2007-11-19, 18:31 | Link #201 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
You probably work for Comcast, it is good advice. Comcast is scum. |
||
2007-11-19, 18:40 | Link #202 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
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.
|
2007-11-19, 18:45 | Link #203 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2007-11-19, 18:47 | Link #204 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2007-11-19, 18:50 | Link #205 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
Quote:
This is the largest central point for fansubbers "YOU ARE A TARGET" this forum is a target. |
|
2007-11-19, 18:54 | Link #206 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
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?
__________________
|
2007-11-19, 18:55 | Link #207 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
2007-11-19, 18:57 | Link #209 |
Gaijin
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York, NY
|
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.
|
2007-11-19, 18:59 | Link #210 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
Quote:
"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." |
|
2007-11-19, 19:03 | Link #211 | ||
9wiki
Scanlator
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. 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.
__________________
|
||
2007-11-19, 19:04 | Link #212 |
eyewitness
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
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.
__________________
|
2007-11-19, 19:07 | Link #213 | ||
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
They claim to work with most applications that use the TCP protocol but they also say this: Quote:
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?)
__________________
|
||
2007-11-19, 19:15 | Link #214 | |
Founder, Sprocket Hole
Fansubber
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fresno or Sacramento, CA
Age: 55
|
Quote:
--Ian. Last edited by IRJustman; 2007-11-19 at 19:27. |
|
2007-11-19, 19:55 | Link #215 |
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. |
2007-11-19, 20:22 | Link #217 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
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.
__________________
|
2007-11-19, 20:29 | Link #218 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2007-11-19, 20:32 | Link #219 | ||
Huge Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
|
Quote:
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:
Source: http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/277621 It's going to be fun to watch the outcome of this. |
||
2007-11-19, 20:51 | Link #220 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
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.
__________________
|
|
|