AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Related Topics > General Anime

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-11-19, 18:31   Link #201
Mr.B0y
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbmfive View Post
This is pretty bad advice. If subpoenaed, Comcast can in fact prove that you have a specific IP, and that you are transmitting data to specific other IPs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbmfive View Post
"This is pretty bad advice. If subpoenaed, Comcast can in fact prove that you have a specific IP, and that you are transmitting data to specific other IPs."
Wrong! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address_spoofing

You probably work for Comcast, it is good advice. Comcast is scum.
Mr.B0y is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 18:40   Link #202
valet
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.B0y View Post
Any 10 year old from China, India or Indiana can "spoof" an i.p. address and become any one they want any time they want with minimal effort, any half assed attorney can prove this with one expert witness.
Not that I disagree that it's a good idea not to incriminate yourself by admitting to things, but it's a little harder to spoof a viable TCP session than you're describing. I expect an expert on the matter would argue in court that it's hard enough that nobody would do it just so that they could pretend to be you for bittorrent purposes. It would almost certainly be enough to reach beyond reasonable doubt.
valet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 18:45   Link #203
Mr.B0y
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbmfive View Post
This is pretty bad advice. If subpoenaed, Comcast can in fact prove that you have a specific IP, and that you are transmitting data to specific other IPs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valet View Post
Not that I disagree that it's a good idea not to incriminate yourself by admitting to things, but it's a little harder to spoof a viable TCP session than you're describing. I expect an expert on the matter would argue in court that it's hard enough that nobody would do it just so that they could pretend to be you for bittorrent purposes. It would almost certainly be enough to reach beyond reasonable doubt.
I'm not going to get into this too deep because I'm sure your the same person working for the same company. You can try and scare every one and apply what ever tactics you want but the truth is out there and with just a little bit of Googling it wil plainly evident to any one out there other than a 10 year old that yes there are several "script kiddie" point and click I.P. spoof applications out there readily available to any one who wants to down load them and useable by any one with an opposing grip. Sorry Charlie, you won't win this one. I'm done. If any one has doubts look it up for your self and heavily suspect any one that is on the forum trying to scare you when they just joined today. PHU LEEEAZZZE!!!!!
Mr.B0y is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 18:47   Link #204
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by valet View Post
Not that I disagree that it's a good idea not to incriminate yourself by admitting to things, but it's a little harder to spoof a viable TCP session than you're describing. I expect an expert on the matter would argue in court that it's hard enough that nobody would do it just so that they could pretend to be you for bittorrent purposes. It would almost certainly be enough to reach beyond reasonable doubt.
If all they have is an ip address, they can't prove anything. IP addresses are easy enough to spoof, and there's the issue of an unsecured wireless router to cast more than enough doubt on that alone. However, that ip address would be probable cause for them to get a warrent and search your computer where of course the offending material would be located.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 18:50   Link #205
Mr.B0y
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
If all they have is an ip address, they can't prove anything. IP addresses are easy enough to spoof, and there's the issue of an unsecured wireless router to cast more than enough doubt on that alone. However, that ip address would be probable cause for them to get a warrent and search your computer where of course the offending material would be located.
You go girl! You guys need to step up and go with this, protect your selves with knowledge. Beware of hired scum, looking for results so they can satisfy a contract or get a success under their belt, so they can do it to more people. You guys are smart you can figure it out. I won't have time to help you any more. I did my part. Be Smart!

This is the largest central point for fansubbers "YOU ARE A TARGET" this forum is a target.
Mr.B0y is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 18:54   Link #206
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
The problem is, Mr. Boy is making a lot of absolute assertions about what a jury or court will do .... this is "law", not "science". Some of his ideas are fair but the stuff surrounding it is tenuous.

Yes, an IP can be spoofed and there are forensics that can spot packet spoofing if the logs have been kept -- Comcast can only "prove" that *their* IP X transmitted to IP Y and only if they can show their network firewall was properly configured not to allow through packets forged to appear as if they came from inside. If someone "in India" was forging an IP X to seed torrents and a torrent monitor noted it, it won't even show up in Comcast's packet throughput logs. It'll only show up at all if another Comcast leecher was trying to lock on to it and then the Comcast firewall will drop it as a forged "outside" packet. If someone INSIDE the Comcast sandbox is forging IP of another subscriber, Comcast would have to demonstrate its routers were configured to prevent such a thing.

As far as wireless wardriving intrusion goes... some courts are ruling that the wireless owner is responsible for taking reasonable precautions (encryption/ssid).

On the other hand, it is probably a Good Idea to not admit guilt where there is none... or even where the legalities are disputable.

And it is a Good Idea to not fall into logical traps like "When did I stop beating my wife" questions.

Mr. Boy is not being very convincing by arguing that anyone who queries him is a Comcast plant.... and he's not coming off as terribly technically astute. He's sounding more like a journalist who spouts off "script kiddies" and ... hmmm, who is the one who just joined today, eh?
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 18:55   Link #207
cbmfive
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
If all they have is an ip address, they can't prove anything. IP addresses are easy enough to spoof, and there's the issue of an unsecured wireless router to cast more than enough doubt on that alone. However, that ip address would be probable cause for them to get a warrent and search your computer where of course the offending material would be located.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.B0y View Post
You go girl! You guys need to step up and go with this, protect your selves with knowledge. Beware of hired scum, looking for results so they can satisfy a contract or get a success under their belt, so they can do it to more people. You guys are smart you can figure it out. I won't have time to help you any more. I did my part. Be Smart!
Odex can't prove it with just an IP address.

COMCAST CAN.

All your communications run over their hardware. They control it completely. They can go as far as hardware addresses. If you pay a cable bill, they know who you are.

Spoofing is a non-issue. Mr.B0y doesn't understand spoofing at all. In order for a transfer to take place, a two-way connection must be established. Spoofing is 100% one-way; there is no possibility that responses to spoofed packets can return to the actual originating computer, and therefore no possibility that a TCP connection will be established.
cbmfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 18:57   Link #208
Ranko
Mech Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Earth
Age: 29
Send a message via ICQ to Ranko Send a message via AIM to Ranko
Again does anyone know if one can use Tor to avoid stuff like this?
__________________
-Gabe, Thera's Guildmaster of Elementists.
Speramus meliora; resurget cineribus
We hope for better days; it shall rise from its ashes
Ranko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 18:57   Link #209
Calawain
Gaijin
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.B0y View Post
Spoiler for Length:
Except that you're kinda wrong there. In Capitol vs. Thomas the attorneys tried to show that IP spoofing and other similar methods mean the IP address that the RIAA used could have been fake. The jury didn't buy it and she owes 220 grand. Note, that that case has a high possibility of being overturned based on bad jury instructions and other matters unrelated to IP address spoofing. But it goes to show that claiming it wasn't your IP address has so far not been a tenable defense.
Calawain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 18:59   Link #210
Mr.B0y
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calawain View Post
Except that you're kinda wrong there. In Capitol vs. Thomas the attorneys tried to show that IP spoofing and other similar methods mean the IP address that the RIAA used could have been fake. The jury didn't buy it and she owes 220 grand. Note, that that case has a high possibility of being overturned based on bad jury instructions and other matters unrelated to IP address spoofing. But it goes to show that claiming it wasn't your IP address has so far not been a tenable defense.
She admitted to having the stuff on her computer that is what she did wrong.


"It's unclear why the plaintiffs called Hebemeier, as he really didn't do much to help their case. He confirmed the defense's timeline of events—that there was a real hardware problem over a month before Thomas got a letter from Charter Communications. He recalled telling Thomas after the letter arrived that "there's nothing there because the hard drive was wiped out and replaced" and confirmed that she used the e-mail address tereastarr@hotmail.com."
Mr.B0y is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 19:03   Link #211
Kyuusai
9wiki
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: State of Denial
Send a message via AIM to Kyuusai Send a message via MSN to Kyuusai Send a message via Yahoo to Kyuusai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.B0y View Post
There is absolutely no way possible that any one can prove in a court of law that an i.p. address is legal proof of your identity. Period bar none end of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
If all they have is an ip address, they can't prove anything. IP addresses are easy enough to spoof, and there's the issue of an unsecured wireless router to cast more than enough doubt on that alone. However, that ip address would be probable cause for them to get a warrent and search your computer where of course the offending material would be located.
Guys, don't assume that an IP address isn't enough. The burden of proof required in court in civil cases is NOT as high as it is in criminal cases. If it were a criminal charge, it would have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".

You're not risking being charged with a crime, though. You're risking a civil suit. The burden of evidence is not nearly so great. Your IP address is likely enough, unless you have proof of some hijacking or spoofing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranko View Post
So TOR time?

Would routing my torrents around tor help out?
If done right, it could help. However, please, please, PLEASE do not do this. The Tor network is used by people in countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to ensure their safety as they do things far, far more important than our anime watching. Everything we do over Tor uses the rest of the Tor network (including some very slow links in some very oppressed nations) to achieve this anonymity. They do NOT need to deal with the load of large file transfers (or, worse, the heavy traffic of BitTorrent). It would be slow anyway.

Ideally, I'd like to see a separate Tor network set up by people who are willing to contribute some resources to heavier-duty loads, or perhaps a network where those with few resources aren't called upon to handle so much of the load.

In the meantime, Azureus does have a plugin for the I2P network, which isn't as anonymous, but should handle the load far better. There's also the option of something such as a SOCKS proxy in a safe country.

I won't vouch for anything right now. I'm doing some research, and I'll post on it later.
__________________

I await patiently
the gift promised to me.
Kyuusai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 19:04   Link #212
Slice of Life
eyewitness
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranko View Post
So TOR time?

Would routing my torrents around tor help out?
Greetings from ... (asks showmyip.com) ... Dubai! Yes, I'm posting this via Tor just for the heck of it. The problem with Tor is that there are about maybe 1000 server worldwide and it look like the numbers are beginning to saturate. Should Tor become more and more popular with the normal users it will break down in no time. It would of course be great if this would be the default mode of internet communication ... and if all communication would be encrypted. But how long would it remain legal? Not because of RIAA pressure. No no. Because of the pedophiles of course. And the terrorists. And the pedophile terrorists. The state cannot allow its citizens to communicate in private. That would be anarchy.
__________________
- Any ideas how to fill this space?
Slice of Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 19:07   Link #213
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranko View Post
Again does anyone know if one can use Tor to avoid stuff like this?
I'd read this site: http://www.torproject.org/ for details.

They claim to work with most applications that use the TCP protocol but they also say this:

Quote:
. First, Tor does not protect you if you do not use it correctly. Read our list of warnings and make sure to follow the instructions for your platform carefully. Second, even if you configure and use Tor correctly, there are still potential attacks that could compromise Tor's ability to protect you. Third, no anonymity system is perfect these days, and Tor is no exception: you should not rely solely on the current Tor network if you really need strong anonymity.)
So, it helps but since I've not personally tested it with torrent clients, I can't tell you much other than there will be a performance hit

The biggest problem is that TOR is used by people who are having real life-threatening issues ... I'd hate to see it swamped by torrenting. And as SoL says, then the pedophile terrorists would win (or was that The Man who would win?)
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 19:15   Link #214
IRJustman
Founder, Sprocket Hole
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fresno or Sacramento, CA
Age: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbmfive View Post
Spoofing is a non-issue. Mr.B0y doesn't understand spoofing at all. In order for a transfer to take place, a two-way connection must be established. Spoofing is 100% one-way; there is no possibility that responses to spoofed packets can return to the actual originating computer, and therefore no possibility that a TCP connection will be established.
Not just that, it takes THREE steps to initiate a TCP session, two from the initiating peer, and one from the target. A spoofed connection would only stop at the first step which, on an older or improperly-configured system, would make it vulnerable to so-called SYN-flooding.

--Ian.

Last edited by IRJustman; 2007-11-19 at 19:27.
IRJustman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 19:55   Link #215
Le Haitien
Vive Haiti!!!
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Mexico/Haiti
Hey has anyone found a link between these dmca notices and high bandwith user
like I stated earlyer i have only gotten these warnings when doing large amounts of downloads. funny thing i was downloading 6 other movies at the same time and didnt get any notices for that. on the other hand i THINK this is just a scare tactic used by comcast to scare high bandwith userd from using their recources.
__________________
Wheels are like girls. Of course you can go over 19 but why would you.
Le Haitien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 20:18   Link #216
idjot
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Why do people still think this is just a Comcat scare tactic when the notices have explicitly stated BayTSP and Odex are behind it and they have been received in numerous countries using numerous ISPs?
idjot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 20:22   Link #217
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
If you'll pay attention, most of us now realize it isn't JUST a Comcast scare tactic - but it has become another tool used by Comcast. I suspect Comcast in particular is using any tool at their disposal to thump "hogs" on their network. Problem is more and more of the average population is streaming, etc so at some point most of their users are going to be "hogs" by their criteria.

Comcast is, at heart, a cable company -- it shows in their Internet policies. They don't *want* to have to upgrade, what is to them, a comfortable network. They have the idea that "hogs" (>10GB/month) will always be a small fraction of their population so beating them up is cheaper than upgrading the network. Not good long term planning, ay wot?

Eventually, if we can get actual competition in the internet arena rather than the phony competition the FCC pretends we have - Comcast will have to evolve to a tiered account structure that allows "hogs" to consume but it also gives them the capital to upgrade their networks (rather than just line the pockets of short-sighted shareholders who don't have that wonderfully tailored tax break to hold shares for a sustainable length of time anymore).

A DMCA note is just another way to control bandwidth to them (as well as drive people to their preferred 'passive user' model).

The BayTSP/Odex shenanigans is a different problem but what we want to avoid is ISPs like Comcast using these really flaky notices as they seem to be against people who actually *use* their connection.
The problem with these notices is that they're being sent to a countries that have rather different laws and jurisdictions so it seems on the surface that BayTSP/Odex is just being hooliganish so far.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 20:29   Link #218
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
Guys, don't assume that an IP address isn't enough. The burden of proof required in court in civil cases is NOT as high as it is in criminal cases. If it were a criminal charge, it would have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".

You're not risking being charged with a crime, though. You're risking a civil suit. The burden of evidence is not nearly so great. Your IP address is likely enough, unless you have proof of some hijacking or spoofing.
Even in a criminal case where the ip address isn't enough, it's all that would be needed to get a warrent which will turn up more than enough evidence to convict. That's all I was trying to point out there. It might not be proof itself, but it most certainly would be probable cause.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 20:32   Link #219
DryMaltExtract
Huge Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samanosuke View Post
But for how long ? aren't companies and such putting more and more pressure on the government to change the law about this ?
for now we are ok , but i fear it's not going to last long :S
IIRC we're not protected from pirating videos we're just not being gone after. With the movie industry constantly saying Canda is a hotbed for piracy I'm surprised nobody has been sought after yet. However I don't recall people being called out much in the US either. Music is the mainstream and supposedly more costly, so the focus is on that.

We are however protected from audio for now as long as we put it on a CD or an iPod etc. due to the levies (something Canadian artists support supposedly).

The funny thing is, it is still "illegal" in Canada to record using a TiVo like device or a VCR, which supposedly is why TiVos etc. have not taken off in Canada and are not widely sold. However they're looking to change this law as well as allow some things that are quite interesting.

Quote:
First, a "time shifting" provision to grant Canadians the right to record television programming for personal, non-commercial purposes. The exception would legalize what is already a common activity for millions of Canadians and might fuel new products and services from Canada's telecommunications and consumer electronics companies.

Second, a "format shifting" provision that would legalize the transfer of content from one format to another. For example, it would expressly permit transferring music on a store-bought CD to an iPod or the transfer of video from a cable box to a personal computer.

Third, a modernized backup copy provision that would address today's consumer realities. The law already permits the making of a single backup copy of a computer program, rightly recognizing that software programs are intangible products that are susceptible to loss.

Today, digital data includes CDs, DVDs and video games, which all suffer from the same frailties as software programs, namely the ease with which hard drives become corrupted or CDs and DVDs scratched and non-functional. Modernizing the law should include bringing this provision into the 21st century by expanding the right to make a backup copy to all digital consumer products.
If they make these laws correctly, we will still not be allowed to pirate say, PS2 games, however, if these laws are made with the consumer in mind, it should also mean that the ps2/xbox360/ps3 would, by law, have to be able to play these backups. It would also mean that DRM would be outlawed as it prevents you from copying from one medium to another.

Source: http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/277621

It's going to be fun to watch the outcome of this.
DryMaltExtract is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-11-19, 20:51   Link #220
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Odds are that most large corporations will shoot themselves repeatedly in the foot, all the "consumer units" will be pissed and inconvenienced, and the "brave new world" will continue to elude the hairless ape-descendents.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:17.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.