How The DMCA Is Enforced

Hank Scorpio writes "Bob Cringley's latest column talks about a company, BayTSP, that performs most of the enforcement of the DMCA on the Internet. This is the company that collects data about who is sharing music or movies online, and this is the company to go after when you get busted! They claim to "go to the same places any user could go, look at the same files anyone else could look at, and we only probe the ports on your computer that you have made public." Interesting."

Comments

Step 1 to Solve Problem Company

[oval_pants]

1.) Post company website link on Slashdot.
Step 1 complete.

Excellent

Re:Step 1 to Solve Problem Company

[DEBEDb]

That would be good for Akamai's sales :)

Re:Step 1 to Solve Problem Company

[koh]

Maybe you have a point here (would it be so easy ??)

However,
"We have 100 percent coverage of peer-to-peer file sharing," Ishikawa claims. "If you are illegally sharing copyrighted materials, we know who you are."
is the most stupid thing I read in years. Maybe they really think we're fools.

Re:Step 1 to Solve Problem Company

[Rader]

I thought the same thing. But considering how brilliant interviewers can be... he might have meant he could FIND someone specific on all [major] peer-to-peer file sharing. Or the biggest stockpiles, etc.

Re:Step 1 to Solve Problem Company

[dbrutus]

Actually it is illegal and generally viewed as the Post Office trying to cream its competition by putting onerous restrictions on them.

Its a regulation that is generally ignored.

mirror

[natefanaro]

here ya go, straight from google: http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:eTm4KN-KJxgC: www.baytsp.com/+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

How is this not illegal?

[Phosphor3k]

and we only probe the ports on your computer that you have made public

This is illegal, at least in Maryland. Article 27, Sections 45A and 146 of the Annotated Code of Maryland prohibit "illegal access and the unauthorized manipulation of data using computer resources". Thus, in order for this to be legal, I'd have to give them permission first.

Re:How is this not illegal?

[SirSlud]

So it's illegal to probe the HTTP port on computers in Maryland with robots because you didn't get permission from the guy who admins the web site?

Isn't a public port part and parcel with permission to access said port?

Re:How is this not illegal?

[EvanED]

Actually, the hanging of the open sign is still a very poor analogy because you don't have to stop your car, get out, and walk up to each house to see if there's a sign. Perhaps a better analogy would be if you put a note above your doorknob that said "come in", but was only readable if you came up to it.

Re:How is this not illegal?

[tongue]

Just because you are walking down the street and see someones house, dosnt mean you have permission to walk on that property and knock on that persons door.

Uh, yeah, actually it does, if they don't have it posted no trespassing or make obvious attempts to deter people from coming on the property.

Re:How is this not illegal?

[SirSlud]

ROFL? but i can't access robots.txt because according to the parent poster, **I'm not allowed to connect over his public port without his preauthorized permission**

am I the only one who sees the futility in this argument? define permission as it applies to the legality of ones actions ...

Re:How is this not illegal?

[reallocate]

I suspect the "urge to hear a song" "in about a minute" will go away once your out of puberty. Everything changes; you will, too.

Re:How is this not illegal?

[DrSkwid]

In the UK it has to be shown that the person making the attempts to connect had knowledge that their attempt was unauthorised.

Computer Misuse Act 1990

1.--(1) A person is guilty of an offence if--

(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;

(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and

(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.

(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at--

(a) any particular program or data;

(b) a program or data of any particular kind; or

(c) a program or data held in any particular computer.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.

Re:How is this not illegal?

[kasparov]

I think what they are talking about as far as examining "ports you have made public," is if you are running a website (on port 80) they access the web site. If you are sharing files using gnutella on port 6346, they use the gnutella client (or one that they programmed themseleves) to look at the files you are sharing. Then they log your IP and subponea your ISPs log files (under the DMCA) in case it is a dynamically assigned IP.

I don't work for the company (or even know anything about them), but this is how I assume that they are doing it--it's how I would do it (if I were a sell-out, low-life, rat-fink, evil bastard that is).

Re:How is this not illegal?

[gmhowell]

Who gives a fuck? I'm already screwed in Maryland, since we passed that bullshit law making shrinkwrap licenses okay.

Re:How is this not illegal?

[mbogosian]

Isn't a public port part and parcel with permission to access said port?

I postulate that this post probably prevents precise pronunciation due to the poster's propensity to push the "p" key.

Re:How is this not illegal?

[aardvarkjoe]

So, if you're a socially adept 25-year-old engineer, how come your defense and insults are textbook elementary school playground style?

Re:How is this not illegal?

[Sylver Dragon]

If you have publicly accessable ports on your computer, I would say that you HAVE given them permission.

So to take this to its logical extreme, if a person has 139 open and the guest accout enabled on an NT based machine, is it ok for me to browse the files on thier hard drives? They have, afterall, left the door wide open for anyone to connect to thier system and view all of thier files.
I personally disagree with this. Just because the port is open, doesn't make it right to use it. If we start allowing people to hack systems, and get away with it, because the system was not properly secured, we are going to end up with a lot of problems.
Consider it from another angle, if I install IIS, and don't download any of the updates for it, it has numerous well know security holes. If I don't patch it, does that make it ok to hack my server? No, admitadly I would be an idiot to do this, but I should still have an expectation of privacy. And I feel that this open ports problem is the same type of thing, just beacuse you can connect to a port and look at a person's files, doesn't give you the right to do so. Sure, they should take better care, but it still is not right.

Really it sounds like they're doing the same thing that web crawlers do...or a p2p client for that matter. They just takes what they find and run it through a database to see if you're infringing on someone's copyright.

I guess it depends on how far they are going with it. When you install most p2p clients you accept the fact that you will have a publicly accessable area, you have given up your expectation of privacy, for that portion of your system. However, I should still be able to expect that the rest of my system is still private. If I publish a web site, again, I have willfully given up my privacy in that location, and on that port. However, If I buy a Dell and it comes with port 21 open, and I don't know it, then I didn't willfully give up my expectation of privacy. For many users they don't even know what a port is, let alone, what port is for what. Are we now to enforce upon every person that buys a computer that they must be a networking expert? That is simply ridiculious. This sort of thing has got to be stopped, just because they are hacking to enforce the current laws, doesn't mean it should be allowed.

Re:How is this not illegal?

[AKnightCowboy]

Isn't a public port part and parcel with permission to access said port?

No no no no no no no no no no no no no!!!!!

Just because a port is listening on a machine doesn't mean it's "public" anymore than me bending over in the shower in the locker room is an invitation for you to insert your junk into my anus.

Re:How is this not illegal?

[aaarrrgggh]

I understand the potential for it being legal if they are looking for items which are the intellectual property of their clients. Furthermore, I can imagine them having the "responsibility" to make a citizen complaint to the government on things like kiddy porn.

If they were investigating copyright violations (or any civil issue, in response to their client's requests), I can see how they could subpeona ISP logs... but not for the kiddy porn or any criminally illegal activity.

Re:How is this not illegal?

[arkanes]

They probably do it the same way the BSA does, which is to say over and over and over again that they have the legal right to it, and they'll sue anyone who argues the point. The vast majority of people will cave. After all, it's just some logs, right? And they wouldn't be there if the guy hadn't done something wrong, right?

Re:How is this not illegal?

[aardvarkjoe]

Yes. It conveys that, rather than a 25-year-old engineer, you're probably a 15-year-old nerd who doesn't have the verbal skills to engage in real discussion, and are using an alternate persona because you believe that it will improve the reception of your comments. And I think that you'll find that the only reason why profanity 'pushes people's buttons' is because they're seeing it used as a crutch, for people who can't actually communicate otherwise. Most of the slashdot trolls use profanity, but many of them are far better at hurling insults than you.

Where do I start?

[GigsVT]

"and when the abductors are caught and you look on their home computers, you inevitably find kiddy porn. So it is a precursor to this bad behavior, and just as the Internet makes it easy to distribute child pornography, it effectively encourages these criminals. We are working to end that."

Hmmm, So we go after people for crimes they have yet to commit, is what he is arguing. Someone should make a movie about that.

Ishikawa, the FBI thinks terrorists are sharing information by hiding it in images posted on eBay using a process called steganography.

What a penis. I guess he doesn't keep up on research.

If you look at Mark Ishikawa's business card, you'll notice that it lists no street address for his company, BayTSP, just [...] a post office box in Los Gatos, CA, but could really be anywhere in the Bay Area.

Or it could be located here: BayTsp (BAYTSP-DOM) 3150 almaden Expressway #234 San Jose CA,95118 US

Just publicly available information, Right Ishikawa?

Re:Where do I start?

[LordNimon]

Here is a satellite picture. Now we really know where he works!

(You'll need an AOL/Netscape "screen name" in order to view the image)

Re:Where do I start?

[wowbagger]

and when the abductors are caught and you look on their home computers, you inevitably find kiddy porn. So it is a precursor to this bad behavior....

Logic error (as others have pointed out). Allow me to demonstrate:

and when the abductors are caught and you look in their homes, you inevitably find air. So air is a precursor to this bad behavior....

Correlation is not causation.

However, that said I think people who ar turned on by kiddie porn have a problem, and people who DISTRIBUTE kiddie porn are criminals.

But let us not go down the slippery slope of incorrectly reasoning to justify our actions, 'mkay?

Re:Where do I start?

[Monkelectric]

However, that said I think people who ar turned on by kiddie porn have a problem, and people who DISTRIBUTE kiddie porn are criminals.

You seem to be having trouble typing, both hands are on the keyboard, right? :)

Re:Where do I start?

[phorm]

Hmmm, So we go after people for crimes they have yet to commit, is what he is arguing. Someone should make a movie about that

>Hmmm, So we go after people for crimes they have yet to commit
Collecting Kiddy Porn is illegal in most states though, so there's still a crime.

Can't somebody just embed a virus in an image that mails the personal info of these perverts to the FBI or something? - phorm

Re:Where do I start?

[perljon]

I think the bigger issue is that you are encouraging people to take naked sexual pictures of children who are not mentally capable of making rational decisions about such things. To support a child porn industry, you need to victimize children.

Re:Where do I start?

[SquadBoy]

I am *not* defending this guy. And I think that many kiddy porn laws have nothing to do with protecting children but are motivated by other things. Having said that.

Driking milk is not a crime.

Under current US law having kiddy porn is a crime.

Therefore they are not going after people who may commit a crime they are going after people who *have* commited a crime. He is merely stating that in his opinion this crime can predict another , IMO worse, crime.

Now if you want to argue about whether it should be a crime or not that is another discussion. But for purposes of what he said they are going after people who have commited a crime and as a result he thinks may commit more crimes.

This guy is still scum but at least go after him in the areas where he is wrong rather than making up something he did not say.

Re:Where do I start?

[Schnapple]

Well, nearly 100% of people who don't do drugs as adults also drank milk as kids, so the "precursor" argument is null since the cause/effect reasoning is invalid.

Let's say they start searching the computers of all criminals they arrest, regardless of their crime. I bet the percentage of non-pedophile criminals with kiddie porn is down in the single digits. Same goes for non-criminals

The main reason child pornography is illegal (as I follow it, IANAL), is that children are not only considerably younger than the legal age (18), but also because they don't possess the mental maturity to make any decisions involving their involvement in pornography, much less what it really is. Therefore, the trick is to go after the perpretrators of the child porn, but since there would be no child porn were there no demand, simply make the demand illegal.

It doesn't take too many "BARELY LEGAL!!" websites and magazines to realize that were possession and distribution of child pornography not illegal, it would surely be a huge market.

Re:Where do I start?

[umask077]

> Can't somebody just embed a virus in an image that mails the personal info of these perverts to the FBI or something? - phorm

In an image no. Viruses imbedded in images are pretty pictures. I think I can find a picture of ebola for you. Good news. The picture wont make you sick.

In an mpeg file however is another story. You can force someone to automaticly load a website from an mpeg file. Easy way for the feds to log whos looking at the kiddie porn. This is not a virus but part of the mpeg standard so not illegal.

Also it was a while ago but there was a virus released that was imbedded in in a "kiddie porn" executable which sent personal information from the machine infected to, and dont quote me on this, scottland yard, it was to the brits im pretty sure at any rate. Because it infected the machine with a virus that collected data and sent it out it didnt make any friends with the cops it informed either and the virus scanners scan for it.

I used to work for a large usenet provider. One day they decided to shut down the known kiddie porn newsgroups which I cant argue with. Beyond being deplorable if you know about it and dont do anything about it you lose your common carrier status protections. for the next few weeks we would get calls about how "I cant access one of the newsgroups I used to read". We'd eventually get out of them which newsgroup and which point they would happily give us there username and there address for verification. This was popular with the feds. Morons.

Ok, all humor aside this Mike fellows a major dick IMHO. He doesnt agree with the law but he'll make a quick buck off it. Sounds like he and the law get along splendly. He gets lots of death threats? Thats the problem with todays kids, no follow through.

If he doesnt agree with the law thats fine. But to say you dont agree with it and then act on its behalf makes your an immoral sellout.

Re:Where do I start?

[micromoog]

Driking milk is not a crime. Under current US law having kiddy porn is a crime.

OK, here's another one. Nearly 100% of people who commit grand theft auto were at some point cited for speeding. Therefore, speeding is a precursor to more serious car-related crimes.

Re:Where do I start?

[Otter]

Argh, I just can't stop thinking about how stupid this logic is. Let me give you an example my stats professor gave.

Nearly 100% of people who do drugs as adults drank milk as kids, at least once. Therefore, drinking milk is a "precursor" to drug use.

You're expected to provide the context that Ishikawa and Cringeley thought was implicit:

Almost all pedophiles have child porn in their posession. The overwhelming majority of individuals do not.

That's termed 'association'. The fact that someone is sharing kiddie porn on his FTP server significantly increases the likelihood that he is pedophile. That says nothing about causality, but no one was claiming causality.

Also, note that posession and distribution are crimes themselves, which you seem to be ignoring to argue about causality.

Re:Where do I start?

[shumacher]

Do ISP's pick what goes into the newgroup, or is it added by a default list or some other odd means of populating.

Short version: sort of.
Long version:
So you want to start a newsgroup?

Re:Where do I start?

[Skim123]

Therefore, the trick is to go after the perpretrators of the child porn, but since there would be no child porn were there no demand, simply make the demand illegal

I think they do both. Just like with an illegal substance like meth amphetamine - it is both illegal to own it and to produce/sell/distribute it, the latter being a more serious crime than the first.

Re:Where do I start?

[base3]

Assuming he posted from there, that ISP was Supernews (a.k.a. CriticalPath)

Now there are two uses for a "premium" news server: warez and porn, so I suspect it wouldn't be the smartest business practice for them to rat people out to the feds, so this guy may be blowing smoke.

But something to keep in mind: if they'll rat out a customer for downloading illegal porn, who's to say they won't someday do it for downloading MP3s or a copy of Photoshop?

It's worth considering avoiding Supernews for premium news service if they or a (possibly rogue) employee would give anyone up for any reason without being presented with an airtight subpoena.

Re:Where do I start?

[dbrutus]

OK, Baytsp.net (registered by the same Mark Ishikada) has 4 NS entries.

Two of them are in an IP range owned by garageband.com and two of them are in a range owned by SuperBusiness NET, Inc., a Nevada corporation. The nameservers for SuperBusiness Net's ARIN range are... the identical ones for baytsp.net and the tech email is noc@baytsp.com.

A google search for "SuperBusiness Net, Inc" yields a link to an ISP who claims credit for the sbusiness.net domain. The sbusiness.net whois record yields... the same Nevada PO Box as the superbusiness Net, Inc. IP range.

The NS records for sbusiness.net point to web1000.com, a "free hosting service with no ads" that seems to have a strong presence in the porn serving arena.

What, exactly, is the relationship between SuperBusiness Net, Inc. and web1000.com is unclear but they share phone numbers on their whois addresses, though their PO Boxes are different.

So, boys and girls, what have we learned?

Mike Ishikawa is running at least:
BayTSP.com
BayTSP.net
SBusiness.net
and is probably running
web1000.com

His BayTSP.net seems to be more substantial than his BayTSP.com presence but the web1000 infrastructure is truly massive and if, in fact, he runs that corporation, it's via there that he's likely running his scans.

Re:Where do I start?

[Catbeller]

Ted Bundy was a manipulative liar who told his questioner what he wanted to hear. Any "facts" from Bundy are from a vicious sociopath who was playing with his audience -- ergo, nonsense.

Re:Where do I start?

[dbrutus]

Who says he's out of the porn business?

baytsp.com->baytsp.net->sbusiness.net->web1000.c om which redirects 404 traffic to porn adverts. I fished it out of the records and explained it higher in the thread.

Re:Where do I start?

[dvdeug]

Ted Bundy indicated that porn leads down the path of sexual crime. [...] Or do you have more knowledge about this than Ted Bundy?

Ted Bundy was frequently willing to say whatever the people who was talking to wanted to hear, especially if he thought it could delay his execution. Also, Ted Bundy was unique, and what happened to him doesn't seem to cause others to do the same thing. Ted Bundy said he couldn't understand why people wanted to kill him; if he really didn't understand that simple fact, then he didn't understand others well enough to say what would lead them to do anything. If he did understand, it's just another example of that he was willing to lie and say what would get the right reaction out of others.

Re:Where do I start?

[MoneyT]

It wouldn't suprise me if it came out of Japan. THey seem to have things pretty well figured out. A high sense of respect among people and an openness about life in general.

Re:Where do I start?

[Schnapple]

There's also the fact that women are biologically designed to be their most fertile between the ages of 18 (or 16) and 25 - thus Nature makes them look their best - to attract a mate. Of course, society says that nowadays people go to College and generally don't graduate until 23/24 and therefore miss most of those years. Women who give birth at 18 are often considered bad or have screwed up.

Re:Where do I start?

[Schnapple]

I'm not sure what country you're in but here in the U.S. the age is 18. Ergo, 18 is "barely legal" and 17 is "kiddie porn". If 17 were the cutoff then there would be 17 year olds in magazines. Same goes for any age you throw out there. At the age of 18 in the U.S. you're considered an adult (your parents are even cut off from your records), so that's the legal age.

Consequently if you go on a shooting spree when you're an 18 year old you're a "crazy person". If you do the same thing when you're 17 then you're "disturbed" and "tainted by the media".

Once you turn 18 no one cares anymore.

Re:Where do I start?

[BitterOak]

You cannot claim someone is making a logic error by establishing a profile and trend.

Ah, but two things are required to establish this profile and trend:

• A) Most child molesters have kiddy porn on their computers.
• B) Most people who aren't child molesters don't have kiddy porn on their computers.

Simply demonstrating (A) isn't sufficient: you need a control group to establish a corelation. I think this is what the person who gave the air example was trying to point out.

Given how loose current legal definitions of "child pornography" are, and given the fact that in many states, 17 year olds can be considered minors, I think people would be shocked at just how large a percentage of the population actually has viewed child pornography on their computer.

Re:Where do I start?

[God! Awful]

How does crap like this get modified as insightful? The argument may incomplete, but Ishikawa is at least nice enough to credit his audience with the ability to make simple assumptions, such as the vast majority of people don't have kiddie porn on their harddrive.

If you want to use this logical argument, at least save it for a topic where it might be relevant. E.g. "police claim 60% of traffic accidents are caused by speeders". Where I live, at least 60% of cars on the road appear to be speeding.

look in their homes, you inevitably find air. So air is a precursor to this bad behavior... blah blah blah... Correlation is not causation.

A dumb statement, since you didn't even show a correlation. Try looking it up in a dictionary:

Correlate: to establish a mutual or reciprocal relation between

Kiddie porn may imply air, but air does not imply kiddie porn.

But let us not go down the slippery slope of incorrectly reasoning to justify our actions, 'mkay?

Those who resort to slippery slope arguments really shouldn't be lecturing others on the use of logic...

-a

huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

how do they know which ports on my computer i've made public? what if i'm infected with a worm which uses the gnotella port to form a p2p network? what if i've been sub-7'd? what about all the people who've had net access denied just for running tools like nmap?

it'd be fun to dig up their netblock from ARIN and create snort rules to look for sweeps on their part, then publish them.

OrgName: BayTSP.Com
OrgID: BAYTSP

ASNumber: 14478
ASName: BAYTSP
ASHandle: AS14478
Comment:
RegDate: 1999-12-20
Updated: 1999-12-20

TechHandle: MI70-ARIN
TechName: Ishikawa, Mark
TechPhone: +1-408-399-0600
TechEmail: marki@baytsp.com


interestingly, their netblock isn't easily available, and their website is externally hosted at sonic.net. anyone got some better clues on where these guys are attacking from?

PATCRP

Re:huh?

[EZmagz]

From the parent: what about all the people who've had net access denied just for running tools like nmap?

I've gotten into trouble for this. The first thing I did when I hooked up with RoadRunner was nmap people on my subnet, just out of curiousity, to see what kind of computers people were running. My intention was never to break into someone's box, mind you. Just to see if people were running webservers, etc.

Is this illegal? In some places. Is this unethical? Some would say "yes", although I say "no". Is this against RR's TOS? As I found out, undeniably yes. So I can't nmap people. I still get scanned hourly by Nimda, Code Red, SubSeven, and every other worm/virus under the sun, and it's always by the same people. Yet they haven't been threated to have their plug pulled...go figure.

So if I get in trouble for seeing what's "publicly available" (e.g., if a webserver's running), why can this fucking company do it without fear of consequence? Because they have a lame m.o. to hide behind? Because it's their "job" to check up on me?

All I can say is it's actually a GOOD THING in a sense that there's so many ignorant users out there today. If the internet was like how it was back in the BBS days (or even pre-AOL), everytime someone got scanned by these assholes retribution would be interesting, to say the least.

Re:huh?

[Rader]

Because they have lawyers.

Welcome to my firewall!

[Bonker]

BayTSP's website IP address is 209.204.138.224

Assuming they have a class C netblock, this means you can block 209.204.138.* and eliminate most probing from them.

Anyone else know of any other netblocks or IPs that belong to them?

Re:Welcome to my firewall!

[faster]

this means you can block 209.204.138.* and eliminate most probing from them

Um, no.

Their web site is hosted by sonic.net. Blocking that only means their web server can't probe your systems.

I'd bet they're using a variety of cable modems and DSL connections with dynamic IPs to do the probing.

Re:Welcome to my firewall!

[KelsoLundeen]

Surely, they're smart enough to do most of their searching from other IP addresses, right?

This may be their business address, but no self-respecting enforcement company is gonna do all their searching and spying from their business IP.

In fact, I'd wager you'd have better luck blocking *all* of AOL, Verizon -- and any other big ISP you can name.

I suspect they, too, tend to overthink their anonymous abilities and probably figure that they can blend in much easier if they get some big-name ISP account (maybe even off-shore) and hit you with what looks like just another script-kiddie attack from just-another big-name ISP IP block. They're probably right in doing it this way, but I bet they leave some pretty tell-tale signs that -- once folks figure it out -- will make them easier to block.

Of course, I might be wrong. Maybe the anonymity sniffers are really closer to 'anonymous' than the people who think they're surfing anonymously.

Maybe this outfit does indeed have some kickass, wicked spycraft that they're pulling.

Re:Welcome to my firewall!

[zmooc]

Um that netblock belongs to Sonic.net and looking at their rdns, they appear to be ADSL-addresses.

Re:Welcome to my firewall!

[moonbender]

Well, that means you're not sharing any files over the internet, much less copyrighted ones. You have no reason to protect yourself against them. People who do share files might be safe if they do block that net mask. OTOH, maybe they're too smart for that.

Re:Welcome to my firewall!

[Lumpy]

Basically, all you need to do is watch for a portscan and then ipchains them in the block file.. nice and simple.

I block 99.997% of all ATTBI portscanners that way.

Re:Mirror please.

[cadillactux]

Why Mirror them. We just took out the company that collects data about who is sharing music or movies online . What fun it is. We did the RIAA once, care to hit this one while you are at it.

Well, We only probe(d) the ports on your computer that you have made public.. .i.e, port 80.

Okay, you can mod me down now.

This is a private company?

[jweb]

So let me get this straight.... a PRIVATE (non-govmt) company is basically doing the dirty work for the FBI and *AA's?

Shouldn't investigating and collecting evidence for criminal cases (which is what their doing, the DMCA is the law of the land whether we like it or not) be the responsibility of a government law enforcement agency?

Re:This is a private company?

[Atzanteol]

Government resources aren't always up to the task for things like this. There are many private companies that perform duties for government entities.

Also, private institutions can get around some of the restraints on government law enforcement (search/seizure, entering without a warrent, etc). This is why bounty hunters can be very useful at times.

NOTE: Freedom of speech is the same way. A private institution can prohibit what you say (your boss can fire you for saying things he/she doesn't like), but the government can't (you can't be arrested for saying things against the government).

Re:This is a private company?

[Myco]

If the end is the same, I'd just as soon have the money come out of the *AAs' pockets than the tax coffers.

Re:This is a private company?

[jweb]

If the end is the same, I'd just as soon have the money come out of the *AAs' pockets than the tax coffers.

I agree. However, it seems slimy at best and possibly illegal at worst for a private entity to gather evidence that can later be used by the government in a criminal trial. In my mind, a private entity can certainly gather evidence for a civil court case, but should not be allowed to for a criminal one. Criminal cases are (should be) a government matter.

Personally, I feel that copyright infringement should be considered a civil matter, not a criminal one, hence the *AA's should be forced to bear the brunt of the investigative cost and have infringers charged in civil court.

Re:This is a private company?

[Myco]

I see your point, but I can't agree with your conclusions. The category of actions which constitute "gathering evidence" is just far too broad and difficult to classify, and there are too many circumstances when it makes plenty of sense for a private individual to seek out evidence on their own. For example, violent crime is a criminal matter, but you wouldn't argue that it should be illegal for the victim of such a crime (or his or her agent) to seek out evidence in order to help bring the perpetrator to justice. As long as criminal cases involve private interests, there will be many cases where it makes sense for private individuals to perform their own investigations.

I do agree with your second point, though. I hadn't really considered the question of whether copyright infringement was civil or criminal before, but if it's as you describe (and I guess it is, now that I think about it) then that's quite an absurd state of affairs. But what isn't, in this particular legal realm?

Re:This is a private company?

[MoneyT]

WHY does everyone treat the internet as if it is some other world? Its the same world we live in. The laws are just as easy to break and uphold there. Yet we treat it as some sort of wild west. We do not need MORE law to tell us it is wrong to copy crap.

I've been saying that for a long long time. Problem is, to the rest of the world, the net is still a magical thing.

Re:This is a private company?

[MoneyT]

I still say we should take the subscription money from slashdot and buy ourselves a senator or two. I would definately subscribe for that.

Re:This is a private company?

[MoneyT]

Has the california and texas senators been bought yet?

It looks like we slashdotted them.

[shren]

We should have a story about them every day!

I wonder if they have any job openings. Evil is fun.

mod this up!!!

[Unknown Poltroon]

i mean it.

you would think that ISP's would cut them out

[johnjones]

you would think that ISP's would just remove them

after all Acceptable Use means that I cant go port scanning why the hell should they ?

and they use all the bandwidth and after all if your a telco you PAY for the amount of data

regards

John Jones

Made Public?

[ACNeal]

How do they know what I have made public before they probe them?

The federal law says that they have to cause damage via unauthorized, or under-authorized access, or intend to cause damage to be guilty of federal computer fraud crimes.

My question is, does intending to make me spend money defending myself constitute intending to cause damage?

Re:Made Public?

[Planesdragon]

My question is, does intending to make me spend money defending myself constitute intending to cause damage?

Yes and no. (IANAL)

If they don't have even the barest inklings of a case, and file a suit anyway that they know they're going to lose, then probably yes.

If they do have even the slightest inkling that there's something untoward about you, and believe that you have probably committeed a tort against them (or a crime), then defending yourself is just part and parcel of how life works.

Re:Made Public?

[buss_error]

If they don't have even the barest inklings of a case, and file a suit anyway that they know they're going to lose, then probably yes.

IANAL:
Yes, that's an actionable cause. It's called Barratry in the past, now I think they use Harrisment by Process, or maybe "Corporate Attack Dog".

Only probing the address he made public...

[futuresheep]

BayTsp (BAYTSP-DOM)
3150 almaden Expressway #234
San Jose
CA,95118
US

Domain Name: BAYTSP.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Ishikawa, Mark M (MI70) marki@BAYTSP.COM
Ishikawa,Mark
PO Box 1314
Los Gatos, CA 95031-1314
US
408-399-0600 408-979-7969

Record expires on 11-Jun-2004.
Record created on 11-Jun-1999.
Database last updated on 19-Sep-2002 16:19:51 EDT.

Re:Only probing the address he made public...

[dbrutus]

Maybe somebody else noted it but I don't see it in the thread.

Baytsp.com and baytsp.net are both registered by the same nic handle...

We only probe public ports...

[AtariDatacenter]

> ...we only probe the ports on your computer that you have made public...

A number of people have pointed this out. However, if this was a valid legal/ethical statement, then that would be the perfect justification for any electronic crime. A hacker says, "I wasn't doing anything illegal! I was only probing the ports that they made public!"

I like the argument in a way. It says, "Hey, I didn't go beyond my authorization to do this. Their site already had the authorization wide open for me to do this!" On the other hand, it can be used to justify anything.

Re:We only probe public ports...

[stubear]

'However, if this was a valid legal/ethical statement, then that would be the perfect justification for any electronic crime. A hacker says, "I wasn't doing anything illegal! I was only probing the ports that they made public!"'

The differenc being that when one leaves a port opened unintentionally they are not explicetely or implicitely inviting in unwanted "guests".

By using Napster, Gnutella or a slew of other P2P apps which open ports on your computer for sharing files, you are explicitely inviting guests, wheher wanted (other P2P file sharers) or unwanted (BayTSP spiders, FBI). You have knowingly opened ports on your system and allowed files to be shared. Even if you don't understand how P2P applications and networks actually work you aren't shielded from the responsibilities of having the files available to be illegally copied.

Re:We only probe public ports...

[mindstrm]

And they do.
If I find a url somewhere that says you have port 80 open, and I go and LOOK at what is there, am I doing something illegal?

How is this different?

They find the address of the port used to share files on the file sharing service, by using it... and then, using custom software, find out what you have to share.

They did not break in, did not guess passwords, and did not do anything wrong.

Re:We only probe public ports...

[AtariDatacenter]

By using Napster, Gnutella or a slew of other P2P apps which open ports on your computer for sharing files, you are explicitely inviting guests, wheher wanted (other P2P file sharers) or unwanted (BayTSP spiders, FBI). You have knowingly opened ports on your system and allowed files to be shared.

Let me give that a slight twist...
By using Microsoft, Solaris, or a Linux operationg system, which open ports on your computer (for whatever reason the deemed necessary), you are explicitly inviting guests, whether wanted or unwanted. You have knowingly opened ports on your system and allowed (God knows what) to be shared.

Re:We only probe public ports...

[AtariDatacenter]

They find the address of the port used to share files on the file sharing service, by using it... and then, using custom software, find out what you have to share.

And I find that if I send a nice little binary to your mail reader that causes a buffer overflow, which executes the code I created, well, I was just accessing a publicly available feature of your mail reader.

Really, I see both sides of this issue, so don't mark me as a zealot. I can argue your side, too. It is surprising how unclear this all actually can be.

Re:We only probe public ports...

[stubear]

But the purpose of an OS is NOT to broadcast open ports, the purpose of P2P apps is. If you had said web server, perhaps but even then you have explicitly allowed guests through a single doorway. If they choose to use the backdoor, they have illegally entered your system, regardless of whether or not the front door is open. If an OS does this it is an unintended result and is not implicitly or explicitly inviting unwanted "guests". If you knowingly fail to patch a system you might not get to throw the proverbial book at the hacker but there is the possibility of some punishment being imposed.

Re:We only probe public ports...

[MoneyT]

So let's try this one on for size then. Person A has timbuktu or other remote desktop app open on their machine so that they can access the machine from work. Person B finds this computer and notices that the Timbuktu port is open. If they access Person A's computer and go through the files etc etc etc, can person B still be charged with hacking? By your logic they can't.

Re:We only probe public ports...

[stubear]

No, I never said that. In your example Person A never granted Person B access, explicitly or implicitly. They left a particular port open for the reason of Person A being able to access their system remotely, not for the entire world to be able to rifle through their files and establish the system as a DoS zombie.

Re:We only probe public ports...

[MoneyT]

Alright, so say I leave an FTP server running. I use this to distribute files back and forth between myself and other college people for the normal purpose of class materials. I also leave guest access on so that I don't have to deal with log ins etc. Does that give them the right to scan my port and computer?

Re:We only probe public ports...

[mindstrm]

Okay, I won't take you as a zealot.

Sorry, buffer overflows and exploits are obvious as to their intent. The intent is to keep poeple out. Trying to argue in court that the admins failure to patch a security hole constituted granting authorized public access to a resource won't hold up.

having your machine return search results, including url's for accessing files, in gnutella, can very EASILY be taken to mean you have files to share on said URL, and that looking at them would be okay.

People are twisting this aorund to make it sound liek they are going to try to hack your box if you are sharing. They aren't. They are merely going to look at WHAT you are sharing, using whatever sharing mechanism you are using, and then use it later, maybe.

Now, if the sharing mechansim you use is private, apssword protectged, and between freinds, you don't have much to worry about becaues a) they won't find out about it and b) accessing it would be clearly illegal.

What a numbnut

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mark Ishikawa came to the data security business from the Dark Side"

Came from the Dark Side? Sold out to it more like

"So it is a precursor to this bad behavior"

So, by this logic, is owning a computer.

what happened to the Constritution?

[LinuxWoman]

Thought we had a right to be considered innocent till proven guilty and a right to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizures? Guess the DMCA somehow retracted important parts of the Constitution.

They read sites to check for possible coded messages. They scan computers for useful info and turn it over to corporations for suits and to law enforcement for arrest. Would have thought for sure to get those kinds of searches you'd need a warrant.

Oddly enough, on a related note, many of the tickets from the cameras at intersections have been thrown out because the systems were overseen/administered by private companies. Wouldn't this same tactic work against most legal actions based on info from BayTSP?

Re:what happened to the Constritution?

[kalidasa]

Thought we had a right to be considered innocent till proven guilty and a right to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizures?

IANAL, but I'm guessing it's some kind of open door principle - e.g., that the police can arrest you if they can see a dead body in your house through an open door. If you're file sharing, you are by definition inviting people to examine the files you're sharing, and so don't have much right to say "but I didn't mean for BayTSP to see what files I was sharing, only everyone else on the planet."

Anybody who is a lawyer, please feel free to correct if I'm mistaken.

Re:what happened to the Constritution?

[MoneyT]

Do you realize one of the provisions in the law (if I recall correctly from my political science class) is that while a cop or other law enforcement person could attend or visit any public meeting or gathering, they can not "gather evidence" with out a warent. The only thing they can do explicity is make an arrest for a crime that they witness being commited, not for one that has the potential to be commited.

Maybe I'm just being silly but...

[Java Pimp]

"Our algorithms are adaptive," claims Ishikawa. "You can cut a picture in half and we'll still find it, matching the cut-down version against a database of originals, effectively matching the electronic DNA of the target."

Shouldn't they be getting in trouble themselves for either 1, downloading kiddie pr0n, or 2, compairing the images to a database collection of kiddie pr0n the've collected over the years?

I know, they are doing it for the greater good and are not redistributing kiddie pr0n but it still sounds funny...

Re:Maybe I'm just being silly but...

[damiangerous]

Maybe you meant to post this in the previous news item

Maybe you meant to read the article?

"BayTSP tracks for the FBI the global carriage of kiddy porn. When a big child pornography bust takes place, it is generally on the basis of evidence gathered by BayTSP."

So, at some point, they need to possess child pornography. While the FBI cannot grant permission for a non-sworn officer to commit a crime (and even in those cases they have limited discretion, usually simple possession of controlled substances and the like), they most likely just have an understanding with the relevant District Attorney. The FBI chooses whom to arrest, and the DA decides which cases to prosecute, and they simply won't arrest or prosecute BayTSP because it's not in their best interests.

Re:Maybe I'm just being silly but...

[swm]

they most likely just have an understanding with the relevant District Attorney. The FBI chooses whom to arrest, and the DA decides which cases to prosecute

Here in Boston, we just sent an FBI agent--name of Connolly--up the river for having "understandings" like that with some of the local wise guys.

Granted, they were into kneecaps, not kiddy porn, but I'm hard pressed to see the difference in principle--or law.

Re:I think they should collect data

[Anonymous Coward]

That site's got a wide open vulnerability on one of its ports!




ahhhhh, goatse, truly a classic for the ages.

BayTSP is small potatoes

[-=OmegaMan=-]

The big boy is MediaForce lead by the ever-pleasant Mark "The Tool" Weaver. Their complaint level dwarfs BayTSP's. Their complaint accuracy level, though, leaves much to be desired.

Re:BayTSP is small potatoes

[-=OmegaMan=-]

You'd be suprised at how many people still use the FastTrak family of P2P programs.

They also look for Gnutella N Friends and Hotwire.

ha-ha!

[SethJohnson]

I'll bring the beer to that slashdot party! Of course, I'll have to wahoo it from a 7-Eleven on the way there...

how to block baytsp

[reflector]

run shareaza (gnutella) and install the shareaza security update, get the magnet: link here:
http://bitzi.com/lookup/ZYNHYUHEI3VQHUJTTT5 UOZZMUZ 7ADXKA.B3GVXM74XKME5FPIREMVW3YKTW42JSN6FYQO2HI

or, if you want to do this yourself, here's the info:
209.204.130.0 netmask 255.255.132.0 (baytsp)
209.122.130.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 (baytsp)

the first block (209.204)seems to be the one they're using, my security manager shows 58 hits
there with none on the second block.

Re:how to block baytsp

[nurightshu]

The netmask (or subnet mask) is what tells routing systems what bits of the IP address are network address and what bits are host address.

Picture, if you will, an IP address. Not as aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd, but as a computer sees it: a string of binary digits. For instance, my computer's hypothetical address is 10.18.42.171. To the computer, that's:

00001010 00010010 00101010 10101011

I've inserted spaces between octets for clarity, but the computer only sees one long number there. It has to have some way to know what network it's sending to, and what host it's sending to on that network, which is where your netmask comes in. A netmask uses binary ones to represent network bits, and binary zeroes to represent host bits.

For the example above, my subnet mask is 255.255.248.0, which works out as follows:

00001010 00010010 00101010 10101011 <== My IP address
11111111 11111111 11111000 00000000 <== My netmask

Everything represented by ones in the netmask is network, so I'm in the 10.18.40.0 network. The zeroes are host bits, so my host address is 683.

As for why Sonic.net is listed as the netblock owner, it stands to reason that the folks who set this little monstrosity up would never host their website from the same netblock that they use to scan your personal information, so they've contracted hosting services out.

Re:ACK!

[lostPackets]

Can someone publicise the IPs so that we can all "do our civic duty" and reject all their packets?

Re:One way to fix it...

[jerkychew]

Explain to me how you're going to share files with all your ports blocked?

Re:FIX THE FLAG ICON

[geekoid]

now, if only the flag icon had 13 stripes.

Re:eh?

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

TRACK-YOUR-POSITION has never sponsored the BayTSP regime!!!

Re:Break and Enter?

[perljon]

I think this comparison is poor. Not only is the door unlocked in this case, but sitting on the other side of the door is a functioning service that allows the public to view and download files. This is the equivalent of putting a sign in your front yard that says, 'Ruths Antiques' and a now open sign, and unlocking your door.

If you start providing a service to the public (paid or free), anyone may walk in, take a look around and even sample the free goods. (Unless you specifically ban them.)

This is exactly what they are doing... stepping into your front door to interact with your service to find out information about your activities. When there is a public access to your property, you can't turn around and claim privacy... you can, it just isn't going to work.

If they took the next step and took advantage of a flaw in your service to do damage to your computer or goods, this would be the equivalent of taking a baseball bat to a china shop, which is the wrong thing. If you crack in your store window or on your store shelves, you can't seriously claim your rights were violated when you get nailed.

Re:Open Ports

[phorm]

Nope. But they *can* look in through the door, and if they see something going on that's illegal through that open door they can take appropriate action.

So that's what those odd animal noises were from - phorm

Misunderstanding of "the web"

[doorbot.com]

When BayTSP finds an IP address that appears to be the source of child pornography or pirated music or video files, under the DMCA, it can subpoena ISP logs. These logs can directly connect even dynamic IP addresses to user accounts, making it clear very quickly who owns the offending account. Every ISP keeps these http logs, and even products for so-called anonymous surfing aren't effective in circumventing the technique.

"We have 100 percent coverage of peer-to-peer file sharing," Ishikawa claims. "If you are illegally sharing copyrighted materials, we know who you are."

I still don't understand how ISPs log P2P file sharing... that's usually not taking place over port 80. Do they log every packet? Probably not (although if so, it'd be fun to generate a lot of bogus packets with your extra bandwidth).

Re:Misunderstanding of "the web"

[victorvodka]

Presumably homeslice at BayTSP is able to get IP addresses and times from monitoring his Kazaa traffic. He then presents this data to Earthlink with a subpoena. Meanwhile Earthlink logs every subscriber with their dynamic IP and time, so they can match IP addresses to actual people. If there's any justice in the world, Earthlink tells homeslice "screw you" when he comes with the subpoena.

Re:Mirror please.

[Qrlx]

You don't think that maybe they have two connections, one for their web page and another that they snoop on? Because if they didn't, wouldn't it be too easy to firewall 209.204.138.224?

(We should all probably firewall at least the /24, or maybe their isp's whole netblock which accoring to arin is 208.224.128/18 if I can still do binary)

By the way, did anyone else notice that their DNS server is snitch.production.baytsp.com.? At least they're honest!

BayTSP breaking the DMCA?

[toupsie]

"Our algorithms are adaptive," claims Ishikawa. "You can cut a picture in half and we'll still find it, matching the cut-down version against a database of originals, effectively matching the electronic DNA of the target."

It sounds like Ishikawa is trying to circumvent encryption by piecing a message back together into its original form against the wishes of the orginal owner and storing originals without persmission from the owner.

And what is this guy doing with this massive database of kiddie pr0n? Protecting the public? Yea, that's the ticket. Not buying any used keyboards from this guy. Yeech!

Re:BayTSP breaking the DMCA?

[dbrutus]

So if you use your fair use rights to take a bunch of copyrighted works to make a collage BayTSP's robots are going to kick your file as a multiple copyright violator.

Oh gooood.

Port scanning? -- Not!

[vrmlguy]

There's already a hue and cry over the words, "we only probe the ports on your computer that you have made public". Note that he doesn't say how the ports are scanned. BayTSP could easily be using a windoze macro-bot to run, say WinMX, looking for all files containing the letter "a", then capturing the results. Repeat for other letters and digits. Then repeat for IRC clients, etc.

Wisdom from my idiot landlady.

[sam_handelman]

"The FBI has us looking for certain specific things,"[terrorist steganography] says Ishikawa, "but we haven't found anything yet."

Gosh, maybe that's because they aren't there?

This one landlady we had when I was a kid told my Mom, "every time I bring groceries home, I turn the bags upside down over the sink and shake them to get the roaches out, and we've never had roaches!"

My Mom said "have you ever found a roach in a grocery bag?"

And the landlady said "No."

Deep wisdom there.

Re:One way to fix it...

[fmaxwell]

Explain to me how you're going to share files with all your ports blocked?

Send him an e-mail. Tell him the files you want, and he'll FTP them back to you. Just one of many ways that someone could supply files without having an open port.

pool

[phriedom]

I'd like to start a pool for bets on how long it will be before /. gets a subpoena in regards to these threatening statements, but I'm sure /. won't be able to tell us when it arrives. Too bad, it would be fun to watch this unfold. Good luck with "It was just a joke."

Re:pool

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Yeah it's not like it's ridiculous or anything!

Re:pool

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Oh and don't worry I'll let you know.

Re:FIX THE FLAG ICON

[Loligo]

>Who is Eisenstien?

Made movies. Dead now.

-l

Only a few years ago

[killmenow]

Gee, only a few years ago, it looks like Mr. Ishikawa was hosting some porn sites and contributing to the spam problem...

Received: from out2.ibm.net [165.87.194.229] by in7.ibm.net id 935310503.141204-1 ; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:28:23 +0000
Received: from slip202-135-81-145.bg.th.ibm.net (slip202-135-81-145.bg.th.ibm.net [202.135.81.145]) by out2.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA12758; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 08:28:16 GMT
Message-Id: <199908220828.IAA12758@out2.ibm.net>
From: (victim)
To: "marki@SBUSINESS.NET" <marki@SBUSINESS.NET>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 99 15:28:12 +0700
Subject: You provide connectivity to criminal marketing fraud

TO: Mark Ishikawa, Coordinator, SuperBusiness

Dear Mark,

According to traceroute below, you provide connectivity to web1000.com, which operates a system of pornographic internet marketing frauds criminalized under the recent Virginia statute on UCE. They even advertise their webhosting service on the same webpage with the pornography. (I have record copies with me for future use.)

You are now on notice that you are a witting accomplice to web1000's criminal actions.

Please shut off connectivity to this fraud. If you continue to provide connectivity, the Virginia Attorney General can have your California corporate registration revoked for operating contrary to your charter (which is to conduct only legal businesses).

Kind regards,

(victim's signature block)

C:\>tracerte 216.49.10.14
0 bang1br1-tok1.ba.th.ibm.net (152.158.213.46) 187 ms 157 ms 187 ms
1 bang1br1-tok1.ba.th.ibm.net (152.158.213.46) 156 ms 157 ms 218 ms
2 sydn1br1.nz.ibm.net (152.158.248.2) 375 ms 313 ms 312 ms
3 lang1sr1-2-0-1.ca.us.ibm.net (165.87.224.14) 594 ms 500 ms 468 ms
4 lang1br2-ge-6-0-0-0.ca.us.ibm.net (165.87.32.181) 594 ms 468 ms 469 ms
5 sfra1br1-so-0-1-2-0.ca.us.ibm.net (165.87.232.41) 531 ms 500 ms 875 ms
6 sfra1sr2-5-0-0.ca.us.ibm.net (165.87.13.13) 531 ms 500 ms 500 ms
7 165.87.160.225 (165.87.160.225) 500 ms 500 ms 500 ms
8 12.123.12.222 (12.123.12.222) 500 ms 593 ms 500 ms
9 ar3-a3120s1.sffca.ip.att.net (12.127.1.149) 500 ms 562 ms 563 ms
10 12.127.196.94 (12.127.196.94) 593 ms 531 ms 532 ms
11 216.49.0.117 (216.49.0.117) 524 ms 532 ms 531 ms
12 www.webjump.com (216.49.10.14) 523 ms 532 ms 500 ms

C:\>whois -h whois.geektools.com 216.49.10.14
SuperBusiness NET, Inc. (NETBLK-SBN)
150 Almaden Blvd, Suite 500
San Jose, CA 95113
US

Netname: SBN
Netblock: 216.49.0.0 - 216.49.63.255
Maintainer: SBIZ

Coordinator:
Ishikawa, Mark (MI70-ARIN) marki@SBUSINESS.NET
+1 (408) 278-4400 (FAX) +1 408 346-0661

Maybe he got burned and that's why he's so anti-pr0n now.

See here for some of his congressional testimony.

EULA for Connections

[Sturm]

We need to have some sort of click-thu, shrink wrap (whatever), sort of EULA that prevents people like this from looking at our data. Kind of like the old BBS days when you had to "swear" that you weren't law enforcement or something similar.

I've been thinking about the DMCA and

[SquadBoy]

I can see at least one good thing coming of it. That would be the increased use of strong crypto. And it has the addedd advantage of pissing off guys like this. Since those of you who know what I'm talking about and agree with me already agree with me I'm not going to go on and on. For anyone who does not know what I'm talking about but hates the DMCA I'm simply going to post a few URLs and you can educate yourselves.

http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
http://www.rubb erhose.org/
http://www.gnupg.org/
http://www.goo gle.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&safe=off&q=crypto&btnG=Google+Searc h
Also research on the SSL enabled IM clients and servers out there could lead to SSL enabled P2P. Good stuff.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me

[Wraithlyn]

I see a lot of arguments on here about how he shouldn't be able to find out what stuff you're sharing by probing your ports.

This is so stupid.

You're illegally sharing files (I'm not here to debate whether it's right or wrong.. merely that it IS illegal), making them available to be downloaded by complete strangers anywhere in the world. And then you complain that it's possible for someone to find out that you're sharing them!? Get a grip people.. what did you expect was going to happen? Whining about "port probing"... what do you think the file sharing software does when it queries your computer? They probably just reverse engineered the query protocols.

There will be some high profile arrests, and it will probably cut down on some of the most flagrant sharers. People will still share files, and if the environment becomes more hostile to them, it will simply drive file sharing underground, to private FTP sites and the like, where it has always been, and always will be.

--
They said FUD was bad, so I started spreading DUF.

Re:Sounds perfectly reasonable to me

[Wraithlyn]

OK there's like 4 replies to this that all say the same thing... STAY AWAY FROM MY PORT, YOU UNREGULATED SCOUNDREL! :)

So I'll just reply here instead of each one...

While I agree in spirit, you're missing the point...

What if they were to use the same file sharing software you're using, download files from your computer, use software ON THEIR END to figure out what IP you are, and use that to bust ya?

He can do that, right? Nothing to stop him? The point is anyone can find out what you're sharing. In fact, it's rather intrinsic to the nature of sharing something! Getting upset because someone decided to track it won't change anything. It was bound to happen.. the very same technology that enables file sharing enables it to be tracked. IF their methods proves illegal (which is debateable), they will find a legal way. The end result will be the same. That's the heart of the issue, IMHO.

I'm not against file-sharing... in fact I've written file sharing software.

Step 2 to Solve Problem Company

[cheeseSource]

There aren't many countries left that care more about freedom thatn opression and the all-mighty buck so I suggest:
A) we pick a state, one that's comfy and not to small
B) Take it over
c) Start over with compotent people
and
D) Watch the rest of the world imprison itself in stupidity
---Darn, sounds a bit too much like Atlas Shrugged.

Re:Step 2 to Solve Problem Company

[carlos_benj]

c) Start over with compotent people

Would these people be able to spell?

Re:Step 2 to Solve Problem Company

[Snarph]

c) Start over with compotent people

Would these people be able to spell?

I'd expect so, but do you think maybe he was referring to someone who could cook a fruit based dessert?

Hi Mark

[garyrich]

Let's see ... what do we know about Mark from publicly available sources. He's 37. He has an unlisted phone number (no surprise). He has another business phone of 408-979-7900. He knows a little about sqlserver, but is hardly a guru. Used to be CEO of the now defunct valuserve ISP in the bay area. May or may not have taken glider lessons a few years ago.

anyone else?

Re:Hi Mark

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, well, he frequently used to post on YNOT News - an adult webmaster information board.

Doesn't mean he was one, of course. He definitely used to be 'chief operating officer' of Infonent.com, Inc. His current fax is (408)979-7969... and an example of his current work is here.

Of course, he also gets mentioned in Sex Tracker press releases. He claims to be an 'anti-porn advocate', which is interesting, given the work he does protecting the valuable intellectual property of Cinnamonbunz, 'the largest collection of sexy, erotic models!' and Suze Randall the erotic photographer.

I wondered if this had anything to do with him (if it does, he's got some nerve 'I hope you don't mind me taking a graphic from your homepage!') particularly given the reference to driving and the Skyline Blvd. address again. He works for an erotic photographer, amongst others.

Let's see what else; if that is him, he has a web page on AOL of all places
. Plugging that new information into Google we also get maki177@aol.com as a potential address; if you search Google for maki177, you discover 'makiboy' is an alias apparently used by whichever Mark Ishikawa this one is, and taking this chain of improbability to its logical conclusion we discover makiboy@hotmail.com, NYC Jock/Ballet Sissy, and, last but not least, In Search Of... Men Seeking Men. The last includes the interesting blurb, "would like to hear from or meet other trim, athletic guys, 18 - 30s, who enjoy footed nylon or lycra tights. Shiny lycra is best, but nylon is okay too, as long as the tights are footed."

Oh, and he lies to his ballet-loving pals about his age :-)

Hey, makiboy, it's all publicly available information. Now you see why people don't go snooping - they might come to the wrong conclusion - if this is wrong?

Answers on a postcard please to:

"We lurve those tights!",
19020 Skyline Blvd.
Los Gatos, CA 95033

The small print: Half of this information is speculative, uncertain, and totally devoid of context. Don't think of it as fact. But it's a similar style to the information he'll use to report you to the cops - therefore, I would consider it to be poetic justice of a sort.

Eight or nine years????!!

[Newer Guy]

But many people -- including, oddly, Mark Ishikawa -- think the DMCA goes too far by making it illegal for me to even tell you how to circumvent encryption or copy protection technologies. It makes the very passing of knowledge against the law whether or not that knowledge is ever used. "It's a very flawed piece of legislation," says Ishikawa, who predicts that the government will rewrite the copyright law again "in eight or nine years" to correct the mistakes in the DMCA. But until then, the DMCA is the law of the land, and Mark Ishikawa is the Internet's top cop. If this law is as bad a piece of legislation, why not fix it next week? Eight or nine years is way too late! Already there are laws on the horizon that make this one look positively liberal! If Congress can propose these laws, why can't they fix bad laws they've already passed first? Oh wait..I know the answer already! MONEY!

Re:FIX THE FLAG ICON

[kalidasa]

More precisely, Sergei Eisenstein, pioneering Russian filmmaker; did Aleksandr Nevsky, Battleship Potemkin, other famous films. If you've seen the steps sequence from Untouchables, that's an allusion/homage to the famous steps sequence in Battleship Potemkin. In Aleksandr Nevsky there's a famous ice battle scene that has influenced nearly all later depictions of battle in film.

HuuuuuuuuuuHHHHH?

[GeneralEmergency]

.

BayTSP tracks for the FBI the global carriage of kiddy porn. When a big child pornography bust takes place, it is generally on the basis of evidence gathered by BayTSP.

HUH? What, EXACTLY, is the legal basis for BayTSP to search for and to hold Kiddie Porn? How is it that they are exempt from these laws?

Only sworn law enforcement officers should be permitted to perform this evidence search and digital duplication(collection). Contractor personnel are not subject to that very necessary body of laws that deal with "Abuse Under Color of Authority".

Did they move in, or move out?

[Animats]

As of July 9th, that space was available for rent:

• For Rent

  3150 Almaden Expressway, Suite 234
  San Jose, CA
  Office, 4,537 square feet
  $1.95 FS
  6 privates, 2 conference room, kitchen, open area, divisible

  1,882-2,655 sq. ft., monument sign, PLUG N PLAY
  Avail. Now

where is Martin Luther King when you need him?

[Chris Canfield]

The DMCA, which was put in effect in 2000, was an attempt by the U.S. Government to bring copyright law into the cyber age. But many people -- including, oddly, Mark Ishikawa -- think the DMCA goes too far by making it illegal for me to even tell you how to circumvent encryption or copy protection technologies. It makes the very passing of knowledge against the law whether or not that knowledge is ever used.

"It's a very flawed piece of legislation," says Ishikawa, who predicts that the government will rewrite the copyright law again "in eight or nine years" to correct the mistakes in the DMCA. But until then, the DMCA is the law of the land, and Mark Ishikawa is the Internet's top cop.

Mark Ishikawa feels that the DMCA is flawed wrt the conveyance of encryption information. Yet his company helped put Dimitry behind bars for many months, keeping him from his family and threatening to put him away for the rest of his life.

If he didn't do it because he believes in the legislation, then Ishikawa's motivation for helping Skylarov arrested must have been purely money. Ishikawa took half of a year of a man's life for simple cash.

I was going to feel bad that this copyright-enforcer was recieving death threats, until I realized what he had done to a foreign family soley in the interest of money. Where is the heroism? Where is the spine? "Oh, that part will be fixed later, I'm sure." Nothing happens on it's own, buddy. You of all people are in the best position for a little... nonviolent protest.

Of course he won't do that: money and success are demanding mistresses. We just shouldn't feel bad for this person, whatever reprocussions his actions bring down upon him.

-C

An analogy

[RobinH]

we only probe the ports on your computer that you have made public

Isn't that like saying, "we only searched houses of people who left their front door open"?

Where I'm from, leaving your front door open is a public invitation for neighbours and friends to knock and come in, but police and investigators still don't have the right to come in and search my house without an invitation or a warrant. Also, if someone came in and stole my TV while I was busy in the kitchen, they would still be a criminal. Of course, if they just listened to a few of my CDs and left, that probably wouldn't bother me too much.

What I'd like...

[mmol_6453]

Is for the EFF(or ACLU) to turn around and sue them for viewing copyrighted material, and giving P2P a bad name.

Now watch carefully to see if they download anything from your computer. In particular, make your P2P server a honeypot with bogus MP3s. :)

On a Publicly Accessible Server, It's Public

[reallocate]

If you post something -- anything -- on a publicly accessible server, it's public, fair game, and not private. No one needs to probe you PC to get at it. Put copies of Sony's finest CD's on a file-sharing network that you can get to via a URL? That's just as l public as opening a store called "I Sell Stolen CD's".

Re:On a Publicly Accessible Server, It's Public

[reallocate]

No. If someone with Internet access can get to your files via a URL, those files are, by definition, publicly accessible. (That's how search engines can crawl the Internet without negotiating separate deals with every site.) No one needs to probe your ports to access files on your FTP server or your web site. The issue of unreasonable search and seizure doesn't come into it, because you have already placed your files in open view of the world. Your IP address isn't anything like a physical domain, no more than a driver's license number is anything like a car; it's just a unique -- and public -- network address.

Pegging the Hypocracy Meter

[GroundBounce]

In the past, whenever a story about the DMCA came up, by far one of the most common responses was:

"Why not go after the violators instead of taking away everyone's fair use rights?"

This is a reasonable response. Clearly the DMCA is bad because it takes away both fair use and certain forms of free speech that have never previously been banned. On the other hand, widely distributing copies of copyrighted material without the owner's permission is also not right in most people's minds (I realize that there are those who disagree with this).

So, we have an entity who is trying to go after the offenders (and primarily just the big ones), and many people here are criticizing it as some kind of evil activity. This seems pretty hypocritical.

In the past, the coexistence of copyright and fair use has worked because of the balance that existed between the allowing of petty violations (things like making a tape of a record for a friend) and the enforcement of big time content pirates.

The popularizing of the internet has allowed the many petty violations to become far-ranging, and hence the balance has been upset to some degree. As a result, the content providers' response has been to enact the DMCA, which has been bad all around because it attempts to eliminate fair use and petty violations but does little to stop big time piracy.

This company (BayTSP) is attempting to restore the balance by helping to ferret out larger pirates on the internet. If this works, it could actually provide justification for softening the overreaching DMCA by restoring the balance of petty and big time copyright infringement that existed under traditional copyright law.

Re:Pegging the Hypocracy Meter

[JordoCrouse]

So, we have an entity who is trying to go after the offenders (and primarily just the big ones), and many people here are criticizing it as some kind of evil activity. This seems pretty hypocritical.

This guy is obviously not just in the business of going after people who illegally distribute music or movies. That has nothing to do with the DCMA, its a copyright crime, and if he can make a buck off of it, thats great.

The problem with this guy is that he is going after people like Dmitry Sklyarov and others who are breaking the DCMA, and by doing so he is contributing to the indocrination of that law, which is bad for all. Basically, he's back for more cash - taking advantage of an unjust law while it lasts.

As a result, the content providers' response has been to enact the DMCA, which has been bad all around because it attempts to eliminate fair use and petty violations but does little to stop big time piracy.

The DMCA is *not* about priacy. It is about breaking security. Napster and its friends are not about encryption or security, they are about copyrighted materials. Two very different things. Like I said, if this guy wants to go after copyright pirates, he can do it, with my blessing even. I'm pissed about him going after people that do nothing more than talk about security concepts for any number of reasons: academic knowlege, improvement of security, etc..

Everyone seems to forget that copyright piracy was on the books long ago. The DCMA is the new evil that threatens to put any one of us in jail for describing how to watch our own DVDs on our own laptops.

Re:Pegging the Hypocracy Meter

[gmhowell]

Probing my ports (hehe, not as fun as it sounds) is not quite legal. It doesn't matter that he is a private person/company (at least as far as criminal prosecutions go). There is no probable cause to search my 'premises'. An analogy (which you or someone else will rip to shreds):

You can't just go poking into my mailbox to see what is in there. Further, if you find a package to/from O.B. Laden, you can't confiscate it. The police can't do much with it unless there is reason to believe it may be evidence of a crime. There's a good chance it's just some candy.

Similarly, you can't see what ports I have open on my machine. Other cases, and various DA's and Attorneys General have said that I can't, so why can he? If he finds an open or communicating port, he's not allowed to see what's there.

But, the biggest flaw with my argument is that if I'm running Kazaa (or similar) I have essentially said: "Hey, come look what's in my mailbox. Want a piece of candy?"

You're probably right. And I'm almost ready to disconnect Kazaa anyone, due to the shit quality of mp3's people are sharing.

Re:Pegging the Hypocracy Meter

[msaavedra]

In the past, whenever a story about the DMCA came up, by far one of the most common responses was: "Why not go after the violators instead of taking away everyone's fair use rights?"...many people here are criticizing it as some kind of evil activity. This seems pretty hypocritical.

You are making the ridiculous, but all-too-common assumption that everyone on slashdot believes exactly the same things. Don't you think it is more likely that some people think targeting individual copyright violators is the correct action, while other people think it is bad? And that people who hold either opinion are likely to post here? Sheesh.

Re:Pegging the Hypocracy Meter

[GroundBounce]

You're right. The DMCA and copyright violation in general tend to have their distinction blurred but they are really different things. While I approve of them going after mass copyright violators, I disapprove of them going after Skylarov. Good point. Unfortunately, the article drifted into talking primarily about catching copyright violaters, and that's what I had in mind when I was making my point.

I still think that if the amount of widely distributed copyright violation on the net can be reduced, that it will take some of the wind out of the sails of the DMCA.

Perhaps if Mr. Ishikawa really does disaprove of the DMCA as he says, then he could concentrate mainly on the general copyright violation portion of his business rather than catching specifically DMCA violators.

Re:Pegging the Hypocracy Meter

[commodoresloat]

Not true.

Re:Pegging the Hypocracy Meter

[MoneyT]

But if a cop is comming in to investigate whether or not your are selling illegal goods, they have to state that. And more often than not, they need probable cause to get a warrent to conduct the search to begin with.

Perhaps Time to Use Filetopia?

[penguin_dance]

I never understood why Filetopia didn't rise to the top of downloaders. It reminded me of the now defunct Scour, but it has privacy checks and encryption. It's only drawback it it doesn't have as many users. I suspect this is more out of the fact that they just didn't promote it enough because it worked very well.

It's primarily for Windows, but can also be run with WINE.

A better way of doing it?

[bashibazouk]

Would it be possible to redirect bayTSP to a different directory rather than blocking them? It seems to me that by blocking, you are just initiating a battle of blocking/moving to different ip address space and/or advanced techniques of getting past the block. If you can fool bayTSP with a trojan directory, it will return no copyright infringement here rather than blocked from access. This could slow down the implementation of counter-measures that are sure to happen.

Re:A better way of doing it?

[G00F]

Let's waste their time!

. . . and our bandwith?

Re:A better way of doing it?

[reflector]

the way shareaza is currently implemented, there are
2 security options, accept connexion or deny connexion.

they don't necessarily know that they are being blocked,
however. on gnutella, many clients don't have the option
of letting you browse a host's files like you can on kazaa.
even the clients that do let you do this (like shareaza),
it's configurable, so the user might simply have allow
host browsing turned off.

"Probing His Open Ports...."

[Anonymous Coward]

The following is public information culled from
public websites :

Public information - Mark Ishikawa

http://www.toyotaatlantic.com/Team.asp?ID=43 - toyota racing team same cell #
Ishikawa, Mark M (MI70) marki@BAYTSP.COM
Ishikawa,Mark PO Box 1314
Los Gatos, CA 95031-1314
US 408-399-0600 408-979-7969

BaySpider BayTSP.com
Contact: Mark Ishikawa (CEO)
3150 Almaden Expressway #234
San Jose, CA 95118 USA
Phone: +1(408)979-7900
Fax: +1(408)979-7969
E-mail: sales@baytsp.com
World Wide Web: http://www.baytsp.com/

BayTSP.com Intellectual property protection: About BayTSP: Contact Us
15466 Los Gatos Blvd. Suite 109-368 Front Desk Fax Toll Free 1.877.9BAYTSP
Information Career Opportunities Investment Opportunities Sales Information Your
Thoughts spiderbites@baytsp.com

Phone # listing for Ihsikawa in CA
Results:
MARK M ISHIKAWA
LOS GATOS CA 95030
(408) 399-4361
Results:
MARK M ISHIKAWA
LOS GATOS CA 95030
(408) 399-4391
Results:
MARK M ISHIKAWA
LOS GATOS CA 95030
(408) 399-4571

http://www.clerkrecordersearch.org/

16346860 07/08/2002 1 RELEASE LIEN ISHIKAWA, MARK M (E) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TAX COLLECTOR (R)
16147701 03/08/2002 1 CERT AMOUNT DUE ISHIKAWA, MARK M (R) STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD (E)
16088662 02/01/2002 1 CERT AMT DUE ISHIKAWA, MARK M (R) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TAX COLLECTOR (E)
16088661 02/01/2002 1 CERT AMT DUE ISHIKAWA, MARK M (R) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA TAX COLLECTOR (E)
15957939 11/13/2001 8 DEED OF TRUST & ASSIGN RENT ISHIKAWA, MARK M (R)
HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORP CA (E)
14624059 01/28/1999 1 RELEASE LIEN ISHIKAWA, MARK M (E) FRANCHISE TAX BOARD (R)
14595929 01/13/1999 1 REQUEST FOR NOTICE DEFAULT ISHIKAWA, MARK M (R)
BARRETT, JOHN C (R)
14595928 01/13/1999 1 RELS TAX LIEN ISHIKAWA, MARK M (E) UNITED STATES (R)
14595927 01/13/1999 1 RELS TAX LIEN ISHIKAWA, MARK M (E) UNITED STATES (R)
14595926 01/13/1999 4 DEED OF TRUST & ASSIGN RENT ISHIKAWA, MARK M (R)
BARRETT, JOHN C (E)

A possible alternate email address for
Mr Ishikawa.
Mark Ishikawa
Los Gatos, US
marki@valuserve.com

Now I am not saying The above are all the same
Mark Ishikawa, but at least some mark ishikawa lives in santa clara county and seems to not pay his taxes.....

Oh where, oh where has my privacy gone???

Like Utah?

[Stoutlimb]

I hear there that everyone there votes for a group agenda.

Re:One way to fix it...

[fmaxwell]

oh, yeah... that's convenient.

There are already programs that accept file requests via e-mail and reply with an attachment containing the file. They also e-mail back directories, accept files sent to them, etc. That I gave a manual example for simplicity is no reason to assume that it could not be automated.

Re:im not going to comment on this

[mindstrm]

The logic is very strong.

You go on to, say, gnutella. By searching gnutella, your computer reveals to other computers that your computer has something speaking http running on port 80 that is likely sharing files.
They go and look at those files.

They have not 'hacked' into anything.

They go and search for files the same way every other file searcher does, though perhaps they use some custom software, and then they keep a record.

IT makes perfect sense.

Good idea

[Eazy-N]

Even better, what about a video file named , for example, starwarsdivx.avi which actually contains a 10-minute still of Christmas Island's most infamous export accompanied by a maximum-volume 1kHz tone...?

We only enter unlocked homes...

[KFury]

The problem, unlike what you probably expected after my trolling subject, is that just because someone left a port open and had DCMA-relevant content behind it, doesn't mean they broke the law.

If my mom flips a switch on OS X to allow personal web sharing, and doesn't understand that this means someone can traverse her iTunes library, then just because some guy can exploit that security breach doesn't mean that she violated the DCMA any more than someone who forgot their purse on a bench, and someone photocopied the book they found inside.

84% of us are guilty.

[KFury]

The next time an IE glitch is found that renders your machine open to full directory access and, after a reasonable amount of time, you still haven't applied the patch (if Microsoft actually released one), then are you guilty of DCMA violations?

Of course not, but what if people intentionally didn't apply the patch, and others created handy software to exploit the hole, so by tacit agreement you share in this 'non-intentional' way. Now don't you think they'd go after everyone?

Because that's basically the same as leaving ftp access open...

Funny...

[CrazyDuke]

"and we only probe the ports on your computer that you have made public."

Funny, I remember the Sysadmin at Virginia Tech pleading to us computer geeks not to portscan dns servers because their sysadmins tend to call him up and demand that you be stripped of all access privilages because of your (with sarcasm)"hacking" attempt.

Whats good for the goose aparently isn't good for the gander.

what do you need a mirror for?

[commodoresloat]

I downloaded the article off kazaa.

RIAA does the same thing

[crystalplague]

I got a cease and desist letter from the RIAA back when I ran a huge-ish FTP of music. They emailed my ISP, my ISP called me and a 20-something year old techie was like "uh, yeah, these people want you to stop serving music, so, uh, yeah, if you could stop that, um, that would be good." he obviously didn't care but when i told him about it being a passworded account (they actually logged in) he's like "yeah they're portscanning everybody now and using common login/pass combos to get in a look around." I promptly forwarded the message to the RIAA's anti-piracy email with a "fuck you" reply and accused them of breaking in. Wouldn't it be ironic if I sued them under the DMCA?

Re:not this argument again

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Look kids, there is a fallacy here, but you're bread analogy's got nothing to do with it, because there is no correllation between bread and molestors (a molestor is not MORE likely to eat bread. He is more likely to have kiddy porn, supposedly). Can any of you find the true fallacy?

No you wouldn't

[tkrotchko]

If they have half a brain, they use some sort of distributed tool (something like Akamai) so that you'd need to know more about them. More than likely, the addresses they use belong to an ISP or multiple ISPs.

The netblock they advertise is their business network.

Re:One way to fix it...

[fmaxwell]

But it's still not as convenient as Kazaa or some other spyware ridden software for mass public consumption.

But it will punch through corporate firewalls when Kazaa, Morpheus, etc. are blocked. Very handy when you work somewhere that has a seriously anal network security guy that sets up the firewall.

Didn't the federal courts just rule on that?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

However, that said I think people who ar turned on by kiddie porn have a problem, and people who DISTRIBUTE kiddie porn are criminals.

Actually (if I understand a recent Supreme Court ruling correctly) it's people who MAKE kiddy porn using ACTUAL KIDDIES, and the people who distribute THAT, who are criminals. People who make or distribute kiddie port that was NOT made using underage models are just publishers of erotica or pornography.

The crime is abusing the child and/or being an accessory to abusing the child - not making publcations depicting the abuse of a child, which (regardless of how revolting it might be) falls under the heading of "free press" and into the whole "community standards" morass.

Of course once the government procecutors established a precedent that kiddie porn (using underage models) COULD be banned (as the product of a criminal act - child abuse), they used it to bust tpeople possessing or distributing ALl forms of kiddie porn - including pictures of young-looking OVERage models (computer-processed or otherwise), drawings, and pure-text stories, none of which actually abused a child as a necessary part of their production. This worked for a while and a lot of people were convicted.

But the supremes recently ruled (if I understand it correctly from the little that hit the media) that the burden of proof to show that a child was actually abused in the process of making the porn is on the government.

(My tastes in erotica don't include underripe people [thank goodness]. So I'm afraid that I didn't pay too much attention to the case - other than to think "It's about time!" that the Supremes stomped this particular abuse of government power before it spread to other subjects - like security technology.)

Of course that won't stop them from TRYING AGAIN, probably with some minor variation. And kiddie porn (thanks to its association with child abuse) has few defenders. So people looking for a lucrative new carreer might want to avoid this one, despite the court decision.

(Obligatory caveat: IANAL. Obligatory contextual clarifiation: That doesn't mean I'm a back-door man. B-) )

Re:not this argument again

[Imperial Tacohead]

Oooh! Oooh! Me! Finally, a philosophy major comes in handy...

Just because there's a correlation between kiddie porn and child molestation, doesn't mean that there's any sort of causual link between the two.

Now, time to sit back and wait another few years for philosophy to come in handy again...

I like Bob, but a small correction..

[wfrp01]

Now we get to the part I find especially interesting, and where I think there is a lot of confusion among users. When BayTSP finds an IP address ... it can subpoena ISP logs. These logs can directly connect even dynamic IP addresses to user accounts, making it clear very quickly who owns the offending account. Every ISP keeps these http logs, and even products for so-called anonymous surfing aren't effective in circumventing the technique.

The "technique" involves subpoenoeing log files. If you don't keep logs, there's nothing to subpeona. Here's an example. Put 1000 users behind a NAT box. Don't log NAT activity - which is pretty much the norm. Are you going to blame the NAT box operator for activity behind the box?! This goes beyond being an accomplice to the crime.

There are laws that allow for law enforcement agencies to subpoena connect logs. But as far as I know, there are no laws which require people to keep logs of all communication activity. That would be outlandish. If you thought Ashcroft's peeping goon squad idea was bad...

Bullshit

[FallLine]

While I'm not, never have been, nor ever will be a consumer of child pornography, I must disagree. I think these laws banning child pornography will eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court because they're unconstitutional.

Your "argument" is lame because while you find air in EVERYONE's home, you do not find child pornography on everyone's computer. You're on crack if you believe there is not a causal correlation between the desire to own child pornography and the propensity to sexually abuse children. It is not of course a 1 to 1 correlation. But it is sufficient to justify continued and constant efforts to track down the distribution of this filth and jump on the people who trade it with both feet.

This is wrong on multiple accounts. Firstly, where is your proof that even, say, 20% of people that watch child porn have EVER: paid for child pornography, helped produce it, or actually abused a child themselves (in any shape way or form)? I've yet to see anything concrete. If your argument is going to swing around this point, you should at least be able to back it up. Secondly, regardless of what that percentage is, these same claims can be asserted for many rights that we protect. Would you debate that the consumption of extreme racist magazines and newsletters also correlate strongly to some form of hate crime? Do we ban these magazines? NO. Do we even throw the readers in prison to be "reconditioned"? NO. Do we treat the consumption of these papers as being equivalent to actually DOING them? NO. I have absolutely no sympathy for these racists, but we're consistent on that and for good reason: it's a very slippery slope. I could give you further examples of more sympathetic consumers...but I lack the time.

More to the point, if it is real child pornography is produced through the abuse of children and I would argue that anyone supporting shares the guilt of this abuse.

This is not necessarily true, maybe not even in a large percentage of the cases. Does an image of a naked child harm them (especially when it is innocent (e.g., running around on the beach) and anonymous? The people that get sexual pleasure from it may be sick, but that does not mean that the child is harmed in any reasonable way. Furthermore, much of what we call child pornography is still legal in other developed countries and WAS in fact legal in our country in the not too distant past. In addition, with the growth of P2P and other internet technologies, the link between leaching a file and encouraging its production is extremely tenuous. The onus should be on law enforcement to prove that the person at least paid for or exchanged some other good or service for that pornography or at least make a reasonable case for "support." What's more, there are also questions to be raised about intentions. For instance, it's possible to innocently download a file under a given name (as it appears to said user), albeit in appropriately named, in Kazaa (and probably other p2P programs) and download something that bears no relationship to what you think you're downloading...and even have the NAME of that file be totally different (due to the way they handle checksums)....I might pick this up later. I've got to run.

Re:Bullshit

[FallLine]

You're overlooking an important point. The production of racist literature does not violate the law.

Firstly, I was responding to the assertion that these people should be locked up because the mere viewing supposedly (postively) correlates with and/or encourages the sexual abuse of children. Secondly, even in the case where the media depicts the actual abuse of a child, these same tenuous assertions of "purpose" can be made for the racist literature and other publications. For instance, the hate magazine may depict the burning of a synogogue or what have you, yet they almost certainly recieve the same protections. Now maybe the courts will intervene in particular cases whereby the perpetrators of the act were paid or otherwise encouraged to commit the act by the publisher, but that must be shown, it's not just a blanket law. Thirdly, you can't just dismiss a legal challenge like this on the grounds that it happens to be the law of the land now. We have SCOTUS for a reason.

Behind every piece of child porn, there is a victimized child. Don't gloss over that with petty justifications.

Again, this is not necessarily true. While I absolutely agree that we should vigorously prosecute those that commit the abuse (where the child is made to engage in sexual activity), not everything that is defined as child porn has this element. For instance, it is quite possible that a photographer may simply photograph nude children at the beach and other public places, without encouraging or having any active role in the child's exposure, and when these photographs are collected by the admittedly twisted people that enjoy it, it is deemed as child pornography and the people that merely happen to download it are treated, by the law (not to mention the media, society, etc), as if they raped a child, despite the fact that its viewership cannot be reasonably argued to have anything to do with the child's acts (even if you define that as abuse...which can be very much of a stretch).

Remind me to never piss off..........

[Sergeant Beavis]

The Slashdot community. Y'all some evil sonuvagun vigilantes.

They better be carefull...

[StArSkY]

If they inadvertantly do this to an Australian citizen, then they are breaking our privacy laws, and can be extradited and prosecuted in Australia.

Sentences include jail time. They may think what they are doing is nice and legal, and it may be for people in America, but how are they to know if I am in America or Australia? I bet they don't check the IP ranges and where they reside before running port scans.

Tut Tut you evil crackers of doom

Re:One way to fix it...

[Rader]

There's nothing stopping this company from emailing you their requests and you replying with an attachment containing the file. Evidence.

if you automate it, then you'll automatically give out your evidence to anyone, including them.

The law can't be logical here

[wytcld]

If Joe Stupid sets up his Win box so that there are some public shares exposed to the Net, and everything in those shares is owned by Joe, then isn't it the case that there is no theft of IP until someone like Ishikawa comes along and steals a copy? Can we ask his ISP to shut him down for this pattern of theft? Doesn't the DMCA impell them to comply?

Is it really this case that I can't keep goods I own anywhere they might be stolen from, if those goods involve someone else's IP? There are buildings that are trademarked (the Space Needle in Seattle, for instance). You can't take commercial photos of them without the trademark owners' permissions. And they keep those buildings right out in the open, where anyone could just take a snapshot. But no-one blames the building owner who hasn't done a Cristo on his building for the theft of the IP when this happens.

Re:Could they use Ishikawa's former private ISP?

[dbrutus]

He likely is.

He was COO of Superbusiness Net, Inc. which got merged in with Infonent. The ARIN block for sbusiness.net has as its tech email noc@baytsp.com

So there is some sort of relationship that is ongoing.

If you're running P2P software...

[Eric Damron]

"Thus, in order for this to be legal, I'd have to give them permission first."

By running P2P software and sharing files you have implied an invitation. He has every right to use the access that you have provided.

It would be different if your P2P software requested a password. However, most P2P software would not be covered by this law any more than a web server in Maryland.

Re:One way to fix it...

[crucini]

Problem is, once you standardize this protocol and publish an email address that supports it, people like BayTSP can connect. If you don't standardize and publish, you won't share with very many people, and you are no concern to the "intellectual property" industry.

Re:One way to fix it...

[fmaxwell]

I never said that this was a way to defeat companies like BayTSP. I said that it was a way that files could be shared with no open ports.

Re:I think that already exists...

[Sabalon]

Yeah...I live in Georgia and we tried this back in the 1800's. Turns out the feds weren't none to happy about it.

I'm sorry

[greenrd]

You clearly need to go to a remedial logic class.

Try again...

[fmaxwell]

Problem is, once you standardize this protocol and publish an email address that supports it, people like BayTSP can connect.

I never said that this was a way to defeat companies like BayTSP. I said that it was a way that files could be shared with no open ports.

Well

[mindstrm]

Portscannign is not, in and of itself, illegal.

They are not portscanning, however, they are cataloging listings of files being openly shared by people.

And it would be arguable if it were illegal access.... what access controls did you have in place on your share? None? That's generally an indication that it's okay for anyone to attach to it.

That's why access controls exist.