DoJ raids p2p operators
p2pnet.net News:- On the heels of news that the RIAA has attacked another 744 alleged file-sharers, US police agencies launched what they describe as the first criminal action against a specific p2p group.
A joint investigation by the FBI, the Office of the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, and the Justice Department’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section levelled ‘Operation Digital Gridlock’ against the Direct Connect powered Underground Network.
State attorneys general recently collectively warned p2p operators that they may face enforcement actions, “if they do not take steps to stem illegal activity on the networks”.
Now, federal agents have executed search warrants at five homes and one ISP in Texas, New York, and Wisconsin, seizing computers, software, and computer-related equipment.
“It is illegal to trade in copyright-protected materials on the Internet,” says US attorney Kenneth L. Wainstein. “This is theft, plain and simple. If you are engaged in this behavior, you are on notice that you are not as anonymous as you may think.”
Given that this is the first enforcement action of its kind against a p2p operation, the writing is on the wall. Moreover, it suggests an upsurge in enforcement efforts by US state and national police forces acting for the entertainment industry.
A CNET story here quotes attorney Robert Andris as saying Underground Network hub operators, “if ultimately charged with criminal copyright infringement,” would face legal tests similar to those seen in the civil cases of Napster and Grokster.
“However, criminal cases do have a higher standard of proof, he said, adding:
“A court would be looking at essentially the same conduct (as in the civil cases). What it comes down to is the ability to control (swapping activity), and knowledge that it’s going on.”
In the final resolution of the Grokster case, a US federal court last week ruled that p2p companies aren’t liable for “contributory and vicarious copyright infringement”.
Go here for comments from one of the network’s members.
===================
Revised @ 8:30 am, August 29
August 26th, 2004 at 4:25 am
The Feds raided the owners of the indexing servers, who were just ordinary hobbyists providing the service for free to the community. This is senseless from a legal standpoint, but predictable for the kind of take-no-prisoners strategy that the Ashcroft regime often resorts to.
Although not an actual participant in copyright infringement, DC’s central servers provide a vulnerable target – for each hub taken down, perhaps a thousand file sharers get disconnected.
Napster never was shaken down by the police, but these DC server operators – who performed an almost identical function as Napster – did not have the backing of a million dollar corporation to protect them. The message is simple: anyone running a DC hub – regardless of whether they might actually engage in copyright infringement themselves – will now be subject to the terror of the Fed’s jack-booted-thugs, guns drawn, busting down the door of their house in the middle of the night.
August 26th, 2004 at 2:04 pm
I don’t think this should come as a surprise. It’s pretty clear that the main losing point for Napster was that they were ‘facilitating the crime’ by serving the index.
Also, hosting a DC hub, aren’t you in charge of the connection rules? Requiring 100GB of data to be shared just to hook up, is pretty incriminating.
I need to read more information about this case. Today on NPR I got a totally different read from their broadcast: They made it sound like the bust uncovered 40 TB of data. Now that I read this, it’s most likely that the hubs that were busted were in charge of indexing 40 TB of data. Big difference!!
I’m also curious how open these hubs were. A lot of DC’s being run are considered “safe” darknets. Invite only. Friends only. I’m curious how hard the DOJ had to get into these hubs.
August 26th, 2004 at 5:27 pm
No files are sent ‘through’ the hubs. If it were to transfer ‘through’ the hub that is the general classification that left Napster screwed.
You don’t even need to ’search’ to be able to transfer files, whatever they may be, you can connect directly (hence the name) to anyone in a hub by getting their file list.
The hubowners ask that ’something’ be shared, its up to the end user to decide what to share. I myself share about 40 gig of linux iso’s so the Fed’s can bite me.
DC is about chatting and friendship far above just some generic downloading tool. It’s a great way to get the latest linux updates and I use it for that reason all the time – being that most of the linux distro sites are bogged at release time, every time something new comes out.
The hubowners in question didn’t violate any standing laws by operating their hubs (glorified irc chat servers) and unless the Fed’s ignore the laws on the books (would not surprise me) they will have nothing they can do to shut down udgnet or any other network….. again that’s ‘if’ they stay within the confines of current laws… if they don’t, then the Fed’s should expect millions of people to call for the help of places like eff.org and others.
If these owners do lose any legal battle then icq/aim/yahoo/msn messengers should all be sued because files are sent through them all the time – and more people have those messengers than all the p2p clients combined… go figure.
August 26th, 2004 at 6:14 pm
very easy to get an invite to the hubs if u have something to share that they want
August 26th, 2004 at 6:31 pm
the G-men were sharing a ton of copyrighted stuff – almost certainly without permission of the copyright owners. Since the FBI tends to be slow and methodical, it’s quite possible that during the probably lengthy time involved performing this covert operation, the FBI themselves were major sources of copyright infringement.
August 26th, 2004 at 7:13 pm
Hello everyone. As many now may know, the FBI and DoJ have executed search warrants on some of us, and questioned others (myself included). It’s unfortunate they cannot get their facts straight before spouting off to the press. (Same goes for the press… they really should be checking their facts.)
To those who have no clue what I’m talking about, try Google News. (search for: underground network p2p)
If you read an article, and came here looking for answers or are curious as to what’s going on, I’m about to fill you in. After all, I’m the “Answer Man”. (Was odd to hear the FBI refer to me by that title as too.)
There have been many misconceptions in the handful of articles I’ve read. They all claim to be the same article by Curt Anderson of the Associated Press. Funny how I’ve read 30 different versions of the same article, written by the same person. It’s difficult to tell how many facts were blatently wrong to begin with, but it’s downright upsetting how many are currently wrong. I could never begin to explain all the misconstuded facts, as I haven’t read them all. However, I would like to clear up a few “facts” I’ve read about a place I’ve been involved in for some time. That place: The Underground Network.
First off, I’ve yet to figure out the “100 Gigabyte minimum requirement” claim for joining the network. What is it to join the network anyway? What is the network? These are the questions so many have wrong. If you’re talking about the forums… which is the only thing there IS to join in any sense, then there are no requirements. Well, no requirements past having access to a computer, the Internet, and an email account, plus being older then 13 (or lying that you are). It’s the standard “requirements” of any other vB forum. There are thousands of them out there. Check Google.
So that must not be what they are talking about when they say “members are required to share 100gb of copyrighted material to join” (quoting a story posted to the Register.co.uk). Excuse me? If they are talking about the hubs, well, you don’t “join the network” to login to a hub. You connect to one of the hubs with our name in it. That’s really all there is to it. We are just a collection of people with similar interests (read the forums to learn some of them) who also help eachother out in the hubs. To join a hub (like all other 13,000+ Direct Connect hubs out there, besides ours), you need a preset “minshare” that the hub decides. That is, files you are willing to share with other users in that hub. We do NOT police these files beyond the stuff we KNOW is illegal (underage porn, beastality, etc). Beyond that we are very clear with one point: THE USER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR SHARE!
If you connect to one of the hubs with our name on it and are sharing files you shouldn’t, then YOU made a boo-boo. Not us. The media and the FBI seem to have missed this point. I’ve seen write-ups about how much info “is stored on” or “passes through hubs”. They claim “up to 60,000 movies and 18 million songs a day” (again, quoting an article). EXCUSE me? No… the hubs don’t hold a SINGLE byte of digital information. They don’t even transfer any of it from user to user in fact. Did anyone bother to do the research? They didn’t call the protocol and application “Direct Connect” because it sounded pretty. Once you are in the hub as a USER (not a member – nothing to join), you DIRECTLY CONNECT to the other users in the hub. Not too complicated… yet the FBI “infiltrated and investigated for 3 months” and they still have the facts wrong. John Ashcroft has some explaining to do. It’s a scary world we live in if our own government gathers and uses their facts this way.
Oh there is so much else. Yes, users are required to share to connect to the hub. It can be a FREE open source (non-copyrighted) Linux operating system downloaded from http://www.LinuxISO.org. It could be programs YOU wrote that you want to distribute. It could be a song YOU recorded to MP3 that you want the world to hear. That’s up to you. That’s the USER’S responsibility. We do not condone or encourage piracy of any form. Unfortunately this fact also escaped the powers that be. A ‘hub’ is simply a meeting place for people to come to and have fun, chat, and share what THE USER decides they want to ( and is responsible for). The hub operator DOES NOT in ANY way share or distrubute ANY material, copyrighted or otherwise.
Browse around the forums. You will see what we do. We chat with each other on current events. We help each other with hardware or software troubles. We joke around and have fun. We provide a shoulder to cry on if you had a bad day. We share knowledge and information, just like every other forum on the planet. We don’t ask, suggest, or force you to share illegal files or spread copyright material ourselves. (In fact, frequently we will remind people that it’s not welcome on our forums. Once again, browse around and see for yourself.) Those “facts” are simply fabrication of the press, or worse, the FBI/DoJ.
I’ll repeat what I told the special agent this morning when he came knocking: You guys are on a wild goose chase. You’re going after the wrong people in this scenario. Instead of the administrators and hub owners, you need to be worrying about the USERS that are sharing 100+ GBs of these files the FBI claimed they downloaded. The hub owner didn’t push that file on you. YOU requested it, then DIRECTLY CONNECTED to the other user to download it. The hubs simply provide a meeting place for people with like interests. You can chat, get help, or share files. What you do is up to YOU.
The “organization” and “admins” of the network are also misunderstood. We are not some massive group plotting against anyone. It’s just everyday people with some free time that have tried to help out others when they could. Look at my posts, for example, and you’ll see what I mean. I was made an “administrator of the network” simply because I have computer knowledge and could help users/”members” when necessary. I like to help – it’s what makes me tick. That isn’t a crime. Each person does their own thing. Some help keep the forums running well. Some help keep the website up. Others help the hub owners with their computer problems. No one is a “ring leader”. No one organizes any “warez” rings or checks the non-existant “minimum requirements of members”. Misconstrued facts + false information = ignorance & innocent people having their hard earned personal property seized. Nothing more, nothing less. Don’t be one of the ignorant ones – know the facts and realize the truth.
Hopefully this will clear up a few misconceptions and blatant lies about what the Underground Network is. I certainly hope the press will dig into the REAL facts, and actually tell the truth. I also hope that the FBI/DoJ will realize their mistake(s) and not cause any more undue harm to us.
Thank you for reading.
August 26th, 2004 at 7:24 pm
While it is refreshing to read the story from the source, you have to understand that your network is similarly designed to Napster’s centralized network. Your central server is acting as a hub for all the clients of your subnetwork. While you may not have copyrighted material on your hub, it acts as a conduit for such activity. The courts have already determined that centralized P2P networks are lible for copyright infringement. That means you also.
Have the facts been distorted? Perhaps to some degree but other than a few minor examples the facts remain. Copyright infringement occurred on a large scale on The Underground Network, and the copyright industry came down hard. It sucks but that is the way of the world…
August 26th, 2004 at 9:17 pm
http://dreamland.gotdns.org/publichublist.config.bz2
http://www.neo-modus.com/PublicHubList.config
http://www.moreni.co.uk/PublicHubList.config.txt
http://home01.planet.nl/~draad003/AF1/PublicHubList.config
http://dcinfo.sytes.net/hungaryhublist.config
http://fi.hublist.org/PublicHubList.config.bz2
http://www.butcher.times.lv/hublist.txt
http://members.lycos.co.uk/lomiks/dcpp.config
http://www.team-ppm.com/~dawson/PublicHubList.config
http://setubal.fw.nu/PublicHubList.config
http://pocmin.sourceforge.net/rooms.config
http://www.dc.nzgames.co.nz/publichublist.config
http://moria.pedher.net/dc/mirror/PublicHubList.config.bz2
http://biblioteka.nm.ru/hublist.txt>
http://www.galy.szm.sk/CZHubListON.config
http://dcinfo.sytes.net/hungaryhublist.config
http://nervgaz.ath.cx/asgardlist.config
http://www.1stleg.com/publichublist.confimm
http://dreamland.gotdns.org/PublicHubList.config.bz2
http://www.hublist.org/PublicHubList.xml.bz2
These are all public lists over hubs, and the hubs that were charged, all have their addresses on these lists. They are VERY easy to access, and it is not hard for the FBI to block out any attempts to download material from them, although it doesnt say anywhere that they were sharing illegal stuff.
August 26th, 2004 at 10:24 pm
What yew yerself are wrong on is that Direct Connect is not a Centralized network. Instead the only thing that is centralized is the meeting point of the users. To state that it is centralized “just like Napster” is to say that the hub itself stores information, and files, and the users can download from the hubs files as well as the users “just like napster” trust me, as a secondary member who was visited just like the other in the original statement, i know how it works. There is no Central Server. Once again facts Misconstrued. The hubs are singular entities. Ran on a Home computer, by a single person. They are not linked to any other hubs, or websites in any other way, other then providing another address for users to connect to, or visit. As far as Copyright infringment, yes that may have been an issue here, but the fact remains, all we can do is ask that the users not share these files, and if so that they are responsible for there own shares. The ideal behind checking 50+ hubs with over 35,000 users for shares, is virtually impossible, and to verify a actuall file for what it is, versus what it is named is nearly impossible as well. Not to mention, that in doing so would be downloading Copyrighted material, which is illegal. So please, re-check yer facts before yew come back here, and make mention about such items, when yew know no such thing. After all i would assume such a comment to be one of those involved in the raids, and thinking with his/her head up her ass.
August 27th, 2004 at 12:08 am
You are very wrong because you are not connected to the rest of the DirectConnect network. I can only trade files with those on The Underground Network. That makes the Underground an independent subnetwork of DirectConnect. If I am on the Underground network, can I broadcast a query to the rest of the DirectConnect hubs? No, you cant. DirectConnect really is not a cohesive network. It is many smaller networks binded by the same protocol. As a whole, DirectConnect may be “decentralized” in the same manner the entire internet, in theory is “decentralized.”
But to say DirectConnect is decentralized is a bit misleading. True, there is no central location for all of DirectConnect, such as Silicon Vally for Napster, but your subnetwork can not exist without a centralized hub. The Underground network cannot materialize out of thin air without a central server, its as simple as that….
August 27th, 2004 at 12:22 am
I’m the author of “Darknet,” an upcoming book from Wiley & Sons about underground file-trading networks. (www.darknet.com)
I’d like to send you a chapter of my book to see if it conforms to your understanding of how the scene operates.
You can contact me thru the darknet site.
August 27th, 2004 at 12:28 am
[quote]But to say DirectConnect is decentralized is a bit misleading. True, there is no central location for all of DirectConnect, such as Silicon Vally for Napster, but your subnetwork can not exist without a centralized hub. The Underground network cannot materialize out of thin air without a central server, its as simple as that….[/quote]
This being said let me explain. There is no Centralized hub. There is a Centralized Forum, used on the Website, much like this. This is were we Collectivley talk. However we warn there as we do in out hubs, that we do not share copyrighted materials on the forums or the hubs. It is up to each users responsibilty to monitor there shares. So therefore to say there “has to be” a centralized hub, would be completely false accusation, as there is no need for a hub to be the centralized point that makes operations as yew have read. Simply put, the many hubs, are all linked together only by the Forums and the Website. Otherwise the only other linked information is the Name.
August 27th, 2004 at 12:36 am
Let me Draw it out for yew this way. There is several (50) hubs in this network. Each hub is independently owned by a “hub operator.” The only link between hubs is a redirect path ” a means to let the users that cannot meet the rules be passed onto the next hub where he or she may be able to corespond to the rules for the particular hub. I.E. shares size, amount of upload slots, amount of hubs the user is already in etc. By saying that yew could be in one hub and collectively search and gain files from all the hubs listed in “the Underground Network” is also a false statement. Yew would have to be connected to each and every hub to get results from each and every hub. However, as the FBI has misconstrued, by saying that the hub houses the list of files available is false as well. The list of files is created each time a user creates a search for a particual file, in which case all users are queried for that particular name, and any matching results are returned. But as stated, in order to get results for other hubs, yew must be in those hubs. Just like many users that frequent our hubs, also frequent other networks as well, they only have access to so much date dependent on what hubs they are actually connected to. We call it a network, only becuase People want to be Associated with eachother. As i stated before the only link is the forums for the network. Otherwise, anyone hub could leave, and run on its own, and loose the name coresponding and not be associated with any network, and still could be accessed just by looking back into that hubs address just like a website.
August 27th, 2004 at 3:15 am
I was the original author of that text you just read. Funny how they removed my name and such from all places… no matte, maybe it’s for the best. If you want to read the FULL post and actually post a REAL reply, visit our forums: http://www.udgnet.com/
Either way, those that are saying the court ruled that centralized networks are liable, did you do any fact checking? Or are you just spouting from the side of your ass like Ashcroft and the Press? Trying reading once in awhile: http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,64640,00.html
A decision by the 9th District Court of Appeals upheld an April 2003 U.S. District Court decision that these services should not be held liable for the illegal behavior of their users. Read the link for more.
~Author
August 27th, 2004 at 3:26 am
Whenever I see any article about file sharing written by a professional journalist, I cringe at all the mistakes, distortions and untruths that any active P2P user or scene member would be able to spot right away. I just hope this book gets a good proof reading by real scene insiders before it gets released. (assuming that the author is not an insider himself)
Maybe we should all badger Jon Newton into writing a book (or even splicing together a few hundred P2Pnet articles) about the P2P revolution. That would be one book worth reading.
August 27th, 2004 at 3:27 am
Wow- you really have your head up your ass. How about not talking about something like you know what you are taloking about when you have no clue.
Was it your house that had the FBI knocking. No! It was mine you doche.
August 27th, 2004 at 3:30 am
I think if you are not a tech. and are not involved first hand you should not write a book about anything.
August 27th, 2004 at 3:33 am
You tell them Baby!
These idiots here have no merit and no clue. The all need to do there homework too.
August 27th, 2004 at 4:13 am
They cannot be held liable because they are DECENTRALIZED. If you read the ruling, the judge points that out quite clearly. Why? Because neither Grokster or Streamcast have servers that assit in the infringement of copyright.
All the positive court rulings for P2P have been for decentralized networks…and the negative ones have been in favor of either the RIAA or MPAA (such as Napster, Scour, AudioGalaxy, SongSpy.) They all either lost or were sued out of existance…
Lets make it simple. If the copyright authorities can place their finger on a central point of a network (such as a DC hub), then they have a very very very strong case…
August 27th, 2004 at 4:21 am
And yeah, no kidding a DC hub is not a central server of the entire network. But, there is no way you can convince me, and certainly not the authorities, that the Underground network was not held togeather by a centralized hub. You keep ducking behind the point that no subnetwork can exist without a DC hub…
August 27th, 2004 at 4:41 am
have you ever been on yahoo messenger? you can share files, and chat, and the users are liable for what they share. i run a dc hub, i share independent punk music. These bands are not protected by the RIAA, and band that are protected by the RIAA are kicked from the hub, its in our rules. Most bands that i share are thrilled to have a place others can hear there music at for free, it gets poeple to their shows, which is what counts to them.
so i guess the same people should also sue yahoo or any instant messaging service. but no, they sue people who cant afford lawyers like yahoo can. as far as im concerned the RIAA isnt losing any money from my hub.
August 27th, 2004 at 4:53 am
No badgering necessary. That’d be cool and in fact, it’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately.
If anyone would like to work with me on this – especially someone with technical knowledge – please give me a yell off list (so to speak ; )
Cheers!
jon
August 27th, 2004 at 5:21 am
Yew really need to step back and look at how this protocol works. We use the program first hand. We know exactly how it works. There is no centralized hub. If this was true, then every network would have to have a Centralized Brain center. But since there is no true need for a centralized point of operation, becuase there is files stored on a hub, nor is there any method of “file indexing” this makes it a clean and simple, single stand along hub operation. If this wasn’t the case, every hub would have to have a centralized point to communicate with. Look at the protocol. Anyone can run a hub, anyone can set it up. Anyone can have users join there hubs. So what would we need a centralized hub for exactly? Im still lost as to why yew assume this is some sort of necessity. Maybe yew should pull yer head out of yer ass and look at how things really work, rather then how yew assume all this works. The Authorities will soon enough know there mistake in assuming the same bullshit yew keep assuming. When yew can show me some proof that we have to have a “centralized hub” i will run to the developer of the program, and ask him, where out centralized hub is, becuase we must have been missing this the whole time. The one and only thing i can think of that would even be considered centralized would be the method of selecting hubs, called the hublist. And those “as there are many of them” are actually all privately run seperate servers. So as i said. theres not a single need to have any centalized point for any of this.
August 27th, 2004 at 5:28 am
But since there is no true need for a centralized point of operation, becuase there is [B] NO [/B] files stored on a hub, nor is there any method of “file indexing” this makes it a clean and simple, single stand along hub operation.
Sorry needed to make a correction
August 27th, 2004 at 5:29 am
Blah blah you must think I dont know this crap. I think you are misunderstanding me because you are telling me what I already know or have already said. Can you please show me how the Underground Network can exist without its hubs? If you took all your hubs down, can I still access the Underground network? No, I couldnt…
The problem you guys are going to run into is that you cannot use the “passive conduit” argument that Streamcast sucessfully used. They sucessfully used the argument because they do not know who is on their network. You guys do know who has connected to your hubs…a central meeting point for all users.
“Anyone can have users join there hubs.”
Ouch, dont say that in court…
August 27th, 2004 at 5:41 am
If we took all of our hubs down, we would still be a website. Which as i said would be the centralized point. The centralized point yew are refering to, being the hub, is a standard for any hub on any network using the DC protocol. And yes, any hub can have users join, thats the point of the protocol, it was set for file shareing, and there has to be users to share files. So theres nothing special about one of our hubs versus any others. And yes, while we do know who is connected to the hubs at any time, just by looking in the userlist, same as yew would on yer AIM, Yahoo, MSN, ICQ messangers, this does not mean we have absolute control over copyrighted materials. We could say no copyrighted materials, and to the extent that we can check every user that enters the hubs. Users will do what they want to rename files, or move them into share later, if they choose to share them. We cannot consistently monitor a user every minute of the day. Same stands for the fact that i can lable any file i want “Microsoft Office 2003″ and share it. Becuase of that name it should be copyright material. What if the fact is that its a e-book, that was written by the user on how to sucessfully operate a Office 2003 enviroment. What im saying is, although names should be enough, we do not have enough control to verify every single article that is shared by a user, to verify the legality and copyright of every single file out there. And to continously monitor a users share for any changes they may add to the hubs. Imagine trying to watch over 2000 users shares for changes, illegal material, and copyrighted works. It could never be possible. So as yew call it, the hub would be a centralized meeting point, but the hub is only that. No information is shared through that point, hence the name. So assume what yew will that this will not stand up in court, but we will do what we have to to protect our legal rights, as hubowners, admins of this network, and the misconstrued points brought forth.
August 27th, 2004 at 7:04 am
I’d like to add that what we do is make a service nothing more. Now if you would have any service or thing outlawed. That could be used to take part in copyright enfrigment, you would also have to outlaw cd-burners, dvd-writers and yes also the trusty video recorder. Yes I know it’s a lil black and white but it’s the truth isn’t it? They all provide means to copy movies or other data.
Now if providing means to illigal activity is punishable then big firms like Sony and Phillips (to name a few) should get sued for providing us with them. Not to mention the providers for advertising with things like “get the latest movies” to get people to get their ever faster connections.
What I’m trying to say is each user is responisble for HIS/HER share not the people who provisde a service.
August 27th, 2004 at 11:18 am
At the end of the day, all these guys were doing is running free, legal software on their computers, there is nothing wrong with that.
its all bullsh*t
August 27th, 2004 at 3:01 pm
exactly.
im also part of a hub on dc that is as close to legal as possible. we only allow mucic that is lossless (no mp3’s) and we have a link to almost every band’s trading policy that allows people to feely trade on the net. no movies, or warez that isn’t a free legal music program is allowed and there are ops there for kicking those who share illegal items out and they are subsequently banned. This whole thing reeks. GL UDGNetwork/answerman and others.
August 27th, 2004 at 7:55 pm
That’s one of the more intelligent posts I’ve read on this website. Well said! You are certainly someone who understands what DC and the Underground Network is all about.
August 27th, 2004 at 7:57 pm
One of the most factual comments here. Unfortunate those guys are being harassed like they are. But if the Gestapo, er, Ashcroft, continues to reign with their long, long arm of the law… well, we’re all in for some undue trouble.
August 27th, 2004 at 8:31 pm
At what time will law conform to society? What is the DOJ going to do when they find out 90% of the online community is guilty of piracy in some form? Martial Internet Law!!! I say change the law. Add a stupid media tax to ISP charges to shut the studios and companies up. Yes, I would pay up to $5.00 per month as a charity to keep the DOJ off P2P networks backs. Backward blackmail if you would. Where was the DOJ when the Dual tape deck debut? Heres an Idea. Lets just start P2P Lan Partys. No wireless nics alowed. Then what? Outright Invation of Privacy?
POed
LawBooks
August 28th, 2004 at 12:03 am
The thing you don’t seem to understand is that “the Underground network” is just a name. The only links between the Hubs is a list where they will redirect users if they are full. However, any hub can do that, regardless of another hub’s consent. In other words, there is no physical “underground network”.
I could find copyrighted files from searching google, but that doesn’t make google an illegal network because it could connect me with a website offering illegal stuff.
Some people could start an “Underground network” on Yahoo messenger, trading files and so on. It also happens on Mirc. Should we shut down messenger services and Undernet (or other Mirc networks)?
The only reason we’ve come here is because some stupid people thought that shutting down Napster and some other programs would stop piracy (which it hasn’t… in other words it was inneffective and counter productive).
The capitalist economy has proven times and times again that legal restriction won’t stop things like piracy, since piracy plays a role in the current economy.
August 28th, 2004 at 12:08 am
However, since anyone can open a hub on a whim (anyone can do it at home, for example yourself you could have a hub running in less than one hour), it’s kinda pointless to “shut down” some hubs, since they’ll keep popping up…
August 29th, 2004 at 4:23 pm
Actually, nothing was touched – it was an honest mistake on the part of UDG supporters. Go here for an update —-
—-http://p2pnet.net/story/2269
Cheers! – August 29
August 29th, 2004 at 7:35 pm
Ok..hmm Mr Anonyms… it seems like ya are a PRO @..DC and ya wanna know something Me that still is a newbie got it more right
then you ever gonna get
Lemme tell ya Only this
first get ya FACTS right before you try 2 make a point!!!!!!!
” Do you know there is a thing called “brian” inside your******
Now lets se if you get that one..right!!!!!!!
August 30th, 2004 at 12:34 am
lol
Umm, what?
~G
August 30th, 2004 at 12:38 am
… there is no invite to a public hub. The FREE software that you download (Direct Connect) comes with a list of public hubs. You double click on one and you connect. That’s it… no fancy magic. =)
This is one of the fundamental problems with this entire situation – PEOPLE HAVE NO CLUE what they are talking about, yet they continue to spew it out to the press and anywhere that will listen or let them type.
~G
August 30th, 2004 at 5:06 pm
oo im so trying 2 understand the Mr anonyms that is a PRO @ dc and commmunity…. and well ya have a point G ….
its LOL
G2 hehe
August 30th, 2004 at 7:14 pm
What is a “Brian” anyways….OH…you mean a BRAIN…..
Maybe if yours wasn’t planted firmly up your 4th point of contact you would understand.
September 12th, 2004 at 5:04 pm
To find out another way people are stilling music thru the internet..this program is known as PALTALK.COM ….people log in that program that is a video cam and sound combination good for conferencing…as example ” MANICOMIO SALSERO CUBANO BORICUA” they get toguether in this chat room ( music video ) at any other browser they log in at SOULSEEK.com download thousands thousands of music files ….the recipient need to have download the program WINRAR ( at WINRAR .com) in other to unsip the files ..they send each others files thru MSN messenger …Yahoo messenger or pal talk files transfers in orders to still all kind of music new releases as 2004 new albums . playing the music in the chat room “MANICOMIO SALSERO CUBANO BORICUA test how they sound and they feel heroes doing it. they share with another people the same way ( open msn messenger or yahoo messenger and they send the files on and on and on.
September 25th, 2004 at 1:13 am
It’s not only the hubs under attack, but also the users:
P2P Networks endangered by LogP2P
============================
A depressing story
by benign
Long Title: Why LogP2P (and similar to follow) will destroy eMule and other Peer-to-Peer Networks, and
possible counter measures.
Keywords: eMule, P2P, RIAA, IFPI, MPAA, WIPO (TRIPs), , LogP2P, Surveillanceware, Censorware,
LogIRC, LogProtect, APF (AntiPedoFiles), Kazaa, Gnutella, eDonkey, MLdonkey,
Home_land Sec_urity.
INTRODUCTION
““““““““““““
In 2002, a coder named Frederic Aidouni and a cop named Philippe Jarlov together started at Bordeaux (France) production of surveillanceware called LogP2P. It is based on experiences gathered earlier with another program called LogIRC, which was developped by Frederic Aidouni and Cyril Vrillaud in 2001, and which is now used by hundreds of law enforcement and security organizations in western oriented countries troughout the world, to track down people chatting and exchanging so called illegal content on IRC. Jarlov is also involved in production of APF (AntiPedoFiles) a descriptive image database used by law enforcement organizations, which can build up picture and file databases containing descriptive extracts of incriminated pictures and movies, which is essential for rapid recognition and catalogueing of such files. APF uses image recognition routines delivered by http://www.practeo.ch and http://www.ltutech.com. Jarlov also developed LogProtect (together with Luc Bellego + Michael Ballester), a censorware content filter which is now used by paranoid parents (and schools) to block certain incoming internet content and to remove outgoing keywords like names, adresses and phone numbers (based on a keyword database). None would mind about this, but the program also logs every activity of the children using their computers, and sends silent alerts to the surveillor. Quite contrary to its appealing pretext of protection, in fact it serves for perfect censorship, surveillance and control of the children while they’re unsuspectingly using the internet.
What is LogP2P and how is it working?
““““““““““““““““““““““““
First, LogP2P, despite using open software (linux + python + samba+ libpcap) is NOT open, but classified (a blattant GNU public license violation). Only cop- and anti-pedo organisations are able to get it by now (but they are already in negotiations to finance development by selling it to the copyright protection organisations).
LogP2P, running under Linux, is essentially a highly specialized network sniffer and is used in combination with P2P clients (eMule, eDonkey, MLdonkey, Kazaa, Gnutella), logging the network traffic on their specific IP ports (i.e. 4662-4672 with eMule for example).
The data is logged and analyzed by LogP2P in realtime and derived results are shown in the GUI of LogP2P.
Given, an eMule client and LogP2P are running together on a computer, and a number of ed2k links are added to the download section of eMule. This will generate eMule network traffic, triggering LogP2P to log, analyze, and show numerous computed infos, which it is extracting from eMule traffic. For each file being downloaded by eMule, LogP2P will log and show, what IP numbers are sharing this file, how much of the file is already downloaded by every single IP adress, lookup/whois result of each IP number, which of the monitored files are being downloaded by the same IP number, time of downloading and lots more. Combined with lookup results, eventually all this gathered information will give an exact picture of who is/was downloading what file at what time, and also, if an already logged user is also downloading further tracked files. This enables whatever organization who owns and runs a copy of LogP2P, to setup a BigBrother-like, perfect and gapless surveillance on any subset of eMule users and/or shared files, which they are eager to control (ie. MP3 and OGG sound files by RIAA and IFPI, MPG + AVI for MPAA, loli + r@ygold + hussyfan by the cops & pedo hunters, PDF files by the International Book Publishers Association, the users Monte Christo + Huckleberry Finn + Osama Bin Ladin by CIA and Dept. for Homeland Security, Software by WIPO (TRIPs), and so on.
And worse: Interested people can also share in eMule their own “Honeypot”, “Trap” and “Lure” files and track you down while you are downloading them, and afterwards “harvest” your hardware and/or the fines you’ve been sentenced to pay. Easy money for cops, copyright- and pedo-hunters (and of course an easy way to get rid of political opponents), am I right?
Why the pedos first? Why those pogroms against them (not only on P2P)? Simply, because they are a very easy target to hit. They are such a stigmatized minority now, they could even be killed without hard consequences. Cops are quite cowards, they usually select the weakest possible target to gather experience.
Consequences of LogP2P operation
““““““““““““““““““““““
The consequences of prolonged monitoring with LogP2P by the mentioned organizations are already visible and future prospects can be figured out easily. If the file-sharing systems (including especially eMule) do not soon take efficient counter-measures, they will gradually die out from lack of users (only very few people can afford offshore hosting). With the aim of LogP2P (and similar software to come), which is now run by several law enforcement facilities and certain private anti-pedo organisations from several countries, hundreds (or thousands ?) of P2P users, especially eMule users, have been tracked down since big logging business started. They have been arrested for months, ALL (!) their IT equipment and ALL (!) data media being confiscated, they are faceing endless and downwearing proceedings with harsh jail sentences and ruinous fines. Some of them even lost their jobs. Among them are numerous brothers (and sisters), which were contributing to our file sharing community with high amounts of money, programming skills, computing power and server time. It’s worse: a growing number are uncautious youngsters, just curious and without any idea, what they are dealing with, still lacking the skills needed to hide their real IP adresses successfully. Those robberies of the police stand in blattant disparity to the cause. Their targets didn’t harm anyone, they just downloaded files which anyway are present millionfold in the internet.
LogP2P has grown a high risk and starts to cause devastating damage to the entire file sharing community. RIAA, IFPI and MPAA have just begun to evaluate LogP2P, or are developing similar Surveillanceware (source: personal communication), and it is only a question of time, when they will start to run their own logging business.
Antidotes against LogP2P
“““““““““““““““`
There are two crucial facts a logger must proof, to win a trial against you:
First he must make sure, you really downloaded the COMPLETE file (if you only had part of the file, you will not be punishable). Second he must get proof of your real IP-Adress. At these points we can hook in:
1) eMule for example could be modified in such a way, that there is an additional download mode selectable, ’safe download’ or so. This kind of download would use an altered download scheme, which creates a double entry in the download section, splitting correspondingly the temp-file into part 1 + 2 of random size, but both of them showing the full length of the file, only that each of them says, the part which is represented by the other one, has already been downloaded (minor problem: both files with the same file name or better without?). As soon as one of the parts is complete, it switches into total silence, and if the other part completes, it switches into saying, that the data which was downloaded by the now silent part, has not been downloaded yet, and in parallel it stops generating download requests (or it sends only fake requests to clients, which do not have the corresponding data). In the end, you have downloaded the whole file, but split into two parts, one of them held in total silence, as if non existing, the other one saying to be still not complete, but not requesting anything. This leaves only the problem, how you take them
out from the downloading section and put them (puzzled together the right way) into a folder not shared.
As long as the files are located in the download folder, anyone who is tracking that file, will get the impression, you keep downloading, but still did not receive the file completely. May be there is a better
solution, and the problem can be solved in complete virtuality, by faked communication. The same scheme
might be applied to add a ’safe release’ feature, too.
2) The ’safe download’ scheme, described above, should be enhanced further, every eMule client should have some kind of ‘borrowable transit throughput slot’ acting as a proxy between a transmitting and a receiving client. This slot could be borrowed by any of the other clients wishing to download in safe mode for a certain amount of time. This will generate extra traffic, which might be limited. A file, which is downloaded in safe mode, would thus download more slowly, but secure in turn, as there is always (or at least sometimes) another, occasionally and randomly changing client in between (preferable for each of the two file parts a different one), acting as proxy. Anyone who is tracking that file, would not only log real clients, but also some phantom clients downloading that file, and more important, some false IP numbers in consequence. But only, if the phantoms behave sufficiently genuine, and are not easily distinguished from real clients (i.e. they should download realistic portions of a file; this is, why the concept might fail with small files).
It is undesirable for a prosecutor, to accuse the wrong person, as this will generate very embarassing situations, and worse, it will cause very high compensation claims, which usually are successful, if the court does not recognize any evidence for an accusation.
If the above mentioned antidotes are applied alltogether, they will turn LogP2P useless, as a logger could never be sure, whether a file is downloaded normally or in safe mode, thus showing him only incomplete downloads, or worse, setting him under high risk of tracking down false IP numbers.
One could plug together the (very secure) Freenet client with eMule somehow, to have the advantages of both of them. But most people are not really lucky with freenet, as it is generating tremendous overhead. There is always a tradeoff between security and loss of bandwidth. The antidotes mentioned above generate much less overhead, as they rely on ambiguity rather than perfect safety. From a legal standpoint of view, ambiguity does the job as well, generating a sufficient level of safety. Total security would be suitable under military conditions only, I think.
Summary
““““““
There has formed a conglomerate of officials, private people and private organisations on the extreme right, spanning several european countries, consisting in detail of software developpers, cops and very rich people with strong influence and high financial resources, which succeded in developping and operating software to track down and denounce on a massive scale P2P users downloading files via P2P clients.
List of Persons involved (until June 2004)
“““““““““““““““““““““““““
Frederic Aidouni (Frederic: both ‘e’ with accent egu)
Owner of the software company named @idounix
Co-developer of LogP2P, LogIRC
<adress not visible for privacy reasons>
Algerian descendant. Completely mad; one of his relatives, Bachir Aidouni, was drown in
the Seine at Paris by french cops during 1961, now he is serving exactly those cops, who
murdered his relative.
Relatives: 1yo daughter <name not visible for privacy reasons>
18yo <name and adress not visible for privacy reasons>
Philippe Jarlov
Rank: Adjutant, Gendarmerie Nationale de France, Section Recherche at Bordeaux-Battesti
Co-developer of LogP2P, LogProtect, APF.
<adress not visible for privacy reasons>
Jewish roots; from eastern europe (may be Poland). End jews as cops, if they loose their roots?
Relatives: François Jarlov (Wife: Ulla), Artisan, Poterie du Héron, 40660 Messanges, France
Michael Ballester (Michael: ‘e’ with two points on it) Co-Developer of LogProtect
<adress not visible for privacy reasons>
Luc Bellego (Quebec, Canada) Co-Developer of LogProtect
<adress not visible for privacy reasons>
Cyril Vrillaud Co-Developer of LogIRC
<adress not visible for privacy reasons>
Pascal Seeger, Carouge/GE (former cop at Groupe de criminalite informatique de Genève) now
working as technical advisor at Action Innocence Group, webmaster of http://www.e-prevention.ch
<adress not visible for privacy reasons>
Relatives: Seeger-Neyroud Sandra (wife ?), <adress not visible for privacy reasons>
Seeger Gertrude Paula, <adress not visible for privacy reasons>
Sellier Homayra
<adress not visible for privacy reasons>
President of Action Innocence Group
David Royston
<adress not visible for privacy reasons>
Technical advisor at Action Innocence Group
Philipp Kronig, Chief Officer KOBIK/SCOCI (Switzerland)
<adress not visible for privacy reasons>
Eva Bollmann, Analyst at KOBIK/SCOCI
<adress not visible for privacy reasons>
Marc Henhauer, KOBIK/SCOCI
<adress not visible for privacy reasons>
(KOBIK = Koordinationsstelle zur Bekämpfung der Internetkriminalität )
List of Organizations involved (until June 2004)
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
@idounix, Rue Père Louis de Jabrun 21, 33000 Bordeaux (Dept. Gironde FR)
President: Frederic Aidouni
http://www.aidounix.com IP: 213.246.36.90
AIG (Action Innocence Group) Geneva (CH), Monaco (MC), Paris (FR), Bruxelles (BE)
President: Homayra Sellier
http://www.actioninnocence.org IP: 62.50.74.218
actioninnocence.org IP: 62.50.74.219
Mrs. Sellier is extremely rich, due to her marriage with one of the richest men in Switzerland.
Presumably, she is financing most of the activities of the organisation. Now and again, she
organizes caritative gala events for the international jet-set, with such illustre guests as the
princess of Monaco, to rise additional funds for her organization.
As the slogan ‘innocence in danger’ already indicates, this group promotes an extremly
paranoid and antisexual ‘philosophy’ or rather attitude. Since the belgian crime case Dutroux,
the group turned into complete hysteria, and in consequence they instrumentalize each minor
incidence to demand more repression and control (especially concerning the internet).
Action Innocence Group is running LogP2P on their servers, and is believed to offer
childporn honeypot-, lure-, and trap-files for download over P2P-Networks and IRC, too.
The organization serves as a half-legal tracker and denouncer for corresponding governmental
offices.
Action Innocence Suisse, 19 rue des Vollandes, 1207 Genève – Suisse
Tél: (+41) 22 735 50 02, Fax: (+41) 22 735 51 02
E-mail: suisse@actioninnocence.org
http://www.actioninnocence.org IP: 62.50.74.219
IP: 62.50.74.0-255 (at least whole subnet class c)
received from psinet provider IP: 62.50.64.0 – 62.50.95.255
(former psinet, now psineteurope, owned by VIA Networks)
Subsidiaries:
Action Innocence Monaco, Europa Résidence, Place des Moulins 43,
98000 Monaco, Tél: +377 97 77 51 11
E-mail: monaco@actioninnocence.org
financed by the monegassian royal family
Action Innocence France, Av. Victor Hugo 181, 75116 Paris – France
Tél: +33 01 44 05 05 33, E-mail: france@actioninnocence.org
Action Innocence Belgique, 62 boulevard de la Cambre
1050 Bruxelles – Belgique, Tél: 02 626 20 00, Fax: 02 626 20 06
E-mail: belgique@actioninnocence.org
e-Prevention (www.e-prevention.ch), c/o Original S.A. , Belle Combe 30, 1095 Lutry (CH)
President: Paul Seeger
http://www.e-prevention.ch IP: 62.50.74.219 (same as actioninnocence.org)
Royston Consulting, Avenue Bella-Vista 9,1234 Vessy/GE
President: David Royston
http://www.royston-consulting.com IP: 212.74.183.248
Innocence en Danger, Rue des Vollandes 19, 1207 Genève (CH)
President: Wertheimer Valerie
http://www.innocenceindanger.org IP: 80.247.227.71
(do’nt mix up with “La Flotille”, a day-nursery for 70 children, at the same adress)
Logprotect Distribution
President: Phillipe Jarlov
http://www.logprotect.org IP: 213.186.33.19
http://www.logprotect.net IP: 217.174.203.209
http://www.rivageslointains.com IP: 213.186.33.3
http://www.practeo.ch IP: 62.220.134.98
http://www.ltutech.com IP: 213.41.68.100
IRCGN (Institut de recherche criminelle de la gendarmerie nationale), Europol, Rosny-sous-Bois (Cedex)
Responsible: Capitaine Eric Freyssinet
STRJD (Service technique recherche judiciaire et documentation), cellule de veille internet, Europol,
Responsible: Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph Candalot
Gendarmerie Nationale de France,
Section de Recherche Bordeaux-Battesti (Gironde),
Service de lutte contre la cybercriminalite
http://www.defense.gouv.fr IP: 195.46.214.111
IP: 195.46.214.0-255 (at least whole subnet class c)
IRCGN are running LogP2P on their servers.
KOBIK (Koordinationsstelle zur Bekämpfung der Internetkriminalität)
SCOCI (Service de Coordination Criminalite sur Internet)
President: Philipp Kronig
http://www.cybercrime.admin.ch IP: 162.23.39.65
and http://www.fedpol.ch IP: 162.23.39.65
IP: 162.23.39.0-255 (at least whole subnet class c)
KOBIK/SCOCI are running LogP2P on their servers.
http://www.kkjpd.ch IP: 195.65.77.20
etat.ge.ch IP: 195.65.37.72
http://www.geneve.ch IP: 160.53.186.105 160.53.186.12
proxytst3.etat-ge.ch IP: 160.53.250.102
http://www.polizei.adminbs.ch IP: 193.135.25.50
prow3stat1.bs.ch IP: 193.135.25.53
http://www.jd.bs.ch IP: 193.135.25.57
http://www.ji.zh.ch IP: 212.47.173.17
http://www.kapo.zh.ch IP: 212.47.173.17
(bei aspectra.net) IP: 212.47.170.0 – 212.47.173.255
Router: IP: 212.47.172.0-23
IMPORTANT !
Please, spread this contribution to whatever P2P- and Internet-Freedom Forum/Chatroom you know !
Traduisez cette contribution en francais et diffusez dans tous les lieux P2P, etc. vous connaissez, svp !
October 2nd, 2004 at 10:11 am
Hello
A lot’s of error in this article.
- LogProtect don’t log children’s activities, only protect
- LogP2P is only working to fight child pornography
- LogP2P don’t works for majors
- and many other error in your article so…YOU seem to be paranoïd, it’s a shame !!!
October 3rd, 2004 at 10:35 am
you say :
“Why the pedos first? Why those pogroms against them (not only on P2P)? Simply, because they are a very easy target to hit. They are such a stigmatized minority now, they could even be killed without hard consequences. Cops are quite cowards, they usually select the weakest possible target to gather experience. ”
perhaps you are a pedo to write this, hu ? we can supose this !!
October 19th, 2004 at 1:48 am
i don’t think the guy writing this article was fundamentally wrong about it for a few reasons:
- attacking pedos on the net using this kind of filter is the lowest common denominator; everyone hate pedos and not a lot of people will complain.
- the problem is, if we accept this as filesharers, we will accept anything, and any kind of tracking and restrictions
- this program CAN be used against music and movie swapping, as stated by the author of this software on their own website
- in any case, whatever you may all thing, the author of this article is NOT defending pedophilia or illegal activities; he’s merely warning us, the people, about a dangerous trend in software that is a threat to privacy and many other civil liberties
- what hits me the most is that the only 2 commentaries to this article SOUNDS like they are the software makers themselves; only a total cretin could answer something like that
so on the total, even if the article is full of holes and isnt perfect, it did the job of warning me of the existence of COPWARE like this one, especially made with GPLed software by so called liberators
thank you
August 24th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
I AGREE WITH THE LAST COMMENT…THIS GUY WROTE THIS ARTICLE TO WARN US ABOUT FILE SHARING AND HOW IT CAN DESTROY US IF CAUGHT DOWNLOADING ANYTHING…PEDO OR NOT THIS GUY DID A GOOD JOB ON THIS ARTICLE…THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS…DO THE ANTIDOTES REALLY WORK? AND IF THEY DO HOW DID THE WRITER KNOW ABOUT THIS? HE MIGHT BE ONE OF THE SOFTWARE CREATORS…ANYONE: WRITE ANYTHING ELSE YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS SUBJECT THAT MIGHT BE HELPFULL.
February 16th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Quite simple. Do not go to the movies. Do not buy any music, videos. Since the law enforcement is acting on behalf of the entertainment industry (and do not do much for the general public), the y seem to have put their priorities with the money machines. The only way to hurt them is through the pocket. Do not support or buy their products. Would be nice to see some of the entertainers actually working for their money and those in the media industry having to watch their spending like the rest of us.
June 14th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Just for information–
You can code anything using Linux, Python, and other GPL software ; you are not required to release it or to release the source. (for those who know about linking requirements etc. : libpcap is BSD-licensed, so the point is irrelevant).
If they modified Linux or Python or anything, they would not be required to release the source, neither. You are required to release the source only if you DISTRIBUTE the resulting software.