright law. People are disobeying it en masse, it's practically unenforceable, it encourages censorship, and it's costly to even attempt to enforce it. And frankly, copyright isn't even worth enforcing.

If they can't find another way to make money, they deserve to fail. They can take whatever they're offering with them.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#40995077)

There is no baby. Copyright and patents were crude tools used by kings for censorship and nepotism respectively. They were repurposed with the eventual intent of benefiting society, but it is a tool incapable of that process, regardless of how well meaning those that craft the system are.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994447)

as Thomas Jefferson figured out almost 200 years ago, ideas are fundamentally incompatible with the concept of ownership and private property. You have no right to control how your ideas are used, spread, or altered after they leave your own mind. The only way you can protect an idea from being spread is to keep it to yourself. Once it's out, you can't put it back, you can't take it away from people whom it has spread to. An "idea" can be an invention, a song, a novel, just about anything that is the product of human imagination or ingenuity (not in physical form).

Einstein found out the hard way ;-)

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993611)

We are talking about someone breaking the law here! and as we all know the law must be enforced at all costs.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993119)

Speaking of questioning people...my Lord do fat people suck. They suck so hard and so bad that I do not even know how to describe it. This is only a partial attempt.

You know what's worse than the rolls of fat and general ugliness of obesity? You know what's worse than saying "hey I smoke but I don't smoke right next to you and I don't blow smoke in your face and I don't in any way make MY smoking into YOUR problem ... so y'think maybe you could I don't know, waddle your big fat ass out of my path that it's blocking with its immenseness? You know what's worse than the emotional trainwreck all fatties secretly are on the inside? You want to hear the very worst part of it all?

The excuses. The thing where they try to convince you "yeah I daily decide to eat too much, several times every day, but but but ummm yeah you're some kind of bigot if you question that and connect two whole dots and say things like maybe this is why you are overweight! I mean how dare you try to tell me something I am too gutless to admit myself?! All this damn truth and shit, fuck you it's your fault! Not my fault! Your fault! See that means I am not doing anything wrong so hah!

For fuck's sake. Don't eat more calories than you burn. If you're a dullard I'll explain: that means either get more exercise, eat less food, or eat less calorie-rich food. Ideally, all of the above at the same time. The most important thing is, fix the one that's in excess or not happening enough. You know you fixed it when you can do it this way the rest of your life and remain at a healthy weight. No crash-course diets. Permanent change, change back to how you should have been all along.

God dammit, America, is that really so hard to understand? Seems like basic, obvious, can't beleive people don't get this, so many adults should never fail to implement something so self-evident, why the fuck would this ever be so hard, type of shit. Seriously,. You fucking lard-asses, get a clue. Stop with the goddamned excuses, grow a pair, and get some personal responsibility. It's so much easier than what you're already doing.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993847)

Why do you give a shit? Why is it any of your business? Go fuck yourself troll. Their choices or problems in live are theirs and not mine to make worse. Not yours, either. You fucking bigoted cunt.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993245)

There is nothing wrong with the police questioning a lead in the case, or getting a warrant. There is definitely something wrong with them naming suspects for vigilante pursuit in what is ordinarily a civil matter.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40992787)

Whoever owns the account is liable. Secure your network and keep an eye on what your kids are doing.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40992797)

free as in speech, or free as in beer?

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (4, Funny)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40992869)

Whoever owns the account is liable.

Maybe in Soviet Russia. (Soviet USA?)

Secure your network and keep an eye on what your kids are doing.

And your partner, and your room mates, and your friends, and your employees...

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (3, Interesting)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40992877)

Which is why the owner of a car is liable if it is stolen and used in a robbery?

Except not. Having your property associated with a crime does not prove criminal activity itself. It at best proves you were an accessory.

Your post is just scare tactics regurgitated from ISP PR departments, to sell more connections by scaring people into closing their public nodes.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0, Troll)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993173)

Owners of cars are responsible if their car is stolen when it's left idling and unlocked in the parking lot. Owners are responsible if they loan their car to a neighbor to get to work, and the neighbor, unknown to the owner, uses it to rob a store.

Now, if your car is locked in your garage and the keys are in your pocket, you are not responsible if someone breaks into your garage and hotwires it and drives off and uses it in a robbery. So your "car in robbery" example seems to match the poster you are apparently disagreeing with. Perhaps you should look at how car use is prosecuted before you speak about it.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993247)

[Citation Needed]

Further, please read a post before you reply to it. "Having your property associated with a crime does not prove criminal activity itself. It at best proves you were an accessory." Nothing you said in any way relates to what I said.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (4, Insightful)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993373)

No it does not. I am not liable if the car I loan to my neighbor is used to commit a robbery (unless I knew they were going to commit a robbery and I still loaned my car them of course). I am responsible for losing the car, if my car gets stolen with the keys. The insurance, would probably not pay me. But I am not responsible for what ever is done using the car (murder or robbery or whatever).

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993873)

Owners of cars are responsible if their car is stolen when it's left idling and unlocked in the parking lot. Owners are responsible if they loan their car to a neighbor to get to work, and the neighbor, unknown to the owner, uses it to rob a store.

You are absolutely fucking retarded.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40995075)

Owners of cars are responsible if their car is stolen when it's left idling and unlocked in the parking lot.

Liable only in terms of not being able to file an insurance claim against most automobile insurance policies.

Owners are responsible if they loan their car to a neighbor to get to work, and the neighbor, unknown to the owner, uses it to rob a store.

The car owner whom loaned the car to another person whom unbeknownst to the owner planned to use the automobile during the commission of a criminal act is most certainly not liable civilly nor criminally.

Now, if your car is locked in your garage and the keys are in your pocket, you are not responsible if someone breaks into your garage and hotwires it and drives off and uses it in a robbery. So your "car in robbery" example seems to match the poster you are apparently disagreeing with. Perhaps you should look at how car use is prosecuted before you speak about it.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993027)

Sorry, the person who pays for the service is not liable. The RIAA/MPAA wants to make it seems that way for convenience but that is simply not true at all. I have two kids older than 18 in my house, they have friends over, I have relatives over. It is not my legal obligation to monitor what they do with my internet and I am in no way shape or form liable for what they do. Sure, Comcast can drop me for a violation of the TOS if the MPAA/RIAA complains to them but there is nothing they can do to me legally just because I pay the bill. That is why the MPAA/RIAA is trying hard to establish relationships with the search providers and internet providers so they can enforce their idea of the law without actually using the court systems.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993087)

Why?

I own property, does that make me legally responsible if someone shoots at passing cars from my lawn?

I own a car, does that make me legally responsible for any crimes committed by someone who drives it?

I have an electricity account. If someone connects it to the letterbox and zaps the postman does that make me legally responsible?

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (2)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 2 years ago | (#40992809)

when your downloading copyrighted items using your phone in the middle of a police station with a camera on you while you verbally admit to the owner of the copyrighted content while showing them exactly what you are downloading and then verify what you were downloading was actually not authorized for you to download...
If the phone dont fit you must aquit.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

sabri (584428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40992929)

when your downloading copyrighted items using your phone in the middle of a police station with a camera on you while you verbally admit to the owner of the copyrighted content while showing them exactly what you are downloading and then verify what you were downloading was actually not authorized for you to download...

Read the article again. This is regarding file-sharing. Uploading. The opposite of downloading.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993561)

Most current file sharing methods upload while they download.

You know... "ratio".

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40992925)

They don't. It's nice, isn't it?

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993575)

I have long suspected that in the US, Verizon is logging MAC addresses. I expect this for several reasons. The first is that a while back, Verizon remotely logged into customers wireless routers nationwide and changed the default password to the serial-number on the router. A great decision for security, but it illustrated some hitherto un-thought-of potential, at least to me. Verizon routers, which are mostly ActionTek and I think using some strange unix-based firmware, are not transparent as far as I know. They also log HostNames and MACs by default. Now if Verizon could log into routers remotely to change a password, then what prevents them from grabbing some MACs and other data on their way? User-side monitoring of this would be difficult because it would be outgoing from the router and you'd have to get into the cable somehow.

Now looky here a moment. Since maybe 1% or less users spoof their MACs, this could be a useful form of data. For example; say you had Verizon at home and took your laptop on vacation with you. Maybe you use a Verizon access-point along the way, maybe at an airport, hotel, or cafe, etc. If that router was participating, then regardless of cookies, IP, or anything else, you'd be uniquely identified.

Now before you go apeshit on me, I am not claiming they do this; I am suggesting it's possible, which at least speculatively answers your question, albeit possibly not your satisfaction. Of course both Hostnames and MAC's can be emulated by an attacker, it could also provide some extra legal fodder to other attackers.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993885)

I am suggesting it's possible

What ? They get the MAC address of the Router Interface used to connect to the internet ?
Suuure thats going to help them A LOT to tie those packets (with evil bits set to 1) to the MAC of your Laptop's Wi-Fi Adapter

Routers don't propagate MAC addresses, ARP Requests or other Layer 2 stuff.

Should you suggest they hijack the routers to actually have access to your local network at home I'd recommed some tinfoil

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (2)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994233)

The MAC and Hostname along with IP traffic are logged on the router. If you wish to observe this, I suggest 192.168.0.1 or something similar. Since Verizon has automagically [slashdot.org] changed the default passwords, you will no longer be able to use "password" and will need the serial-number instead. Since it has been a while since I logged into a Verizon router, you will have to navigate from there. Somewhere you will find the MAC and Hostname of associated clients. Although I doubt you are disputing this. What I am speculating, is that if Verizon can remotely change a user password without a user's permission, I see no unsurmountable barrier in the way of pausing for a moment to observe logs. Without the firmware code, I also fail to see what would prevent such data from being sent back "home". The MAC and Hostname are, as you should see in the router's UI, connected with IP traffic. As for the router's MAC, which I had never mentioned, I think Skyhook is handling that much, along with Google. But I also recall in Verizon's user agreement, the explicit demand of consent that the user permit them access to the host. Consult that agreement yourself; you are not worthy of my labors there, AC.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (2)

terminal.dk (102718) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993917)

They don't. Since in most cases they will not know who used the IP address, but only who paid for it, there should be no way they could get the name/address.

As an example, if both me, my wife and my son denies any knowledge of copyright infringement, how will they get a search warrant ? Whose computer will they search ? Can they get permission to search two innocent peoples computer just because those computers sometimes are at the address in question ? How about my sons friends computers who are used on our WLAN ? How about hackers ?

In Denmark we have had a few cases where the police just let people walk without a search as soon as they see there is an open WLAN. And open WLAN means that there is no evidence that anybody living at the address used the IP at the given time.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994035)

As an example, if both me, my wife and my son denies any knowledge of copyright infringement, how will they get a search warrant ? Whose computer will they search ? Can they get permission to search two innocent peoples computer just because those computers sometimes are at the address in question ? How about my sons friends computers who are used on our WLAN ? How about hackers ?

Of course you can get search warrants against innocent people. As long as there is enough likelihood, before the search, that these people might be guilty. Then you do a search, find nothing, and conclude that the suspicion was likely wrong. Remember: Innocent until proven guilty. Which means you can actually _only_ get search warrants against people who are considered innocent.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (4, Informative)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994231)

IANAL, but I live in Germany and have both professional and private experience with the laws and courts.

It is not that simple. There is a principle called "StÃrerhaftung" in the german legal system, it means that if the culprit can not be identified, the one providing the means can - under certain circumstances - be brought to trial in his stead. It sounds idiotic, but makes sense if you let me explain:
Imagine your car is used for a traffic violation. Of course they find you through the number plate. You claim that at the time you didn't drive the car and you don't know who did. Say, you were drunk that evening and you remember handing the keys to some friend to drive you home, but you can't remember who. This will usually result in charges being dropped because no culprit can be identified. However, if you try that several times, the court will at one point tell you to a) keep a log book in your car from now on where everyone driving has to write down his trips and b) next time this happens, they will charge you.

There is currently an active discussion on whether or not the same rules apply to things such as an open WiFi. Again, you can easily say that someone else was using it. From the POV of the law, that's a loophole, and too easily exploited by simply doing bad things and then claiming someone else must've done it.

In light of that discussion, this is a part of the legal solution to copyright infringement on the Internet. I've not studied it in detail, but it seems balanced on first glance - the requirement to have a court sign it means that most copyright holders won't bother for small-time filesharers, because it's too cumbersome and expensive.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (2)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994237)

aargh, I hate it that /. is still not UTF-8. Anways, the german word is correctly spelled "Störerhaftung".

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ? (2)

pipedwho (1174327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994377)

Interesting.

The real problem seems to be due to automated infringement generation where it's too expensive/difficult to generate enough evidence to properly identify an offender for an alleged offence. The defence "it wasn't me" is really only applicable in situations where the constabulary are too lazy to do the work themselves and are leaving the enforcement to equipment such as 'speed cameras', 'ip loggers', etc. Just because it's far easier to ticket/fine 'a piece of equipment' (and by extension its owner) than to properly police and investigate the 'crime', doesn't excuse circumventing standard judicial process.

It's even more unjust when you consider that the infringement notices turn up weeks or months (or years!) after the actual infringement has taken place.

In the absence of automated traffic enforcement systems, the driver (not the car/owner) would get pulled over immediately and ticketed. "It wasn't me" wouldn't work. But, since the fines are relatively small compared to a criminal offence, people just put up with the automated 'road tax' collection and get on with their lives.

When it comes to copyright infringement, the penalties are so massive that justice can hardly said to be served when a teenager is bankrupted for life by penalties tens of thousands of times greater than any actual damage caused. This is why due process is so important. If the fine was $99, getting 'pinged' (even when you know it wasn't you) and paying the fine would just be life in the big city.

Subpoena (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40992795)

ISPs have to obey subpoenas? Gosh, who would've thought that was legal?

Re:Subpoena (2)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40992833)

According to TFA, they have to already have been ruled to have infringed copyright, meaning they presumably already had the information the ISP would be giving, in addition to some proof of the supposed infringement. Basically, this isn't supposed to do anything, which makes me wonder why they want it at all. Hedging their bets on the judges they bought, perhaps?

Re:Subpoena (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40994063)

The way it is working in Germany, first hand experience from a couple of years back:

  • A lawyer contacts the rights holder and proposes his services to the right holder if the copyright holder has a German presence, for a cut of the generated revenue
  • The lawyer then uses a modified torrent client to connect to various torrent seeds and filters the German IPs from the hive.
  • The lawyer then uses said modified torrent client to initiate a transfer with the German IPs.
  • If he successfully transfers any amount of data, the following data is dumped to a file: torrent name, seeder IP, hash of the file, time of distribution and tcpdump of the transaction. This is basically the "ruled to have infringed copyright" part.
  • The lawyer then goes to a judge with this information to get a subpoena that forces the ISP to disclose all the information pertaining to that IP address at that specific time. This is the part that got ruled on by the federal court.
  • If it is the first infringement, the going rate for the off-court settlement is in the region of 1000 euro with the signature of a legally binding "no further infringement on that rights holder portfolio within the next 5 years" contract. If it is the second infringement, you're dragged to court for breach of contract with compensation north of 20000 euro. If it is a third infringement, the settlement is beyond ludicrous. You can of course refuse to pay the fine and get dragged in a court of the lawyer's Lander. Those lawyers rarely set up office in Landers where copyright infringement is dealt with leniently.

Basically, for the first infringement, the fine is lower than the costs of going to court. If you are stupid enough to get caught a second time, you're asking for it.

The ruling from the federal court is quite important, as different Landers have different positions on copyright enforcement. Until that ruling, local branches of large ISPs and small scale ISPs could still had some leeway... now they no longer have it.

Re:Subpoena (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40995123)

Germany must have the world's most technically adept lawyers if they know how to initiate all those enumerated data capture and review processes. Who would ever think lawyers are so versatile?

But you can't know if someone infringed copyright (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40992839)

But you can't know if someone infringed copyright unless you know all of the circumstances of the copying, including the identities involved.

There are many ways a person may not have been infringing copyright (statutory, fair-use, license, ownership, etc.) even if they were definitely involved in copying.

If you must prove that someone infringed copyright without knowing who they are first, it is an impossible standard.

Of course, I expect that this merely technical truth will be disregarded entirely.

Re:But you can't know if someone infringed copyrig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40994201)

See this post [slashdot.org] .

Piraten Partei (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40992907)

...and perhaps we'll see the Piraten Partei hit the 20% mark in the polls, if they play their cards right and they remain the only party that will stop the witch hunt for file sharers.

Re:Piraten Partei (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994021)

Well, there's one positive in that ruling: There has to be a judge in the process. So it's not that the media cartels can just go to the ISP and say "we believe there was an illegal upload from that IP address, tell us who had it." They have to convince a judge that their evidence is sufficient.

Re:Piraten Partei (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40994425)

> They have to convince a judge that their evidence is sufficient.

The judges simply rubber-stamp every IP identification request the media tracking companies want them to. The number of approved IP lookups goes in the hundreds of thousands per year in Germany alone. The process, and all the required forms are all fully automatized.

Germany uses a federalist system? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993095)

A bunch of state governments and a central federal government? Interesting.

Re:Germany uses a federalist system? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993329)

Which might account for why it is called the Federal Republic of Germany (translated from Bundesrepublik Deutschland). OTOH the old communist east was called the German Democratic Republic (DDR) and the lot before them called themselves National Socialists ...

Re:Germany uses a federalist system? (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993593)

Yes, Bundesrepublik Deutschland = "Federal Republic of Germany". Federalism has been a part of German government for centuries, though things have been carved up quite differently over that time.

Re:Germany uses a federalist system? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993613)

Federalism has been a part of German government for centuries

Of course Germany has only existed since 1871. But if you mean the Empire was composed of a patchwork of principalities, most of them German speaking, then sure.

Re:Germany uses a federalist system? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994041)

Of course the Empire was named "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation", that is, "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation", which already contains "German Nation", so calling it "Germany" is not completely off (although you are right that a German country in the modern sense didn't exist until 1871).

U$A, UK, Germany... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993183)

Places to _not_ have hosting services.

Re:U$A, UK, Germany... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993981)

You need to add all of Asia to this list.

Re:U$A, UK, Germany... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994073)

Hosting services don't usually use dynamic IPs, and also tend to register a top-level domain, so the ruling here is completely irrelevant. Their identity can simply be looked up in the registration record of the domain. Also it's hard to hide your identity and at the same time make money: You must have a way to tell your customers (or advertisers) where to pay money. Your identity can then be revealed by following the money.

Monster Beats By dr Dre Studio High Definition Pow (-1, Offtopic)

lall1 (2708369) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993241)

That's Monster beats a super deal for headphones of this sound quality as i could easily compare the quality to that of bose and these are around a hundreds pounds cheaper. They are slick and stylish and thats often why you see footballers and music stars wearing them- they have a slick shiny plastic finish and are very comfortable on the ear. However, they are slightly flimsy and you do have to be careful with them. They also run off AAA batteries- this covers the music and the sound cancelling. So u have to buy loads of batteries, which may seem expensive, but its definitely work it. The clarity of the quality stays the same throughout high and low notes, and the base is realistic to a full sound system. They do go very loud. I'm speechless with the sound quality of these Monster beats studio.. People can complain about sound leakage but the quality of sound is immense. Anyone who's looking for comfortable, good looking and excellent sound quality, BUY THESE Beats studio! Best thing i've bought and well worth the price. Monster Earphones Monster Headphones http://www.inearheadphones.us/ [inearheadphones.us]

change (4, Interesting)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993443)

Something big needs to change in the way we use the internet. The concept of ISP's being the gate-keepers who double as loose hussies for Authoritaria is a dead end. Is a P2P wireless distributed internet immune from censorship and central planning possible? Do I know exactly how to do this? No. But it can be done in theory, though not without a massive tantrum from Omnicontrolus, and a few bits of austerity. This may sound silly, but if something similar doesn't happen, then I think it's just going to be a perpetual fight with incremental casualties leading eventually to death, or some pathetic and crippled version of something previously beautiful. I think some of us might take for granted how much fighting it takes just to hold on to what we have, while taking grievous blows to privacy and still losing a little here and little there in the process.

Perhaps it's a big-headed notion, but a formidable effort toward such a schema might at least distract these ravenous fiends enough to prevent them from purging freedom from the spectrum altogether. Maybe with the help of private satellites and (I don't know yet; do you?), it is realistic enough to try. I'd rather take some blows to bloat and luxury than to freedom.

In Germany, you can be fined for having an unencrypted AP -- if someone uses it for "illegal" file sharing. It'll be the same elsewhere soon enough. And it will get worse and worse, until you can't connect without a chip up the arse or job in "intelligence". Some say "Darknets", but is that not something the ISP's could crush easily enough? I actually don't know; I'm asking.

We've had the DHS (of all agencies!) taking down domains in the US. The "UK" wants to retain all user's ISP data. The "US" wants likewise. What makes people think they aren't already? I suppose the level of patience, or passive retention of the ISPs and governments confuses some. I personally believe no data is destroyed, but I am sure a credible /. champion will humiliate me for admitting this.

I guess what I am saying, or spewing, is that it's going to take a lot development and hard work to even have a chance of things not sucking ultra badly in the future. And it's going to take a change on the same scale as their own ludicrous and grotesque proposals, but on the positive side. And their proposals are only becoming more and more insane. How insane will they get before one succeeds?

It is all about the money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993661)

As long as we persevere wealth and control over others as our ultimate goal this will only become worse and worse..

Nobody Seems To Notice and Nobody Seems To Care (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40993809)

Nobody Seems To Notice and Nobody Seems To Care - Government & Stealth Malware

In Response To Slashdot Article: Former Pentagon Analyst: China Has Backdoors To 80% of Telecoms 87

How many rootkits does the US[2] use officially or unofficially?

How much of the free but proprietary software in the US spies on you?

Which software would that be?

Visit any of the top freeware sites in the US, count the number of thousands or millions of downloads of free but proprietary software, much of it works, again on a proprietary Operating System, with files stored or in transit.

How many free but proprietary programs have you downloaded and scanned entire hard drives, flash drives, and other media? Do you realize you are giving these types of proprietary programs complete access to all of your computer's files on the basis of faith alone?

If you are an atheist, the comparison is that you believe in code you cannot see to detect and contain malware on the basis of faith! So you do believe in something invisible to you, don't you?

I'm now going to touch on a subject most anti-malware, commercial or free, developers will DELETE on most of their forums or mailing lists:

APT malware infecting and remaining in BIOS, on PCI and AGP devices, in firmware, your router (many routers are forced to place backdoors in their firmware for their government) your NIC, and many other devices.

Where are the commercial or free anti-malware organizations and individual's products which hash and compare in the cloud and scan for malware for these vectors? If you post on mailing lists or forums of most anti-malware organizations about this threat, one of the following actions will apply: your post will be deleted and/or moved to a hard to find or 'deleted/junk posts' forum section, someone or a team of individuals will mock you in various forms 'tin foil hat', 'conspiracy nut', and my favorite, 'where is the proof of these infections?' One only needs to search Google for these threats and they will open your malware world view to a much larger arena of malware on devices not scanned/supported by the scanners from these freeware sites. This point assumed you're using the proprietary Microsoft Windows OS. Now, let's move on to Linux.

The rootkit scanners for Linux are few and poor. If you're lucky, you'll know how to use chkrootkit (but you can use strings and other tools for analysis) and show the strings of binaries on your installation, but the results are dependent on your capability of deciphering the output and performing further analysis with various tools or in an environment such as Remnux Linux. None of these free scanners scan the earlier mentioned areas of your PC, either! Nor do they detect many of the hundreds of trojans and rootkits easily available on popular websites and the dark/deep web.

Compromised defenders of Linux will look down their nose at you (unless they are into reverse engineering malware/bad binaries, Google for this and Linux and begin a valuable education!) and respond with a similar tone, if they don't call you a noob or point to verifying/downloading packages in a signed repo/original/secure source or checking hashes, they will jump to conspiracy type labels, ignore you, lock and/or shuffle the thread, or otherwise lead you astray from learning how to examine bad binaries. The world of Linux is funny in this way, and I've been a part of it for many years. The majority of Linux users, like the Windows users, will go out of their way to lead you and say anything other than pointing you to information readily available on detailed binary file analysis.

Don't let them get you down, the information is plenty and out there, some from some well known publishers of Linux/Unix books. Search, learn, and share the information on detecting and picking through bad binaries. But this still will not touch the void of the APT malware described above which will survive any wipe of r/w media. I'm convinced, on both *nix and Windows, these pieces of APT malware are government in origin. Maybe not from the US, but most of the 'curious' malware I've come across in poisoned binaries, were written by someone with a good knowledge in English, some, I found, functioned similar to the now well known Flame malware. From my experience, either many forum/mailing list mods and malware developers/defenders are 'on the take', compromised themselves, and/or working for a government entity.

Search enough, and you'll arrive at some lone individuals who cry out their system is compromised and nothing in their attempts can shake it of some 'strange infection'. These posts receive the same behavior as I said above, but often they are lone posts which receive no answer at all, AT ALL! While other posts are quickly and kindly replied to and the 'strange infection' posts are left to age and end up in a lost pile of old threads.

If you're persistent, the usual challenge is to, "prove it or STFU" and if the thread is not attacked or locked/shuffled and you're lucky to reference some actual data, they will usually attack or ridicule you and further drive the discussion away from actual proof of APT infections.

The market is ripe for an ambitious company or individual to begin demanding companies and organizations who release firmware and design hardware to release signed and hashed packages and pour this information into the cloud, so everyone's BIOS is checked, all firmware on routers, NICs, and other devices are checked, and malware identified and knowledge reported and shared openly.

But even this will do nothing to stop backdoored firmware (often on commercial routers and other networked devices of real importance for government use - which again opens the possibility of hackers discovering these backdoors) people continue to use instead of refusing to buy hardware with proprietary firmware/software.

Many people will say, "the only safe computer is the one disconnected from any network, wireless, wired, LAN, internet, intranet" but I have seen and you can search yourself for and read about satellite, RF, temperature, TEMPEST (is it illegal in your part of the world to SHIELD your system against some of these APT attacks, especially TEMPEST? And no, it's not simply a CRT issue), power line and many other attacks which can and do strike computers which have no active network connection, some which have never had any network connection. Some individuals have complained they receive APT attacks throughout their disconnected systems and they are ridiculed and labeled as a nutter. The information exists, some people have gone so far as to scream from the rooftops online about it, but they are nutters who must have some serious problems and this technology with our systems could not be possible.

I believe most modern computer hardware is more powerful than many of us imagine, and a lot of these systems swept from above via satellite and other attacks. Some exploits take advantage of packet radio and some of your proprietary hardware. Some exploits piggyback and unless you really know what you're doing, and even then... you won't notice it.

Back to the Windows users, a lot of them will dismiss any strange activity to, "that's just Windows!" and ignore it or format again and again only to see the same APT infected activity continue. Using older versions of sysinternals, I've observed very bizarre behavior on a few non networked systems, a mysterious chat program running which doesn't exist on the system, all communication methods monitored (bluetooth, your hard/software modems, and more), disk mirroring software running[1], scans running on different but specific file types, command line versions of popular Windows freeware installed on the system rather than the use of the graphical component, and more.

[1] In one anonymous post on pastebin, claiming to be from an intel org, it blasted the group Anonymous, with a bunch of threats and information, including that their systems are all mirrored in some remote location anyway.

[2] Or other government, US used in this case due to the article source and speculation vs. China. This is not to defend China, which is one messed up hell hole on several levels and we all need to push for human rights and freedom for China's people. For other, freer countries, however, the concentration camps exist but you wouldn't notice them, they originate from media, mostly your TV, and you don't even know it. As George Carlin railed about "Our Owners", "nobody seems to notice and nobody seems to care".

[3] http://www.stallman.org/ [stallman.org]

Try this yourself on a wide variety of internet forums and mailing lists, push for malware scanners to scan more than files, but firmware/BIOS. See what happens, I can guarantee it won't be pleasant, especially with APT cases.

So scan away, or blissfully ignore it, but we need more people like RMS[3] in the world. Such individuals tend to be eccentric but their words ring true and clear about electronics and freedom.

I believe we're mostly pwned, whether we would like to admit it or not, blind and pwned, yet fiercely holding to misinformation, often due to lack of self discovery and education, and "nobody seems to notice and nobody seems to care".

##

Schneier has covered it before: power line fluctuations (differences on the wire in keys pressed).

There's thermal attacks against cpus and temp, also:

ENF (google it)

A treat (ENF Collector in Java):

sourceforge dot net fwdslash projects fwdslash nfienfcollector

No single antimalware scanner exists which offers the ability to scan (mostly proprietary) firmware on AGP/PCI devices (sound cards, graphics cards, usb novelty devices excluding thumb drives), BIOS/CMOS.

If you boot into ultimate boot cd you can use an archane text interface to dump BIOS/CMOS and examine/checksum.

The real attacks which survive disk formats and wipes target your PCI devices and any firmware which may be altered/overwritten with something special. It is not enough to scan your hard drive(s) and thumb drives, the real dangers with teeth infect your hardware devices.

When is the last time you:

Audited your sound card for malware?
Audited your graphics card for malware?
Audited your network card for malware?

Google for:

* AGP and PCI rootkit(s)
* Network card rootkit(s)
* BIOS/CMOS rootkit(s)

Our modern PC hardware is capable of much more than many can imagine.

Do you:

* Know your router's firmware may easily be replaced on a hacker's whim?
* Shield all cables against leakage and attacks
* Still use an old CRT monitor and beg for TEMPEST attacks?
* Use TEMPEST resistant fonts in all of your applications including your OS?
* Know whether or not your wired keyboard has keypresses encrypted as they pass to your PC from the keyboard?
* Use your PC on the grid and expose yourself to possible keypress attacks?
* Know your network card is VERY exploitable when plugged into the net and attacked by a hard core blackhat or any vicious geek with the know how?
* Search out informative papers on these subjects and educate your friends and family about these attacks?
* Contact antimalware companies and urge them to protect against many or all these attacks?

Do you trust your neighbors? Are they all really stupid when it comes to computing or is there a geek or two without a conscience looking to exploit these areas?

The overlooked threat are the potential civilian rogues stationed around you, especially in large apartment blocks who feed on unsecured wifi to do their dirty work.

With the recent news of Russian spies, whether or not this news was real or a psyop, educate yourself on the present threats which all antimalware scanners fail to protect against and remove any smug mask you may wear, be it Linux or OpenBSD, or the proprietary Windows and Mac OS you feel are properly secured and not vulnerable to any outside attacks because you either don't need an antivirus scanner (all are inept to serious attacks) or use one or several (many being proprietary mystery machines sending data to and from your machine for many reasons, one is to share your information with a group or set database to help aid in threats), the threats often come in mysterious ways.

Maybe the ancients had it right: stone tablets and their own unique language(s) rooted in symbolism.

#

I'm more concerned about new rootkits which target PCI devices, such as the graphics card and the optical drives, also, BIOS. Where are the malware scanners which scan PCI devices and BIOS for mismatches? All firmware, BIOS and on PCI devices should be checksummed and saved to match with others in the cloud, and archived when the computer is first used, backing up signed firmware.

When do you recall seeing signed router firmware upgrades with any type of checksum to check against? Same for PCI devices and optical drives and BIOS.

Some have begun with BIOS security:

http://www.biosbits.org/ [biosbits.org]

Some BIOS has write protection in its configuration, a lot of newer computers don't.

#

"Disconnect your PC from the internet and don't add anything you didn't create yourself. It worked for the NOC list machine in Mission Impossible"

The room/structure was likely heavily shielded, whereas most civvies don't shield their house and computer rooms. There is more than meets the eye to modern hardware.

Google:

subversion hack:
tagmeme(dot)com/subhack/

network card rootkits and trojans
pci rootkits
packet radio
xmit "fm fingerprinting" software
"specific emitter identification"
forums(dot)qrz(dot)com

how many malware scanners scan bios/cmos and pci/agp cards for malware? zero, even the rootkit scanners. have you checksummed/dumped your bios/cmos and firmware for all your pci/agp devices and usb devices, esp vanity usb devices in and outside the realm of common usb devices (thumbdrives, external hdds, printers),

Unless your computer room is shielded properly, the computers may still be attacked and used, I've personally inspected computers with no network connection running mysterious code in the background which task manager for windows and the eqiv for *nix does not find, and this didn't find it all.

Inspect your windows boot partition in *nix with hexdump and look for proxy packages mentioned along with command line burning programs and other oddities. Computers are more vulnerable than most would expect.

You can bet all of the malware scanners today, unless they are developed by some lone indy coder in a remote country, employ whitelisting of certain malware and none of them scan HARDWARE devices apart from the common usb devices.

Your network cards, sound cards, cd/dvd drives, graphics cards, all are capable of carrying malware to survive disk formatting/wiping.

Boot from a Linux live cd and use hexdump to examine your windows (and *nix) boot sectors to potentially discover interesting modifications by an unknown party.

#
eof

Pirate Party in 4 regional parliaments (4, Interesting)

JasperKlewer (1600041) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993921)

The influence of big media companies on the judicial system is exactly the reason why the German Pirate Party now has seats in 4 out of the 16 regional parliaments. My German friends say they feel oppressed by the legal harassment they face from law firms, extorting money from ordinary citizens in return for not being sued for large sums of money.

who is doing the sharing (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#40993929)

However, the information can only be given to the rights holder if a judge rules that the file sharer indeed infringed on copyright, said Dietlind Weinland, spokeswoman of the German Federal Court. The Federal Court is the highest ordinary court in the German judicial system and its decisions can only be overturned by the constitutional court.

But who is "the file sharer"? Do they have to identify who the actual sharer is before proceeding? Are they going to jump to the (not always true) conclusion that the person named on the account is the file sharer? Are there other provisions in the law to hold an account holder that is not the fire sharer accountable? Do the German courts realize that the law is still allowing the sale of a very insecure operating system in Germany?

Re:who is doing the sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40994569)

Your questions were conveniently answered in these [slashdot.org] posts [slashdot.org] .

Also, the default configuration of the DSL modem delivered by the ISPs is WPA2 with port-forwarding disabled and the administration interface only reachable through the ethernet port. You actually go out of your way to make it hackable, turn it into an open access point or to get torrents to work properly.

Solution (2)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994047)

The solution is simple: we should all have our computers infected with a botnet, so that we can put the blame on it whenever we have copyright-infringing material on our computers.

Re:Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40994661)

Sony has me covered on this one.

One more time: 1 IP ! = 1 person (2)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994497)

An ISP can with certainty tell exactly which customer was using a specific IP at a specific time, but not who was using this customers connection. As countless verdicts around the civilized world has ruled, the owner of the connection is not defakto responsible or liable for abuse. The exact user must be determined in order to prosecute, and thus if this isn't possible no prosecution can occur.

There are multiple vectors available for abuse at any connection, from unsecured wifi, over hacked wifi to various form of unauthorized cabled access where the physical traces later was removed.

Now, as it is impossible to determine if a connection was abused by someone unauthorized at some point in the past, it is always impossible to rule out outside abuse and thus it is futile to persue the owner of the connection.

So please stop wasting the time of both the ISP, the customer and the courts. There's nothing to gain at all.

Re:One more time: 1 IP ! = 1 person (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40994549)

As countless verdicts around the civilized world has ruled, the owner of the connection is not defakto responsible or liable for abuse.

Actually, in Germany, the owner _is_ liable for abuse.

I think the liability is somewhat reduced, but he can still be fined for copyright infringement if it happened from his connection.

Re:One more time: 1 IP ! = 1 person (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#40994949)

As countless verdicts around the civilized world has ruled, the owner of the connection is not defakto responsible or liable for abuse.

In Germany, it doesn't matter, because they apply the principle of Stoererhaftung. Which means: if someone abusing your IP connection does something wrong with it, you as the holder of that connection are responsible. Basically, you as the connection holder are responsible for whatever is being done with it.

auschwitz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40994897)

this again is proof that hitler died but still lives on in germany
auschwitz opened their doors again for filesharers and small crimes

first the scandal with paul watson and now this

I do hope they find the guy (0)

Briareos (21163) | more than 2 years ago | (#40995053)

Whoever listens to Xavier Naidoo needs immediate medical attention to prevent an outbreak of dain bramage...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?