ZeroPaid.com » uk

PSA: The Computer Maintenance Department Scam Calls

Drew Wilson — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:49:55 +0000

Have you been getting those calls from people working in a call center from what sounds like India? You know, those people who claim to be from either the "Computer Maintenance Department" or the "Windows Technical Team" who then instruct you to go to your computer? Tell the select minority of people who would fall for it that these calls are a scam. We here at ZeroPaid did some digging about these calls in a public service effort.

I consider myself to be reasonably savvy when it comes to telemarketers. Whenever they come calling trying to sell me something, I ask them to put me on a do-not-call list. Asking to be put on a do-not-call list is substantially better than simply hanging up on a telemarketer because merely hanging up is technically an invitation to call back later. Most telemarketers have a system in place because it's the law and it's generally good practice. After asking numerous telemarketers to be put on a do-not-call list myself, it seems I have narrowed down the number of telemarketers down to a very select few. Those were the automated calls that ask you to press a number to claim a prize (never do this unless you want to be charged an unknown amount of money), the occasional survey calls and one particularly annoying computer related call. The computer related one comes at around twice a month. The telemarketer in question tells me that he is calling in regards to my computer. After that, he typically instructs me to go to my computer. This is where I get my chance to stop him in his tracks. It took a few attempts, with different marketers, but I managed to obtain two different names from them. They claim to be either from the "Computer Maintenance Department" or the "Windows Technical Team". This alone should be enough to set internal alarms off that this is not a legitimate call. Every time, these people would also tell me that my computer could be infected with harmful viruses and that they are calling to fix the problem. Usually, by this time, I tell them that I want to be put on a do-not-call list. Every time I've requested this, the telemarketer hangs up only to call back weeks later. To me, if these telemarketers are not even operating a do-not-call list, then that's a big warning sign that this is not legitimate. So, armed with who this is, I proceed to exercise my Google-fu to see what these people are all about. Turns out, this scam has been around for years. A user known as lowlanda on a Whirlpool forum posted in 2010 that a similar call was received asking to run some form of uncomprehendable command. In a British forum, there was a similar discussion also in 2010 about this kind of scam. Apparently, one user reported being asked to download a logmein program and was asked to pay £55 to keep Windows activated after obtaining personal information. Similar stories can be found on whocallsme as well. It turns out, this scam was so bad in the UK, police raided several websites associated with this scam. From the Guardian:

The Metropolitan police e-crime unit acted in April to take such sites down. Among those shut was supportonclick.com, registered to Pecon Software, a firm based in Kolkata. The company has now opened another support website, called onlinepccare.com, which is the subject of numerous online complaints about cold calling, "bullying", and claims that the caller is from Windows PC care.

One person recorded his adventure with this kind of scam and posted it to YouTube: There's plenty more information about this scam on digitaltoast. While the post dates clear back to 2009, the comments section points out that this scam is still going on to this day.

Microsoft's Comment

Interested that these scammers say that they are from Microsoft, we actually contacted Microsoft about this. We asked what to look for when it comes to figuring out whether or not the phone call is indeed from Microsoft or not. A Microsoft spokesperson said, "Our advice is simple; treat callers as you would treat strangers in the street – do not disclose personal or sensitive information to anyone you do not know." "Unfortunately this is not the first scam of its kind," the Microsoft spokesperson told ZeroPaid, "and it’s unlikely to be the last. The best way to avoid becoming a victim is by being aware of the threat. Consumers should also ensure the copy of Windows they are running is genuine and fully up to date, while ensuring they have installed legitimate software will guard against viruses, spyware, and other malicious software.”

CRTC's Response and Information on Reporting This Scam

With an official statement from Microsoft saying that this is a scam, ZeroPaid decided to contact the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) to ask what options consumers have in terms of reporting such fraudulent phone calls; specifically, what can people do to issue a complaint about this kind of phone scam given that this scam is not compliant with the do-not-call registry. "First," the CRTC told ZeroPaid, "this is a scammer calling you, not a telemarketer. For scams/fraud, I would recommend contacting the Canadian Anti-fraud Centre (Phonebusters)." The CRTC forwarded us some links about reporting this scam and how this scam has really taken off in Canada in recent months. One link was to a press release by the RCMP detailing the scam:

OTTAWA - September 29, 2011 - The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and their partners at the Canadian Anti Fraud Centre (CAFC) are warning that if someone calls you claiming to be able to protect your computer from viruses, your best bet is to just hang up the phone. Don’t give the caller your computer access codes and don’t provide your credit card information. The virus scam has grown to epidemic proportions in Canada, now accounting for between 70 and 80 per cent of frauds reported daily to the CAFC. “We began noticing virus scam calls in March 2010. Since then, they’ve become an increasing proportion of our calls. Now, they’re the scam we deal with most often,” said RCMP Sgt. Paul Proulx of the CAFC. This dramatic increase means the scam is working – more and more Canadians are being targeted by the virus scam. Proulx warns, "If a scammer is able to log on to your computer then he has access to all the personal information you have stored there, including your banking information.” Here’s a typical scenario: a caller, often claiming to work for Microsoft or another reputable software company, will cold-call you and ask if your computer is running slowly or not working as it should. He will then offer to repair your computer via internet access, which can involve either software installation or the caller gaining remote control of your computer after you’ve granted him access. Payment for the software or the repair service is handled via your credit card with charges typically ranging from $35 to $470 per call. Allowing a third party to download software or remotely access your computer carries a number of serious risks. Malicious software can be installed to capture sensitive data such as your online banking user names and passwords, bank account information and your personal identity information. All of this information can be used in subsequent frauds that empty your bank accounts and charge your credit cards. Your computer can also be converted to a bot-net, which means criminals can use it without your knowledge or participation. It can then be used to spam other people, spread viruses to your friends or overload computer networks. Getting your credit card information is the second important part of the virus scam. Once a criminal has that information it can be used to make purchases without your consent. Canadians should be aware that not all virus scams are conducted over the phone. Many CAFC callers report being scammed after responding to internet pop-up ads for anti-virus software. Sgt. Proulx offers this simple advice: “If you’re really worried about viruses on your computer, be pro-active and use anti-virus software that you've acquired from reputable sources and keep it up to date. If someone calls you out of the blue offering to provide this kind of help, it’s probably a scam. Remember, it's not rude to hang up on someone who's trying to steal your money and information.” "When it comes to cyber security, we all have a role to play," said Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. "Canada's Cyber Security Strategy is the Government's plan to help secure Canada's vital cyber systems and help Canadians protect themselves, their families and their personal information online." Please visit the Canadian Anti Fraud Centre’s new website for the latest on emerging fraud trends, advice on protecting yourself and victim’s guides that will help you recover from fraud loss: www.antifraudcentre.ca. For more information on the Government of Canada's Cyber Security Strategy: www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cyber Fraud: Recognize It, Report It, Stop It.

A second link the CRTC sent us was to a page detailing how you can report a scam call:

If you have not lost any money and have not provided personal or financial information (relating to a fraud or scam), and you simply want to inform the appropriate organizations, report it to the Canadian Anti-fraud Centre by calling 1-888-495-8501 If you received a fraudulent e-mail soliciting personal or financial information (phishing scam), you should also advise the financial institution or other agency whose name was used. If you are a victim of fraud or if you unwittingly provided personal or financial information (identity fraud), follow the steps in our Victim Assistance Guide. If you are a victim of fraud and it is not related to identity fraud, contact the police service of jurisdiction in your area. Always report fraud to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre at info@antifraudcentre.ca or by dialing 1-888-495-8501 or on-line by visiting the CAFC website.

The third link the CRTC sent us was to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Center which contains a lot of information about how you can report scams over the phone and about recent phone scams which includes this particular one. "If, however," the CRTC told ZeroPaid, "a legitimate telemarketer calls you and breaks the DNCL rules – you can make a complaint either online or by phone. To file a complaint you need: 1. Your phone number (where the call was received) 2. The name or phone number of the telemarketer 3. The date you received the call To make a complaint online go to: lnnte-dncl.gc.ca" Note that the phone scam discussed is not a legitimate telemarketer, so if you get the computer viruses phone scam, this is best directed at the Canadian Anti-fraud Center and the RCMP. We here at ZeroPaid hope that this is valuable and informative information on this scam and how you can report it. Feel free to also discuss this scam or other phone scams in the comment section below. Note that the above information on reporting this scam is directed at Canadians. If you do not live in Canada or the UK and receive these calls, please feel free to let us know in the comments section below as we are only aware of this scam being active in the UK and in Canada. 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.

Censoring Civil Unrest in Social Media Exacerbates Rioting – Study

Drew Wilson — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:27:08 +0000

We've been covering the technological side of the UK riots for some time now. After all that has happened to date, it seems a new study has surfaced in France that might serve against Prime Minister David Cameron should he try to go through and censor social media.

Last week, UK Prime Minister David Cameron stood before the House of Commons and said that he wanted to "stop people from communicating" on social media when they wanted to find ways of participating in civil unrest. At the time, we suggested that this was unwise because whatever Cameron meant specifically, if he were serious, there are too many ways of getting around it. Whether it's simply using different social networks or encrypting the messages, it's highly unlikely such a plan would even be successful in the first place. In any event, state media in China took full advantage of the situation in the UK and pretty much praised the move, using the idea that the UK is now censoring the internet to justify the countries own censorship of the internet. It was certainly a surreal moment when praise is coming from China over a "western" first world country wanting to implement a censorship regime on the internet of any kind that's political. In another turn of events, one man (as it turns out, actually two men) were sentenced to 4 years in prison for creating a Facebook page that could be seen as inciting the riots. Later reports confirmed that the page never actually incited any riots in the first place. That didn't do a whole lot to quell criticisms over the length of the sentence. Now, a study has surfaced that could put further doubt into Cameron's idea of stopping people from communicating on social media. Numerama reports (Google translated, original) that a study released by Telecom ParisTech (EHESS) suggests that trying to censor civil unrest will make matters worse if your ultimate goal is to stop rioting. From the report:

Their study is based on modeling the behavior of crowds during civil unrest produced by JM Epstein in 2002. According to this model, the decision of an individual to express dissatisfaction is determined by its active neighborhood social police if he sees around him, he will act only if a sufficient number of demonstrators offset the police presence. One of the factors considered in this model is the "vision" which has the potential of expressing this neighborhood. Does he see the police and other protesters? To simulate the cutting of social networks and media, the researchers then used this model by imagining that censorship led to a vision of zero neighborhood. It is not possible to know where to find a group of demonstrators, or places where the police is absent. Yet, against so-intuitive, their simulation concludes that the more confidence, so the fewer vision among protesters, the higher the level of violence remains high. Conversely, the failure to censor at all leads to the average level of violence the lowest obtained by larger peaks of violence, but occasional periods of calm many more.

The report points that while this is a computer model, one only needs to look at the civil unrest in Tunisia and Egypt as a real world example of the effects of censoring the internet at all. This, I certainly agree with. When certain countries do try to censor the internet, this tends to reflect poorly on the government - especially in countries on the African continent. I think that this is another case of something being obvious after it is pointed out. In the context of the UK riots, maybe some people think that maybe a crackdown on social media isn't such a bad idea. Then you look at a study like this, start connecting the dots and realizing that, no, censoring social media during times of civil unrest might be an unwise move. I think that if the UK government is now more focused on gang activity, then all power to them. I have no problem with it. Censoring social media in general, though, not such a bright move. 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.

UK PMs Internet Censorship Insinuation Receives Praise from China

Drew Wilson — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:00:56 +0000

You know your internet censorship plans are too strict when China praises you for it.

I'll say this right off the bat, if someone told me one month ago that I would end up writing a headline like that, I would have told them they were insane. I am simply stunned that it has come to this. Last Thursday, British Prime Minister said that he wanted to "stop people from communicating on social media" whenever that person is using it to instigate violence. A growing majority of observers are interpret this as meaning that he wants to block social media websites altogether whenever civil unrest is suspected. Blocking social media has certainly caused some debate in many places - especially in the UK. The discussions around possibly censoring the internet has received international attention. This includes China. Chinese state media website Global Times weighed in on the debate suggesting that "Western" countries are coming to realize that free speech cannot go unhindered on the internet. From the report:

The British Government’s wariness of the Internet and Blackberry Messenger – symbols of freedom of speech – is a forced reaction, which might upset the Western world. Meanwhile, the open discussion of containment of the Internet in Britain has given rise to a new opportunity for the whole world. Media in the US and Britain used to criticize developing countries for curbing freedom of speech. Britain’s new attitude will help appease the quarrels between East and West over the future management of the Internet. As for China, advocates of an unlimited development of the Internet should think twice about their original ideas. On the Internet, there is no lack of posts and articles that incite public violence. They will cause tremendous damage once they are tweeted without control. At that time, all governments will have no other choice but to close down these websites and arrest those agitators. Turbulence must lead to self-examination, otherwise it’ll lead to great peril in one’s destiny.

If you think that David Cameron is trying to censor the internet and that there is no difference between his policy and China's policy, then this will no doubt pretty much cement that opinion. If you think that David Cameron should be censoring the internet, I think, for some, this revelation will make your position a little more uncomfortable. I think that David Cameron should think very carefully how he plans on going forward on his plans to prevent rioting. On the one hand, the move to crack down on rioters will receive little resistance. On the other hand, trying to control the internet in any way is an extremely slippery slope with respect to free speech. [Via BoingBoing] 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.

UK PM Wants to “Stop People from Communicating” on Social Media

Drew Wilson — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:45:04 +0000

The riots in Britain has certainly been a story major media outlets around the world have been following closely, but recent comments by British Prime Minister David Cameron on the riots have certainly raised a few eyebrows recently. Some people are saying that the comments insinuate that the Prime Minister wants to, in essence, censor the internet in the event of civil unrest.

Since trying to figure out what David Cameron is saying is in dispute, we have decided to post a video of what David Cameron said, in full, with regards to the riots: The relevant portion is 6:40 - 7:03. In the event the video is taken down, we also decided to offer this transcription of what Cameron said: "Mr. Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck- will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services, and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people from communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality." The question is how would this be carried out? Would the government try and block certain individuals from accessing social media or would this be suggesting that the government intends to block out social media altogether? If that is uncertain, which possibility would be feasible? If the government intends to block specific individuals instead, that would mean that everyone on different web services would have to be monitored. For that, there would essentially be a need for a massive amount of man power to monitor every communication on a given network. If it can be broken down to one person monitoring ten people's communication, the number of people needed for such a task would be completely unfeasible just on wages, working space and training alone. The next logical step, in that case, would be to somehow automate the process. The only logical method to do so, that I can see, is have a system that monitors certain keywords. Such a method would be easily circumvented. For example, if the keyword being looked for is "riot", then all people would have to do is use the word "ri0t" instead and a simple word search would not be able to find it. If there's some Boolean involved where the word is "ri*t" (where the "*" can be anything) then the word can be changed again to "rio7". If multiple variations are in place, then one can simply use services like upsidedowntext.com and use "ʇoıɹ". What's more, messages can be further encoded by other means including Morse Code where "riot" would become ".-. .. --- -". There's really hundreds of ways to send a message in text to another party in the first place that don't include any of these ideas. No automated process would ever be bullet proof. The only other way is to track down individuals spreading such messages via other means. Really, if the government or industry interests has enough information on someone to censor them on the internet via alternate means, they might as well bust down his or her door and pick them up instead of wasting their time trying to keep them off of social networking sites in the first place. In any event, this possibility just doesn't seem one bit feasible. Forget whether it's right or wrong, I'm not convinced that it's even possible in the first place. That really leaves the other option, an option that Thinq is concerned about, blocking out social networking entirely during times of civil unrest. Some people say that Cameron didn't directly say that he wants to censor social networking entirely, but given what he did say and how implausible the other possibility is in the first, it's not a fear without merit in my view. For the sake of argument, let's say that Cameron did mean to say that he wants social networks censored during times of civil unrest. So Twitter, Facebook and Blackberry instant messaging is switched off. Then what? Well, people can simply use private IRC channels as an alternative. What if all IRC servers where somehow successfully switched off? Then people can use serverless chatrooms instead. What if the protocol is blocked at the ISP level in that case? Then the data stream can be encrypted. I'm sorry, but I don't see it working. The only way it would work is if the entire internet was shut down completely. No service for anyone period. That could reduce things down to a localized level at worst given the possibility of creating home-brew radio services among other possibilities. Ultimately, a solution like killing off all internet access in the country would really cause more problems then it would solve - both politically and legally. So even that, while more feasible then censoring individuals, is not all that feasible either. Since this is a political statement, I can honestly say that the most that can come from this at this time is simply the prime minister trying to portray an image of control over the situation. His comments with regards to social media, I think, can be taken as little more than hot air because it doesn't sound like he is able to wield power. In practice, it's very doubtful he would have that much power. [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.

UK Legalizes CD Ripping, Nixes Site Blocking

Jared Moya — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 07:12:11 +0000

Business Secretary Vince Cable announces implementation of recommendations made to "modernize" intellectual property system by a allowing exceptions to copyright law for things like limited private copying. Ofcom also announces site blocking of copyright infringement "would not be effective " and scraps provision of the Digital Economy Act for now.

Today the UK govt announced plans to "modernize" the country's intellectual property system in order to help create the right conditions for businesses to invest, grow and create jobs. Business Secretary Vince Cable says he will implement all ten recommendations made in an independent review on intellectual property laws completed this past May by Professor Ian Hargreaves. In that report, titled "Digital Opportunity: A review of intellectual property and growth," a wide range of changes to the UK’s copyright regime was suggested. They include:

Digital Copyright Exchange; a digital market place where licences in copyright content can be readily bought and sold.
Copyright exceptions covering limited private copying.
Copyright exceptions to allow parody.
The introduction of an exception to copyright for search and analysis techniques known as ‘text and data mining’.
Establishing licensing and clearance procedures for orphan works (material with unknown copyright owners).
That evidence should drive future policy.

“The Government is focused on boosting growth and the Hargreaves review highlighted the potential to grow the UK economy," said Secretary Cable in a press release. "By creating a more open intellectual property system it will allow innovative businesses to develop new products and services which will be able to compete fairly in the UK’s thriving markets for consumer equipment." “We are accepting the recommendations and will now set about reforming the UK’s intellectual property systems. Opening up intellectual property laws can deliver real value to the UK economy as well as the creators and consumers.” The Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) has also laid out the next steps for implementing the mass notification system in the Digital Economy Act. In order to deter "vexatious appeals" from accused infringers attempting to "disrupt the system" it will charge the accused a £20 ($32 USD) fee that will be refunded upon successful appeal. In addition, Ofcom has finally concluded that blocking sites accused of copyright infringement "would not be effective " and so has decided to scrap that provision of the DEA for now. This past February Ofcom began a review of site blocking to see if it “could work in practice.” The DEA requires ISPs to block access to “online locations” if a “substantial portion” of that location infringes copyright. Contrast that to the US where legislators are still deluded with site blocking plans of their own via the PROTECT IP Act. We've already outlined several of the many ways you can circumvent DNS censorship, but the fact that it "would not be effective," a conclusion already made after an actual review in the UK, is apparently lost on legislators in this country. Moreover, it looks like the UK govt has come to its senses on copyright law in the digital age and produced a reasonable plan that protects the rights of copyright holders and consumers while at the same time encouraging the use of intellectual property. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com ___________________ Read the Hargreaves Report.... Government Response to the Hargreaves Government Response to the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growt

Hollywood Wins Court Case – ISP Ordered to Block NewzBin2

Drew Wilson — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:47:29 +0000

While major entertainment corporations are working hard at censoring the internet in the United States through the PROTECT IP Act, it corporate sponsored censorship has already become a reality in the UK thanks to what some have referred to as a landmark court case.

Legally speaking, the internet got a little more censored recently. The Telegraph is reporting that Hollywood has won a major court case in which they are now, for now, able to compel ISPs to block access to, really, any website they pick and choose in the name of combating copyright infringement. At stake was general access to a website known as NewzBin2. NewzBin2 is a website that offers an index of NZB files. NZB indexing sites are generally simply a list of small files that are merely metadata. The NZB files points to a file made available on one of the oldest known file-sharing networks that is still used quite a lot - UseNet. The file is a bit like a .torrent file, only the file is on a server - or maybe several servers - instead of on other people's computers. The actual downloading typically doesn't happen on the NZB indexing site nor is the NZB indexing site keeping track of any data flowing to and from the user. An NZB file may be convenient, but it simply isn't necessary for downloading anything on UseNet (access to UseNet providers, sure, but not the NZB file) So, knowing this, the only thing the court ruling really does is enable Hollywood to censor the internet in the UK. Blocking NewzBin2 will amount to nothing in the end except maybe a temporary minor inconvenience for some people. Many already point to the fact that an encrypted connection will circumvent whatever the ISP throws down against its own users - and if you're using UseNet regularly, there's a good chance you'd know about how to hide your connection from ISP level censorship anyway, I think. What is a little disconcerting is what the judge said in his ruling. From the report:

“In my judgment it follows that BT has actual knowledge of other persons using its service to infringe copyright: it knows that the users and operators of Newbin2 infringe copyright on a large scale, and in particular infringe the copyrights of the Studios in large numbers of their films and television programmes," said Justice Arnold. In opposing the order, BT had argued that Newzbin2 also links to lawful content, but the court said it was far outweighed by pirated material and that "BT’s best shot was to point to a reference to the 1891 Lancashire census".

If the judge is suggesting that ISPs know what everyone on their network is doing, then isn't that like saying that the operators of a major subway network know exactly where everyone in the network is going? Sure, whoever is controlling the network might be able to track a handful of individuals, but trying to track every person is way too demanding as the amount of man hours to make sure it knows the movements of every user is simply impractical. Even scarier is the suggestion that lawful content is no excuse to stop the blocking of a website. It's very difficult to really know where to begin with that. How much content has to be infringing in order for the website to be blocked? Will it have to be more than 50% infringing content? 25% infringing content? One song that happens to have three notes that are similar to another song? Where's the bar set here? That point is not reflected in the report and if the judgement doesn't specify what the level is, it's not completely illogical to suggest that Hollywood can really block every website in existence. How many websites have at least a reference to copyrighted material (i.e. a message on a forum saying "Listening to Kiss right now.")? The amusing part is the fact that the censorship of NewzBin2 will be put in place in the Fall. No doubt this will give NewzBin2 plenty of time to figure out how to bi-pass this measure for it's UK users. Even better is the fact that this only affects BT currently and similar motions will be brought to other ISPs. I don't see how NewzBin2 simply changing it's website to another name for its British users won't defeat this in any way. Call the site "Fuzzybunniesjumpinginthefield.com" and allow access to the NewzBin2 services. If you plan on finding ways to circumvent British censorship in order to download the entire Adbobe Suites in the future, you only have until the end of the Summer holidays to figure it out! In the end, this will do little more than damage the internet infrastructure as more methods to circumvent censorship measures will be developed. Activities like this will probably have an affect on users wanting to use the internet for legitimate purposes, but it's unlikely that this will even come close to putting a dent on file-sharing. 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.

IFPI Announces Agreement With PayPal to Cut Off Pirate Sites

Drew Wilson — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:18:24 +0000

After over a half of a year of pressure on these companies from major multinational companies, the IFPI has said a few days ago that PayPal has agreed with the IFPI. The question remains, is it too little too late for this effort to have any impact?

In retrospect, this could be seen a mile away. Last year, rights holders pushed companies like Mastercard to cut off payments to pirate websites. As far back as 2010, many sites that felt that they could be the target of what some might consider corporate sponsored censorship could easily have made preparations by now to make sure that their methods of payments have been altered to evade detection. If the writing wasn't on the wall by that alone, there was also the report last year that PayPal cutoff payments to Wikileaks. So, it could be easily seen as far back as 2010 that PayPal would stop payments to customers as others demand it. Now, the long-time coming announcement has come. In an IFPI press release, PayPal has agreed to cut off websites that the industry says infringes on copyright. Frances Moore, chief executive of IFPI, which represents the recording industry worldwide says: "We knew that when illegal online music services could no longer take payment from credit cards they would try to work around the restriction. That is why we and the City of London Police approached PayPal and I am delighted to say they responded instantly and positively. "The work the City of London Police is undertaking is at the cutting edge of tackling online copyright infringement, a serious problem that is eroding the ability of record companies to invest in a diverse range of artists with serious consequences for jobs, tax revenues and consumer choice." The problem is that many sites that might be a target have already taken steps to avoid detection if they do use PayPal methods. Some sites have told its users to do things like merely put in the payments, "Here's my club membership fees" while some of these sites use PayPal accounts that simply show no sign of it being connected to any site that might be a target. Other sites have opted to simply stop using PayPal altogether and simply use other methods like Flatr and Bitcoin to name two examples. So, really, anyone who is in the know most likely saw something like this coming and planned accordingly. This would really affect the unprepared if the targets are accurate in the first place. In fact, this is great news for competitors of PayPal because it means more reasons to move away from PayPal to them in the first place. The only entity I see losing out in a deal like this is PayPal. 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.

Was tFlow Arrested? Fox News Says Yes, Anonymous Says Unconfirmed

Drew Wilson — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:08:03 +0000

In the flurry of news stories surrounding the AntiSec movement yesterday, one report stuck out for us. The report said that tFlow, a high ranking member of LulzSec, was arrested in the UK and facing extradition to the United States. After speaking to members of Anonymous, however, that report remains unconfirmed. Fox News told ZeroPaid that the report is confirmed.

Update: Fox News said that the report originated from them. Jeremy Kaplan told ZeroPaid in an e-mail this morning, "I assume you're referencing my reporting on this topic. FoxNews.com HAS confirmed the hacker's identity." The Fox News report on this story says it is, in fact, tFlow that was arrested and out on bail. When we spoke to Anonymous, one person was kind enough to send us a link to tFlow's Twitter account. To be fair to Fox News, that Twitter account hasn't been updated in a while, but the sentiment amongst Anonymous members was that tFlow is the kind of user that isn't on Twitter every day. In fact, tFlow is one of those users that is off and on. End of update There was a report on the Telegraph recently that said a 16 year old is facing extradition to the United States over his involvement with LulzSec. From the report:

The teenager was arrested in south London amid a new wave of internet attacks. He remained in custody last night. Police believe he is connected to the notorious hacking groups Anonymous and LulzSec which have been blamed for a string of attacks on organisations including the CIA, the US Senate and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). The teenager, who was held under the Computer Misuse Act, reportedly goes by the online user-name Tflow.

To our knowledge, tFlow is one of the high ranking members of LulzSec. So was the report true that tFlow was arrested? That apparently remains unconfirmed. We spoke to Anonymous about this. "a 16-year-old boy in South London was arrested who they thought was tflow," someone from Anonymous told ZeroPaid, "and he was released on bail with no charges, and has to go back for additional questioning in August - it's stupid of whoever that is to confirm it was the real tflow" This wouldn't be the first time the media thought a high ranking hacking member was arrested. Previously, when media reports that an arrest was made in the UK, media reports initially suggested that it was LulzSec's leader Sabu was the one that was arrested. The reports in question turned out to be false and it was merely someone who ran an IRC server - not necessarily someone who was heavily involved in the hacking activities within Anonymous. So, major media outlets have been known to get these types of stories wrong before. The truth is, no one really knows who was arrested in this incident. Yes, someone was arrested. Yes, he probably is facing extradition to the United States. Yes, it's because of suspicion of him being connected with Anonymous. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the person in question is tFlow. If more information surfaces about the arrested individual, we will be happy to report on it, but at this time, the report that it was really tFlow that was arrested simply cannot be confirmed at this time. 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.

p0keu Dumping Database of UK DJ Site VisitBPM, Accounts Compromised

Drew Wilson — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:33:32 +0000

Nearly 3000 user accounts have been compromised on UK DJ website VisitBPM.co.uk. A user by the name of P0keu suggests that what has been posted so far is not the complete list of accounts, however, the data dump does include user names and passwords.

The data dump that has been released so far has been posted to Pastebin. P0keu apparently didn't have much to say, but the following statement was included in the post:

Lazy as I am, I cba fixing the list.. :c Anyway, user:pass:email of visitbpm.co.uk haff phun! :3

Curiously, it doesn't appear that the number of accounts are exactly accurate. The first ID starts on line 13 while the last ID, 2806, appears on line 2751. If there were 2806 accounts compromised, you'd think it would end on line 2819. It seems likely that, in actuality, there was only 2738 accounts compromised if there was one account listed per line. Regardless, this is not a trivial number of accounts allegedly bing compromised nevertheless. p0keu commented on the release saying, "One DB dump of visitbpm.co.uk delivered" It would seem advisable that users on that site should change their passwords as soon as possible. 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.