Silk Road 2 takedown / Irish arrests

Ash.J.Williams

at one time i remember 4 cd's would set you back the guts of €100

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't think I once mentioned taking down tor in my post.

I did mention setting up a government agency that would be part of the gardai to block torrent downloading or streaming websites as detected, members of the topic would be able to report sites to this agency for review.

Second step would be to instigate very harsh legislation for those caught breaching copyright law.

Third law would be a massive advertising campaign informing the public of these new laws, why they are necessary, how they will benefit society and the economy. People would be encouraged to report friends or family they know may be in breach of copyright. It could also be possible give the reportee a monetary reward if the accused is found to be guilty.

Except that's impossible, because you can 'detect' such a website, but if it's on the Tor network it is impossible to take it down, unless you can find the physical server - which is impossible unless there is a weakness in the servers security.

It is practically impossible to enforce.

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's not just American multinationals. Companies like HMV and xtra vision have suffered horribly due to illegal downloading and streaming. Causing unemployment in the local economy.

they would have suffered anyway. people aren't buying physical media like they once were. apart from vinyl which seems to be coming back, cd and dvd and so on aren't being bought in the quantities they once were. this is partly because of illegal downloading yes, but mostly to do with the legal alternatives that make things easier and convenient. these will include netflics and spotify

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What we need to do is make people think twice about bypassing these safe alternatives with very harsh punishments if caught.

can't be done. if people do it in the first place they aren't going to "think twice about not doing it" because of whatever costly punishment we bring in to protect a few companies who aren't needed anymore as music making publishing and the rest is becoming cheeper by the day.

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, classify me how you want.



Alternatives to accommodate criminals, why? A person who doesn't torrent, download or stream illegally shouldn't worry about more harsh laws.

absolutely they should. because the government can't be trusted not to use such legislation to silence its political opponents or those who use the internet to hi-light corruption. its not worth the potential threat to protect outdated companies who aren't needed anymore because things and technology has moved on and got cheeper

PopePalpatine

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You've ignored my entire post. Your post is a response to the status quo, not my suggestions.

I DID respond to your suggestions, and I showed why they're unworkable, and KB below has also shown why such a solution is unworkable.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh? No, that was a direct response to your suggestion - your suggestion does nothing to combat things like Tor for instance. You can actually host websites on the Tor network (such as the website that is the topic of this thread), and it is impossible to take them down without finding the physical server hosting it.

You would have to try and ban/block Tor in order to successfully do what you desire, which requires measures so extreme that it means locking down access to the entire Internet (not even Russia/China/Iran have gone far enough in their lockdown, to successfully block Tor).


You don't seem to understand how the Internet works - what you desire is literally impossible, without completely destroying the Internet, and turning it into just a more advanced version of cable TV.

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't think I once mentioned taking down tor in my post.

I did mention setting up a government agency that would be part of the gardai to block torrent downloading or streaming websites as detected, members of the topic would be able to report sites to this agency for review.

Second step would be to instigate very harsh legislation for those caught breaching copyright law.

Third law would be a massive advertising campaign informing the public of these new laws, why they are necessary, how they will benefit society and the economy. People would be encouraged to report friends or family they know may be in breach of copyright. It could also be possible give the reportee a monetary reward if the accused is found to be guilty.

so effectively all of this is costing money to protect outdated companies with their outdated business model, and we give the odd person who reports someone out of revenge most likely a reward. all when the country is suffering with austerity taxes and the rest. such legislation is unnecessary and dangerous, and should be opposed at all costs. it won't be a benefit to society via the fact it would cost billions to enforce taking money from vital services, and it wouldn't be a benefit to the economy as most of these companies aren't irish and take their money home anyway. the staff that work in them would be very few meaning it would be costing us a huge anount of money for a few jobs.

PopePalpatine

end of the road wrote: »

they would have suffered anyway. people aren't buying physical media like they once were. apart from vinyl which seems to be coming back, cd and dvd and so on aren't being bought in the quantities they once were. this is partly because of illegal downloading yes, but mostly to do with the legal alternatives that make things easier and convenient. these will include netflics and spotify

Not to mention that one illegal download doesn't always mean a lost sale. Someone might be curious about a new album but might not want to spend ~€15-20 on a new CD just to see whether or not it's good.

Yurt2

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Third law would be a massive advertising campaign informing the public of these new laws, why they are necessary, how they will benefit society and the economy. People would be encouraged to report friends or family they know may be in breach of copyright. It could also be possible give the reportee a monetary reward if the accused is found to be guilty.

With all the problems in society you wish to create a climate where family and friends are shopping each other in for torrenting episodes of south park or the wire?

File sharing is here to stay, trying to stop it is like trying to paint a gable wall with a dildo.

Iwasfrozen

end of the road wrote: »

so bassically, an agency that will cost money for nothing in return.

Illegal downloading costs the US economy 250 billion every year. The Irish economy is obviously a lot smaller but a couple million and the agency will pay for itself.

such legislation exists all ready.

Not harsh enough.

so another cost, for nothing in return as people will still take the risk. no matter what legislation or punishments you implement this isn't going away.

Re cost: see above.

People aren't stupid they won't take the risk if the punishment is harsh enough.

good luck with that. the odd person might do it in revenge but i can't see it being wide spread considering the police find it hard to get information when it comes to a murder.

It's another avenue. If it only brings in a handful of people it's mire than otherwise would have been caught.

i'm afraid not. your deluded if you think they're will be a decrease in downloading films and music.

*there and I disagree, personally I know if I were in sone spotty teenager's shoes I'd think twice about clicking that button if it ment I could spend the next ten years in prison.

or most likely, they will get around the block and use software to hide their identity, and will continue to watch season 3 of breaking bad. or if they can't do that because they don't know how to do it, they will just not bother with it at all instead. either way they won't be buying the box set instead of downloading it, as it was never their intention to buy the box set in the first place

They'd better not do it in a public place.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except that's impossible, because you can 'detect' such a website, but if it's on the Tor network it is impossible to take it down, unless you can find the physical server - which is impossible unless there is a weakness in the servers security.

It is practically impossible to enforce.

Anyone accessing copyrighted material on tor will be subject to the same legislation as anyone else. If they're reported and found guilty they will go to prison.

Peetrik

shruikan2553 wrote: »

TOR does make things a bit more awkward but it isn't common. Most people can get around a piratepay block in less than a minute with 1 google search. With TOR it requires a bit more to set up and needs to be done properly to make yourself as untraceable as possible.

There are easier solutions to having to learn the ins and outs of setting up TOR connections.

Products like the invisbox where you just plug it into your modem and go online through it make it much easier. Can't wait to get mine

Iwasfrozen

end of the road wrote: »

absolutely they should. because the government can't be trusted not to use such legislation to silence its political opponents or those who use the internet to hi-light corruption. its not worth the potential threat to protect outdated companies who aren't needed anymore because things and technology has moved on and got cheeper

I object to your use of the word "outdated" as a company can not and should not have to adapt to crime and doesn't deserve to be called "outdated" for failing to do so.

Iwasfrozen

Peetrik wrote: »

There are easier solutions to having to learn the ins and outs of setting up TOR connections.

Products like the invisbox where you just plug it into your modem and go online through it make it much easier. Can't wait to get mine

Why on earth would you want to access Tor? Genuinely curious.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Anyone accessing copyrighted material on tor will be subject to the same legislation as anyone else. If they're reported and found guilty they will go to prison.

So, given that you sidestep my argument about how Tor websites are practically impossible to block (if setup properly), reverting back to reporting downloaders, I can take this as an implicit admission that it is practically impossible to block certain websites. Can I get an explicit admission from you there, that this is practically impossible?

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So, given that you sidestep my argument about how Tor websites are practically impossible to block (if setup properly), reverting back to reporting downloaders, I can take this as an implicit admission that it is practically impossible to block certain websites. Can I get an explicit admission from you there, that this is practically impossible?

I didn't side step anything, I've argued from the start for a three pronged attack.

JRant

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

"well policed by the online community" hardly!

Why don't you read up on the work Anonymous are doing outing peodo rings and such on the deep web. Far more than our own boys in blue are doing. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

The open source community is also very well self-policed. Alot of the expensive programs you can buy are basically a rip off of open source programs. Check out Linux versus Unix for a prime example of this.

It's also clear you haven't the first clue about torrents and file sharing. The vast majority of there use is 100% legal. Illegal downloaded is only a small part of the traffic on these sites.

But sure, lets threat everyone on the internet like a criminal purely because you don't understand the medium.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I didn't side step anything, I've argued from the start for a three pronged attack.

Can I get an explicit admission from you that Tor-hosted websites, if setup properly, are practically impossible to block?

end of the road

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Not to mention that one illegal download doesn't always mean a lost sale. Someone might be curious about a new album but might not want to spend ~€15-20 on a new CD just to see whether or not it's good.

oh absolutely

JRant

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why on earth would you want to access Tor? Genuinely curious.

Okay then (inhales deeply).

First and foremost, Tor allows you to browse the internet without the likes of google mining your data so they can sell it to people who want to sell you stuff.

Second, if you are a political activist in eg. Russia, China etc. you can post your views without being hunted down by a government agency.

Third, why not use it? Genuine question. Do you want all your personal details in the hands of google or the NSA? Wanting to have privacy online is not illegal and should never be.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, classify me how you want.

You come across as someone who wants to pick and choose which moral activities should be criminalised and which ones shouldn't - and by "moral" I mean "how much money can be made/lost from it".

Why should certain drugs be legal, but downloading of copyright meterial be illegal? From a purely moral standpoint?

One could argue that certain drugs are dangerous and should be banned, but then piracy never killed anyone so therefore would be ok?

Iwasfrozen

JRant wrote: »

Why don't you read up on the work Anonymous are doing outing peodo rings and such on the deep web. Far more than our own boys in blue are doing. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

The open source community is also very well self-policed. Alot of the expensive programs you can buy are basically a rip off of open source programs. Check out Linux versus Unix for a prime example of this.

It's also clear you haven't the first clue about torrents and file sharing. The vast majority of there use is 100% legal. Illegal downloaded is only a small part of the traffic on these sites.

But sure, lets threat everyone on the internet like a criminal purely because you don't understand the medium.

If anonymous, who aren't and never have been an actual organisation, can oust pedo rings, and the individuals should be commended for that, then so can the FBI. Self regulation of the internet doesn't work, if it did then Silk Road wouldn't have had to be taken down.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Can I get an explicit admission from you that Tor-hosted websites, if setup properly, are practically impossible to block?

No, no you can't.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No, no you can't.

Then how do you propose to block Tor-hosted websites, when they are properly setup, making the physical server practically impossible to locate?

Iwasfrozen

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well then why should certain drugs be legal, but downloading of copyright meterial be illegal? From a purely moral standpoint?

Ilegal downloading destroys businesses and creates unemployment, legalising weed harms only criminal gangs. Weed is not addictive and has no noticeable health problems attributed to it.

end of the road

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Illegal downloading costs the US economy 250 billion every year. The Irish economy is obviously a lot smaller but a couple million and the agency will pay for itself.

it doesn't cost the american economy that much anymore with the legal alternatives. those who illegally download still wouldn't be buying anyway no matter what. the agency wouldn't pay for itself.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not harsh enough.

they are. no matter how harsh you make them it will make no difference, considering the states in america which have the death penalty but a higher murder rate then those that don't for example, its safe to say that wasting time on this isn't going to make a difference.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

People aren't stupid they won't take the risk if the punishment is harsh enough.

oh they will. believe me they will.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It's another avenue. If it only brings in a handful of people it's mire than otherwise would have been caught.

but its not worth the cost to protect outdate companies who aren't needed anymore.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

*there and I disagree, personally I know if I were in sone spotty teenager's shoes I'd think twice about clicking that button if it ment I could spend the next ten years in prison.

you might yes. i suspect the majority won't.

Peetrik

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why on earth would you want to access Tor? Genuinely curious.

Lots of reasons,

I don't like my information being readily available to advertisers or receiving spam that is clearly targeted (ie pretending to be from the bank I actually use).

I value my privacy. What I do online is my own business, the notion that I should have to explain myself is as irritating as a nosy co-worker demanding to know why you won't go to their work social event or chip in for Mary from accounts birthday present even though you've never spoken to Mary and she always struck you as a bit of a cnut.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Then how do you propose to block Tor-hosted websites, when they are properly setup, making the physical server practically impossible to locate?

I don't think I ever said I would, I mentioned a three pronged attack to stopping copyright crime in general, I don't think I ever specifically mentioned Tor, which is obviously a subset of the larger problem.

JRant

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I didn't side step anything, I've argued from the start for a three pronged attack.

Your three pronged attack isn't worth the binary bits it was written in.

You can't legislate for something if you don't understand it. See Sean Sherlocks work of genius for proof of this.

Netflix and Spotify are proof positive that if the pricing model is right people would rather pay for a service than illegally download it.

Honestly, there are enough laws already to deal with the criminal element. Or should we severely limit the use of phones as well, seeing as they are used for far more illegal activity than the internet.

Iwasfrozen

JRant wrote: »

Your three pronged attack isn't worth the binary bits it was written in.

You can't legislate for something if you don't understand it. See Sean Sherlocks work of genius for proof of this.

Netflix and Spotify are proof positive that if the pricing model is right people would rather pay for a service than illegally download it.

Honestly, there are enough laws already to deal with the criminal element. Or should we severely limit the use of phones as well, seeing as they are used for far more illegal activity than the internet.

That's where I disagree, I think two major factors that effect the likelihood of a person deciding to break the law is the likelihood of getting caught and the punishment if they are caught. By increasing both these factors we strongly discourage people from making that decision.

Having said that Netflix and Spotify and obviously great additions and will work well in accordance with other measures.

JRant

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If anonymous, who aren't and never have been an actual organisation, can oust pedo rings, and the individuals should be commended for that, then so can the FBI. Self regulation of the internet doesn't work, if it did then Silk Road wouldn't have had to be taken down.


No, no you can't.

I didn't say it was an organisation and of course anyone that outs them should be commended, including the FBI. Not sure what point you're trying to make.

Self regulation works up to a point, thats why we have laws already in place to deal with the more extreme elements in society.

JRant

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's where I disagree, I think two major factors that effect the likelihood of a person deciding to break the law is the likelihood of getting caught and the punishment if they are caught. By increasing both these factors we strongly discourage people from making that decision.

Having said that Netflix and Spotify and obviously great additions and will work well in accordance with other measures.

Yet numerous studies indicate that those 2 factors do nothing to deter crime one jot.

Another good example would by Iron Maiden. They seen that a lot of their material was being illegally downloaded in South America. Now instead of wasting their time in the courts, they packed up their guitars, headed down there and made a fortune touring the very same countries where the downloads occured.