ZeroPaid.com » us

American Prosecutors Censor ZeroPaid Reporter!

Drew Wilson — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:03:59 +0000

While over one hundred thousand websites and millions of people were taking a stand against a potential American censorship by copyright regime thanks to SOPA and PIPA, ZeroPaid's very own Drew Wilson, for the first time, has officially become a victim of censorship by copyright.

The BBC is reporting that one-click hoster MegaUpload was shut down over piracy accusations. From the report:

Federal prosecutors have accused it of costing copyright holders more than $500m (£320m) in lost revenue. The firm says it was diligent in responding to complaints about pirated material. Investigators denied a link to recent protests against proposed piracy laws, according to the Wall Street Journal. The US Justice Department said that Megaupload's two co-founders Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and Mathias Ortmann were arrested in Auckland, New Zealand along with two other employees of the business at the request of US officials. It added that three other defendants were still at large. "This action is among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States and directly targets the misuse of a public content storage and distribution site to commit and facilitate intellectual property crime," said a statement posted on its website.

Back in 2010, when authorities and the content industries were trying to cut off payment processes to MegaUpload, MegaUpload spoke to ZeroPaid, saying in response to being called a rogue website, “Megaupload is a legitimate business operating within the boundaries of the law. In five years of operation we have not been sued by a single content owner. If the RIAA or MPAA would have legal grounds they would have taken us to court by now. We suggest that they attack us within the legal system and stop labeling us until they have something to show.” That apparently doesn't seem to matter much at this point with the owners of the site being arrested and the website forced offline. The question is, where does that leave MegaUpload's users? I, for one, have used MegaUpload to spread my music around. Under my DJ name, DJ Frozen IceCube, I've used the site on numerous occasions to allow access to my own personal music I've made. Examples of this include my tracks Kinda Distracted, Phantoms of London and Constructing Light. All of these tracks and more were posted to MegaUpload - a site now shut down by American prosecutors. For years, I have been following cases of censorship by copyright. I've advocated that copyright abuses are a major problem that shouldn't be ignored. Now, as of today, I am officially a victim of censorship by copyright. While I can easily find other one-click hosters to host my music, that does not fix the underlying issue I now have with American authorities. American authorities, plain and simple, are censoring artists who have legally produced and uploaded their music for free for others to listen to. This action is blatantly anti-competitive in that if I independently upload my music, I am under the threat of having my music censored under the guise of copyright infringement. Make no mistake, I am far from the first victim and I certainly will not be the last. The content industry will not stop censoring legitimate free speech until the competition is strangled and destroyed and only they have the exclusive power to decide who can reach an audience and who can not. To add insult to injury, they will use government resources, and therefore, taxpayers money, to push their anti-competitive agenda. I am Drew Wilson, I am a reporter and music producer, and I am now officially a victim of America's censorship by copyright tactics. 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.

ZeroPaid Speaks to Executive Director of Tor Project About PROTECT-IP Act

Drew Wilson — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:39:40 +0000

We've discussed the PROTECT-IP Act at length here at ZeroPaid. While we have plenty of ways of examining the PROTECT-IP Act, we've decided to talk to Andrew Lewman, the Executive Director of Tor Project, about Tor, and the PROTECT-IP Act.

There's been plenty of discussion about the PROTECT-IP Act. One way we've examined it is the technical side of it. The main question we asked a little while ago is essentially, is it technologically possible to actually stop alleged piracy on the internet through the PROTECT-IP Act. Our findings were really an overwhelming "no" after we explored 8 technical methods that, in theory, could easily circumvent DNS censorship. We even picked apart and debunked a piece by Don Henley who supports the PROTECT-IP Act late last month. One of the technical measures we suggested would be likely effective against DNS censorship was using Tor which is sometimes referred to as the onion router. It can be described as a network of proxies one can use to better protect their online privacy among other things. Since then, we asked Andrew Lewman, Executive Director and press contact of the Tor Project for his take on a few things. We mentioned to Lewman that there was some debate over which solution was best to bi-pass internet censorship. Is one solution better over another? This was the subject of some debate in our comments section and websites linked to our article. Lewman had an interesting take on that. "The first issue with the story is that there is no best solution for everyone. Censorship circumvention is very localized. Generally, using the least sophisticated method to circumvent is all you need to do." Lewman also explained, "The arms races with the censors proceeds slowly, in some cases by design, so as to not accelerate it for little gain on either side. The general population cannot keep up with the technical arms race, at least from our experience. It takes time for people to understand the risks and act accordingly." I think that is a very important point to make. It's one thing to say one person will start using tools to better protect their privacy, but it's quite another for the general population in a given country to start using such tools. In our e-mail conversation, I said to Lewman, "one person [in the debate over whether or not one technical measure is better than another] said that officials would start creating honey-pot nodes in the Tor network. To me, that doesn't make any sense because Tor uses multiple proxies, so it would make such an effort be almost a waste of time." "Law enforcement organizations already create 'honey pot' servers on many networks, including Tor. These servers fully log all accesses at a service, network, and ISP level. If the core, underlying protocol is correctly implemented, then the users have little to fear. Law enforcement agencies around the world are known to run Tor, I2P, Freenet, and generic socks/http proxies servers as part of a dragnet to catch criminals. While this statement may get you lots of page views, anyone that has thought about this for 30 seconds will realize this is of course the reality. Whether protecting someone's audio/video bits is equivalent to murder, rape, extortion, bribery, and slavery is for individual societies to determine." It is interesting that Lewman brought this up given one of our more recent reports noted that, in France, someone could get the same legal punishment for manslaughter as they would for online copyright infringement. We asked Lewman, "looking at what lawmakers are proposing in the PROTECT-IP Act, do you think that the proposed law is a threat to the internet? If DNS censorship is one way the government wants to remove remove copyright infringement, do you see that as being effective or do you see potential pirates simply routing their way around it?" "PROTECT-IP will break the American Internet." Lewman told ZeroPaid. He said, "It will simply move innovation elsewhere and drive the arms race towards an alternate domain name system not controlled by the US government. It may temporarily quell some sorts of piracy, but that victory will be short lived. In the beginning, there were many DNS root servers, not one single set. AlterNIC and many universities ran their own DNS root servers for their own purposes. Having spoken to various agents, they privately wonder why protecting someone's commercial bits is now equivalent to stopping child pornography, human trafficking, and other heinous crimes." ZeroPaid also asked, "if governments like the US government decide on trying to censor the internet, do you see it being possible that users will start using things like Tor more so than before because of a perceived threat to something like free speech?" It's already happening. See [Tor Metrics Portal - User Statistics] Lewman explained, "Our top ten countries by users is filled with "free democracies" that have started to either censor the Internet or implement Internet traffic data retention in some way." We would like to thank Andrew Lewman for taking the time out of his busy schedule to speak to us. To learn more about Tor Project or download and try out Tor project or otherwise support Tor in general, you can check out their homepage at TorProject.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.

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.

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.

Anonymous Hacks myBART.gov, Database Exposed

Drew Wilson — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:45:34 +0000

What started as a group of people wanting to protest has become an all out war over censorship. After earlier threats were made by Anonymous, it appears as though Anonymous did make good on their threat to target BART.

We've been following the story about BART and censorship. It was sparked by the death of a knife-wielding at the hands of police by gun fire. Upset at the events that transpired, some people wanted to protest at the San Francisco subway station. When BART caught wind of the potential protest, they cut all cellphone services in an effort to avert the protest. The news spread like wildfire and caused outrage amongst several including the ACLU and the EFF. In the midst of a fierce debate over things like censorship and personal safety, Anonymous, a hacking collective, threatened to "remove" BART from the internet in retaliation against what many have called censorship. While they threatened to remove the website for 6 hours, it appears that the myBART.gov database was compromised. The database was dumped on to a webpage for all to view. The database dump came with this statement:

We are Anonymous, we are your citizens, we are the people, WE DO NOT TOLERATE OPPRESSION FROM ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY. BART has proved multiple times that they have no problem exploiting and abusing the people. First they displayed this by the two recent killings by BART police. Under no circumstance, unless police are shot at, make police killings acceptable. Non-lethal weapons were available to use during both incidents, providing even that was necessary, but instead they shot to kill. Next they violated the people's right to assembly and prevented other bystanders from using emergency services by blocking cell phone signals in order to stop a protest against the BART police murders. Lastly, they set up this website called mybart.gov and they stored their members information with virtually no security. The data was stored and easily obtainable via basic sqli. Any 8 year old with a internet connection could have done what we did to find it. On top of that none of the info, including the passwords, was encrypted. It is obvious BART does no give a fuck about its customers, funders and tax payers,THE PEOPLE. The governments and government agencies of the world are becoming tyrannical and oppressive, and the people are responding and will not take your shit for much longer. The people will fight this oppression with protests, demonstrations, riots, hacking, ddos, online attacks and by any other means. We will not allow ourselves to be killed, exploited, or get shitted on. From the streets of Chile, England, Portland, San Francisco, Oakland, the people are rising up and we will support each other and stand in solidarity against any injustice. Worldwide resistance is happening, we will participate in solidarity against oppression. SOLIDARITY IS OUR WEAPON. Thus below we are releasing the User Info Database of MyBart.gov, to show that BART doesn't give a shit about it's customers and riders and to show that the people will not allow you to kill us and censor us. This is but the one of many actions to come. We apologize to any citizen that has his information published, but you should go to BART and ask them why your information wasn't secure with them. Also do not worry, probably the only information that will be abused from this database is that of BART employees.

I think it's fair to say that this controversy isn't going to go away any time soon at this stage. 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.

Anonymous Threatens to ‘Remove’ BART Over Censorship Fiasco

Drew Wilson — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 00:47:03 +0000

On Friday, we reported on the chilling story of BART shutting down cell phone services in an effort to avert a protest. The move created quite a stir and now, Anonymous, is threatening to take action.

It's the latest in a series of controversies around the world regarding censorship. Previously, British prime minister David Cameron wanted to stop people from communicating on social media in an effort to stop some of the riots that were happening. More recently, BART ordered the shut down of all cell phone services in a sub way because a protest might have occurred. It caught the attention of many and that includes Anonymous who wasn't exactly thrilled about what went down. In a recent statement, Anonymous described the actions by BART as an "outage was unacceptable". The posting also goes on to describe what actions will be taken:

1) We have begun at once a massive Black Fax and E-Mail Bomb action, where we will fill every inbox and fax machine at BART with thousands of copies of our message that this outage was unacceptable. 2) Tomorrow, Sunday - August 14, 2011 at High Noon Pacific Time we, Anonymous - will remove from the internet the web site of BART located at www.bart.gov for exactly six hours. That’s twice as long as they shut off the cell phones for. 3) On Monday - August 15, 2011 at 5:00 PM Pacific Time there will be a physical protest at the Civic Center Bart Station. Expect us !

The statement also goes on to say, "We sincerely hope that this series of actions will serve as a warning to BART and every public organization in the USA to NOT engage in this sort of dangerous and human rights violating behavior." No doubt BART will be in damage control in the midst of all this even if their website isn't "removed" on Sunday. It'll be interesting to see what will occur in the next 48 hours to say the least. 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.

US Cell Phone Service Provider Shuts Down Services to Disrupt Potential Protest

Drew Wilson — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 00:02:42 +0000

There's some disturbing news coming out of the United States. BART, a San Francisco cell phone service provider that provides cellphone services for subways, shut down all services after rumors circulated that a protest might occur. An official did confirm that this was the sole reason for shuttering services.

Accusations of censorship are flying right now over the move to shut down the services to disrupt a protest in the US. A report from SFGate details a story about a subway cell phone service provider shutting down cell phone services to disrupt a rumored planned protest against police officers accused of shooting a knife-wielding man to death. From the report:

"All over the world, people are using mobile devices to protest oppressive regimes, and governments are shutting down cell phone towers and the Internet to stop them," said Michael Risher, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. "It's outrageous that in San Francisco, BART is doing the same thing."

A BART official confirmed that the reason for the shutdown was to try and disrupt the planned protest, but used the excuse of safety:

"Organizers planning to disrupt BART service stated they would use mobile devices to coordinate their disruptive activities and communicate about the location and number of BART Police," the transit agency said. "A civil disturbance during commute times at busy downtown San Francisco stations could lead to platform overcrowding and unsafe conditions for BART customers, employees and demonstrators."

Other civil rights groups are also outraged at the move. From the EFF:

This week, EFF has seen censorship stories move closer and closer to home — first Iran, then the UK, and now San Francisco, an early locus of the modern free speech movement. Operators of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) shut down cell phone service to four stations in downtown San Francisco yesterday in response to a planned protest. Last month, protesters disrupted BART service in response to the fatal shooting of Charles Blair Hill by BART police on July 3rd. Thursday’s protest failed to materialize, possibly because the disruption of cell phone service made organization and coordination difficult. Early reports indicated that BART cut off cell phone service by approaching carriers directly and asking them to turn service off. Later statements by James Allison, deputy chief communications officer for BART, assert “BART staff or contractors shut down power to the nodes and alerted the cell carriers” after the fact. AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile have not yet made comment as to whether or not they were complicit in the shutdown. Obviously, we'd like to know exactly what the carriers said to BART, but many other unanswered questions remain as well. Was pulling the plug on people's phones a quick, on-the-spot decision, or part of a protest-response plan vetted by BART's lawyers? Who decided that blocking all cellphone calls at these BART stations was the right response to news that there might be a protest? Were the carriers ever in the loop about this plan or action? Who decided that the news of this planned protest justified the shutdown? How do we know this isn't going to happen again?

The move comes on the heels of UK Prime Minister David Cameron wanting to stop people from communicating on social media in the midst of the UK riots. I, for one, am not one bit surprised some are comparing this to things that Mubarak would do. I'm also not surprised others are saying this is a clear case of infringement of free speech. If anything else, this will only serve to make awareness of the "No Justice, No BART" protest explode in to public consciousness like never before thanks to the efforts to censor it. 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.

8 Technical Methods That Make the PROTECT IP Act Useless

Drew Wilson — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 11:04:49 +0000

We've been running a series of guides that show just how easy it is to bi-pass general DNS censorship. It's general DNS censorship that has been proposed in the PROTECT-IP Act among other things. Rather than simply debate philosophically on why the PROTECT-IP act will do absolutely nothing to deter copyright infringement, we decided to do one better and prove it instead.

Hiding your IP address, using a proxy, using the onion router and obtaining an IP address to a website so you won't have to rely on a public DNS server - these seem like a very intimidating tasks for the unprepared. To be honest, when I first chose to try and figure these out, it seemed intimidating even to me - especially given that I don't really even make use of proxy servers (or do any of the above for that matter). So really, I felt that I could relate to a number of moderately informed users on these topics. Certainly, being able to remain anonymous online is something that can benefit many people - especially those who are marginalized by their own government in various ways - but I personally never felt that motivated to use any tools as it seemed to be an unnecessary layer of security when I simply browse news articles and listen to Creative Commons music among other things. So, a vast majority of the guides I've written over the last few weeks have been quite a learning experience to me. The PROTECT-IP act has given me motivation to figure out how all of these methods work mainly due to the arbitrary nature of it all. If Hollywood doesn't like that fan edit of a short clip, they can make that whole website disappear. If the RIAA thinks that a site like SoundClick doesn't need to be seen by anyone else, they can erase easy access to that site almost with the snap of their fingers. So, how does the PROTECT-IP act work? Just look at the following from Wikipedia's entry:

The Protect IP Act says that an "information location tool shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, to remove or disable access to the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order". In addition, it must delete all hyperlinks to the offending "Internet site".
At a technical level domain name servers would be ordered to blacklist the suspected websites. Although the websites would remain reachable by IP address, links directing to them would be broken.[9] Also search engines—such as the already protesting Google—would be ordered to remove links in their index of the web of an allegedly infringing website. Furthermore, copyright holders themselves would be able to apply for court injunctions to have sites' domains blacklisted.

To me, the scarier part is the fact that DNS servers would be affected by this. Forget search engines censoring websites based on copyright complaints, that has been happening for years through the DMCA. What I was more concerned about was the DNS servers because it would affect every internet user that uses that given server. So really, the taller order was figuring out how to make DNS censorship useless. What struck me when writing these guides was just how easy some of these methods really were. In some instances, the only way to make defeating such censorship easier is to have a really big red button on the side of your computer that you can press to make DNS censorship go away. As such, I am convinced, at this point, that the PROTECT-IP Act will do absolutely nothing to curb copyright infringement. Sure, it'll hamper free speech, sure it's probably unconstitutional, sure it is politically unsound, sure it'll probably hurt small and medium business, sure it's probably anti-competitive, sure it'll probably cause some security headaches, but stopping copyright infringement? Not by a long shot. Not with such methods I found that would be useful in circumventing such censorship anyway. So, without further ado, the list including pros and cons of each (each method links to a corresponding guide we wrote):

1. Using a VPN Service

Quick Explanation: A security tunnel that protects your data as it travels from your computer to the VPN server before letting it out on to the internet. As long as that VPN service is outside the United States, it'll be very difficult to stop users using such services to circumvent DNS censorship. Pros: Very good security benefits. For the most part, it's reliable. Plenty of technical support to go around depending on which VPN service you choose. Access pretty much everything on the internet. Very good for privacy. Cons: Costs money. May include bandwidth caps. Reliability of service isn't consistent for every VPN service (though frontrunners are generally easier to spot in terms of reliability). Reportedly, you may need to install software you aren't completely familiar with (depends on which service is being used).

2. Using Your HOSTs File

Quick Explanation: For most users, there is actually a hosts file on their computer that can be used to connect domain name to server IP address without the use of a public DNS server. If a website is censored through a DNS server, one can simply use the HOSTs file so that a public DNS server isn't even used in the first place. You just type in the domain name in your URL and the website would still appear. Pros: Completely removes the need to use a public DNS server when accessing specific websites. Prevents links from breaking due to DNS censorship. Enables you to have greater power over how you view webpages. No installation or downloading of software. Cons: Requires maintenance. Not always easy to find in your system (solved by our guide). May raise security issues on a LAN with multiple users (difficult to see how in a number of cases since one can use the HOSTs file to increase security for others). Side benefit of having an effective way of blocking ads on the web (hint: Use 127.0.0.1 for domains that deliver ads). You also need to find accurate IP addresses in the first place (solved by two other guides we have in this list.

3. Using TOR

Quick Explanation: TOR is more or less a network of proxies. One person accesses a proxy and that proxy forwards that access to another proxy, trying to erase the users tracks. That proxy sends that stream to another proxy and the stream keeps going through these steps until it finally reaches what is known as an "exit-node". That exit node then accesses the internet on the users behalf and acts as an intermediary in the process. As long as that exit node exists outside of the US, there is a very good chance that it won't be affected by DNS censorship imposed by the ISPs onto their DNS servers. Pros: Added bonus of a very secure source of anonymity (not 100% chance of anonymity of course, but close enough). An interesting way of seeing the internet through the eyes of someone not in your country. Cons: You might not be able to get everything your want from the internet through this network (there may be way of making things not break through this, but it isn't without the risk of compromised security). Requires downloading content to run (though installation is minimal)

4. Using a Web DNS Tool

Quick Explanation Just by using publicly available DNS look-up tools, one can easily obtain server IP addresses for later use. If a domain is censored, one can simply replace the domain name part of the URL with the IP address and still access the website. Pros: Potentially obtain multiple IP addresses for later use. Free. Obtain the addresses once and you don't have to worry about losing access to the site for as long as the server IP address remains the same. Cons: Preferably, the IP addresses must be obtained before the site is actually censored (there may be a brief window between when the domain is censored and when DNS records are updated, but there's no telling how long that window is for sure). If the website obtains a new server and changes all of its IP addresses and you don't have the new addresses, then you could lose the ability to use the website. There's no guarantee this will always be an option should ISPs start blocking IP addresses as well.

5. Changing Your DNS Server

Quick Explanation: Since we are talking about censoring DNS servers in the US, one can always just use a DNS server over seas (like ones used by ISPs overseas). By changing a your DNS server, you are no longer relying on a server that could be censored by the US government and/or corporate interests. Pros: No installation or downloading of additional software (everything you need should be on your computer already). Just a few menu clicks away. Can always be changed again at a later time without too much hassle. Cons: Can be a security risk to your computer if not done properly. Difficult to obtain DNS server IP addresses that will guaranteed be available for the foreseeable future. No guarantee that ISPs won't start blocking this type of activity.

6. Using Command Prompt

Quick Explanation: In Windows at least, one can simply open up command prompt (explained in tutorial) and simply type in "ping [insert domain name here]" and obtain a server IP address for later use. Pros: No installation or downloading of any software (use what you already have on your computer). Probably the fastest way to shield yourself from censorship. Only one command is technically necessary before you get what you are after. Cons: Obtaining this information through command prompt must be done before the domain is censored. Only one IP address can be obtained this way. If the website changes IP address for their server, you'll lose access to the site unless you have the new one as well.

7. Using Foxy Proxy

Quick Explanation: It's a simple plug-in for FireFox you can download and install. After getting a nice list of simple proxies that preside outside of the US, you have a better chance at accessing the website that has been censored by the US government and/or corporate interests. Pros: Easy to install. Being able to access censored websites can merely be a click away. A fast fix with minimal effort if you have access to a decent size list of proxies (provided in guide). Cons: Reliability is no guarantee. Based on the technological aspect of this method, it's not that secure since you are relying on one proxy. Not able to use this method for all kinds of web traffic. Confined to FireFox.

8. Using MAFIAAFire

Quick Explanation: A simple plug-in for FireFox (or Chrome) you can download and install. If a website has had it's domain seized, then you can be redirected to an alternate domain and still access the website. Pros: Easy to install. Is maintained for you through updates. Cons: Uses DNS servers that can be censored. Depends on there being an alternative domain name being used in the first place for access (if an alternate domain doesn't exist, then the site might not be accessible in this fashion). Technically, the site could be censored and block all possible updates as well. Final Thoughts By no means is this list comprehensive in any way. Still, I think some of these methods go way beyond circumventing types of censorship as suggested by the PROTECT-IP act. It'll be interesting to see how some services respond both who support internet censorship and those who are against internet censorship. I have a feeling it will be extremely difficult to stop these already existing methods to defeat DNS censorship. If, say, ISPs find a way to stop all of the above, a combination of some of the above or any enhancements to any of the above, I'll be very impressed. Good luck to the ISPs on stopping this, they are going to need it. 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. Update: Your e-mails are greatly appreciated. Thank you everyone for the supporting notes!

Guide: How to Defeat US DNS Censorship (Using a VPN)

Drew Wilson — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 12:08:50 +0000

Our planned series of guides on defeating US DNS censorship is coming to the end. So, last, but certainly not least, we'll show you what you can expect using something known as a VPN. It's considered, by some, one of the most secure ways to access banned websites. The downside is that most services are pay services.

You could say a VPN works a bit like a proxy. You access the VPN and the VPN accesses the internet. So, you might ask, what advantage is there to using a VPN over, say, TOR or Foxy Proxy? Well, you might not be able to have access to everything on a given website with Foxy Proxy. With TOR, you don't have access to things like Flash video (at least, not by design). If you found a way to access these things through TOR, then it won't be a secure access. The only thing we are aware of that could possibly access all parts of a website securely besides a VPN is an SSH proxy through a program like PuTTY. Still, a VPN appears to be the more popular approach. This guide will show you a general way of accessing one so you have an idea what to expect, but how you access it also really depends on the VPN. Usually, the website you get your VPN from will tell you more specifically how you need to connect to their VPN. Step 1: Choose Your VPN Arguably, the most important step in this process and not always an easy one to make. You should choose a VPN you can trust - especially if it's going to be a pay VPN. We've already highlighted 5 VPN's that can be accessed for free. There is also the VPN run by the people of ThePirateBay called IPREDator (named after IPRED). There is also the VPN service run by the Pirate Party of Canada which was started in response to Prime Minister Stephen Harper winning a majority Conservative government. If all of the above isn't for you, you can always browse through other services as well - though keep in mind that not all VPN services are trustworthy, so shop around. Note: This guide is using Windows 7. Configuring a VPN on another operating system may require different steps. Step 2: Configure Your Access Once you decide on a particular service, there's one of two things you might be asked to do - either install something or simply configure your computer. Since software can range widely and is typically going through the prompts, we'll show you what you might need to do to configure your computer instead. First, right click on your internet connection icon in your system tray and click on "Open Network and sharing Center": In the new window, select "Set up a new connection or network": In the next screen, click on "Connect to a workplace" and click the "OK" button. This will allow you to set up a VPN: In the next screen, click on "Use my Internet connection (VPN): In the next window, you'll be prompted to put in the IP address and name of the VPN connection. If you have to connect to your VPN in a fashion like this, your VPN provider should supply the IP address and name: For convenience, we've ticked "Don't connect now; just set it up so I can connect later". Click Next. At this point, you'll just type your username and password (probably the same username and password you used to get the VPN account) You'll have a number of other options available (you'll probably be told if you need these by your VPN provider). Click "Create" when done. Step 3: Connect to Your VPN Connection Single click on the network icon (the same icon you used to start configuring your VPN). You should find your VPN connection in the list of connections you have available to you. Click on the VPN and click "Connect" You'll be prompted for your user name and password again. Simply type in the user name and password you used before and whatever other credentials are necessary. When done, click on "Connect". You should be connected to your VPN now. To disconnect again, simply click on your network icon in the system tray, click on your VPN and click on the "Disconnect" button. That should do it! For more instruction, you should consult the documentation provided by your VPN provider. Again, this is to give you a general idea of how to connect to a VPN without installing software. 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.