ZeroPaid.com » law

Operation Black March: An Anonymous Movement

Jon Kaykin — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:19:34 +0000

Hacktivist group Anonymous has called for Operation Black March, a movement against the media industry. Unfortunately, it might not be as successful as others think. As you may know, SOPA and PIPA have been postponed and have lost much support but the fight isn't over. Thankfully, many groups are still fighting against the music, film and media industry, the most important group being; Anonymous. Anonymous has been very vocal in letting the public know their plans for what they will do next and meanwhile, they have been diligently working; taking down many sites and issuing statements on Youtube (see this and this). On Friday, Anonymous released a set of leaks and hacks ( including the shutdown of the Greek government's Ministry of Justice website and a leak of a conversation between the FBI and Scotland Yard) that were publicized on their Twitter feed using #FFF. This was a large effort and received a lot of support from the public. But for Anonymous this was just scraping surface. Recently, they announced something they call: "Operation Black March." This operation is a boycott of the music, film and media industry, with the hopes that during March, people will not go see films, buy CD's, download songs, buy magazines, purchase video games -- do anything that will support the aforementioned industries: [embed]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWzRHnVbw5I[/embed] As the video states, "We will not tolerate the Media Industries' lobbying for legislation which will censor the Internet," and Anonymous is asking for our support. Although the cause is great and there is much support for this type of action, I don't know how successful this will be considering how massive the media industry is. The problem is that many people can not live one day, let alone a month without supporting big time media conglomerates. Think about it; you can't download apps to your favorite devices, you can't download new music (legally or illegally) as Anonymous states, you can't even see a movie. The idea is right and the support for this movement is necessary but with media ruling everyday of our lives, I just don't see how feasible of a task this is. It's quite intriguing what Anonymous has done and what they continue to do. With words such as, “[i]f you didn’t dig it then then you better dig it now. We are calling upon all allied battleships to rise up and make some mayhem. NDAA/PIPA/SOPA for real? The internet is ours for the taking, and we will destroy every corporation and government that attempts to stand in our way," it will be interesting to see where and/or what Anonymous attacks next. If Anonymous can get the support of many, which they already have, then anything is possible. We will just have to wait and see... You can follow Anonymous on Twitter and on their blog. Keep your eyes peeled and let us know if you discover any new Anonymous attacks. Jon@zeropaid.com | @jkaykin

Really?! The FBI May Soon Monitor Social Networks

Jon Kaykin — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:20:34 +0000

The FBI has submitted a request for the creation of software that will search through "publicly available" information on social networks in order to discover emerging threats. After shutting down Megaupload, it seems as if the FBI isn't quite satisfied, they want more control over information. So what's their next plan? A social media application. You heard right; the FBI has posted a Request For Information (RFI) regarding the development of a social media application that can monitor online activity. "The application must have the ability to rapidly assemble critical open source information and intelligence that will allow the SIOC to quickly vet, identify, and geo-locate breaking events, incidents, and emerging threats." Although the RFI is lengthy and its jargon is technical, it isn't hard to understand and I recommend you read it. But if you don't feel like reading it, here are some important features that the application should have:

Provide an automated search and scrape capability of both social networking sites and open source news sites for breaking events, crisis, and threats that meet the search parameters/keywords defined by FBI SIOC.
Ability for user to create, define, and select parameters/key word requirements. Automated search of national news, local news, and social media networks. Examples include but are not limited to Fox News. CNN, MSNBC, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Provide instant notifications of breaking events, incidents, and emerging threats that have been vetted and meet the defined search parameters.
Ability to immediately access geospatial maps with coding in addition to providing critical infrastructural layers. Preferred maps include but are not limited to Google Maps, Google 3D maps, ESRI, and Yahoo Maps.
Ability to instantly search and monitor key words and strings in all “publicly available” tweets across the Twitter Site and any other “publicly available” social networking sites/forums (i.e. Facebook, MySpace, etc.).

While I believe that it is great that the FBI would like to use social media to discover possible threats, the idea of a "spider" searching through online interactions doesn't appeal to me. The FBI says that it would monitor "publicly available" information but with 67% of online social networking account owners having concerns about privacy on social networking sites (ESET), I think that a lot of people would add strict privacy settings to their accounts, thus making that information private. Lillie Coney, the associate director of a Washington-based privacy group commented on the FBI's request calling it "ridiculous. "Get a warrant," she said. "You don't know half the people you communicate with on Twitter. They are going to launch investigations and start looking at all sorts of people that they have no right to be investigating. There is no accountability, no transparency and no oversight." It's true, the FBI doesn't have the right to investigate our private interactions but unfortunately it's the FBI and they can do whatever they want. With tight privacy settings on many social networks, a lot of information is considered private, so I don't know how viable this will be. It could cause many court cases and civil liberty actions. I guess we will have to wait and see how the application turns out. Any thoughts? Jon@zeropaid.com | @jkaykin

Emergency IP Lists Emerging in Event SOPA Passes

Drew Wilson — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:27:31 +0000

SOPA is getting one step closer towards final passage. This has many users nervous. Now, it seems, a very predictable development is occurring, users are generating IP address lists to bi-pass DNS censorship.

DNS censorship could soon be a reality in the US. If a company or government entity choose to make a website disappear, it would be one complaint away from a reality. From the beginning, I personally envisioned groups sending IP lists over things like IRC to ensure that the internet remains relatively uncensored. This concept of sharing uncensored domain names is now a reality. BoingBoing is pointing to both a Reddit post and a Google docs posting with IP address lists to popular websites. Many users who sees this list might not necessarily know what to do with them. That is why, months ago, I wrote a guide on how to maintain a HOSTS file complete with screenshots. The guide shows you what to do with an IP address such as the one above. In fact, if you want to find an IP address to a website not found in the emergency SOPA list, there are multiple ways of obtaining it. You can either obtain the IP address of your favorite IP address through web hosting tools or even using command prompt. Ideally, you should obtain the IP addresses before the domain is censored. As in the past, I foresee this being a new norm should SOPA pass. The inherent problem is that you are putting your net security in the hands of whoever is generating these lists. If someone were to put an IP address in the list that actually points to a malicious website instead of the real website, then this is something that has to either be manually fixed on the end-users part or the entry has to be removed entirely. This is one big reason why many security experts are freaking out over this legislation - because it makes the internet less secure. If the automatic DNS system is left alone, this problem wouldn't be happening in the first place. For more information on other ways DNS censorship can be bi-passed, check out our 8 technical methods that make DNS censorship useless article. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Opinion – What SOPA Means for a Non-US Citizen

Drew Wilson — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:26:39 +0000

SOPA heads for a vote tomorrow. There's no question what kind of damage it could do to internet companies, users of the internet, jobs and the economy within the United States. Drew Wilson offers a perspective on what SOPA means as a citizen of a country outside the United States.

BoingBoing is noting that today is the last day for US citizens to have their voices heard before the legislation is brought to a vote. SOPA - (Stop Online Piracy Act) is basically enacting a sort of "Great Firewall of America". This is named after China's famous internet censorship known as the Great Firewall of China. SOPA The term, "Great Firewall of America" is especially appropriate given what the legislation is really about - censoring the internet. If someone wants to take down their competition, all they have to do is secretively go to a government body and complain that the website is infringing on copyright. That can set the wheels in motion to have the website simply vanish off the internet - all over a single, unproven claim of infringement. Proponents say that this is merely to stop rampant piracy, but for the end-user, it means little more than an inconvenience. We were one of the first websites to discuss ways for users to bi-pass, circumvent and defeat such censorship (some more effective than others). Unfortunately, defeating American censorship is pretty much an end-user game. For websites, trying to avoid being censored is a completely different story short of moving servers and domain names offshore to a free speech friendly country. Knowing this, I am proud that ZeroPaid participated in the American day of censorship and I thank Chris, Jorge and Jared for having this website a participant on such an important issue. We took a stand and said government mandated censorship on the internet without critical oversight is wrong. A lot of the concern, in spite of all of the ways Americans can avoid censorship, still revolves around the negative effects of the US end-user. What is discusses less, however, is the negative effects SOPA would have on non-US citizens and why it's bad for the US. Not to sound egotistical, but I am personally an excellent example of this. What SOPA Would Mean for Me I am a non-US citizen residing outside of the US. I am a journalist who reports on copyright, privacy, technology and all things related to the best of my ability. ZeroPaid, here, is a US-based website. Since I contribute a lot of my time and effort to a US-based website, that means the inherent value of the website goes up (given that an additional staff member working to make the website better means the value of the website goes up). More content on the main page means more traffic to the website. More traffic to the website more or less means more advertisement revenue. A number of these advertisements advertise for US companies. This means that not only is there additional revenue for ZeroPaid, but also for a number of these other websites as well. All of these companies would then be contributing to the US economy. Really simple web economics, really. Now, SOPA comes in to the picture. Knowing that nothing more than a simple accusation can theoretically remove a website from the internet, I personally get concerned; especially knowing that I've had my fair share of questioning the motives and actions of the entertainment industry. I do what any rational person, who has contributed to the US economy from the outside, does: ask what sort of assurance the web administrator has that the website I work for isn't a case of "here today, gone tomorrow". If SOPA is passed, the honest answer that a web administrator residing in the US ultimately is, there is nothing the administrator can offer that can guarantee the security of the websites existence. Even if the website was moved completely offshore, the administrator is still in the US jurisdiction. What US authorities and lobbyists can do is anyone's guess for the foreseeable future theoretically speaking. The SOPA Effect on Others I wouldn't be alone in this. I'm sure there are thousands, if not, more, people in the same boat as me. They work for a US website and now their website can theoretically be targeted maliciously and censored. They would then be unable to contribute to the US economy just like me. The websites existence is just one bad review, one troll or one user posted link away from being terminated. People such as myself would have two choices should SOPA pass, either choose to stick it out and hope that, by luck or chance, won't be the next website targeted by US censors, or look for a website that has as few connections to the US as possible. Some people do require that sense of stability and may choose to leave based on lack of technical assurance that the website won't be censored or removed. So, even before a single website is removed, SOPA is harming the US economy. Once the entertainment lobby, several over corporate entities and who knows what else starts ordering the takedown of numerous websites, the threat will become real for many non-US citizens. Non-US citizens will be able to fully appreciate the type of threat the legislation has whether they want to believe it or not. Some might choose to stay on the website they work for or freak out and leave for a non-US website. In other words, whether the website is censored or not, the damage on the US continues. Follow the Legislation "Leader" We've seen it with the Three Strikes law and we've seen if through the DMCA (re: TPP). Once one country enacts a draconian copyright law, entertainment lobbyists use it as a license to pressure other countries to enact similar legislation. If SOPA is passed, then other countries would face pressure from these major corporations. Some would likely bow to pressure immediately while other countries would resist and hold out for a while. This is the next immediate threat to non-US citizens. While there is the direct impact of having job losses due to a tough censorship regime, the second is the threat of the local government enacting similar (or worse) laws. The Effect on Piracy Websites are being censored on the whim of a single complaint. Proponents say that this legislation is needed to stop rampant piracy and that those who question the legislation based on censorship concerns are ignoring the serious implications of piracy. I'd like to explain how the issue of piracy in the face of this legislation will work in the real world. Websites outside the US would start getting blocked. OK, what to hardcore pirates do when this happens? They circumvent it. We already covered 8 ways pirates could theoretically accomplish this. These methods existed before SOPA was the talk of the town. There will be an arms race to beat the censors should this legislation pass with increasingly more sophisticated way to defeat censorship. Failing this, there would likely be ways of sharing IP addresses for servers. We know how successful private BitTorrent websites are and it's very likely that success in a similar method of file-sharing is entirely possible. If ISPs started enacting protocol blocking, traffic encryption would be presented as a way to bipass such restrictions at the ISP level. With some back and forth, it'll likely get to the point where, at best, the ISP will see a lot of traffic from certain users, but they wouldn't know exactly what it is for because it's heavily scrambled. In short, the effect SOPA would have on piracy is zero - zero, zilch, nothing. Let me reiterate my point concisely: through SOPA, for the price of lost jobs, increase is restraint on free speech, an economy that would be more vulnerable than before, a destroyed reputation of being the world leader in human rights like never before, and the destruction of innovation used to make the US compete better in the global economy, the net gain is absolutely nothing. As a content creator and producer of music, I say SOPA is very bad news for everyone. I am against it because in this day and age, the loss of freedom, the economy and jobs in general is something I wouldn't wish on anyone. We need to look forward, not drive the traditionally strongest economy into the stone age just to keep a handful of maladaptive corporations happy. Website people can use to join the cause of stopping American censorship [Americancensorship.org] Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

French Report – Legal Punishment for Filesharing as Severe as Manslaughter

Drew Wilson — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:14:08 +0000

One of the criticisms of copyright laws has, for some time, been that the punishment is far too severe for the crime being committed. This debate is nothing new and it seems to be heating up in Europe right now. One French news site decided to compare the penalties of file-sharing to the penalties of other offenses. The results? They are a little scary.

The report comes from Numerama which was inspired by a recent conviction in Sweden. They asked, if someone could be put in jail for 3 years for file-sharing, what other crimes could someone commit and get either an equal sentence or less? They said (Google translated, original) said that the answers pretty much speak for themselves and I, for one, completely agree. Two things to keep in mind: this is all about French law and the laws are sourced nicely (job well done to Numerama in that department for sure). Here are some of the offenses that could earn you a jail sentence similar to that if you were convicted of copyright infringement on a file-sharing network:

Manslaughter
Repeatedly sending death threats on a transfixed medium
Conducting biomedical procedures on someone without the consent of the patient
Theft
Breach of trust
Some forms of obstruction of justice

Here are some of the offenses that could land you in jail for less time:

Sexual exhibition in a public place
Harassment in order to obtain sexual favors
The desecration of a corpse in a cemetery/attacking a corpse
Third party identity theft (note: this wasn't entirely clear in the translation, but we are presuming that the translation meant "third party" since it simply says "by a third")
The abandonment of a child/infant
Making sexual advances to a minor whether electronically or otherwise (if the minor is 15 years old or younger)
Destruction of other people's property
Serious offenses related to animal abuse

I'm looking through this and I really wonder what is wrong with a legal system that says that if you are caught sharing copyrighted works, you could get a sentence as long as someone who killed someone. I personally can't see how it should be possible in the first place. Still, this has always been an extremely effective way of showing just how extreme the penalties have become for something so trivial as someone having a copyrighted work in their shared directory. I'm a music producer myself and I have always been all for the sharing of my works online for free. I think that even if I were hardcore all for copyright, I would have a hard time, at the very least, trying to explain to the public why someone who made sexual advances to a minor should serve less time than someone who is uploading an album on the Gnutella network. The thing is that with a lot of these offenses in the list are offenses where people are being directly harmed. For me, I don't think anyone could make a convincing case that file-sharing is a crime that is as bad as killing someone. Such comparisons have been made before. One great example in the US was looking at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill - the largest oil spill in US history. According to one report, BP was facing a $21 Billion fine. Looking at the damages for infringement one can find out that the BP fine presented in that particular report can be the equivalent to downloading 140,000 songs or 70,000 songs in the case of willful infringement. In any event, I think for French people, this really does put into perspective how high the penalties are for infringement. The day we start placing intellectual property on a higher level of value than life itself is the day I think society needs to seriously re-look at our values. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Man Sued for Linking to Freeware

Drew Wilson — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 11:11:20 +0000

A man from the Netherlands is being sued by RealNetworks for linking to a freeware application. The application, RealAlternative, is considered by some to be a competitive product to software from RealNetworks. RealNetworks alleges that the software in question is infringing on its trademarks and is demanding the accused hand over all computer equipment in its investigation.

Software developers can create freeware for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's to test their development skills, other times, it's to make everyone's lives a little bit easier with no financial incentives. Many site owners like freeware because they sometimes come with licenses that allow them to be redistributed or linked to without any worry about copyright problems. That might be what Hilbrand Edskes thought until he received a legal notice from RealNetworks. According to PCAdvisor, codecpack.nl was linking to software known as RealAlternative. From the report:

To date there have been two court sessions, and in December Edskes will have to testify under oath. There is a heavy pricetag attached to the case. So far Edskes has incurred more than €66,000 in legal fees. He says the costs cut his savings, hindering him from buying his own house. If he loses the case Dutch law requires him to cover all legal fees of RealNetworks. According to documents Webwereld.nl has studied these costs are nearly €75,000.

I think this is absolutely ridiculous. What's next? Microsoft suing every website that contains links to Linux OS distributions? Adobe suing every website that links to GIMP? I really wonder if this is the kind of software that would be censored if the PROTECT-IP Act. I mean, don't like your competition? Order ISPs to censor them. We're already seeing something like this with RealNetworks, what's to stop other companies from adopting similar policies of using copyright and trademark laws to crush all competition? [Via /.] Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

A Response to Don Henley on the PROTECT IP Act

Drew Wilson — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:45:43 +0000

It almost sounds silly that someone could possibly salvage the PROTECT IP Act at this point in time. Still, that doesn't stop some people from trying to pass off the PROTECT IP act as something that would actually do anything at all to stop piracy. We'd like to respond to this opinion with some counter-arguments of our own.

There's still debate around whether or not the PROTECT IP Act should be passed. While some have taken the viewpoint that it's simply a violation of free speech, among other things, we've taken the arguments against the Act one step further and provided 8 ways to circumvent such a law in the US. To date, no one has stepped forward and provided an explanation why all 8 methods would not work against the Act. In my opinion, showing that the Act would never even accomplish any of the goals it sets out to accomplish is really the ultimate trump card for proponents of the act (as a bonus, it's technically a neutral point of view). Don Henley recently wrote an opinion piece trying to support the Act. We'll say this right off the bat, Henley failed completely to show how the Act would stop piracy, only that the Act somehow magically provides the tools necessary to stop piracy. This pretty much amounts to wishful thinking at this stage, but it was amusing (and sad) to read about him trying to sell the Act as a great idea. Here's his opening remarks in his opinion piece.

If there is any question about the need for the United States to crack down on foreign websites engaged in criminal commerce, one need only enter keywords such as "MP3," "DVDScreener," or "Oxycontin" into popular search engines and scroll through the countless pages of site listings and sponsored ads.

You know you've lived to see it all when you see someone like me, someone who isn't even a US citizen, finding himself explaining how copyright law works to a US copyright maximalist. If one is seeing such things in the "popular search engines", it means those who are responsible for enforcing the DMCA haven't been doing their job. I'm sure Google would rightly point out that if there is an infringing link on their search results, all the rights holders have to do is file a DMCA complaint against the search engine and the links quickly get removed. Rights holders have been using the DMCA in the past and it's possible to see messages that point out that some results have been taken down under the DMCA via Google. Maybe rights holders actually don't care that infringing links can be found on Google and that's why they are there in the first place. If some people's experiences on YouTube are anything to go by, you don't even have to prove you are the rights holder in the first place to take something down on a Google owned website. The US has a DMCA law, use it and don't complain if you think links are being missed. In another point, Henley makes the following comment:

Theft of American products and ideas is no longer the hobby of teenagers with laptops; it's big business, as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative warns in a recent report on the world's most notorious illicit markets. And they're not just stealing movies and music; they are stealing America's jobs and future.

The problem here is that the US entertainment industry was established thanks to piracy. Just ask Lawrence Lessig. I think Henley would be ignoring history if he thinks that piracy started as a "hobby of teenagers with laptops". Moreover, downloading of music and other such content has been going on way before laptops were considered a replacement to the desktop computer. Personally, I think if piracy destroyed American jobs, they would have been destroyed by now. Instead, we live in a world where recycled movies are still being made, bad music is still being played on mainstream radio and games still being created so that you have to buy more expensive computers to see every lousy shard of 3D animation or face having the game crash your computer. Now, before Henley thinks of saying something like, "well, look at the movie industry and all the jobs being lost!", I encourage him to look at the problem of Hollywood's outsourcing habit first. Henley also goes so far as to try and push what are probably made up numbers to begin with:

Criminal foreign websites trafficking in American arts and entertainment products cost the U.S. economy $58 billion annually, including more than 373,000 lost American jobs, $16 billion in lost earnings, plus $2.6 billion in lost federal, state and local government tax revenue, according to the Institute for Policy Innovation.

Henley might have one cherry picked study that tries saying this, but we'll counter this with not one, not two, but three studies that would beg to differ. Those three are only scratching the surface of a large body of research in this area that says that file-sharing and p2p activity either have a net positive effect on the industry or have no effect on the creative industry at all. Sorry Henley, try again. Don't worry, he does:

Stealing American entertainment products and counterfeiting our goods are federal crimes. Search engines are the No. 1 way people find rogue websites. Yet as Congress debates legislation that would enable U.S. law enforcement to protect American businesses and consumers from foreign criminal enterprises on the Web, search engines such as Google are heavily lobbying lawmakers to allow the companies to continue to list illegal websites in search results. This loophole would render the bill virtually useless.

It seems convenient to use vague terminology here. It needs to be pointed out that non-commercial copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. I challenge Henley to cite the laws that say downloading an MP3 online for free is a criminal offense (and not a civil matter) and cite court cases that agree with this. Sorry Henley, using vague terminology in an effort to confuse matters doesn't work with me. In addition, Henley suggests that search engines are lobbying congress to be able to list "illegal" websites in their search results. Since Henley completely failed to do so, I think he should cite when this type of lobbying occurred. At what point is Google saying, "We wish to display illegal websites in our results"? I don't recall hearing search engine spokespeople say something to that effect, maybe Henley would like to elaborate on that. On the contrary, though, we are more than aware of Google co-operating with rights holders. Besides the DMCA complaints, I do distinctly recall Google agreeing to filter web results for pirated material back in January. Was this somehow forgotten in Henley's comments? Maybe. So we hope the link jogs his memory. Henley goes on to try attacking a few opponents to the bill:

Critics of this pending legislation need to be honest about the company they keep and why they essentially aid and abet these criminal endeavors. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a civil liberties group, claims such a bill would "break the Internet," while Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt says it sets "a disastrous precedent" for freedom of speech. No one has the freedom to commit or abet crimes on the Internet. Stopping crime on the Internet is not, as EFF says, "censorship." There is no First Amendment right to infringe intellectual property rights.

To Henley's credit, he actually did offer citations in this particular instance. Still, just looking at this paragraph, one can easily identify this as a straw man attack. Henley acknowledged that the EFF said that this could break the internet and that this could be a slippery slope of introducing censorship. Then, he suddenly says that there's no First Amendment right to infringe intellectual property rights. Sure, Henley could say that there is no First Amendment right to infringe, but that is not what the EFF is saying. Henley is exaggerating and distorting what the EFF is saying in the first place. If you are wondering what did the EFF actually said, then let's take a look at the very link Henley is referring to:

Free speech is vitally important to democracy, which is why the government is restricted from suppressing speech except in very specific, narrowly-tailored situations. But this bill is the polar opposite of narrow — not only in the broad way that it tries to define a site "dedicated to infringing activities," but also in the solution that it tries to impose — a block on a whole domain, and not just the infringing part of the site.

In other words, what is to fear here is the fact that an entire website would be blocked. What if only one page contains infringing material and the rest is perfectly legal? What would happen if that website is censored too? Then legal free speech is technically being infringed. This is not about trying to bundle infringing material into the First Amendment, but protecting free speech. I think, in this case, Henley needs to attack the argument, not the straw man. Henley continues with the following:

Search engines, including Google, already make filtering tools that block references and links to websites featuring pornographic and other content considered unsuitable or offensive. The technology is there, but the will of some companies is not. It seems that their real agenda is to avoid the loss of advertising, "pay per click" and other revenue if these sites were shut down. After all, Google is reportedly bracing for a $500 million fine for doing just that — accepting untold advertising dollars from illegal online pharmacies.

To address the first part, Henley is referring to Google's Family Safety tools. While, on the surface, Henley sounds like he's making a reasonable argument, 5 seconds of research completely obliterates the credibility of this point. If you look on that page and click on the FAQ, you'll see the following:

How does Google protect kids from sexual content and other content that’s inappropriate for them? Google’s SafeSearch screens for sites that contain inappropriate content and eliminates them from search results. While no filter is 100% accurate, Google’s filter uses advanced technology to check keywords, phrases, and URLs. Users can modify and lock their search settings by selecting the Settings on the top right corner of the Google homepage and choosing Search Settings. Scroll down to SafeSearch Filtering and click “Lock SafeSearch”.

In other words, it filters for keywords among other things. I think that if you ask someone who knows a lot about filtering technology, they'll probably acknowledge that a keyword filter is pretty much useless in stopping piracy. Keyword filtering also bares little resemblance to what is being proposed here in the PROTECT IP Act - DNS filtering. ISP level DNS filtering and user level keyword filtering are two completely different pieces of filtering technology. I don't think Google can compel ISPs to block a whole lot of websites. besides, I would imagine that if Google were to be put in a position where they think certain websites should be removed from the internet, then they'd probably refer the matter to police. To address the second part of this paragraph of Henley's, I think it's a little absurd to insinuate that Google makes it's money solely on pirated material. I would imagine that people use Google for way more than just piracy related activities (i.e. solving a computer problem, shopping, video game help, and looking for medical related information when they should be consulting doctors). Suggesting that Google runs on pirated material through their ads is simply presumptuous at best and a flat out lie at worst. To name one example, last I checked, ThePirateBay doesn't use Google Adsense. Party Poker? Sure. Google Adsense? Not to my knowledge these days. Henley then goes on to say the following:

Proposed solutions aren't radical; they are common-sense extensions of current legal powers. As with other federal crimes, authorities have the ability to seize ill-gotten gains along with the tools used to commit the crimes. But most criminals register their domain names overseas, forcing U.S. law enforcement officials to play a frustrating online cat-and-mouse game. In order to take down these illegal sites, they need cooperation from U.S. Internet service providers and search engines. American firms can and should block these criminal sites, and U.S. ad networks and credit card companies should cut off money going to them. The "Protect IP Act" would give law enforcement the tools to accomplish this goal.

Like I said in the beginning, the proposed solutions are easily by-passed. So if common sense was put in to the process, the PROTECT-IP act would have been scrapped by now. In addition, what's to stop the so-called "cat and mouse" game in the PROTECT-IP Act? With the PROTECT-IP Act, a domain is censored, and a new domain starts up. Does the name MAFIAAFire mean anything to you? What will really happen is that before, domains are seized by the FBI, knocking websites offline causing the operators to use alternate domain names (hence the cat and mouse suggestion). After the PROTECT-IP, domains will be censored, causing website operators to re-locate to new domains (hence the cat and mouse domain). Henley then closes with the following:

Online thieves are stealing American creativity, ingenuity and innovation. They are killing American jobs. Members of Congress should not be taken in by special interest agendas disguised as First Amendment claims, or they themselves will be as culpable of abetting theft as the rogue sites and companies that support them.

So really, he's using everything that can be so easily debunked and concluding that if politicians don't legislate his way, they are aiding and abetting criminals. I think before Henley writes anything more on this topic, he should go out and see how things work in the real world. If he had points grounded in reality, he might be able to have something convincing. For now, I'll just say this about Henley's article: Completely debunked. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Clarifying the Possible Canadian Surveillance Legislation

Drew Wilson — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:22:05 +0000

A report has surfaced that has received a fair bit of attention. The report suggests that Canada is facing a piece of internet surveillance legislation that would pretty much eliminate all due process. Naturally, this is of concern to us because we are concerned about privacy related stories, so we took a look at the report. Now, we'd like to offer some clarification on the current situation in Canada on this matter.

We here at ZeroPaid read a lot of articles in any given day. We are always on the lookout for anything that might be of interest to our readers and we combine that with our own ability to write our own original content. Part of what can make a great journalist is the courage to step outside our own comfort zone and report on things we don't necessarily know every nuance and detail. For many, that's simply a matter of reporting on things that are going on outside our own country. In a sense, it's simply looking beyond what is going on in our own back yard to understand what the rest of the neighborhood is up to. That can go a long way in being able to take lessons learned from the neighbors and be able to bring it back home. That doesn't always mean that everyone is entirely successful. Sometimes, one can absorb every single detail on a story they can gather and try as much as possible to produce an accurate report only to find that there is the odd detail here and there that someone immersed in that countries culture would be able to pick out right away. That is always the difficulty of trying to report on issues happening in countries that are, simply, not the country you come from. I think that this leads to two ways a reporter can handle this, they can either focus exclusively on what is happening in their own country, or they can take the occasional intellectual thumping in order to gain a much more rounded exposure to issues happening "abroad" (in quotes due to nature of internet) That leads us to this report from Naked Security which says that Canada is considering a bill that would pretty much eliminate due process and bring in surveillance that would make US-style surveillance seem like a fair and open transparent process. As someone from Canada, you can predict what I thought when I first heard this. I thought, "Oh no. They are actually going ahead and tabling this again!" So I read the article and it pointed to Bill C-52. I wondered if they actually kept the naming scheme to the point where they used the same numbers to boot. Since the legislation was linked in the article, it didn't take long to discover that this was not current legislation, but rather, old legislation that died on the order paper after the last election. Just looking at the date of the first reading (November 1, 2010) kind of gave a good hint of that (and, if you're a Canadian political junky, the part that says "Fortieth Parliament" is also a giveaway as the government is currently in the 41st parliament). Of course, if you're not a Canadian and don't tend to follow Canadian politics as closely as some who do reside in Canada, that might not be that obvious. For the record, the surveillance legislation at the time (deceptively dubbed "Lawful Access") was actually three bills - bill C-50, bill C-51 and, of course, bill C-52. It was complex and dealt with a lot of issues. Reading bill C-52 would technically only give you a sense of one third of what was being proposed. As you might be able to guess, like bill C-52, bills C-50 and C-51 also died on the order paper when an election was called. As I've suggested in various articles over the years, Canadians were actually saved from very bad legislation that would undermine civil liberties in the country. The author of the article on Naked Security also defended himself by saying that this is what is being mulled in government right now. He didn't say that it was necessarily tabled. This is technically true, but it's also pushing it to say that the contents of Bill C-52 is precisely what is being mulled because that might suggest that it might be tabled separately. I, personally, wouldn't go so far as to assume that what was in Bill C-52 is exactly what the government is thinking of tabling next. This is partly because the speculation is that a lot of what was being considered in the Lawful Access legislation might be rolled in to an omnibus crime bill in the next session of parliament. The fear is that this crime bill will be pushed through quickly and in such a way that a lot of the inherent flaws of previous attempted legislation would wind up being muted. This kind of concern was raised by experts featured in our previous report. In the open letter, the government was generally urged not to do anything hasty and ram surveillance legislation through - after all, it is a heavily contested area to begin with that practically pits ordinary Canadians against their own government. We don't really know what the specifics are in the crime bill. That's what makes it difficult to argue on specifics. The best we can do is look at the previous legislation and beg the government not to destroy Canadian civil rights by reinserting the type of legislation found in the Lawful Access bills into the crime bill. Personally, I'm not holding my breath that Prime Minister Harper will respect basic civil rights and since Canada has a majority government, Harper pretty much rules with an iron fist for the next few years. It's actually quite hard to fault Naked Security because there's not a whole lot the author did wrong that I can see. He looked up the legislation directly, linked to it, quoted relevant sections and had decent commentary on what was wrong with the legislation. These are all really good things to do in an article. In fact, he even brought in other examples from around the world to support his arguments which I think is always a bonus. In addition, he did raise awareness of matters of importance (and I'm happy that it's on topics that are close to home in my neck of the woods). Of course, to draw from a science example, you could follow very solid methodology like the scientific method to the letter and wind up with results that are way out in left field. I think that the author of Naked Security should continue to monitor what goes on here in Canada and not get discouraged by the feedback he got from one particular article. Fine, you could say his article might not be totally accurate or maybe even a bit misleading, but I don't think it's necessarily his fault. Give the guy a chance, he's trying at least. Following international stuff isn't really easy - believe me, I know. [Via /.] Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Porn Industry Sues the Blind

Drew Wilson — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:37:40 +0000

He's one of thousands in the lawsuit campaign against file-sharers, but he seems to be an unlikely candidate. He's legally blind and too busy with his personal life to secure his WiFi connection. Unfortunately for him, he's also unable to afford to fight the case and might be forced to settle anyway.

For years, we here at ZeroPaid have been saying over and over again that an IP address doesn't necessarily connect to a guilty party of any alleged wrong-doing online. This is for a number of reasons which does include the possibility of WiFi hacking. It's very likely that was the case in this instance. According to Seattle Weekly, a blind man is amongst the thousands targeted in a mass BitTorrent lawsuit because he allegedly downloaded a porn movie. If you think this is odd that a blind person would be downloading porn movies, the accused would definitely agree. From the article:

He stood accused of having illegally downloaded a copyrighted film five months earlier, at precisely 6:03 a.m. on the morning of January 27. The name of the Imperial Enterprises movie he purportedly purloined wasn't mentioned until four pages later. Though printed in tiny italic font in a court filing, it practically leapt off the page: Tokyo Cougar Creampies. Yet when Mrs. Doe set eyes on that ignominious title, she couldn't help but crack a smile at the absurdity of the situation. Her husband is legally blind, with vision roughly 1/100th of that of a person with normal sight. He is physically incapable of watching any film, this particular porno included. "To be honest, it's a little ridiculous," Doe 2,057 says with a rueful chuckle. "My movie-watching ability is nonexistent. My kids watch movies, but they are 4 and 6, so they don't watch porn either. Well, hopefully they don't."

This is just, yet, another case of how a mass lawsuit campaign can go wrong. For those that have followed these stories for years, this case might remind them of how the RIAA sued dead people for copyright infringement. There might also be the reminder of the case where the RIAA sued a family that didn't even own a computer. As long as rights-holders erroneously believe that an IP address always links to the person downloading copyright infringing material, false accusations will always be a running theme of any lawsuit campaign or three strikes law. Rights holders might as well open up a phone book, point to random people and say, "sue" because that tactic is just as accurate. Sadly, with the case of the blind person today, he very likely won't have a choice but to settle due to financial constraints. Going before a judge would cost thousands - and if he lost, hundreds of thousands. How could this have happened? The suspicion amongst the accused is WiFi hacking. They apparently live in a densely populated area. Being unable to find time to secure their connection, their network was open to hacking. I think that as long as these lawsuit campaigns continue, we'll keep getting stories like this. There are rights holders out there that constantly want to sue file-sharers into non-existence, but they often have a habit of not caring who the intended target is in the end. Sometimes, the target is completely innocent of any wrong doing. When the target is innocent, it really sends the message that rights holders are simply suing completely random people. [Via /.] Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Man Sentenced to 4 Years in Prison for Creating a Riot Facebook Page

Drew Wilson — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:24:01 +0000

The UK riots these days is marked by several high profile arrests. Now, the UK justice system is no doubt jam packed with riot cases in the midst of thousands of arrests taking place across the county. Now, some sentences are emerging. One man was sentenced to four years in prison for setting up a Facebook authorities said was used to incite some of the rioting.

We've been covering the UK riots from a technological aspect for some time now. Dramatic video's surfaced that both shines a light of lawlessness in the UK streets and paints a picture of people desperately crying out for various reasons. In the midst of all of this, UK prime minister David Cameron spoke in parliament to say, among other things, that he was working with industry and police to "stop people from communicating on social media" whenever it is used for ill. When we covered Cameron's comments, we noted that regardless of what side of the debate you are on, actually carrying out such a task is not likely to be technologically feasible regardless of how you interpreted Cameron's comments. While there is some debate over the specifics of how Cameron is going to carry out that particular objective, Chinese state media took full advantage of the situation and used Cameron's comments as justification for China to censor the internet. Now, people are being sentenced over these riots. According to This is Cheshire, 22 year old Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan was sentenced to four years in prison for his roll in the UK riots. He admitted to inciting public disorder by creating a Facebook page. From the report:

Assistant Chief Constable Phil Thompson said: "If we cast our minds back just a few days to last week and recall the way in which technology was used to spread incitement and bring people together to commit acts of criminality it is easy to understand the four year sentences that were handed down in court today. "In Cheshire, we quickly recognised the impact of the situation on our communities and the way in which social media was being used to promote and incite behaviour that would strike fear in to the hearts of our communities. "From the offset Cheshire Constabulary adopted a robust policing approach using the information coming into the organisation to move quickly and effectively against any person whose behaviour was likely to encourage criminality. "Officers took swift action against those people who have been using Facebook and other social media sites to incite disorder. "The sentences passed down today recognise how technology can be abused to incite criminal activity and sends a strong message to potential troublemakers about the extent to which ordinary people value safety and order in their lives and their communities. Anyone who seeks to undermine that will face the full force of the law.”

I think that the police should enjoy the ease of catching these people. It won't get easier than this. What some of these rioters are doing is posting pictures of themselves committing crimes on their personal Facebook sites or associating themselves with the riots through their personal Facebook accounts. These people might as well have broken in to a store, stolen a flat screen TV and left behind a business card say, "Hey, my name is [so-n-so]. I live here. Please come and arrest me." In short, their not the brightest pennies in the fountain. Posting your crimes on your personal Facebook account that has your real name and address is an extremely stupid thing to do - especially when the police are hungry for an arrest. I think that some of the rioters will wise up to this and start using fake names and using accounts on more non-transparent websites should they decide to start riots in the future. It's not a matter of if these types of criminals will start doing this, but when. When criminals see these arrests, a number of them will no doubt use better means of conveying their messages, thus making the police work way more difficult than it is now. So, in all of this, I say the police better enjoy the ease of tracking down these people via social media - it won't likely be this easy in the future. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.