Printable View
I just received a cease and desist letter from Paramount pictures.
However, I am wondering whether this means I could just switch over to Usenet or some other option safer than public torrents and continue on my way? Maybe just avoid Paramount?
Or am I on some kind of watch-list by my ISP where any major traffic will be scrutinized and passed on as potential evidence?
Thanks for any advice.
If you plan on switching to a safer way of downloading, just discard the letter and begin moving.
You may want to read this thread:
http://filesharingtalk.com/threads/4...ngement-Notice
I did read that and I wasn't certain whether to start a new thread or hijack that one. Sorry If I did the wrong thing.
I guess my question is: Am I being actively monitored since I've already been caught once? In which case it would be best not to swipe anything by any means.
If it's your first letter, chances are you are not. Remember, they send hundreds of those every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Hund
Just stay the hell away from places like Piratebay, demonoid, isohunt, btjunkie, etc. Those are heavily monitored.
Moving to a usenet provider with SSL enabled will be the end of your worries. If you don't plan on spending a few bucks per month, then try to get invite to some private tracker. It will be hard for people to trust a newcomer with an invite, but you never know.
Or else stick with jus ocr links with ddl boards
File hosting such megaupload , fileserver provide premium speed at free downloads
there are lots of bbs available out there sign up n keep leeching
Thanks for the quick, and mind-easing, replies.
I got set up with Newshosting and it seems alright. So hopefully no more scary letters.
sign up for a SSL server
Besides (possibly) some extra piece of mind and encryption overhead, what would SSL offer you? It's a nice touch, yes, but as long as your ISP can see the initial negotiation, they can potentially decrypt all the traffic. I'd say that if the idea here is just avoiding anti-P2P companies, an unencrypted connection to a trusted news server is enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by godofhell
Admittedly a Uberkadoober Noob here, but when I signed up with Newshosting they claimed that all accounts had free ssl included. I changed the port to the default ssl port 563. Is there another step I'm supposed to take?
Care to elaborate on that? Because I was under the impression that ALL traffic is encrypted. If it was so easy to get the data, I doubt banks or commercial interests would be using it, SSL.Quote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbiBesides (possibly) some extra piece of mind and encryption overhead, what would SSL offer you? It's a nice touch, yes, but as long as your ISP can see the initial negotiation, they can potentially decrypt all the traffic. I'd say that if the idea here is just avoiding anti-P2P companies, an unencrypted connection to a trusted news server is enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by godofhell
Ask you provider if there is an extra step or not. 563 is not the default ssl port, it is 443. But its a good thing that your provider uses a port other than the traditional, which adds more security. But don't forgot, main goal of SSL is improving security, not the privacy. Having a trusted news server is the most important thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Hund
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attackQuote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
Guess you didn't read the wiki because it says this:Quote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attackQuote:
Originally Posted by sandman_1
Quote:
Most cryptographic protocols include some form of endpoint authentication specifically to prevent MITM attacks. For example, SSL authenticates the server using a mutually trusted certification authority.
Well, I've seen at least one successful SSL middleman attack in action - a content filter intercepting the data so that blocked Web sites would remain blocked even when accessed via HTTPS. A custom "this site has been blocked by X" page would be delivered instead of the site's content.
If that can be done, seeing what's encrypted "behind" SSL is also possible, and easier in comparison.
Some reading material on the issue I've been shown recently:
http://www.sonicwall.com/downloads/S...ure_Module.pdf
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ket-forensics/
Ok but you were saying that your ISP can decrypt the data and see what you are doing though not hackers.Quote:
Originally Posted by anon-sbi
Your ISP can potentially see everything you send to, and receive from, the Internet. They have even more "liberty" than hackers, in that regard. However, it's not like they're all going to decrypt your traffic and snitch on you. 99.99% of the time you're already very safe using unencrypted Usenet, since there's no uploading involved.
The reason i suggested SSL was that ISPs like Comcast have a search APP that checks the downloaded/uploaded content and if it detects something illegal it raises a flag. Then some HUMAM takes a look at it and generates a Cease and Desist letter. If you use SSL there is NO WAY that their APP will detect illegal activity and flag you as a potential LEECHER.
There are always ways around "software" encryption/security but in this case your ISP will not be able to know that you're downloading something that you're not supposed to, and that was the initial question. We were not talking about complete security, just security from your ISP.
Isn't looking at their customers' traffic like that without a court order illegal or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by godofhell