Is this possible? Can they really acomplish what they say they will?

[anotherjustme]

NEWS 9/30/2003 They Had Their Chance!
(http://www.thebighack.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=77&mode=thread&order=1&thold=0)

I don't know what to think anymore... I just don't know, but when I think about it...
If all the hackers around the world will unite, they can acomplish anything, since most of the "entertainment industry is well pluged in to the net.

I'm not sure, but I'm a believer... are you?

<edited/updated>

I have copied and pasted an articule, describing in plain english how it all supposed to work. It's posted in this thread on page 2.

[KiwiTHUGG]

LMAO, ROFL, I dunno if I am on the right track but I think hackers will hack the "ENT" industry soon! its just a matter of time b4 they really get messy!!!!!!!

[aqlo]

"start" huh

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,54812,00.html

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10229

http://forums.shareaza.com/showthread.php?threadid=5648&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=14484

http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=14453

hardly a start

[Shadow Lane]

I'm with you anotherjustme. I don't know what to make of those "BigHack" guys.

They seem serious. They seem to have thought it out.

Here's what they plan to do, for those who have not been following it

The Big Hack (http://thebighack.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=141)

Will it work? Got me. I can't pretend to understand it. Near as I can figure it has something to do with creating a system where they upload random code. You download it, and you have a way of decrypting it on your end. Is that right?

Apparently these guys believe this technique will destroy the idea of online copyright, and change the face of the internet.

I don't know. I know I've browsed around their forums and I'm not impressed. It's like a small group of geeks talking in code, and clownishly prancing around giving each other the secret handshake, congratulating each other on how clever they all are. I don't see any widespread public support originating in that forum.

Even if what they have is as amazing, and clever as they seem to think it is, I'm not convinced this particular collection of nerds has what it takes to pull it off.

Also they seem to keep hinting they want investment. Is this all just some silly get-rich-quick scheme? Pressure the entertainment industry, then sell out to them?

I'm not quite ready to shout "Hooray!", put them on my shoulders and parade them around the town square, just yet.

It's an interesting show to watch though.

[anotherjustme]

Will it work? Got me. I can't pretend to understand it. Near as I can figure it has something to do with creating a system where they upload random code. You download it, and you have a way of decrypting it on your end. Is that right?

Apparently these guys believe this technique will destroy the idea of online copyright, and change the face of the internet.




I have a little understanding of coding and stuff, but here is a quote of someone that seems to know a thing or two...

Originally posted by l33ts0n
Hai. The fine art of social engineering (or "Hacking" as they call it) can be very powerful if wielded by the slick and mentally agile.

As for the brightnet, OFF, it sounds like a very revolutionary concept--the inability to copyright a number combined with 128KB blocks of irrelevant data being cached makes it a very tempting premise; since its not trying to be "anonymous" and there's nothing illegal about caching an unrecognizable block of data, you won't have to worry about having to proxy content everywhere and hide internet protocol addresses. After all, you're not doing anything illegal.

Although, it makes me wonder how the RIAA will try to adapt. They would have to monitor your downstream and check every incoming block of data against every file in their database, and hope to collect enough aggregate data to find out if you can assemble those particular blocks in the right order to be something copyrightable. Even then, its shaky standing in court.

Alternatively, they can do it BlackOPs style and burst through your windows in the middle of the night with laser-sight equipped guns and mow you down, but I don't think the Government would like that very much.


On the other hand, there's no RFC or "protocol document" anyone can follow, which can lead to haphazard implementations (see: Gnutella) or just botched jobs.

If you wan't to check out the rest of this discussion, follow this link...

http://forums.shareaza.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=46736#post46736

[Psilaxs]

I read their site and saw nothing technical per se.
Pseudo philosophical banter will not bring down any industry.

[tMoD]

Actually there is technical stuff on the site: there are sketches of the protocol in the Hack 2 Discussion area.

[ian_l_williams]

What am i missing, my initial thoughts are that this seems to be pretty daft
You have to download at least 2x as much info as you actually need ie if you were working in decimal and want to download the number 8 , you'd have to download 5 and 3 ie 2 sets of information each of the same length as the desired information (works in binary as well especially since they are using XOR)

Plus I'm guessing that legally speaking this is just a really lame type of encryption.

[aqlo]

2x as much info
No only 1/2 as much say under normal circumstances because you will already have a lot of the necessary chunks cached.

[anotherjustme]

I read their site and saw nothing technical per se.
Pseudo philosophical banter will not bring down any industry.
Here is something more detailed about the technical stuff...

http://thebighack.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=78

[aqlo]

still \.ed it looks like
only fair, goes round comes round
:ass

hey in the meantime who is going to 2600 tomorrow?
http://www.2600.com/meetings/mtg.html

[Malicious Intent]

I thought that Aqlo said it was a satire site. Its taking the piss - with "OFF systems" and "Brightnets". It is suppose to be a laugh, although it seems long winded for a joke.
I think it is a site dedicated to the steady stream of newbies who think that if you upload information that can't be used without other information, then you can't be sued. As we have explained to them, if a copy of the song is made, then copyright law has been broken.

[aqlo]

Naw I said your gripes at that time were due to satire. And that OFF was right up there with CREEP as a sneaky acronym. :fire

site's back

[Shadow Lane]

I don't think this is all just a joke, and if it is, color me punk'd.

I was initially skeptical of this "Big Hack" plan, but they're starting to sell me on it, because I'm thinking even if they do sell out, or get shut down, enough of their plan is out now, that it's got people thinking. Bits and pieces at least are going to be borrowed by others in the future. There's no way to stop it.

[jonnymnemonic]

Their intent is absolutely possible to do, theoretically speaking. But doing it *efficiently* will be the key. If they use chunk sizes too small, the inefficiency really bogs down. For example, let's say they use a chunk size of one byte. Then the "assembly descriptor" for a 4 megabyte file will BE 4 megabytes - it will basically BE the file to be assembled, in fact. Which would have the same legal problems we have today. And if EACH chunk needs a TCP/IP packet to be transmitted (as looks like the plan), then transferring a 4 megabyte file with a 1-byte chunk size would actually involve the transfer of closer to 500 megabytes of data. Obviously, that can't work.

So, they will have to use chunk sizes larger than 1 byte. The problem with too LARGE a chunk size, however, is that the larger it is, the less likely that chunk is to exist in multiple files. Take a 16-byte chunk size, for example. Any particular sequence of 16 bytes has only a 1 in 256^16 probability of being the same as another 16 byte sequence. And 256^16 is one HUGE number. It's quite possible that some files would contain a specific 16-byte sequence that exists in NO other file. And if it's a copyrighted file, then it's possible that just that tiny little 16-byte sequence could be used as evidence of copyright infringement.

So, 1 byte is too small a chunk size, but 16 bytes is probably too large. 4 bytes would probably work okay, although there are still 4 billion plus different 4-byte sequences. But 4 billion is small enough that many, if not all, 4-byte sequences *would* in fact be found in many different files. But sending a TCP/IP packet for every such 4-byte chunk would still involve sending a LOT more data than simply sending the data from the original file normally, as P2P networks do today. I mean, a LOT more data. It'd basically turn your average cable connection into a 56k modem so far as transfer speeds are concerned.

So, at the moment, I don't see this happening. For it to actually be doable AND be useable at reasonable speeds will first require massive improvements in bandwidth technologies, such that bandwidth itself becomes a non-factor. Until that happens, this concept will remain something that is only theoretically doable. Oh, sure, someone may create it, like the people did with their CPIP (Carrier Pigeon IP) network, but no one will USE it because either it will be too slow and inefficient OR the chunk size will be so large that it offers no legal protection TO use it.

[aqlo]

Their intent is absolutely possible to do, theoretically speaking. But doing it *efficiently* will be the key. If they use chunk sizes too small, the inefficiency really bogs down. For example, let's say they use a chunk size of one byte. Then the "assembly descriptor" for a 4 megabyte file will BE 4 megabytes - it will basically BE the file to be assembled, in fact. Which would have the same legal problems we have today. And if EACH chunk needs a TCP/IP packet to be transmitted (as looks like the plan), then transferring a 4 megabyte file with a 1-byte chunk size would actually involve the transfer of closer to 500 megabytes of data. Obviously, that can't work.

So, they will have to use chunk sizes larger than 1 byte. The problem with too LARGE a chunk size, however, is that the larger it is, the less likely that chunk is to exist in multiple files. Take a 16-byte chunk size, for example. Any particular sequence of 16 bytes has only a 1 in 256^16 probability of being the same as another 16 byte sequence. And 256^16 is one HUGE number. It's quite possible that some files would contain a specific 16-byte sequence that exists in NO other file. And if it's a copyrighted file, then it's possible that just that tiny little 16-byte sequence could be used as evidence of copyright infringement.

So, 1 byte is too small a chunk size, but 16 bytes is probably too large. 4 bytes would probably work okay, although there are still 4 billion plus different 4-byte sequences. But 4 billion is small enough that many, if not all, 4-byte sequences *would* in fact be found in many different files. But sending a TCP/IP packet for every such 4-byte chunk would still involve sending a LOT more data than simply sending the data from the original file normally, as P2P networks do today. I mean, a LOT more data. It'd basically turn your average cable connection into a 56k modem so far as transfer speeds are concerned.

So, at the moment, I don't see this happening. For it to actually be doable AND be useable at reasonable speeds will first require massive improvements in bandwidth technologies, such that bandwidth itself becomes a non-factor. Until that happens, this concept will remain something that is only theoretically doable. Oh, sure, someone may create it, like the people did with their CPIP (Carrier Pigeon IP) network, but no one will USE it because either it will be too slow and inefficient OR the chunk size will be so large that it offers no legal protection TO use it.You are forgetting the pad-encryption somehow Jonny. Each chunk will decrypt as a variety of different pieces of data, depending on which key in which uberhash opens it. Reduces that big number geometrically.

This is an example of a stochaistic process.

[anotherjustme]

I read their site and saw nothing technical per se.
Pseudo philosophical banter will not bring down any industry.

I found there a little more understandable information describing the whole "OFF" system, about what it is and how it suposed to work...

Here's a link...

http://thebighack.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=78&mode=thread&order=1&thold=-1

And in case it doesn't work, I'll copy and paste it here too...

The New Meme
OK, so I've re-read everything I have written and I can see how this is not clear to most people. I apologize for this. It is a case of having thought too much about this for too long. If you wouldn't mind, give me another crack at explaining why there exist digital files that cannot be copyrighted.

Numbers
A computer file is simply a number. Normally it is a really big number, but it is otherwise just like any other number. It is one more then the previous number and one less than the next.
We often think about it as a sequence of small numbers (bytes) or sometimes a sequence bits (ones and zeros). However, when you line these up in a sequence they form one big number.
Imagine lining up decimal digits. When you line up the sequence of decimal digits; Five followed by three followed by two, is interpreted to be 532 (Five hundred, thirty-two). The same thing happens with binary numbers, but the numbers are usually much longer.

Small Numbers
Why is this important? Well for every number there are an infinite number of possible representations for this number.

Think of the number twelve (12). It can be represented as five plus seven (5+7), or twenty-five minus thirteen (25-13). Taken individually the numbers 5, 7, 13 and 25 are never 12.

If for some reason we were to allow 12 to be copyrighted by Brittney, she would still have no claim on the numbers 5, 7, 13 and 25. I could still copy these numbers and pass them around as I saw fit. As long as I didn't copy the number 12, I should have no problems with the law.

So what happens if I transmit the "formula" (5+7)? Am I allowed to do that? What about the formula (25-13)? What if I only transmit (5,7) or (25,13)? What is the "meaning" of these transmissions?

There is actually no way to know the meaning of any of these transmissions. The interpretation is purely up to the receiver. The + sign may not mean plus at all. It may only be a separator. (5,7) many mean 57 or 5.7 or any number of possible other interpretations.

There are many legitimate reasons to store or transmit the numbers 5 an 7. As such, the only possible one who can cause a law to be broken is the receiver. If the receiver reconstructs 12 from any transmitted numbers then perhaps the receiver has broken the law. But then again, perhaps not. If no "copy" of 12 is made then no copyright law can have been broken. To play a song is not to copy a song. No more then to play a VHS tape is to copy a VHS tape.

Big Numbers
So now lets translate these principles to big numbers. When we translate something into a computer file we create a sequences of digits that represent the original.

Lets take a song for example. Let's say, "Lawyers, Guns and Money" is 3MB long. That means the song is three million bytes long or twenty-three million bits long. This make a very big number, but it is still a number. As every binary number can be translated into a decimal number, I'll use them to simplify these examples.

Picture the song as this, but much longer.
24332984303829732498...398724

Now there are two other number that may be of interest, depending upon how you interpret them. Consider the following big numbers:

11230243302314110327...264211

and

12102741001515622171...134513

Then consider adding them together.

Are these numbers copyrighted? Can I store them on two separate computers? Would that break the law? What if they were never added together. Would their existence still break the law?

What if I give you two other numbers? Again, and again.

There are two consistent ways to answer the above questions. One leads to the conclusion that "All numbers are copyrighted." The other leads to the conclusion that, "There exists encodings of copyrighted number that are NOT copyrighted."

If the first conclusion is true, copyright is pointless. If the second is true copyright is meaningless.

Multi-Use Numbers
This is the idea (or meme) at the core of the OFF System. The OFF System then takes it farther to show that each of these numbers can be used for many different things simultaneously. Let's name these numbers now, and add a couple more.

11230243302314110327...264211 = A
12102741001515622171...134513 = B
47379872610938161983...471179 = C
02810398720484003497...102380 = D

We showed above that (A+B) could represent, "Lawyers, Guns and Money". Interestingly, at the same time (A+C) could represent, "Oops, I did it again!" Who then owns A, Warren or Brittney? Also (B+D) could represent, "Piano Man". So who ones B, Warren or Billy? Each of these numbers can represent an infinite number of things simultaneously.

No one person can lay claim to any one number. That is why I claim that these numbers are not copyrightable.

OFF System
This is exactly what the OFF System does, but instead of adding it uses another logical process called XOR that simplifies the programming. Otherwise the logic is exactly the same.

It then spreads each number to different servers around the internet. This is done to speed retrieval. No fancy encryption is needed as each number has no meaning. No anonymity is needed as no one can tell how the numbers are being interpreted. That is why we termed this a "Brightnet". No secrecy is needed.

It sounds so... logical... I just don't have the knowledge to confirm if this system can work in the real life, from the technical point of view that is...

Damn... I wish it was all true...

[Star Guitar]

This whole techno-cult thing sounds interesting, so I'll keep an eye on it. But one question: What's a gesetzklageproblem?

[KiwiTHUGG]

Beats Me! Like I Have Said B4....The RIAA and MSN are related! lol

[tMoD]

This whole techno-cult thing sounds interesting, so I'll keep an eye on it. But one question: What's a gesetzklageproblem?

A lawsuit problem.

[Star Guitar]

http://www.hackback.org/

For anyone who is still cofused. It's all a story. I'll admit, it caught me too. False hope.

[aqlo]

Guess that's just satirical code they are publishing in chunks everywhere as fast as it gets written too, huh?

I'm just a fictional character in a fictional conspiracy to overthrow intergalactic evil.

[my name]

Hackers are usually anti social hostile fellas(on the net at least). They will never unite to a big organization as Subordinates

[tMoD]

http://www.hackback.org/

For anyone who is still cofused. It's all a story. I'll admit, it caught me too. False hope.

:playboy (http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=179371#post179371)

Warning: Enter our world deliberately. These stories are not ordinary illusions. When the performance is over, the door you leave from may not be the door you entered. The world you return to may not be the world you left.

Clicking stuff is fun. :bling (http://hackback.org/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=1)

[anotherjustme]

Hackers are usually anti social hostile fellas(on the net at least). They will never unite to a big organization as Subordinates

I'm not sure if you're 100% right. Somehow, I see them (most of them that is) as guys with knowledge and too much time on their hands. Although they do break into many systems etc. ,but very few of them actually does some damage. I think they do it mostly , just to prove to their peers that they are better. "I broke in to IRS, mainframe..." etc... He did it because he could. It's like climbing. Of course some of them uses his knowledge for personal gain...

Warning: Enter our world deliberately. These stories are not ordinary illusions. When the performance is over, the door you leave from may not be the door you entered. The world you return to may not be the world you left.

I actually read it right at the start. I was wondering what it reffered to, but I assumed, that it was just something like a disclaimer, to give them some kind of explanation if what they did was unlawfull or something...
I believed it, because as you all know, you believe what you want to be true, so I was hoping it is for real, but I quickly lost interest, when there was no action, but only a lot of talking.

Even if it's a bullshit, I still think that it could have done something positive, because since everyone was saying that this proposed software kind of makes sense and seems to be doable, maybe someone will actually incorporate it, into one of their own projects... Who knows...