Stop giving away so much information, let people who want to use torrents use torrents, it delays usenet being a target!
Torrent client
- Thread starter Jimmy1983
- Start date
Stop giving away so much information, let people who want to use torrents use torrents, it delays usenet being a target!
Stop giving away so much information, let people who want to use torrents use torrents, it delays usenet being a target!
That's what I'm saying though. Even if usenet became a target (and it's probably been one for a long time already), there's no way of them cracking the shell. It's impossible for them to get any evidence without a court order, and they need evidence to get a court order.
Besides, I'm not telling anyone anything that five minutes of Googling couldn't tell someone.
People still use torrents after all this Davenport Lyons nonsense?
Thought this was a scam in the end?
I assume your using newsgroups now then?
Thought this was a scam in the end?
Nah it wasn't a scam, one woman got shafted for £16,000 because she didn't show up in court.
Have been for about a year and a half now.
Are a lot off people getting caught now then?
How much do you have to pay for newsgroups?
Google it, plenty of places to help you out, I pay a tenner for unlimited space, could probably find better but I've used this for years now, cba changing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,185
SSL really doesn't mean anything to downloading, it doesn't give you more security or privacy.
It's too easy to get a code for a private tracker, just go on 4chan and ask for one and you will get the mick taken out of you for two minutes before someone will just give you one. Failing that you can just Google, because people on forums give away Demonoid invites all the time. Chances are the people hired by Davenport Lyons to harvest IPs already have accounts on private trackers.
As Robert said it encrypts the traffic, so only your ISP is going to be able to see what you're downloading and that's only if they go to the trouble of decrypting the packet headers.
But, the good thing about this is, unless your ISP are evil and spying on you anyway they will not do this without a court order. And nobody is going to get enough evidence for a court order unless they're spying on you, which they can't without decrypting your web traffic, which is illegal without a court order... *Breathes.*
And there's the magic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,185
Your ISP's don't spy on you and monitor the contents of your traffic. It makes absolutely no difference to anything. All your ISP does is say "yes, this is the person who had that IP at the time" if presented with a court order (or part of this silly BPI thing) which encryption doesn't hide.
For the purpose of avoiding traffic management it doesn't help either. Encrypted traffic has been treated just as poorly since P2P/NNTP clients added support for it. And in any case it's extremely easy to spot that type of traffic.
For the purpose of avoiding traffic management it doesn't help either. Encrypted traffic has been treated just as poorly since P2P/NNTP clients added support for it. And in any case it's extremely easy to spot that type of traffic.
That's what I am getting at though. To get a court order and go to the ISP demanding details they need proof, if you're using usenet (and especially an encrypted connection) they had no proof. So no court order, no information from the ISP, nothing at all to link the IP to you.
If you're using Bittorrent they will have IP addresses, dates, times, hostnames. You name it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,185
Sorry but SSL still doesn't make a bit of difference to that because your traffic is never monitored.
To take action against usenet downloaders they would apply for a court order a usenet provider to hand over IP's of whoever downloaded a certain article. They would then go to the ISP's to get the actual identity. This has never happened so far. With Giganews some users that uploaded have been warned (evidently the log this) and articles have been deleted from Giganews servers but so far no company has tried to get details from a provider.
Encryption wouldn't make a bit of difference to any of that.
To take action against usenet downloaders they would apply for a court order a usenet provider to hand over IP's of whoever downloaded a certain article. They would then go to the ISP's to get the actual identity. This has never happened so far. With Giganews some users that uploaded have been warned (evidently the log this) and articles have been deleted from Giganews servers but so far no company has tried to get details from a provider.
Encryption wouldn't make a bit of difference to any of that.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong mate, however if someone with greater knowledge proves me wrong then that's cool (not saying you don't have greater knowledge).
The other issue is that Usenet isn't P2P. So realistically they'll only go after the uploaders anyway. And why that lady was fined £16,000 - because she shared with other people who could have bought the game.
The thing with usenet is they don't record the traffic they spew out. I'm pretty sure it would take vast amounts of resources to monitor and decrypt the traffic - hence why DPI is only just looming at the moment. Again - I could be wrong.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,185
So I'm wrong but you don't actually know why?
Afraid you still don't know what you're talking about and I maintain that encryption is pointless for downloading, it offers no more protection than unencrypted connections where there is a risk legal repercussions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 5,738
- Location
- Edinburgh
Surely with encryption its still obvious you were downloading but not *what* you were downloading which is the kicker, and since its not P2P no one else can upload it to you, which is how the check with torrents. So yeah obviously if you're downloading GB's over SSL you're not visiting your banks website, but no-one actually knows what you're doing apart from the provider you're connected to?
The point of getting SSL encrypted usenet is "just in case" someone is monitoring it, the same way SSL encrypted pages are used when you shop online and send your credit card details to the shop's server.
To get that court order in the first place they'd need proof that someone with your IP address was downloading copyright material at such a date and time. Even if they could spy on your non-P2P connection, your data is encrypted.
I've explained exactly why above.
Source please? I use a Giganews reseller and I've never been notified of anything being deleted. I've also never seen a binaries report that didn't work unless it was outside my retention limit.
And no company has ever tried getting details from a usenet provider because there's no proof.
Encryption is just being careful, should the unlikely event that someone is actually monitoring your traffic happen.
Yup, pretty much. Your ISP will be able to see that you're downloading a lot over an encrypted connection but not be able to read the packet headers or anything, also it's not the ISP's job to spy on you or police what you download and they have never done so without a court order. A court order requires evidence that simply isn't there in this case.
At the worst, at this point in time (laws change), downloading a lot over usenet will get you a fair-usage warning from your ISP. That's pretty much it. Like I said though, laws change, and it wouldn't surprise if the whole process of catching pirates was made much easier one day.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,185
Ugh, I hate it when people feel the need to chop up posts like that.
1) In the extremely unlikely event that somebody was monitoring your usenet traffic it would be a criminal and the wouldn't care about what you download or your usenet login/password.
2) If anyone were to potentially target usenet downloaders (I don't see this happening) they would first find out IP's from providers. Provider logs of downloaded articles are as good as IP's seen in a BT swarm. But again unlikely to ever happen for just downloading.
3) I can hardly link to discussion of nuked articles on this forum, suffice to say it has happened to several in one group in frequent, they deleted all but the first part of each file. And I personally know three posters who have been warned by Giganews.
4) There is as much proof with usenet as there is with bittorrent. Usenet has only escaped through obscurity and the ease of targeting bittorrent users (join a swarm, get the IP's, lookup who owns them and send an email). If they have already begun sending DMCA notices to usenet providers then users will be next.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,185
But nobody monitors the content of your usenet traffic so it's irrelevant. The only thing SSL with usenet could possibly protect you from is someone who is somehow monitoring traffic on your home network nicking your login/password. Although realistically this is an absurd scenario.