If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Torrent Freak)   Comcast continues to choke down their endless bag of dicks, as they announce plans to hijack user's browsers if they dare torrent Backdoor Sluts 9   (torrentfreak.com) divider line 193
    More: Asinine, Backdoor Sluts 9, Comcast, browser, Court of Arbitration for Sport, VoIP, consumer confidence, environmental mitigation, VPN  
•       •       •

8333 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Feb 2013 at 10:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-28 02:38:16 AM  
Comcast has chosen a browser "hijack," making it impossible for customers to browse the Internet, but without interrupting VOIP and other essential services

is that even legal? anyway, come get some. your terrorist attacks mean nothing to me. and i didn't just torrent Backdoor Sluts 9 - i ripped and upped 1-15 in 720p h.264. also, i've been seeding the entire Metallica discography for like 100 years now. i'm not even behind 2 boxxies. i'm just sitting here waiting. you wanna do this thing, comcast? i'll meet you after school by the flagpole at 4:20, and imma gonna kick your ass.
 
2013-02-28 03:02:24 AM  
Meh, the whole thing is stupid. I don't download copyrighted materials, so I'm not worried about this issue very much, but I do play some games that download their updates via a Peer-to-Peer system very similar to downloading torrents. I know I would be viciously pissed if Comcast blocked my web browsing because I happen to play games that act in a similar fashion to BitTorrent.
 
2013-02-28 09:40:21 AM  

MmmmBacon: Meh, the whole thing is stupid. I don't download copyrighted materials, so I'm not worried about this issue very much, but I do play some games that download their updates via a Peer-to-Peer system very similar to downloading torrents. I know I would be viciously pissed if Comcast blocked my web browsing because I happen to play games that act in a similar fashion to BitTorrent.


I believe you have to be reported first by one of the copyright holders, so you should be safe.
 
2013-02-28 10:11:36 AM  
so essentially comcast is making it worth the effort to hijack other people's wifi hotspots and use them when hosting a torrent...?

great jorb guys!
 
2013-02-28 10:14:05 AM  
Remember its not illegal as long as no one successfully sues.
 
2013-02-28 10:24:37 AM  
Should be an easy way to stop the pop-ups.
 
2013-02-28 10:26:02 AM  
farking vpns, how do they work?

/ Even if you don't torrent, you should be using a vpn
// Small cost for much better privacy
 
2013-02-28 10:33:11 AM  

Walker: Should be an easy way to stop the pop-ups.


why bother in the first place?  look - if i'm an evil file trader, i'm not gonna use MY wi-fi to file trade.  imma scan the local neighborhood and find someone with weak or no encryption.  then i'll use their 'net access to run my torrent.  or worst case, i'll head down to the local coffee shop or library and chill there for an hour or so while things finish up.  I've got options...and comcast can't track me, then can (at best) maybe track where I and other evil people are using as points of access, then punish THOSE people.

so this new policy doesn't stop file trading.  not at all.  it'll hurt the innocent tho, and that's really what this is all about.
 
2013-02-28 10:38:37 AM  
Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?
 
2013-02-28 10:42:26 AM  

wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?


I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?
 
2013-02-28 10:45:05 AM  
I thought this was why we, er, other people enable bittorrent client encryption.
 
2013-02-28 10:49:20 AM  

Weaver95: wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?

I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?


I would imagine it is the TOS to 'protect the network for all users' or some such.  That and their lawyers will be better than yours.
 
2013-02-28 10:59:30 AM  
Oh if only there was a way to mask my IP address to prevent detection.  Who will be my prince and invent such a...

Oh.  Wait.

/me turns on VPN
/me flips off Comcast
 
2013-02-28 10:59:32 AM  

wingnut396: Weaver95: wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?

I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?

I would imagine it is the TOS to 'protect the network for all users' or some such.  That and their lawyers will be better than yours.


a TOS agreement cannot trump federal law.  And I don't care HOW good a legal staff comcast has...if they break federal computer crimes laws then their CEO should go to jail for it.
 
2013-02-28 10:59:47 AM  
What if you don't use their DNS servers? (Google public DNS, for example. 8.8.8.8)
 
2013-02-28 11:02:04 AM  
Corporations are people too, except when it comes to breaking the law.

Frankly, i'm surprised more people havent caught on to this idea and incorporated themselves. Then you could murder a dozen prostitutes, dump toxic waste in the yard of a neighbor who pissed you off, never pay taxes, and eat a baby (all before noon) and still weasle your way out of responsibility for all of it.
 
2013-02-28 11:02:32 AM  
Can we turn this thread into a review of the best VPNs?
Hidemyass? btguard?
 
2013-02-28 11:03:28 AM  

ArkAngel: MmmmBacon: Meh, the whole thing is stupid. I don't download copyrighted materials, so I'm not worried about this issue very much, but I do play some games that download their updates via a Peer-to-Peer system very similar to downloading torrents. I know I would be viciously pissed if Comcast blocked my web browsing because I happen to play games that act in a similar fashion to BitTorrent.

I believe you have to be reported first by one of the copyright holders, so you should be safe.


Maybe. Except that copyright holders (Disney, Universal, etc.) file "John Doe" suits, and then subpoena the records of ISPs for torrent activity. If the plaintiff copyright holder doesn't like what it sees, it files a DMCA notice and takedown, which then probably counts as one of the "six strikes" that Comcast is locking up your browser based on. There really isn't any entity looking out for the consumer or for fairness at any of these stages. If you use bittorrent for totally legal stuff, you could still probably get caught in the cross-hairs of this stuff.
 
2013-02-28 11:04:04 AM  
FTA:  "However, the ISP stresses that no accounts will be terminated under the copyright alert program. "We will never use account termination as a mitigation measure under the CAS. "

Oh, whew.  They will continue to allow me to pay them while they refuse to provide the service for which I am paying.  They won't stop charging me, at least!  What a relief.  As long as they keep getting their money, I'm happy.  I'd hate for Comcast to suffer.
 
2013-02-28 11:04:47 AM  

Weaver95: Walker: Should be an easy way to stop the pop-ups.

why bother in the first place?  look - if i'm an evil file trader, i'm not gonna use MY wi-fi to file trade.  imma scan the local neighborhood and find someone with weak or no encryption.  then i'll use their 'net access to run my torrent.  or worst case, i'll head down to the local coffee shop or library and chill there for an hour or so while things finish up.  I've got options...and comcast can't track me, then can (at best) maybe track where I and other evil people are using as points of access, then punish THOSE people.

so this new policy doesn't stop file trading.  not at all.  it'll hurt the innocent tho, and that's really what this is all about.


I am not clear on the specifics and i dont have access to the screen shots while i did customer support ... but I assume Comcast will do the same thing as Suddenlink is doing.

SuddenLink's DMCA policy

If you are in DMCA violation, you get redirected to a website that has you promise to not violate dmca again.  Three to five strikes and its a 6 month ban from service from the ISP.

This is done by a configuration file in the cable modem.  I believe they just making all routing tables point to internal website ... no need to touch user's equipment (unless its user's modem, but you still receive the file from ISP) . This file is usually reset once a day and every time the modem loses power, so a self fix method is a bit tedious.
 
2013-02-28 11:04:47 AM  

Weaver95: I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?


IANAL, but any request you make over the Internet through an ISP is just that -- a request.  You can claim your browsing habits are none of the government's business (good luck with that BTW), but the ISP must have visibility into your requests to process them in the first place.  As long as they're not using or distributing the information in illegal ways that have more to do with discrimination or identity theft than service, they're good.  So strike that.
It's not "hijacking" in the sense most people believe because the browser's first activity is to establish a connection with the ISP, at which point the ISP can respond by sending whatever HTTP content it wants.  Most don't but a common exception are the login screens you get when you try to use a hotel's connection -- your first request gets redirected to a login page.  In this case it's sending an obnoxious pop-up and filtering your other requests.  Technically this is rather routine -- a web server can do the same thing -- though I never expected an ISP to do it.  It's really drastic.

They're not invading your privacy beyond legal limits, they're not physically altering your browser, and they're not doing anything to the content you're requesting, per se.  This is really more like a Denial of Service or a security policy gone horribly wrong; much like your local utility cutting off the power for some reason or other.  They're entitled to do that.  The only real alternative is to say "fark you Comcast" and switch providers due to bad quality of service, except they have a monopoly in many areas so most people are screwed.  However, this is something people have been screaming about for years while the only entity with the power to bust up the residential ISPs -- the federal government -- has absolutely zero inclination to do anything about it.
 
2013-02-28 11:06:55 AM  

zyrian: What if you don't use their DNS servers? (Google public DNS, for example. 8.8.8.8)


I expect they send their pop-ups in response to any port 80/443 requests. They don't need to mess with your DNS lookups.

That said, I use 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 for all my DNS lookups as my ISP started hijacking failed lookups and sending me to ad pages.
 
2013-02-28 11:07:32 AM  
Forgot to add ...

I believe this policy of actions exists because the ISP does not want to be charged with aiding in the crime of copy right infringement.
 
2013-02-28 11:08:13 AM  

Weaver95: a TOS agreement cannot trump federal law.  And I don't care HOW good a legal staff comcast has...if they break federal computer crimes laws then their CEO should go to jail for it.


That is my point.  If they just identify your cable modem for a redirect on port 80/443 because you have been identified as a threat sender or some such, I doubt they are breaking any hacking laws.  This is a sensible action to take on a network that does not require any inspection of what you are doing or going.  As much I hate to white knight an ISP, they really do have to take some actions to protect both themselves from liability and other users on the network.   As it says, the system was claimed to have been designed to alert people to when they were infected and where threat senders so they could take action and clean their system.  Should Comcast not do anything about threat traffic either?

If they were installing software on your system without your consent to do the same, like the Sony rootkit, I would agree that it would be very concerning.

As far as breaking laws and the CEO going to jail.  I'm sure Tony Hayward will be reporting to a Federal PMITA prison any day now...
 
2013-02-28 11:14:14 AM  
so can i just AdBlock this?
 
2013-02-28 11:14:28 AM  
Lesee.... $80/year gets me unlimited access to a great VPN service. Yup, fark you TimeWarner Cable. I'll just bury my activities, thanks.
 
2013-02-28 11:16:11 AM  

wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?


That's exactly what this sounds like.
 
2013-02-28 11:16:29 AM  
The made a 9?  How exactly do you top 8?
 
2013-02-28 11:20:53 AM  

Weaver95: wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?

I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?


They're not hacking your browser, they're doing a redirect. Same exact thing you get half the time when you go to a public wifi spot, fire up a browser and go to google.com and get redirected to the wifi provider's splash page asking for that day's code or to look at an advertisement or whatnot. The redirection happens entirely outside your browser - your computer thinks it's actually displaying google's home page to you.
 
2013-02-28 11:21:09 AM  

ArkAngel: MmmmBacon: Meh, the whole thing is stupid. I don't download copyrighted materials, so I'm not worried about this issue very much, but I do play some games that download their updates via a Peer-to-Peer system very similar to downloading torrents. I know I would be viciously pissed if Comcast blocked my web browsing because I happen to play games that act in a similar fashion to BitTorrent.

I believe you have to be reported first by one of the copyright holders, so you should be safe.


Yep.  I got popped several years ago because I was working on a class and downloaded one of those Great Lectures series on the subject for some additional info.  I got a letter from Comcast a few days later saying the Great Lectures folks had uploaded the file to the torrent site to catch people who were copyrighting.  Considering they appeared to be the only ones uploading Great Lectures series, I thought their strategy was a bit counterproductive.
 
2013-02-28 11:24:07 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Considering they appeared to be the only ones uploading Great Lectures series, I thought their strategy was a bit counterproductive.


Sounds like the internet version of "Fast and Furious".... only with less people getting killed.
 
2013-02-28 11:24:15 AM  

Theaetetus: Weaver95: wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?

I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?

They're not hacking your browser, they're doing a redirect. Same exact thing you get half the time when you go to a public wifi spot, fire up a browser and go to google.com and get redirected to the wifi provider's splash page asking for that day's code or to look at an advertisement or whatnot. The redirection happens entirely outside your browser - your computer thinks it's actually displaying google's home page to you.


so if I were to find a way to pull this off and redirect Disney's home page to Brazzers.com...it's all good and legal?
 
2013-02-28 11:24:36 AM  

physt: The made a 9?  How exactly do you top 8?


Dude, you're missing out.  Backdoor Sluts 9 makes Naughty Nurses 2 look like Crotch Capers 3!
 
2013-02-28 11:25:23 AM  

BigLuca: Hidemy

ass

Hidemyass is one of MANY vpn providers that keeps logs and will readily provide them.
If you're going to go looking for a VPN service, you really need to scrutinize their privacy policies to see what you're actually getting.

And it's a lot like web hosting, in that it's freaking impossible to find any kind of objective reviews that aren't thinly disguised shills for one service or other.
 
2013-02-28 11:25:45 AM  

endosymbiont: Except that copyright holders (Disney, Universal, etc.) file "John Doe" suits, and then subpoena the records of ISPs for torrent activity. If the plaintiff copyright holder doesn't like what it sees, it files a DMCA notice and takedown, which then probably counts as one of the "six strikes" that Comcast is locking up your browser based on.


Other way around... The copyright holders can't simply subpoena the records of ISPs on a fishing trip - to get that subpoena, they have to show that their copyrighted work was distributed by a specific IP address, and then they subpoena the records to find out which ISP subscriber had that IP at the time. Plus, as you know, filing those suits are a lot more expensive than sending a DMCA takedown.

Additionally, DMCA takedowns don't really apply to torrents. They're part of the safe harbor provisions for when a site is  hosting copyrighted material, like YouTube.

No, what they do is search someplace like pirate bay for one of their own copyrighted works, and then start downloading that file from the swarm, keeping track of all the source IPs of the seeders. Then* they file the suit to find those IPs.

*or rather, they search around for everything else shared by that same source IP, because it's a lot better to go after someone distributing 30 or 40 works than to go after someone distributing a single one.
 
2013-02-28 11:27:03 AM  
People, get PEERBLOCK already!
 
2013-02-28 11:28:05 AM  

Weaver95: Theaetetus: Weaver95: wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?

I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?

They're not hacking your browser, they're doing a redirect. Same exact thing you get half the time when you go to a public wifi spot, fire up a browser and go to google.com and get redirected to the wifi provider's splash page asking for that day's code or to look at an advertisement or whatnot. The redirection happens entirely outside your browser - your computer thinks it's actually displaying google's home page to you.

so if I were to find a way to pull this off and redirect Disney's home page to Brazzers.com...it's all good and legal?


If you owned the router upstream of Disney's home page, then yes.
For example, you probably own a home router. You can freely add a DNS table to it to do that redirect, and anyone on your home network will get porn instead of princesses, and that's completely legal.

However, you probably don't own the router at Disney's ISP, so you'd have to hack into someone  else's computer to change that, and that would be illegal.

Basically, you can modify your own gear so that it sends incorrect responses to anyone asking  it for information, but you can't modify others'.
 
2013-02-28 11:28:31 AM  

Weaver95: so if I were to find a way to pull this off and redirect Disney's home page to Brazzers.com...it's all good and legal?


If you own the network, yeah, you can.
 
2013-02-28 11:28:51 AM  

Weaver95: so if I were to find a way to pull this off and redirect Disney's home page to Brazzers.com...it's all good and legal


If people were trying to use your system to get to Disney, yes.
 
2013-02-28 11:30:09 AM  
Theaetetus:
However, you probably don't own the router at Disney's ISP, so you'd have to hack into someone  else's computer to change that, and that would be illegal.

how about I just do some sort of variant on a 'man in the middle' attack?  I just have to interpose my router in between Disney and their ISP, the Brazzers get a WHOLE lot more traffic.
 
2013-02-28 11:31:44 AM  

Weaver95: wingnut396: Weaver95: wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?

I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?

I would imagine it is the TOS to 'protect the network for all users' or some such.  That and their lawyers will be better than yours.

a TOS agreement cannot trump federal law.  And I don't care HOW good a legal staff comcast has...if they break federal computer crimes laws then their CEO should go to jail for it.


Consent.  Me stealing your car is against the law. You agreeing to lend me your car is legal. That is not "trumping federal law" as the laws on such matters include "without consent" as a condition. (Some matters, like murder cannot be consented to)
Your contract with your ISP will include conditions about not using your connection for illegal purposes and giving them the right to interrupt or suspend access if you do. You have consented to this.
 
2013-02-28 11:34:04 AM  

Weaver95: Theaetetus:
However, you probably don't own the router at Disney's ISP, so you'd have to hack into someone  else's computer to change that, and that would be illegal.

how about I just do some sort of variant on a 'man in the middle' attack?  I just have to interpose my router in between Disney and their ISP, the Brazzers get a WHOLE lot more traffic.


That's what you're doing when the clients are on your home network. If you can figure out some way to legally interpose your router between Disney and their ISP, then have at it. But I can tell you, it's going to involve some breaking and entering, and that ends that whole "legally" bit.
 
2013-02-28 11:35:00 AM  

Flint Ironstag: (Some matters, like murder cannot be consented to)


Consider euthanasia as a caveat to that.
 
2013-02-28 11:40:02 AM  

S_P_I_K_E: physt: The made a 9?  How exactly do you top 8?

Dude, you're missing out.  Backdoor Sluts 9 makes Naughty Nurses 2 look like Crotch Capers 3!


I disagree. There were unanswered questions from  Backdoor Sluts 7 that Backdoor Sluts 8 hinted at a resolution to come... but Backdoor Sluts 9 totally failed to address these, or even mention them. Now we don't even know if there'll be a denouement in Backdoor Sluts 10 or if they're just planning on rebooting the whole franchise.

Also: worst refrigerator reliability in movie history. How many times are they going to send people over to fix that damned thing?
 
2013-02-28 11:40:28 AM  

FeedTheCollapse: so can i just AdBlock this?


You can probably block the pop-up, but if the ISP is blackholing all your requests, you haven't really made much progress.
 
2013-02-28 11:41:17 AM  

Flint Ironstag: Your contract with your ISP will include conditions about not using your connection for illegal purposes and giving them the right to interrupt or suspend access if you do. You have consented to this.


And there's the rub. There is a LOT of stuff your ISP limits, actually... you'd be kind surprised if you take some time and read the User Agreement.
 
2013-02-28 11:41:25 AM  

Theaetetus: If you can figure out some way to legally interpose your router between Disney and their ISP, then have at it. But I can tell you, it's going to involve some breaking and entering, and that ends that whole "legally" bit.


Once upon a time, I was a contractor for ABC Radio, a Disney company. While I was there, a 6U Cisco router in the offices I was responsible for started to fail. Disney's WAN guys didn't even know it was on their network, wouldn't believe it was part of their network since it wasn't in their documentation and actually accused me of putting unauthorized equipment on their network. Because, you know, $50,000, 100lb. routers are super-easy to come by.

So what I'm saying is, it might not be as hard as you'd think.
 
2013-02-28 11:42:39 AM  

likefunbutnot: Theaetetus: If you can figure out some way to legally interpose your router between Disney and their ISP, then have at it. But I can tell you, it's going to involve some breaking and entering, and that ends that whole "legally" bit.

Once upon a time, I was a contractor for ABC Radio, a Disney company. While I was there, a 6U Cisco router in the offices I was responsible for started to fail. Disney's WAN guys didn't even know it was on their network, wouldn't believe it was part of their network since it wasn't in their documentation and actually accused me of putting unauthorized equipment on their network. Because, you know, $50,000, 100lb. routers are super-easy to come by.

So what I'm saying is, it might not be as hard as you'd think.


No, no, it's probably pretty easy. Just not legal. ;)
 
2013-02-28 11:47:39 AM  

Jackpot777: S_P_I_K_E: physt: The made a 9?  How exactly do you top 8?

Dude, you're missing out.  Backdoor Sluts 9 makes Naughty Nurses 2 look like Crotch Capers 3!

I disagree. There were unanswered questions from  Backdoor Sluts 7 that Backdoor Sluts 8 hinted at a resolution to come... but Backdoor Sluts 9 totally failed to address these, or even mention them. Now we don't even know if there'll be a denouement in Backdoor Sluts 10 or if they're just planning on rebooting the whole franchise.

Also: worst refrigerator reliability in movie history. How many times are they going to send people over to fix that damned thing?


You must not read People magazine.

/obscure
//are subby and I the only ones?
 
2013-02-28 11:50:00 AM  
back door sluts 9?  I read about it in Time
 
2013-02-28 11:50:39 AM  

Weaver95: so if I were to find a way to pull this off and redirect Disney's home page to Brazzers.com...it's all good and legal?


Dude are you now hanging around with Rush and sharing his 'meds'?  You are not usually this obtuse.

When you subscribe to comcast's network, you sign an agreement to not abuse (now those abuse rules may be be up for debate).  Part of the way they protect their network from abuse is to redirect traffic to different servers.  Are you upset that your ISP is very likely, right now, redirecting your fark.com requests to their caching servers INSTEAD of the actual website?  OMG, they are intercepting your traffic!@!@!!!!!  FEDERAL LAWSUIT!@!@

Doing a network level redirect for a user that they claim violates the TOS for access to the network is not a violation of your federal privacy.

In your magic scenario, you would have to put your equipment in the flow between other's network somewhere.  That would most likely be illegal as I would imagine you are not authorized to get between those networks or premises.  If it were authorized, at most it would be a breach of contract I would assume, and not hacking as you had the right to modify the traffic and equipment, but you did so in a manner that was outside the good faith contract between ISPs.
 
2013-02-28 11:52:26 AM  

Revek: Remember its not illegal as long as no one successfully sues.

you don't get caught.

FTFE
 
2013-02-28 11:54:42 AM  

Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: (Some matters, like murder cannot be consented to)

Consider euthanasia as a caveat to that.


Isn't euthanasia enacted (in OR, anyway) in such a way that the doc is essentially prescribing painkillers and leaving the room? (Yes, I know there's a 6-month waiting period as well as many hoops to jump through just to get the script, plus 60-some-odd percent of people don't end up using them. I mean philosophically.)

Friends of mine on whatever prescribed drugs often get a bottle with enough pills to kill or seriously injure them, yet this isn't "euthanasia". Sure, there's intent in the one case, but with the facts being essentially the same in both cases (you get enough pills to do major damage, and they have primary effects other than "kill you dead"), is there enough of an argument there that euthanasia is more like suicide (which there are laws against IIRC)?

// does it really matter?
 
2013-02-28 11:57:31 AM  
That's the final straw --

I'm switching to IP/oAC
 
2013-02-28 12:01:54 PM  
Isn't there a program/service called TOR that would avoid their 'tracking'?
 
2013-02-28 12:04:39 PM  
Five midgets, spanking a man, covered in Thousand Island dressing... Is that making love?
 
2013-02-28 12:15:10 PM  

TV's Vinnie: People, get PEERBLOCK already!



Peerblock is a placebo.
 
2013-02-28 12:20:31 PM  

BafflerMeal: TV's Vinnie: People, get PEERBLOCK already!


Peerblock is a placebo.


Go on....
 
2013-02-28 12:20:35 PM  

BafflerMeal: TV's Vinnie: People, get PEERBLOCK already!

Peerblock is a placebo.


I can't believe anyone would think it would prevent copyright holders from finding them. I mean, it's not like MediaSentry announces what IP address they're using that day.
 
2013-02-28 12:25:27 PM  

funk_soul_bubby: Five midgets, spanking a man, covered in Thousand Island dressing... Is that making love?


maybe, maybe not but it`s ART!
 
2013-02-28 12:26:17 PM  
... actually, there's a way you could use PEERBLOCK or other IP block lists that could potentially be safe... start your torrent with the rate throttled waaaaaay down so that you're barely getting any data, but you are getting the advertisements of who's seeding. Then, identify which seeders have complete copies. Finally, block  all IP addresses  except those few seeders and unlock the rate throttle.

You won't be uploading, because none of those seeders will be requesting data, so distribution is out. And while you are making an infringing copy, the only way MediaSentry could find you would be to be one of the seeders... and then you have a really good argument that you're getting a licensed copy from an agent of the copyright owner and it's not illegal at all. It's one of the reasons that the RIAA/MPAA have never gone after leechers, but that's a little more difficult with torrents. This method should make you an absolute leech.

Disclaimer: this is not legal advice, do not rely on the above. Use at your own peril.
 
2013-02-28 12:30:41 PM  
What's a VPN?
I know I'm inviting the wrath of farkers with actual computer literacy, but why do you apparently 50% of you use this?
 
2013-02-28 12:33:42 PM  
You can still torrent number 8 though, right?
 
2013-02-28 12:35:38 PM  

Ostman: What's a VPN?
I know I'm inviting the wrath of farkers with actual computer literacy, but why do you apparently 50% of you use this?


Virtual Private Network. Commonly used by businesses when people want to work remotely. It's as if you had a really long-ass Ethernet cable running to your work, so that at home, you're on their internal network, have a company IP instead of your own IP address, etc. Any action you do is through their network rather than your own.

In this case, the "company" is usually some server farm out of the country or an ISP that has refused to scan packets for torrents. You connect to them via a VPN and all your ISP sees is encrypted traffic between your computer and the VPN host. No torrents, no porn browsing, etc.
 
2013-02-28 12:40:26 PM  

ferretman: Isn't there a program/service called TOR that would avoid their 'tracking'?


I'm going to start downloading a 1080p version of Avatar over TOR right now.  Cause I'll need something to watch when I retire in 40 years.
 
2013-02-28 12:43:50 PM  
Why use BT when there are safer alternatives, like anonymous file lockers or going through TOR?

Or so I've been told.
 
2013-02-28 12:46:14 PM  

Weaver95: Walker: Should be an easy way to stop the pop-ups.

why bother in the first place?  look - if i'm an evil file trader, i'm not gonna use MY wi-fi to file trade.  imma scan the local neighborhood and find someone with weak or no encryption.  then i'll use their 'net access to run my torrent.  or worst case, i'll head down to the local coffee shop or library and chill there for an hour or so while things finish up.  I've got options...and comcast can't track me, then can (at best) maybe track where I and other evil people are using as points of access, then punish THOSE people.

so this new policy doesn't stop file trading.  not at all.  it'll hurt the innocent tho, and that's really what this is all about.




No, this is about protecting porn.

Why do you hate pron stars?
 
2013-02-28 12:48:09 PM  

JinxedLynx: Forgot to add ...

I believe this policy of actions exists because the ISP does not want to be charged with aiding in the crime of copy right infringement.


The fact that this has never,  ever happened makes it obvious that there are no laws that allow for them to be charged in that fashion.
 
2013-02-28 12:48:54 PM  

wingnut396: liability and other users on the network.


They have no liability as a common carrier. However, by implementing this they may lose their common carrier status and sudden gain liability.
 
2013-02-28 12:51:10 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: They have no liability as a common carrier. However, by implementing this they may lose their common carrier status and sudden gain liability.


A number of legal analysts have also suggested that there may be some significant anti-trust issues with this plan.
 
2013-02-28 12:53:17 PM  

wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?


probably not. They probably just redirect all requests from your IP to their warning page.

They own your pipe after all, they don't need to own your browser to control what it can display. They just manipulate the data that reaches the browser
 
2013-02-28 01:00:22 PM  

ferretman: TOR


The problem with The Onion Router is that you have to have trusted exit points. If you compromise the exit point, you get all the data.

So only use trusted exit points if you plan to use TOR.
 
2013-02-28 01:03:59 PM  

fluffy2097: ferretman: TOR

The problem with The Onion Router is that you have to have trusted exit points. If you compromise the exit point, you get all the data.

So only use trusted exit points if you plan to use TOR.


Don't use TOR for torrents.

https://blog.torproject.org/blog/bittorrent-over-tor-isnt-good-idea  

And seriously, you're going to get better performance out of a VPN, anyway, and they're not expensive.  I can't imagine why anyone would WANT to use TOR for filesharing.
 
2013-02-28 01:05:49 PM  

zyrian: What if you don't use their DNS servers? (Google public DNS, for example. 8.8.8.8)


Honestly, as a Comcast customer I've been doing that for years because Comcast's DNS servers used to go down so often.  Please GB2 lets make this GigE thing happen everywhere.  With all respect to Ghenghis Khan what is best in life undoubtably involves telling Comcast to go fark themselves.
 
2013-02-28 01:06:15 PM  

fluffy2097: ferretman: TOR

The problem with The Onion Router is that you have to have trusted exit points. If you compromise the exit point, you get all the data.

So only use trusted exit points if you plan to use TOR.


From what I understand is that TOR won't help because most Bit Torrent clients write your IP address directly into the information they send to the tracker and/or to other peers.
 
2013-02-28 01:08:12 PM  

the801: Comcast has chosen a browser "hijack," making it impossible for customers to browse the Internet, but without interrupting VOIP and other essential services

is that even legal? anyway, come get some. your terrorist attacks mean nothing to me. and i didn't just torrent Backdoor Sluts 9 - i ripped and upped 1-15 in 720p h.264. also, i've been seeding the entire Metallica discography for like 100 years now. i'm not even behind 2 boxxies. i'm just sitting here waiting. you wanna do this thing, comcast? i'll meet you after school by the flagpole at 4:20, and imma gonna kick your ass.


Sounds like it would be easy to prove.  The pop ups would be annoying, but technically not prevent "access" since they are only trying to get your attention (if only to say they have complaints about you).

I wonder if this would prevent other protocols though - can you still send email?  IM? etc.?  Those aren't HTTP traffic so how do they disrupt those?  My guess is they don't since everyone is convinced "The Innerweb = HTTP".
 
2013-02-28 01:12:14 PM  
Annnndddd this is why I have colocated servers and VPS accounts that I use to download torrents.
 
2013-02-28 01:21:36 PM  

zyrian: What if you don't use their DNS servers? (Google public DNS, for example. 8.8.8.8)


Anyone who is downloading from public trackers over an unencrypted connection is not going to use alternate DNS.
 
2013-02-28 01:21:44 PM  
Also, it should be noted that courts have been increasingly intolerant of copyright plaintiff's bullshiat in filesharing cases, especially when attempting their "Copyright Holder v. 500 Does" antics.  

With that in mind, this seems like a pretty obvious attempt to do an end-run around the judicial system. 

Courts aren't finding in our favor anymore?  Let's come up with some extrajudicial way to punish people.  Bonus: No due process or burden of proof to contend with, either.
 
2013-02-28 01:26:04 PM  

China White Tea: Also, it should be noted that courts have been increasingly intolerant of copyright plaintiff's bullshiat in filesharing cases, especially when attempting their "Copyright Holder v. 500 Does" antics.

With that in mind, this seems like a pretty obvious attempt to do an end-run around the judicial system.

Courts aren't finding in our favor anymore?  Let's come up with some extrajudicial way to punish people.  Bonus: No due process or burden of proof to contend with, either.



Let's not forget the 'processing fee' of I think it was $30 to have comcast remove the block / redirect.

Revenue stream.  Even if the their claim ends up being bogus and one is innocent.  Revenue stream.  Incontestable revenue stream.
 
2013-02-28 01:28:09 PM  

zyrian: What if you don't use their DNS servers? (Google public DNS, for example. 8.8.8.8)


and 8.8.4.4
 
2013-02-28 01:29:43 PM  

Inquisitive Inquisitor: Oh if only there was a way to mask my IP address to prevent detection.  Who will be my prince and invent such a...

Oh.  Wait.

/me turns on VPN
/me flips off Comcast


what do you use?  I haven't even bothered to look into this, as I don't download torrents, but might start just as a matter of course.
 
2013-02-28 01:29:45 PM  

MmmmBacon: Meh, the whole thing is stupid. I don't download copyrighted materials, so I'm not worried about this issue very much, but I do play some games that download their updates via a Peer-to-Peer system very similar to downloading torrents. I know I would be viciously pissed if Comcast blocked my web browsing because I happen to play games that act in a similar fashion to BitTorrent.


When you get a notice, you get a notice on a specific file, not just torrenty looking traffic.  Comcast would send you an email stating that you appear to have a pirated copy of Backdoor_Sluts_9_DVDRIP.avi on your machine.

But they could throttle your game traffic.
 
2013-02-28 01:34:31 PM  

BSABSVR: Comcast would send you an email stating that you appear to have distributed a pirated copy of Backdoor_Sluts_9_DVDRIP.avi.


FTFY... They're just looking at your traffic, they're not smb'ing into your machine.
 
2013-02-28 01:37:43 PM  

Theaetetus: BSABSVR: Comcast would send you an email stating that you appear to have distributed a pirated copy of Backdoor_Sluts_9_DVDRIP.avi.

FTFY... They're just looking at your traffic, they're not smb'ing into your machine.


Pretty sure they're not actually looking at your traffic (that kind of DPI would almost certainly get them assraped).

Rather, some third-party is participating in active torrents, making note of the IPs they're connecting to, and then reporting the IPs.
 
2013-02-28 01:41:25 PM  
If you don't want to set up vpn on your home pc, which has its drawbacks, get a seedbox.  This gives you the benefit of incredibly fast connections (50MB/s not uncommon), able to seed torrents (for ratio sites) without affecting your isp's bandwith cap, and of course multiple methods of transferring files to your home pc via encrypted transport - including vpn!.
 
2013-02-28 01:44:43 PM  
Yet another reason to want Google Fiber.

At least around here (heart of the Silicon valley), Comcast has actual competition, so they might be reluctant to be too difficult about that to the local population. Sucks to be in an area where it's Comcast or nothing.
 
2013-02-28 01:46:52 PM  
Can't talk.... Downloading Backdoor Sluts off my neighbors open wireless signal.
 
2013-02-28 01:47:17 PM  
Good luck!  I'm behind seven  proxies boxxies ad-blocks!
 
2013-02-28 01:47:40 PM  

S_P_I_K_E: Jackpot777: S_P_I_K_E: physt: The made a 9?  How exactly do you top 8?

Dude, you're missing out.  Backdoor Sluts 9 makes Naughty Nurses 2 look like Crotch Capers 3!

I disagree. There were unanswered questions from  Backdoor Sluts 7 that Backdoor Sluts 8 hinted at a resolution to come... but Backdoor Sluts 9 totally failed to address these, or even mention them. Now we don't even know if there'll be a denouement in Backdoor Sluts 10 or if they're just planning on rebooting the whole franchise.

Also: worst refrigerator reliability in movie history. How many times are they going to send people over to fix that damned thing?

You must not read People magazine.

/obscure
//are subby and I the only ones?


That still watch South Park? No, lots of people still watch South Park.
 
2013-02-28 01:48:53 PM  

Weaver95: a TOS agreement cannot trump federal law.  And I don't care HOW good a legal staff comcast has...if they break federal computer crimes laws then their CEO should go to jail for it.


And it's official. You used to be one of the most intelligent commenters here, but you've gone full retard with this post. According to you, an ISP manipulating the traffic that goes through its network is the same thing as hacking into your personal computer and breaking criminal hacking laws.

You can biatch about local monopolies, the politics of it, or ISPs being dicks about routing traffic, but when you show a fundamental ignorance of how the damned computers work and scream "hacking" you lose all your credibility.
 
2013-02-28 01:51:10 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: ArkAngel: MmmmBacon: Meh, the whole thing is stupid. I don't download copyrighted materials, so I'm not worried about this issue very much, but I do play some games that download their updates via a Peer-to-Peer system very similar to downloading torrents. I know I would be viciously pissed if Comcast blocked my web browsing because I happen to play games that act in a similar fashion to BitTorrent.

I believe you have to be reported first by one of the copyright holders, so you should be safe.

Yep.  I got popped several years ago because I was working on a class and downloaded one of those Great Lectures series on the subject for some additional info.  I got a letter from Comcast a few days later saying the Great Lectures folks had uploaded the file to the torrent site to catch people who were copyrighting.  Considering they appeared to be the only ones uploading Great Lectures series, I thought their strategy was a bit counterproductive.


What gets me about cases like that is that in the real world, that's the equivalent of someone going out in a public square with a table of cookies that said "Take one" and when someone actually does they call the cops for theft.

The whole idea is that you can't upload or distribute another individuals copyrighted content without permission. However, if you're distributing your own content, by definition you have your own permission, so anyone who takes what you're freely distributing isn't violating anything.
 
2013-02-28 01:54:43 PM  

JinxedLynx: I am not clear on the specifics and i dont have access to the screen shots while i did customer support ... but I assume Comcast will do the same thing as Suddenlink is doing.
...

If you are in DMCA violation, you get redirected to a website that has you promise to not violate dmca again.  Three to five strikes and its a 6 month ban from service from the ISP.


I got no warning from Suddenlink when I was accused of a violation.  They just turned off my internet one day.  When I called to report the outage the rep told me my internet was cut off because a copyright holder accused me of torrenting their movie.  The rep was cool about it and said "Just don't do it again" and turned my service back on.

And that's the day I stopped using Demonoid.
 
2013-02-28 01:54:50 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: At least around here (heart of the Silicon valley), Comcast has actual competition, so they might be reluctant to be too difficult about that to the local population. Sucks to be in an area where it's Comcast or nothing


What is this competition of which you speak?  I'll be moving later this year, so not having to use Comcast is a positive event.
 
2013-02-28 01:55:29 PM  
I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes to networking & security & all that book learnin

But didn't the RIAA lose this battle some time ago because it couldn't be proven that the owners of the cable were the ones who downloaded/shared files?  I thought the defense that someone could hack into your wifi signal pretty easily got the cases thrown out.
 
2013-02-28 01:59:32 PM  

BigLuca: ferretman: Isn't there a program/service called TOR that would avoid their 'tracking'?

I'm going to start downloading a 1080p version of Avatar over TOR right now.  Cause I'll need something to watch when I retire in 40 years.


you are being throttled big time

2.5 GB 1080 vids come down pretty quickly when not being throttled 35 down 3 up
 
2013-02-28 01:59:36 PM  

meyerkev: Some 'Splainin' To Do: At least around here (heart of the Silicon valley), Comcast has actual competition, so they might be reluctant to be too difficult about that to the local population. Sucks to be in an area where it's Comcast or nothing

What is this competition of which you speak?  I'll be moving later this year, so not having to use Comcast is a positive event.


There's Sonic.net Fusion and AT&T Uverse. Both are based on ADSL2+.

If you're lucky enough to live in their service areas, there's also Monkey Brains and WebPass, both of which offer "air fiber" high speed wireless. Those are both mostly in SF and both require changes to your building, which blows for us renters.
 
2013-02-28 02:00:28 PM  

swaxhog: able to seed torrents (for ratio sites) without affecting your isp's bandwith cap


Hmmm.... please go on!
 
2013-02-28 02:05:56 PM  

likefunbutnot: BigLuca: Hidemyass

Hidemyass is one of MANY vpn providers that keeps logs and will readily provide them.

If you're going to go looking for a VPN service, you really need to scrutinize their privacy policies to see what you're actually getting.


And it's a lot like web hosting, in that it's freaking impossible to find any kind of objective reviews that aren't thinly disguised shills for one service or other.



Might this be helpful?
 
2013-02-28 02:07:30 PM  

BigLuca: Can we turn this thread into a review of the best VPNs?
Hidemyass? btguard?


I've been using StrongVPN for a few years now. They do get DMCA notices every once in a while but their solution thus far has been to send me a warning letter saying "nothing will be done". I imagine this is them telling the MPAA to go f*ck themselves.

I also noticed that, magically, my youtube and netflix streams don't stutter when I'm connected to VPN as opposed to bare over Cumcast's network.
 
2013-02-28 02:12:20 PM  

spentshells: BigLuca: ferretman: Isn't there a program/service called TOR that would avoid their 'tracking'?

I'm going to start downloading a 1080p version of Avatar over TOR right now.  Cause I'll need something to watch when I retire in 40 years.

you are being throttled big time

2.5 GB 1080 vids come down pretty quickly when not being throttled 35 down 3 up


Seriously? On TOR?  I think I averaged about 10b/s down when I tried to torrent.  Who does the throttling, the exit node?
 
2013-02-28 02:16:58 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: ArkAngel: MmmmBacon: Meh, the whole thing is stupid. I don't download copyrighted materials, so I'm not worried about this issue very much, but I do play some games that download their updates via a Peer-to-Peer system very similar to downloading torrents. I know I would be viciously pissed if Comcast blocked my web browsing because I happen to play games that act in a similar fashion to BitTorrent.

I believe you have to be reported first by one of the copyright holders, so you should be safe.

Yep.  I got popped several years ago because I was working on a class and downloaded one of those Great Lectures series on the subject for some additional info.  I got a letter from Comcast a few days later saying the Great Lectures folks had uploaded the file to the torrent site to catch people who were copyrighting.  Considering they appeared to be the only ones uploading Great Lectures series, I thought their strategy was a bit counterproductive.


You should've lawyered up... If the Great Lectures people put the file on the torrent site, then they were distributing it and there was no illegal infringement. It'd be like Drew suing us for copyright infringement for visiting Fark.com.
 
2013-02-28 02:17:07 PM  
Would a 'Ghost Surf' program work?

/Just curious...already have BDS8 & 9
 
2013-02-28 02:20:16 PM  

Theaetetus: whizbangthedirtfarmer: ArkAngel: MmmmBacon: Meh, the whole thing is stupid. I don't download copyrighted materials, so I'm not worried about this issue very much, but I do play some games that download their updates via a Peer-to-Peer system very similar to downloading torrents. I know I would be viciously pissed if Comcast blocked my web browsing because I happen to play games that act in a similar fashion to BitTorrent.

I believe you have to be reported first by one of the copyright holders, so you should be safe.

Yep.  I got popped several years ago because I was working on a class and downloaded one of those Great Lectures series on the subject for some additional info.  I got a letter from Comcast a few days later saying the Great Lectures folks had uploaded the file to the torrent site to catch people who were copyrighting.  Considering they appeared to be the only ones uploading Great Lectures series, I thought their strategy was a bit counterproductive.

You should've lawyered up... If the Great Lectures people put the file on the torrent site, then they were distributing it and there was no illegal infringement. It'd be like Drew suing us for copyright infringement for visiting Fark.com.


Well, all Comcast did was give me one strike out of the four offered.  Considering I don't torrent much anymore (if at all), getting a lawyer involved also seemed counterproductive.
 
2013-02-28 02:23:21 PM  

syberpud: the801: Comcast has chosen a browser "hijack," making it impossible for customers to browse the Internet, but without interrupting VOIP and other essential services

is that even legal? anyway, come get some. your terrorist attacks mean nothing to me. and i didn't just torrent Backdoor Sluts 9 - i ripped and upped 1-15 in 720p h.264. also, i've been seeding the entire Metallica discography for like 100 years now. i'm not even behind 2 boxxies. i'm just sitting here waiting. you wanna do this thing, comcast? i'll meet you after school by the flagpole at 4:20, and imma gonna kick your ass.

Sounds like it would be easy to prove.  The pop ups would be annoying, but technically not prevent "access" since they are only trying to get your attention (if only to say they have complaints about you).

I wonder if this would prevent other protocols though - can you still send email?  IM? etc.?  Those aren't HTTP traffic so how do they disrupt those?  My guess is they don't since everyone is convinced "The Innerweb = HTTP".




What about blind people?
 
2013-02-28 02:28:28 PM  
Endless dicks?
Is that an Olive Garden entre?
 
2013-02-28 02:29:34 PM  
Has anyone used a seedbox? If so, which providers do you like?
 
2013-02-28 02:30:45 PM  

Theaetetus: You should've lawyered up... If the Great Lectures people put the file on the torrent site, then they were distributing it and there was no illegal infringement. It'd be like Drew suing us for copyright infringement for visiting Fark.com.


Not really, no.  AFAIK nobody has ever actually been popped, or even threatened, for downloading something.  Copyright suits are frequently portrayed that way in the media in a fashion similar to the way all guns are glocks or AK-47s and all aggressive dog breeds are pit bulls.

The thing about torrents is that, by their nature, using them to download also turns you into a distributor, so while you may have been authorized to download it from them, the way you were doing it also meant you were redistributing it, which you weren't authorized to do.

/I don't necessarily agree that that's how it should be, but I'm certain that's how such a battle would be fought.
 
2013-02-28 02:32:11 PM  
So if someone were to download their copy of Backdoor Sluts 9 from a newsgroup server, and the file being downloaded was called 23siu38d37h.zip.  Would the ISP be able to tell what this person is actually getting?
 
2013-02-28 02:32:37 PM  
HOTY candidate.
 
2013-02-28 02:38:44 PM  

Reversed: So if someone were to download their copy of Backdoor Sluts 9 from a newsgroup server, and the file being downloaded was called 23siu38d37h.zip.  Would the ISP be able to tell what this person is actually getting?


The reverse question is more interesting, really: What happens if they fail to do due diligence and claim that non-copyrighted material is in violation?
 
2013-02-28 02:40:43 PM  

China White Tea: AFAIK nobody has ever actually been popped, or even threatened, for downloading something.


Huh. So you're saying that guy was correct earlier when he said:

Theaetetus: It's one of the reasons that the RIAA/MPAA have never gone after leechers, but that's a little more difficult with torrents.

 
2013-02-28 02:43:59 PM  

China White Tea: Reversed: So if someone were to download their copy of Backdoor Sluts 9 from a newsgroup server, and the file being downloaded was called 23siu38d37h.zip.  Would the ISP be able to tell what this person is actually getting?

The reverse question is more interesting, really: What happens if they fail to do due diligence and claim that non-copyrighted material is in violation?


For example, is "king Kong.zip" the pubic domain movie, Peter Jackson's king Kong or an open source game by pussylicker69?
 
2013-02-28 02:44:22 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Yet another reason to want Google Fiber.

At least around here (heart of the Silicon valley), Comcast has actual competition, so they might be reluctant to be too difficult about that to the local population. Sucks to be in an area where it's Comcast or nothing.


That's us here in Houston.  Well that, and DSL (bleh), but it's Comcast only here.  If Google fiber made it's way out to Texas...yeah, I'd tell Comcast to suck off.
 
2013-02-28 02:47:18 PM  

Reversed: So if someone were to download their copy of Backdoor Sluts 9 from a newsgroup server, and the file being downloaded was called 23siu38d37h.zip.  Would the ISP be able to tell what this person is actually getting?


I was musing the other day about obfuscating torrents by using descriptive names rather than their actual ones. Like, "that television show with the blond chick in the desert with pet dragons.avi" or "that animated movie by the mouse company with the red headed archery girl.mpg". Clip the last second off the credits and the hash would be different, too.
 
2013-02-28 02:49:40 PM  

Reversed: So if someone were to download their copy of Backdoor Sluts 9 from a newsgroup server, and the file being downloaded was called 23siu38d37h.zip.  Would the ISP be able to tell what this person is actually getting?


This is a curious question I have as well.  Mainly b/c the few times I torrent (I purchase physical comic books, but also like to have the digital copy for my tablet, and think it sucks to pay for it twice), and some direct sites have a renamed zip file.  If they are just looking at your traffic, wouldn't it come up as that filename?

Also looking at VPNs, not sure which to go with at this point.
 
2013-02-28 03:03:11 PM  

FinFangFark: Reversed: So if someone were to download their copy of Backdoor Sluts 9 from a newsgroup server, and the file being downloaded was called 23siu38d37h.zip.  Would the ISP be able to tell what this person is actually getting?

This is a curious question I have as well.  Mainly b/c the few times I torrent (I purchase physical comic books, but also like to have the digital copy for my tablet, and think it sucks to pay for it twice), and some direct sites have a renamed zip file.  If they are just looking at your traffic, wouldn't it come up as that filename?

Also looking at VPNs, not sure which to go with at this point.


I'm currently testing purevpn but I really don't know where it stands against the rest of them. They do have some nice features.
 
2013-02-28 03:09:45 PM  

Lanadapter: For example, is "king Kong.zip" the pubic domain movie, Peter Jackson's king Kong or an open source game by pussylicker69?


None of the above. It's a .zip file that you were just dumb enough to download off a torrent site.

If my ISP were doing this to me, I'd drop them, even if it meant going to dial-up. And I really doubt there are many places where Comcast has a total monopoly. You may think they do, but if you look closer you'll see about 20 options.
 
2013-02-28 03:10:27 PM  
They are busting people on porn too? Everything I have read about this mentions TV and movie studios issuing warnings, but not porn. Which seemed weird to me since that is probably a big chunk of torrent traffic.
 
2013-02-28 03:12:43 PM  

Theaetetus: Ostman: What's a VPN?
I know I'm inviting the wrath of farkers with actual computer literacy, but why do you apparently 50% of you use this?

Virtual Private Network. Commonly used by businesses when people want to work remotely. It's as if you had a really long-ass Ethernet cable running to your work, so that at home, you're on their internal network, have a company IP instead of your own IP address, etc. Any action you do is through their network rather than your own.

In this case, the "company" is usually some server farm out of the country or an ISP that has refused to scan packets for torrents. You connect to them via a VPN and all your ISP sees is encrypted traffic between your computer and the VPN host. No torrents, no porn browsing, etc.


Hmm, didn't know this even existed until today, thanks for explaining it.
How do you connect to, or get, a VPN? Is it a service you subscribe to, or a onetime download?
 
2013-02-28 03:14:00 PM  
I would gladly pay a subscription fee to a service that streamed movies I wanted to watch when I want to watch them. Netflix is great, but I'd pay $25/mo more if I could stream their entire library.

Until that happens, there are alternatives.

/download all my mp3 from Amazon because everything I want is available
 
2013-02-28 03:14:10 PM  

Ostman: Is it a service you subscribe to,


Yes.

or a onetime download?

The software for connecting to your VPN provider is. :)

Check out the aforementioned PureVPN.
 
2013-02-28 03:17:16 PM  

dready zim: funk_soul_bubby: Five midgets, spanking a man, covered in Thousand Island dressing... Is that making love?

maybe, maybe not but it`s ART!



img5.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-28 03:23:42 PM  

ManRay: They are busting people on porn too? Everything I have read about this mentions TV and movie studios issuing warnings, but not porn. Which seemed weird to me since that is probably a big chunk of torrent traffic.


They figured out that people are FAR more willing to discreetly pay a "penalty" and make it go away than they are to go to court to challenge the charge that they illegally distributed items from Randall Graves' (or RST Video's) video library.
 
2013-02-28 03:24:25 PM  

Weaver95: wingnut396: Weaver95: wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?

I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?

I would imagine it is the TOS to 'protect the network for all users' or some such.  That and their lawyers will be better than yours.

a TOS agreement cannot trump federal law.  And I don't care HOW good a legal staff comcast has...if they break federal computer crimes laws then their CEO should go to jail for it.


Can you point to a Federal law that prohibits a company and an individual from mutually agreeing to a service, part of which is to allow the company to redirect traffic that you send through it in specifically defined and agreed-upon cases?
 
2013-02-28 03:26:19 PM  

Farking Canuck: ISP started hijacking failed lookups and sending me to ad pages


MOTHERFARKERS.
 
2013-02-28 03:28:34 PM  

Weaver95: Theaetetus: Weaver95: wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?

I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?

They're not hacking your browser, they're doing a redirect. Same exact thing you get half the time when you go to a public wifi spot, fire up a browser and go to google.com and get redirected to the wifi provider's splash page asking for that day's code or to look at an advertisement or whatnot. The redirection happens entirely outside your browser - your computer thinks it's actually displaying google's home page to you.

so if I were to find a way to pull this off and redirect Disney's home page to Brazzers.com...it's all good and legal?


If you were acting as a public DNS service doing this for the people using your service, sure.  Why would that be illegal?
 
2013-02-28 03:33:09 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Theaetetus: Flint Ironstag: (Some matters, like murder cannot be consented to)

Consider euthanasia as a caveat to that.

Isn't euthanasia enacted (in OR, anyway) in such a way that the doc is essentially prescribing painkillers and leaving the room? (Yes, I know there's a 6-month waiting period as well as many hoops to jump through just to get the script, plus 60-some-odd percent of people don't end up using them. I mean philosophically.)

Friends of mine on whatever prescribed drugs often get a bottle with enough pills to kill or seriously injure them, yet this isn't "euthanasia". Sure, there's intent in the one case, but with the facts being essentially the same in both cases (you get enough pills to do major damage, and they have primary effects other than "kill you dead"), is there enough of an argument there that euthanasia is more like suicide (which there are laws against IIRC)?

// does it really matter?


Generally, what you're referring to is assisted suicide.  Euthanasia is when one person kills another.

It does matter because in one case you very easily can have a situation where a person is killed who doesn't actually want to be.
 
2013-02-28 03:35:59 PM  

syberpud: the801: Comcast has chosen a browser "hijack," making it impossible for customers to browse the Internet, but without interrupting VOIP and other essential services

is that even legal? anyway, come get some. your terrorist attacks mean nothing to me. and i didn't just torrent Backdoor Sluts 9 - i ripped and upped 1-15 in 720p h.264. also, i've been seeding the entire Metallica discography for like 100 years now. i'm not even behind 2 boxxies. i'm just sitting here waiting. you wanna do this thing, comcast? i'll meet you after school by the flagpole at 4:20, and imma gonna kick your ass.

Sounds like it would be easy to prove.  The pop ups would be annoying, but technically not prevent "access" since they are only trying to get your attention (if only to say they have complaints about you).

I wonder if this would prevent other protocols though - can you still send email?  IM? etc.?  Those aren't HTTP traffic so how do they disrupt those?  My guess is they don't since everyone is convinced "The Innerweb = HTTP".


The article suggests it just impacts web browsing as they don't want to interfere  with VOIP and other applications.

FTFA:  Comcast has chosen a browser "hijack," making it impossible for customers to browse the Internet, but without interrupting VOIP and other essential services.
 
2013-02-28 03:38:16 PM  

China White Tea: JinxedLynx: Forgot to add ...

I believe this policy of actions exists because the ISP does not want to be charged with aiding in the crime of copy right infringement.

The fact that this has never,  ever happened makes it obvious that there are no laws that allow for them to be charged in that fashion.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that the DMCA prevents them from being charged.

They help out because they don't want people clogging up their pipes.
 
2013-02-28 03:38:17 PM  
I'm essentially stuck with Comcast where I live and really need to get with this Seedbox action, possibly a VPN. If heavy torrent users can recommend something safe and cheap (I know, you don't get both, probably) that would be a huge help. Fark-specific Gmail in profile if you don't want to talk out in the open. Thanks everyone.

If it helps, my motion to the courts when my ISP was subpoenaed got my case dismissed, and I shared it after mentioning it on Fark, and it also apparently got a few Farkers off...I'm Total Fark because they gifted me. So, I've been here before, and have tried to help!
 
2013-02-28 03:58:17 PM  
Jackpot777:

That still watch South Park? No, lots of people still watch South Park.

Because this thread seems awful light on South Park references.
 
2013-02-28 04:00:21 PM  
There's one part of the whole "copyright holder" and DMCA thing I've always thought would make a great angle for a countersuit/defense, but not sure if its been tried yet or not. It would only work though if you DOWNLOADED only, no seeding.

How do they catch you if you only download? THEY (the copyright holder or their authorized agent) is the one seeding. So they can see what IPs they are uploading to. Can you not make the argument that the copyright holder (or their agent) is, by posting the torrent/file up for download, GIVING the file away free? There is no price or fee listed for the torrent/file before you can use it, so if they copyright holder themselves are giving away the file, how can they then sue you for not paying for it?
 
2013-02-28 04:06:06 PM  

michiganman: There's one part of the whole "copyright holder" and DMCA thing I've always thought would make a great angle for a countersuit/defense, but not sure if its been tried yet or not. It would only work though if you DOWNLOADED only, no seeding.

How do they catch you if you only download? THEY (the copyright holder or their authorized agent) is the one seeding. So they can see what IPs they are uploading to. Can you not make the argument that the copyright holder (or their agent) is, by posting the torrent/file up for download, GIVING the file away free? There is no price or fee listed for the torrent/file before you can use it, so if they copyright holder themselves are giving away the file, how can they then sue you for not paying for it?


Yes, see earlier in the thread. That's one of the reasons why they've never sued a leecher.
 
2013-02-28 04:07:01 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-02-28 04:31:23 PM  

Weaver95: wingnut396: Is it really a browser hijack?  Sure it may look like that, but is Comcast really hijacking your browser?  I would guess they are just using their switching and monitoring environment to intercept and redirect http requests to their alert system.  If that is the case, wouldn't a VPN connection pretty much defeat this 'hijack'?

I have a better question - how does this policy NOT violate currently existing computer crimes laws?  if comcast is hacking your browser and redirecting your communications...well, if I did that I'm pretty sure someone would find me and throw me in jail.  but a corporation does it and suddenly the law doesn't apply?


When you purchase Comcast's service you are agreeing to their terms of service which grants them the right to do this (ok, I haven't read the whole document in detail, but I imagine that you give away all of your rights in it like any other service agreement).
 
2013-02-28 04:37:09 PM  

RoxtarRyan: Flint Ironstag: Your contract with your ISP will include conditions about not using your connection for illegal purposes and giving them the right to interrupt or suspend access if you do. You have consented to this.

And there's the rub. There is a LOT of stuff your ISP limits, actually... you'd be kind surprised if you take some time and read the User Agreement.


Too busy stealing things and feeling self-righteous about it to read!

/download plenty
//but I have the good taste to admit it's theft
 
2013-02-28 04:44:00 PM  

Empty Matchbook: //but I have the good taste to admit it's theft


Aw, geez, now you've done it.

i66.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-28 04:50:25 PM  

ManRay: They are busting people on porn too?


Yes. The porn people are shockingly litigious, especially since they might only sell 5000 copies of any particular production in the first place.

Two things are interesting about that:

One is that a judge ruled that porn producers need to file suit in the jurisdiction where they believe the infraction might have occurred, and they need to obtain representation and pay to file for each infraction that they want to redress. This means that it is comparatively very expensive for them to pursue claims.

The second is that porn production companies are wise to that, so the notices they send out that spell out in excruciating detail what they'll make part of the public and therefore publicly-searchable record in the event that a filing must be made.

They made life difficult enough for the two biggest porn torrent sites to close up about a year ago. There are a few left and plenty of general purpose public sites still have tons of adult content. Ironically, the thing that porn companies like to whine about most is "Tube" sites full of streaming copyright violations. Most of the best known "Tube" sites are owned by the Brazzers network.
 
2013-02-28 05:12:25 PM  

Theaetetus: michiganman: There's one part of the whole "copyright holder" and DMCA thing I've always thought would make a great angle for a countersuit/defense, but not sure if its been tried yet or not. It would only work though if you DOWNLOADED only, no seeding.

How do they catch you if you only download? THEY (the copyright holder or their authorized agent) is the one seeding. So they can see what IPs they are uploading to. Can you not make the argument that the copyright holder (or their agent) is, by posting the torrent/file up for download, GIVING the file away free? There is no price or fee listed for the torrent/file before you can use it, so if they copyright holder themselves are giving away the file, how can they then sue you for not paying for it?

Yes, see earlier in the thread. That's one of the reasons why they've never sued a leecher.


The above isn't necessarily correct. They can and do subpeona records of people leeching files. That's done over BitTorrent: they look for an offending torrent, enter the swarm, and jot down all connected IPs, regardless of completion percentage. They don't have to create the torrent themselves, hell, they don't even allege that you've shared at all in these subpoenas, just that presence in the swarm is enough to prove infringement. Thankfully, the courts have rejected this, and you can cite the precedent if you ever get subpoenaed.
 
2013-02-28 05:21:48 PM  
I wonder if this would later be extended to sites that ISPs don't agree with for whatever reason.
 
2013-02-28 05:36:59 PM  
wah I only get 6 chances before I get punished for stealing this isn't fair I deserve free shiat
 
2013-02-28 05:50:47 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Isn't euthanasia enacted (in OR, anyway) in such a way that the doc is essentially prescribing painkillers and leaving the room? (Yes, I know there's a 6-month waiting period as well as many hoops to jump through just to get the script, plus 60-some-odd percent of people don't end up using them. I mean philosophically.)


I've had two family members who signed up for the Death with Dignity deal.  I don't think there was a waiting period as they both had less then 6 months.  We did have to find an "impartial" non-family member sign an affidavit that this was their wish though.   Also they have to be coherent enough to ask for the pill without any coercion, which is a bit of a problem for elderly women taking enough morphine to keep a heroin addict high for a month.   We jumped through the hoops but in the end neither of them took the pill.
 
2013-02-28 05:55:34 PM  
I don't have a problem with this.  Don't steal shiat and this won't be an issue.
 
2013-02-28 05:59:47 PM  

zyrian: What if you don't use their DNS servers? (Google public DNS, for example. 8.8.8.8)


Then everything will work, just like on any other day if you don't use Comcast's often broken DNS servers.
 
2013-02-28 06:05:00 PM  

likefunbutnot: BigLuca: Hidemyass

Hidemyass is one of MANY vpn providers that keeps logs and will readily provide them.
If you're going to go looking for a VPN service, you really need to scrutinize their privacy policies to see what you're actually getting.

And it's a lot like web hosting, in that it's freaking impossible to find any kind of objective reviews that aren't thinly disguised shills for one service or other.


it's a little dated, but still may be of use..http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymit y-seri ously-111007/
 
2013-02-28 06:07:53 PM  
iVPN.net

It a pay service with unlimited bandwidth and connection time. Single and multi-hop connections. 5-minute logs, continually overwritten. Choose from various servers in USA, France, Netherlands, or the UK.

Been using it for over a year now and I have zero complaints.
 
2013-02-28 06:15:25 PM  

ferretman: Isn't there a program/service called TOR that would avoid their 'tracking'?


meetthematts.com
 
2013-02-28 06:17:59 PM  

Scrotastic Method: The above isn't necessarily correct. They can and do subpeona records of people leeching files. That's done over BitTorrent: they look for an offending torrent, enter the swarm, and jot down all connected IPs, regardless of completion percentage. They don't have to create the torrent themselves, hell, they don't even allege that you've shared at all in these subpoenas, just that presence in the swarm is enough to prove infringement. Thankfully, the courts have rejected this, and you can cite the precedent if you ever get subpoenaed.


That's not correct. You're confusing two different things - leechers are people who don't upload a single byte. A swarm participant does upload, even if they don't have 100% completion. That's one of the advantages of bittorrent - if A has 100%, B can start downloading from A... And then when C comes along, C can start downloading the parts that B has gotten, even if B is still in the process of downloading from A. Accordingly, the upload bandwidth of each downloader is utilized to help out the next downloader and diminish the load on the host.
So, when MediaSentry or the like joins the swarm, they jot down all connected IPs  who send them data,regardless of completion percentage. But too be sure, each one of those connected IPs  is distributing at least some of the data. MediaSentry has to show that to get the subpoena, because merely being a room while others are infringing isn't enough to support a subpoena - they have to show that this John Doewas  actually distributing or copying the work.

Additionally, they don't look just for a byte or two. In practice, MediaSentry waits to grab the entire file from you, or at least a significant percentage (copyright doesn't require that you copy or distribute the  entire file, as long as you copy or distribute a significant portion). Frequently, to make their logs cleaner, when they have a target infringer, they'll block all other IPs from sending they bytes, so that they have a clean log showing that they obtained the file from you.

You are correct that courts are rejecting the subpoenas, but that's for an entirely different reason: there's nothing that ties an IP address to a specific  person, even if you can tie it to a specific router. If Bob Smith did the infringement, but Mary Smith's name is on the account, they'll end up suing the wrong person. Accordingly, their evidence to get the subpoena has to be more particular than a mere IP address.
 
2013-02-28 06:27:49 PM  

R Kelly's Doo Doo Butter: I don't have a problem with this.  Don't steal shiat and this won't be an issue.


Right.  Because everybody knows content providers are 100% accurate when pinpointing pirates, and have never targeted anybody by mistake.

/also, we could get into an argument about the use of "steal" here, but I'm sure you've heard it a million times before and don't give a shiat.
 
2013-02-28 06:49:05 PM  

strutin: likefunbutnot: BigLuca: Hidemyass

Hidemyass is one of MANY vpn providers that keeps logs and will readily provide them.
If you're going to go looking for a VPN service, you really need to scrutinize their privacy policies to see what you're actually getting.

And it's a lot like web hosting, in that it's freaking impossible to find any kind of objective reviews that aren't thinly disguised shills for one service or other.

it's a little dated, but still may be of use..http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymit y-seri ously-111007/


I can't click that link here at work, but I'm 90% sure that's the same list I used when I signed up for BTGuard.

For those who mentioned PeerBlock..... It doesn't really work. It may help slightly if you keep the blacklists updated, but not much. I used it religiously and still got a warning email from my ISP about a file I was downloading (season finale of a current TV show). Uninstalled PeerBlock, signed up with a BTGUard and have had no more issues.
 
2013-02-28 06:52:28 PM  

Theaetetus: So, when MediaSentry or the like joins the swarm, they jot down all connected IPs  who send them data,regardless of completion percentage. But too be sure, each one of those connected IPs  is distributing at least some of the data. MediaSentry has to show that to get the subpoena, because merely being a room while others are infringing isn't enough to support a subpoena - they have to show that this John Doewas  actually distributing or copying the work.


I understand that that's the theory, but it's not practice. I've been subpoenaed and in writing my motion to quash I did a TON of research -- and I'm a very good writer and researcher -- and never once was "data transferred" ever mentioned, cited, explained, detailed, etc. They do not mention it in any of their evidence or claims. They REALLY ARE arguing that "being there" is "being bad." And that's why they're failing.

I'm not arguing with you, we're on the same side, in case the punctuation up there reads like I want to fight. But I've been a part of this and pulled up dozens of other complaints, and not once was "this IP gave us data" involved. It was just, "they were on the swarm." So thank the courts for improper joinder! :)
 
2013-02-28 06:56:18 PM  

mongbiohazard: strutin:
it's a little dated, but still may be of use..http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymit y-seri ously-111007/

I can't click that link here at work, but I'm 90% sure that's the same list I used when I signed up for BTGuard.

For those who mentioned PeerBlock..... It doesn't really work. It may help slightly if you keep the blacklists updated, but not much. I used it religiously and still got a warning email from my ISP about a file I was downloading (season finale of a current TV show). Uninstalled PeerBlock, signed up with a BTGUard and have had no more issues.


this was the part of the article regarding BTGuard:
"BTguard
Response to Q1: "It's technically unfeasible for us to maintain log files with the amount of connections we route," BTguard explain. "We estimate the capacity needed to store log files would be 4TB per day."
Response to Q2: "The jurisdiction is Canada. Since we do not have log files, we have no information to share. We do not communicate with any third parties. The only event we would even communicate with a third party is if we received a court order. We would then be forced to notify them we have no information. This has not happened yet.""

sounds like a good choice..:-)
 
2013-02-28 07:07:53 PM  

Theaetetus: Accordingly, their evidence to get the subpoena has to be more particular than a mere IP address.


What can they get that's more specific than your IP and how do they get that information?
 
2013-02-28 07:12:37 PM  
WAAAAAAA!!!! I have the right to all the content in the world free of charge. It's not like it takes someone with years of honed skills and a mortgage to pay and a family to feed to produce [insert movie, song, photograph, article here].
 
2013-02-28 07:14:27 PM  

Ed Finnerty: iVPN.net

It a pay service with unlimited bandwidth and connection time. Single and multi-hop connections. 5-minute logs, continually overwritten. Choose from various servers in USA, France, Netherlands, or the UK.

Been using it for over a year now and I have zero complaints.


If they keep logs for 5 minute time intervals, when they get subpoenaed they'll still have a log of the last 5 minutes to give out. If you're constantly running a torrent client, there will be requests made/fulfilled by your IP in that 5 minute window, right? Or do you just hope that all of the swarms you were in at the time do not contain anything copyrighted by the entity receiving those logs?

To me it'd make much more sense to go with someone who doesn't log at all.
 
2013-02-28 07:39:21 PM  

Bisu: Ed Finnerty: iVPN.net

It a pay service with unlimited bandwidth and connection time. Single and multi-hop connections. 5-minute logs, continually overwritten. Choose from various servers in USA, France, Netherlands, or the UK.

Been using it for over a year now and I have zero complaints.

If they keep logs for 5 minute time intervals, when they get subpoenaed they'll still have a log of the last 5 minutes to give out. If you're constantly running a torrent client, there will be requests made/fulfilled by your IP in that 5 minute window, right? Or do you just hope that all of the swarms you were in at the time do not contain anything copyrighted by the entity receiving those logs?

To me it'd make much more sense to go with someone who doesn't log at all.


You missed the bolded part.
 
2013-02-28 07:43:07 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Bisu: Ed Finnerty: iVPN.net

It a pay service with unlimited bandwidth and connection time. Single and multi-hop connections. 5-minute logs, continually overwritten. Choose from various servers in USA, France, Netherlands, or the UK.

Been using it for over a year now and I have zero complaints.

If they keep logs for 5 minute time intervals, when they get subpoenaed they'll still have a log of the last 5 minutes to give out. If you're constantly running a torrent client, there will be requests made/fulfilled by your IP in that 5 minute window, right? Or do you just hope that all of the swarms you were in at the time do not contain anything copyrighted by the entity receiving those logs?

To me it'd make much more sense to go with someone who doesn't log at all.

You missed the bolded part.


I think you missed that bolded part.
 
2013-02-28 07:45:19 PM  

Bisu: Ed Finnerty: iVPN.net

It a pay service with unlimited bandwidth and connection time. Single and multi-hop connections. 5-minute logs, continually overwritten. Choose from various servers in USA, France, Netherlands, or the UK.

Been using it for over a year now and I have zero complaints.

If they keep logs for 5 minute time intervals, when they get subpoenaed they'll still have a log of the last 5 minutes to give out. If you're constantly running a torrent client, there will be requests made/fulfilled by your IP in that 5 minute window, right? Or do you just hope that all of the swarms you were in at the time do not contain anything copyrighted by the entity receiving those logs?

To me it'd make much more sense to go with someone who doesn't log at all.


As Scrotastic Method was kind enough to point out, they are overwritten.

From their website:

Do you collect or store any usage/stats information relating to a VPN account?
Unlike many service providers, IVPN purposefully does not log any usage data associated with an account as we provide an unlimited and unrestricted quota free service.

What happens if you receive a legal notice such as a DMCA for copyright material that I have downloaded?
Since our customers are anonymous when using our service, such notices are directed to IVPN and our legal department will issue an appropriate response. Since we store no connection logs, we couldn't associate a request with a customer identity even if legally compelled to do so.

How do we react when requested by an authority for information relating to a customer?
The company is incorporated in Malta. If a court order is received from a recognized legal authority with jurisdiction over IVPN then the company will comply with that order. However, the company cannot be compelled to hand over information which it does not have. When a customer signs up we request the minimum information possible, a valid email address. If it ever becomes required by law for us to keep a persistent log of our customers connections or any personal data relating to their network activity, we will immediately notify our customers and do everything in our power to move jurisdictions or close the service to protect those who entrust their privacy to us.
 
2013-02-28 07:46:59 PM  
To clarify, the five-minute logs they keep are for troubleshooting only.
 
2013-02-28 07:48:38 PM  

Scrotastic Method: Bisu: Ed Finnerty: iVPN.net

It a pay service with unlimited bandwidth and connection time. Single and multi-hop connections. 5-minute logs, continually overwritten. Choose from various servers in USA, France, Netherlands, or the UK.

Been using it for over a year now and I have zero complaints.

If they keep logs for 5 minute time intervals, when they get subpoenaed they'll still have a log of the last 5 minutes to give out. If you're constantly running a torrent client, there will be requests made/fulfilled by your IP in that 5 minute window, right? Or do you just hope that all of the swarms you were in at the time do not contain anything copyrighted by the entity receiving those logs?

To me it'd make much more sense to go with someone who doesn't log at all.

You missed the bolded part.


No I didn't. Perhaps he wrote it poorly, but the way it's written there would be 5 minutes of data logged at any time, and the second after the 5th minute starts overwriting the first minute, etc. The data might not be continuous, but it should average out to 5 minutes of data. That's the only way that I can see saying "5 minutes" making any sense. If there's only 1MB of log space available (constantly overwritten as it fills), that'd be a 2-second log (or however long it takes to fill 1MB with log data). If not, what does "5 minutes" refer to?
 
2013-02-28 07:53:15 PM  
Soon they will 'hijack' users' browsers who just go to the sites but don't use any torrents.
 
2013-02-28 07:53:38 PM  

Ed Finnerty: To clarify, the five-minute logs they keep are for troubleshooting only.


Deceitful claims then. Carefully worded. They say they don't "log any usage data associated with an account" which they want you to think means they don't log your IP and requests. But I imagine they actually mean they don't tie YOUR ACCOUNT to the requests, even though your identity can be derived from your IP. Unless of course you made up the 5-minute log claim (source for that?) and they don't actually log anything.
 
2013-02-28 07:54:29 PM  

Bisu: Scrotastic Method: Bisu: Ed Finnerty: iVPN.net

It a pay service with unlimited bandwidth and connection time. Single and multi-hop connections. 5-minute logs, continually overwritten. Choose from various servers in USA, France, Netherlands, or the UK.

Been using it for over a year now and I have zero complaints.

If they keep logs for 5 minute time intervals, when they get subpoenaed they'll still have a log of the last 5 minutes to give out. If you're constantly running a torrent client, there will be requests made/fulfilled by your IP in that 5 minute window, right? Or do you just hope that all of the swarms you were in at the time do not contain anything copyrighted by the entity receiving those logs?

To me it'd make much more sense to go with someone who doesn't log at all.

You missed the bolded part.

No I didn't. Perhaps he wrote it poorly, but the way it's written there would be 5 minutes of data logged at any time, and the second after the 5th minute starts overwriting the first minute, etc. The data might not be continuous, but it should average out to 5 minutes of data. That's the only way that I can see saying "5 minutes" making any sense. If there's only 1MB of log space available (constantly overwritten as it fills), that'd be a 2-second log (or however long it takes to fill 1MB with log data). If not, what does "5 minutes" refer to?


If it's anything like my BigCompanyName, without getting pedantic, they are saying based upon their average usage, the amount of logs lying around in aggregate is about five minutes worth (probably stored directly on the network devices).  Alternatively they could just be aging out each log entry with a five minute TTL.

Our outbound NAT pools could not possibly keep up with more than a minute or two of logging.  The amount of traffic is staggering.
 
2013-02-28 07:55:50 PM  
It doesn't really matter at this point. With 30 others to chose from on the TorrentFreak page, I wouldn't chose one with ANY claims of logging.
 
2013-02-28 08:05:24 PM  

Bisu: Theaetetus: Accordingly, their evidence to get the subpoena has to be more particular than a mere IP address.

What can they get that's more specific than your IP and how do they get that information?


They could get your name. How? I suppose they could call you and ask nicely? ;)
 
2013-02-28 08:10:39 PM  
iPredator

Very surprised at how little that first hop latency ends up impacting throughput. I recommend it.
 
2013-02-28 08:53:03 PM  
I don't understand how using VPN helps disguise it.

i have Cox at home, only slightly less evil than Comcast, if I were to use Hidemyass, wouldn't Cox still see all the bandwidth I'm using going through their pipes and also the kind of bandwidth it would be?
 
2013-02-28 09:00:04 PM  

king of vegas: i have Cox at home, only slightly less evil than Comcast, if I were to use Hidemyass, wouldn't Cox still see all the bandwidth I'm using going through their pipes and also the kind of bandwidth it would be?


No, because the source of the traffic would appear to be your VPN provider. Since the traffic is encrypted, the most that your ISP can say is that the traffic coming to your cable modem is torrent-like but encrypted. Without knowing the explicit content of your traffic, there's nothing they can complain about so long as you aren't otherwise abusing their network.
 
2013-02-28 10:23:18 PM  

swaxhog: If you don't want to set up vpn on your home pc, which has its drawbacks, get a seedbox.  This gives you the benefit of incredibly fast connections (50MB/s not uncommon), able to seed torrents (for ratio sites) without affecting your isp's bandwith cap, and of course multiple methods of transferring files to your home pc via encrypted transport - including vpn!.




Use a seedbox that takes bitcoins.
 
2013-02-28 10:28:30 PM  

king of vegas: I don't understand how using VPN helps disguise it.

i have Cox at home, only slightly less evil than Comcast, if I were to use Hidemyass, wouldn't Cox still see all the bandwidth I'm using going through their pipes and also the kind of bandwidth it would be?


Comcast can see the bandwidth, but not what is being transported as the traffic is encrypted.

VPNs are used by most companies to allow employees to access systems from home/hotel while traveling, etc. Perfectly legitimate.
 
2013-02-28 10:42:13 PM  

Scrotastic Method: I'm essentially stuck with Comcast where I live and really need to get with this Seedbox action, possibly a VPN. If heavy torrent users can recommend something safe and cheap (I know, you don't get both, probably) that would be a huge help. Fark-specific Gmail in profile if you don't want to talk out in the open. Thanks everyone.

If it helps, my motion to the courts when my ISP was subpoenaed got my case dismissed, and I shared it after mentioning it on Fark, and it also apparently got a few Farkers off...I'm Total Fark because they gifted me. So, I've been here before, and have tried to help!


Check out overplay.net. If you like watching BBC, you can set your IP to the UK and with BBC Player, download BBC programs for free.

Or you can set your IP to Venezuela to down load torrents. No extradition from Venezuela. :-)
 
2013-02-28 10:47:46 PM  
*shrug* I'm okay with dropping internet for a few months. If Time Warner doesn't want my $80/mo that's their problem.

/maybe I'd finally get some use out of my library card
 
2013-02-28 11:19:57 PM  
Step 1. Jack a free wifi connection, like Star*ucks, McDonald's, the library's, or your neighbors.
Step 2. Torrent Backdoor sluts 1-15.
Step 3. Profit.
Step 4. Laugh your ass off.
Step 5. Wash, rinse, repeat.
 
2013-02-28 11:23:08 PM  

king of vegas: I don't understand how using VPN helps disguise it.

i have Cox at home, only slightly less evil than Comcast, if I were to use Hidemyass, wouldn't Cox still see all the bandwidth I'm using going through their pipes and also the kind of bandwidth it would be?


They could see that you're using a lot of bandwidth, but, because it's encrypted, they can't see the contents of it.
 
2013-03-01 12:01:18 AM  
Back to Lynx, I guess.
 
2013-03-01 12:04:21 AM  

Theaetetus: Empty Matchbook: //but I have the good taste to admit it's theft

Aw, geez, now you've done it.

[i66.photobucket.com image 503x371]


YOU SHOULD HAVE KILLED ME WHEN YOU HAD THE CHANCE!!
 
2013-03-01 02:40:01 AM  

Elzar: / Even if you don't torrent, you should be using a vpn
// Small cost for much better privacy


Is some overseas network really a trustworthy custodian of all your internet traffic? Serious question.

Also, while I'm not a fan of Comcast by any means, I don't get the righteous indignation over the ability to pirate content.  I haven't practiced that in many years but I thought accepting that you would face hurdles like this was part of the game, followed by finding ways to get around said hurdles--not acting like a god-given right was taken away.  Or are they punishing a lot of false positives? Again, serious question.
 
2013-03-01 02:44:37 AM  
Sweet, so if I had a Comcast contract and wanted to terminate early without additional cost I could.
 
2013-03-01 03:56:54 AM  

Theaetetus: Ostman: Is it a service you subscribe to,

Yes.

or a onetime download?

The software for connecting to your VPN provider is. :)

Check out the aforementioned PureVPN.


OK, thanks again.
 
2013-03-01 04:09:08 AM  

jonny_q: Weaver95: a TOS agreement cannot trump federal law.  And I don't care HOW good a legal staff comcast has...if they break federal computer crimes laws then their CEO should go to jail for it.

And it's official. You used to be one of the most intelligent commenters here, but you've gone full retard with this post. According to you, an ISP manipulating the traffic that goes through its network is the same thing as hacking into your personal computer and breaking criminal hacking laws.

You can biatch about local monopolies, the politics of it, or ISPs being dicks about routing traffic, but when you show a fundamental ignorance of how the damned computers work and scream "hacking" you lose all your credibility.


The worst part is that I seem to recall them claiming to work in the industry. I have had him on ignore for a long time now so who knows what he's claiming at this point. I never found him intelligent, his political dribbles are even worse.
 
2013-03-01 09:12:19 AM  

jonny_q: Weaver95: a TOS agreement cannot trump federal law.  And I don't care HOW good a legal staff comcast has...if they break federal computer crimes laws then their CEO should go to jail for it.

And it's official. You used to be one of the most intelligent commenters here, but you've gone full retard with this post. According to you, an ISP manipulating the traffic that goes through its network is the same thing as hacking into your personal computer and breaking criminal hacking laws.

You can biatch about local monopolies, the politics of it, or ISPs being dicks about routing traffic, but when you show a fundamental ignorance of how the damned computers work and scream "hacking" you lose all your credibility.


Just because they control the pipe does not give them the right to interfere with your traffic.  If your ISP picked up requests for your bank's website and redirected you to one of their competitors (or worse yet, to a phishing site), would you consider that perfectly OK?
 
2013-03-01 09:18:11 AM  
If I were making copies of DVD's or CD's and passing them out for free on the street to anyone who wants to avoid paying for a copy of their own, I would most certainly get in trouble.  Why should doing the same thing online be any different?

/is certainly no saint
 
2013-03-01 09:38:43 AM  
"Customer Security Assurance professional"  sounds like a bunch of unpaid interns to me.
 
2013-03-01 10:26:10 AM  
I got a few notices the other year back from Comcast after downloading some movies, Did a DoD wipe of the hard drive when the emails came in and reinstalled, turned the clock back in the bios just to make sure that the OS get's an older date for the install date just in case they decided to pursue the issue.

Nothing came of it, only lost a few movies out of it.  Not sure why I used torrents that time, first and last time.
 
2013-03-01 02:16:32 PM  
Remind me to park in the drive thru and walk away next time Mickey D's forgets my fries.  Thieving bastards.
 
2013-03-01 04:56:56 PM  

Nuclear Monk: You can still torrent number 8 though, right?


Pretty much.  Copyright owners pay MediaSentry to monitor only their hottest properties.
 
2013-03-01 05:25:25 PM  

swahnhennessy: Lanadapter: For example, is "king Kong.zip" the pubic domain movie, Peter Jackson's king Kong or an open source game by pussylicker69?

None of the above. It's a .zip file that you were just dumb enough to download off a torrent site.

If my ISP were doing this to me, I'd drop them, even if it meant going to dial-up. And I really doubt there are many places where Comcast has a total monopoly. You may think they do, but if you look closer you'll see about 20 options.


And those 20 options route their traffic through Comcast.  Comcast gets a complaint, traces it to your ISP, sends the warning to him.  Your ISP traces to you, says if he gets any more he'll cut you off rather than lose his Comcast connection.  He's not a signatory to this six-strikes thing.

Your ISP must really suck if you'd drop him for dialup.
 
2013-03-01 06:17:54 PM  
COX communications is not participating in the 6 strike system.

/suck my Cox
 
2013-03-01 06:25:47 PM  

MmmmBacon: Meh, the whole thing is stupid. I don't download copyrighted materials, so I'm not worried about this issue very much, but I do play some games that download their updates via a Peer-to-Peer system very similar to downloading torrents. I know I would be viciously pissed if Comcast blocked my web browsing because I happen to play games that act in a similar fashion to BitTorrent.


Citizen, you have nothing to hide. Please install these government issued cameras in every room. We want to ensure your safety against any terrorists that enter your household.
 
2013-03-01 06:30:15 PM  

Inquisitive Inquisitor: Oh if only there was a way to mask my IP address to prevent detection.  Who will be my prince and invent such a...

Oh.  Wait.

/me turns on VPN
/me flips off Comcast


VPNs help, but it's not a silver bullet.

Oh wait, you're just with Them. You're trying to make people complacent and believe there to be a perfect anonymity and security system. Then it will be trivial to pick off the lazy dummies.

Good plan!
 
2013-03-02 06:20:03 AM  
Y'all are stupid.

check.torproject.org , orjtcfrost.sourceforge.net
 
2013-03-03 12:54:00 AM  

mongbiohazard: strutin: likefunbutnot: BigLuca: Hidemyass

Hidemyass is one of MANY vpn providers that keeps logs and will readily provide them.
If you're going to go looking for a VPN service, you really need to scrutinize their privacy policies to see what you're actually getting.

And it's a lot like web hosting, in that it's freaking impossible to find any kind of objective reviews that aren't thinly disguised shills for one service or other.

it's a little dated, but still may be of use..http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymit y-seri ously-111007/

I can't click that link here at work, but I'm 90% sure that's the same list I used when I signed up for BTGuard.

For those who mentioned PeerBlock..... It doesn't really work. It may help slightly if you keep the blacklists updated, but not much. I used it religiously and still got a warning email from my ISP about a file I was downloading (season finale of a current TV show). Uninstalled PeerBlock, signed up with a BTGUard and have had no more issues.


Maybe you can answer a question for me, Does BTGuard's VPN have servers outside of Canada?  I tried emailing them but never heard anything.  I mostly use my VPN to access NHL Game Center but wouldnt mind being able to torrent as well.  Currently I am using AirVPN which is good but I am having trouble with getting bit torrent to work properly.
 
Displayed 193 of 193 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report