Giganews DMCA Rampage: Embrace 100% data loss.

[mjmacky]

Then why haven't they?

Are you so certain they haven't, multiple times?

You are now doing exactly what you accused me of doing. I very specifically did not say never.

I know you didn't "specifically", hence the turn of phrase "paint the picture".

Do you think some radical muslim group would rely on their concerns for privacy by using a newsgroup to publish and maintain their communications?

Are newsgroups a haven for terrorists and child pornographers? If not, why not?

I don't see how text or binary based newsgroups would be all that useful or helpful to a radical group.

Child pornography haven, yes, it is. I haven't heard of any other filesharing medium where they haven't been able to completely dismantle child pornography other than usenet.

[Hypatia]

filesharing medium where they haven't been able to completely dismantle child pornography other than usenet.

tbh i dunno why people keep coming with this idea of usenet as a CP haven

almost everything that is in the open is taken down whether its a group or a release. And if it is hidden then its hard to find anyways= its non existant for your average Joe

On the other hand we have emule\edonkey\KAD... LOTs of stuff out there. you just type in a search field smth like 12 yo, set video, set size 100 mb and voila.

Can you do that on usenet? Nope.

Perhaps there are some hidden videos or pictures in certain groups disguised as something else but thats totally different matter

Also some anonymous p2p networks like darknet for instance

[temisturk]

Are you so certain they haven't, multiple times?

Yes, very certain. That's why I've challenged you openly and repeatedly to back up your claims with some evidence--because I know full well that you cannot do so. Propaganda is the strongest weapon in the anti-filesharing arsenal and shattering the beliefs of VPN users that they can download safely would be a massive victory. That's why they trumpet victories against Usenet providers (even when the cases are still subject to appeal). Yet if you search the web you won't find a single reliable story of a filesharer being caught downloading via a VPN or a VPN company being forced to close or reveal information about filesharers.

I know you didn't "specifically", hence the turn of phrase "paint the picture".

I have said in just about every post I've made that there are no absolutes. If you think I've painted any picture other than relative safety then you haven't been paying attention.

I don't see how text or binary based newsgroups would be all that useful or helpful to a radical group.

If you don't see how secure communications would be important to a radical group why do you think they would want to run a website?

[mjmacky]

Yes, very certain. That's why I've challenged you openly and repeatedly to back up your claims with some evidence--because I know full well that you cannot do so. Propaganda is the strongest weapon in the anti-filesharing arsenal and shattering the beliefs of VPN users that they can download safely would be a massive victory. That's why they trumpet victories against Usenet providers (even when the cases are still subject to appeal). Yet if you search the web you won't find a single reliable story of a filesharer being caught downloading via a VPN or a VPN company being forced to close or reveal information about filesharers.

You could only be certain if you were linked into all the DMCA prosecuting efforts, careful with your missteps. Also, you neglect the mutual advantage they would have if their cooperation were not paraded/trumpeted. Propaganda in their favor would be the arrest and prosecution of individuals, not the dealings between DMCA operators and these private services. It works differently with ISPs, as DMCA activism seems to have all major ISPs in many countries on lockdown, and there aren't many options for the consumers. Acknowledging the effectiveness of a paper shield would be an important strategy.

I have said in just about every post I've made that there are no absolutes. If you think I've painted any picture other than relative safety then you haven't been paying attention.

Rather the nuances of the English language are fleeing your company.

If you don't see how secure communications would be important to a radical group why do you think they would want to run a website?

It was more a matter of functionality/practicality that my comment was addressing, not the need for security. They do have some hosting safe havens.

---

tbh i dunno why people keep coming with this idea of usenet as a CP haven

almost everything that is in the open is taken down whether its a group or a release. And if it is hidden then its hard to find anyways= its non existant for your average Joe

On the other hand we have emule\edonkey\KAD... LOTs of stuff out there. you just type in a search field smth like 12 yo, set video, set size 100 mb and voila.

Can you do that on usenet? Nope.

Perhaps there are some hidden videos or pictures in certain groups disguised as something else but thats totally different matter

Also some anonymous p2p networks like darknet for instance

Honestly, I'm not all up to speed with CP practices, much in contrast to the viewpoints I present. I assume that if something is labeled as CP, wouldn't it be a trap at this point? I've always heard usenet is a huge haven for CP, and I assumed that their postings are masked, much in the same way scene and P2P sometimes mask their headers (thus relying on manual indexing). Those other p2p options would be dangerous to continue that kind of activity, wouldn't it? Makes logical sense to me. We'd have to ask someone who is in that secret club, perhaps Idol.

As far as darknet, the only thing I know about it is that it's only accessible through tor service. I've used tor before, and it's way too slow for my tastes, don't know if it has improved as of late.

[temisturk]

Also, you neglect the mutual advantage they would have if their cooperation were not paraded/trumpeted.

I've not neglected it because it doesn't exist.

Certainly it would be in the VPN providers interests to keep the matter under wraps but it would not be in the copyright trolls interests. On the contrary, anything that undermined the interests of a service which protects people from them would be in the copyright trolls interests.

But, anyway, lets consider the nonsense further:

Lets say a copyright troll were to detect me downloading something via a VPN. And they managed to muster enough legal force to convince the VPN provider to reveal my identity. They would then have one person for one count of copyright infringement. Nothing like the 100's or 1000's of counts they've had to slap people like Jammy Thomas or Joel Tenenbaum with. One of three things would then happen.
1. I'd agree to hand over the few hundred dollars they demand from people. That wouldn't cover their legal expenses. And it wouldn't deter anyone, other than perhaps me, from continuing to download. A net loss for them.
2. I'd fight them in court and
a) win or
b) lose.

Court records are public information and the first story of a VPN provider failing to protect someone would be big news--it would be hard and expensive to cover that up. And if they succeeded in covering it up, again we're left with them having spent lots of money and not having succeeded in detering anyone except me from downloading. A net loss. It makes no sense.

Obviously if I won then they wouldn't want people to know. But if I won then that would undermine your case so lets ignore that possibility.

If I lost? And they managed to keep it quiet? They would get a few hundred dollars in damages and possibly something towards their court costs. But even if they forced me into bankruptcy I wouldn't be able to pay them enough to cover the costs of the legal actions they had had to mount in two distinct international jurisdictions. So they would have lost money and gained nothing but making life a misery for one person who won't serve as an example. Yet again, a net loss for them.

But, if they were to publicise simply the fact that they'd successfully identified me their costs would be lower (since they wouldn't have to pay for the additional court case), their risks would be lower (since they might fail in the prosecution case) and their returns--making many people around the world think twice about relying on a VPN--would be higher.

In other words, no matter which way you try to swing it, your continued inability to find any evidence supporting your allegations resoundingly supports the conclusion that there have been no successful breaches of downloaders VPN security.

---

I have to say, at this point, you're the only one putting any credible effort into attacking the integrity of VPN's. And it's clear to me that although I can counter you point-by-point, I'm never going to succeed in getting you to admit that they are not inherently and fatally flawed.

If you accept that you will never be able to convince me that they are, then I'll be happy to call time. After all, I wouldn't want to prolong this debate indefinitely and risk being labelled a troll.

[mjmacky]

Also, you neglect the mutual advantage they would have if their cooperation were not paraded/trumpeted.

I've not neglected it because it doesn't exist.

summary: Something about there not being a huge story about VPN sellouts.
and this: "On the contrary, anything that undermined the interests of a service which protects people from them would be in the copyright trolls interests"

You limit yourself to think about the implications of what has happened in the past. You've got to be able to think ahead about these things. Major cases can easily be building or will be built on the principle around this, simply because it's gaining en masse. Jeopardizing your advantage with a single or few cases and trumpeting it would undermine the effort (quite the opposite of what you're claiming). Basically, relying on VPN providers to maintain your identity and anonymity long term puts you in a precarious position. It would be foolish to think DMCA won't be taking or already hasn't been taking steps to dismantle VPN protection. The ease of the process is what would make it a lucrative target.

Back to the original point, they would also like to dismantle pseudo-binary usenet services. However, they can only go after content uploaders at this point. In the future, they'll probably try to take down the service providers. One of their current methods is spamming and DMCA takedown notices. By the nature of how it's setup, downloaders will be able to walk away cleanly if and when that happens.

[temisturk]

Well, OK, since you have actually already labelled me a troll, and you're not willing to accept any possibilities other than your own personal favourite alternative future history, I'm going to unilaterally withdraw.

Consider yourself victorious if you wish. Personally, I think you've done a dis-service to the filesharing community in spreading FUD about something which is a benefit to them. Still, I guess if they can't see through the smoke that's their problem.

[mjmacky]

Well, OK, since you have actually already labelled me a troll, and you're not willing to accept any possibilities other than your own personal favourite alternative future history, I'm going to unilaterally withdraw.

Consider yourself victorious if you wish. Personally, I think you've done a dis-service to the filesharing community in spreading FUD about something which is a benefit to them. Still, I guess if they can't see through the smoke that's their problem.

Troll

[zot]

This was originally supposed to be about Giganews. There has already been some lengthy (and troll-free) discussion about VPNs here recently.

https://filesharingtalk.com/threads/4...ople-use-VPN-s

**Also note my post #7 about the two-faced Surfola.com (at least HideMyAss never made such bold, seemingly-ironclad promises before ratting out people --in that case without even asking to see a court order)

I think most of us know that a common troll tactic is to bait people into the argument by making outlandish claims that beg for correction -- note the audacious proclamation that "VPN providers exist for one reason--to provide anonymity--that's the only thing their customers are paying for."

Quite laughable, considering that VPNs have been around for over a decade, yet were never even marketed as an anonymity service until quite recently, and sadly displacing the more complicated --but technically superior-- SOCKS (and later HTTP) proxy services in the anonymous-P2P arena.

What I loved about a SOCKS proxy was that --unlike a VPN-- I could selectively route a P2P/ed2k/torrent client (and nothing else) through the proxy while downloading off my ISP's usenet server (which required my real IP address). This was back in the days when I was on ED2K virtually 24/7 and that situation would have been impossible using a VPN instead of a SOCKS proxy, since on ED2K, disconnecting from the network to do other tasks would loose all queue slots and set a downloader back several hours -- or even several days.

Personally, I wish that VPNs had remained the business-oriented *non-anonymous* service as they were originally intended, so that the highly-configurable socks proxies would not have been wiped off the market by the "one-click" VPNs that no doubt saved companies a fortune in tech-support costs.

... sorry to be ranting off topic here ... not to mention troll-feeding.

[mjmacky]

This was originally supposed to be about Giganews.

Didn't you hear? Giganews has a VPN service and access to usenet.

Total on topic combination FTW!