Slashdot Mirror
Alternative Browsers Impede Investigations
rbochan writes "Allegations in an article over at CNET propose that alternate browsers such as Firefox and Opera impede law enforcement and investigation efforts because they "use different structures, files and naming conventions for the data that investigators are after", which can "cause trouble for examiners.""
This is one of the dumbest articles I've read in a while...
From TFA:Implying that 'alternate browsers' such as Firefox and Opera, 'hide' data? Shenanigans! These other browsers don't 'hide' anything...you just have to know where to look.
Also from TFA:You can't be serious. If it's this easy to thwart the authorities, maybe I should tender my resume.
God help these 'professionals' if a suspect's computer happens to run Linux...which brings up a disturbing thought...is the presence of a 'non-standard' browser or OS now going to be 'suspicious' to investigators, because they can't seem to penetrate its 'arcane secrets'?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Switch back to IE, it's the best Homeland Security Friendly browser on earth!
While the summary sounds like a "problem", the article clearly indicated that someone has already figured how to deal with these alternative browsers and is sharing with the law enforcement agents.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Heaven forbid that they have to learn to deal with a different file layout. I mean, it's not like these are supposed to be skilled professionals practicing their trade here...
sed "s/SJW.*$/... never mind. I was about to say something stupid, and also, I'm a troglodyte./Ig"
Firefox and Opera may use a different method of file structure/ naming, but they *do* have a fundamental process and that process does not vary from system to system.
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
...the terrorists have already won.
In other news, bad guys hide in secret hideouts, which makes it hard for the Police to do their job.
Damn I have deployed TOR for nothing. Installing Firefox was enough.
http://ebgp.net/ccc/
It sounds like a lot of the people doing this kind of investgation aren't actually computer experts, but using pre-packaged software or following a list of directions someone has tailored for IE.
Effectively, they're professional script kiddies working for the common good instead of against it.
The lesson? Training. You wouldn't put a detective in the morgue and hand him a scalpel, and you wouldn't drop him in a science lab. You'd hire a coroner, you'd hire someone trained in forensic science. If you're going to search someone's computer for evidence, hire an expert or train someone to become an expert.
Help me out, /.!!!
1. Submit patent.
2. ???
3. Profit!
Reminder: Apple owns 1/255th of the internet.
Now I understand why the police or 'special' agencies can't find their terrorists: they rely on MS in general, and IE in particular! ;-)
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Firefox and Opera store information on typed URLs in a different file than IE does, and the files are somewhat tough to decipher
You would think since Firefox is open-source, it would be a trivial matter to determine the format of the cache files by examining the source code.
And then I realized that they were serious.
Now I weep for them.
RTFA again for the best results.
Have they SEEN how IE stores history data? You want to talk about hidden data, sheesh.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
So with a few low-res pictures of some metal objects in Iraq we can determine they have biological weapons... but the 'trained professionals' working for the police can't figure out how to find Firefox's internet logs?
...Firefox... on Linux! "Find what they've been browsing? Hell, we can't even find C: !"
Let me see now (Jon Stuart grin), the police haven't learned how "alternative" browsers store data. Users of these "alternative" browsers even have been known to "flush" their data caches. This , um, "flushing" is a suspicious behavior - AND these "alternative" browsers are resistant to spyware that we normally use to "spy" on our "citizens."
I say, if these "citizens" don't want to be "spied" on, they are SUSPICIOUS! SEND THEM TO GUANTANAMO!
Meanwhile, in Soviet Russa...
Good.
That's one of the reasons I use Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, etc...
Security by obscurity is not essentially valid, but it can be useful.
The government can't force people to organize their thoughts or ideas written down on legal pads with sworn oaths as to dates & times, why should ANY information be handed to them. I run may trace eliminators, for this purpose. I encrypt my file system. If this is going to slow them down or prevent them from gathering evidence, it's done it's job. Just another reason not to buy into the Microsoft way. (I'm not being facetious, it's true: Microsoft has an agenda to be on the side of the law, they HAVE to be lobbying quietly to get stuff like this out and laws passed to enforce it.)
I would say this says something about the level of education and intellegance of authorities. They aren't very educated and smart. If the techie authorities can't handle browser differences how are they supposed to find info on computers are trying to hide.
If I were the authorities I would be insulted by this article and it implying they aren't smart.
Evolution or ID?
As a criminal defense attorney specializing in computer crimes, I can say authoritatively that the investigators are typically poorly trained. Most that I have dealt with are not IT or CS degree holders. In fact, the norm is for it to be a police officer who has taken a 2 week course in Encase, nothing more. Their knowledge of operating systems is lacking to say the least. Of course, this can result in some poor schmuck being convicted for something he didn't do, both because the cops don't know any better, and the juries - who typically take the word of the police as gospel down here in Arizona, know even less and rely on the uninformed testimony of law enforcement.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/28/a_visit_fr om_the_fbi/
A visit from the FBI
By Scott Granneman, SecurityFocus
Published Wednesday 28th January 2004 13:05 GMT
[snip]
I teach technology classes at Washington University in St. Louis, a fact that I mentioned in a column from 22 October 2003 titled, "Joe Average User Is In Trouble". In that column, I talked about the fact that most ordinary computer users have no idea about what security means. They don't practice secure computing because they don't understand what that means. After that column came out, I received a lot of email. One of those emails was from Dave Thomas, former chief of computer intrusion investigations at FBI headquarters, and current Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the St. Louis Division of the FBI.
Dave had this to say: "I have spent a considerable amount in the computer underground and have seen many ways in which clever individuals trick unsuspecting users. I don't think most people have a clue just how bad things are." He then offered to come speak to my students about his experiences.
I did what I think most people would do: I emailed Dave back immediately and we set up a date for his visit to my class.
It's not every day that I have an FBI agent who's also a computer security expert come speak to my class, so I invited other students and friends to come hear him speak. On the night of Dave's talk, we had a nice cross-section of students, friends, and associates in the desks of my room, several of them "computer people," most not.
Dave arrived and set his laptop up, an IBM ThinkPad A31. He didn't connect to the Internet - too dangerous, and against regulations, if I recall - but instead ran his presentation software using movies and videos where others would have actually gone online to demonstrate their points. While he was getting everything ready, I took a look at the first FBI agent I could remember meeting in person.
[snip]
Dave had some surprises up his sleeve as well. You'll remember that I said he was using a ThinkPad (running Windows!). I asked him about that, and he told us that many of the computer security folks back at FBI HQ use Macs running OS X, since those machines can do just about anything: run software for Mac, Unix, or Windows, using either a GUI or the command line. And they're secure out of the box. In the field, however, they don't have as much money to spend, so they have to stretch their dollars by buying WinTel-based hardware. Are you listening, Apple? The FBI wants to buy your stuff. Talk to them!
Dave also had a great quotation for us: "If you're a bad guy and you want to frustrate law enforcement, use a Mac." Basically, police and government agencies know what to do with seized Windows machines. They can recover whatever information they want, with tools that they've used countless times. The same holds true, but to a lesser degree, for Unix-based machines. But Macs evidently stymie most law enforcement personnel. They just don't know how to recover data on them. So what do they do? By and large, law enforcement personnel in American end up sending impounded Macs needing data recovery to the acknowledged North American Mac experts: the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Evidently the Mounties have built up a knowledge and technique for Mac forensics that is second to none.
[snip]
It's the silliest thing I've read about non-IE browsers, and how they're BAD since I read this one.
This is going to be moot if the law enforcement is dealing with people who are serious about what they're doing. I'm sure that if someone is planning an elaborate high-profile attack, they would have the sense to be careful as well, so it won't matter if you use IE or if you use Firefox or if you use Lynx--it's not that hard to wipe out all traces of activity from your computer no matter what browser you use. So I doubt that this is going to be of any help in dealing with smart criminals.
;)
And if the law enforcement can't figure out how to write a simple tool to decipher the files that are left behind from alternative browsers (especially one like Firefox that is open-source, meaning that the format of such files would be easy to determine), then that's just, well, pathetic.
And finally, I think that this is a good thing. Most people in this world will probably never ever have to deal with law enforcement. But they do have to deal with snooping parents, snooping friends, snooping girlfriends, snooping spouses, snooping bosses, etc., so I welcome this as good news.
In other words, they seem to be slamming Firefox, but actually it is pretty good advertisement for Firefox. They should put on their front page.
"Even the brightest police investigators can't look at your browser history! Get Firefox today, the most secure browser."
It's about time someone linked the use of open source software to the War on Terror(TM). I was beginning to wonder if the authorities were asleep at the wheel...
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
Somehow we just never realized this... we should also encourage businesses to only use ONE accounting method, so that embezzlement investigations can be simpler. There should only be a single gun manufacturer, with only one kind of gun available... imagine how much simpler investigations would be? "Well, we already know it was a Glock 32 handgun...".
What are people thinking, that businesses and products might exist to serve the needs of the people paying for and using them? What nonsense! Only law enforcement matters!
Seriously, even if this were a serious question, don't investigators get MORE useful data in the variations of people's setup? The more unique your suspect's setup, the easier it may be to track them.
And of course it's perfectly simple to find the Firefox cache -- can someone just drop them an email? They can print it out, tack it to the wall, and quit with the whinging.
Police, baffled by the lack of a blue "e" can't figure out how they used the Internet.
"And there's no START button! How are we supposed to find anything?"
I like microcars
I question the trust that slashdotters seem to have in this new story. Why should we believe it?
The general police forces have managed to get a new story published on how they can not deal with any sort of semi-modern technology. Why should we believe it?
If I were the police, and I'm sure the police have at least one or two people smarter than me. then I would go to great lengths to get this story published. Why? Not because I can't figure out Firfox, be because I -can- figure out Firefox.
If my suspect thinks that I am too dumb to understand Firfox, then my suspect is far less likely to use powerful encryption. Without the powerful encruption, I -can- read Firefoxes files, and a significant proportion of criminals will think they are safe when they are not.
Hell, I'm not even law enforcement but I still find it obvious how this story is a great advantage for the law enforcement community.
to accept the praise of personal wisdom is an affront to the very ideal i hold dear.
Seriously, what do you propose? Educate them? This is national security that is potentially at stake here, people. We cannot simply turn to the logical solution. There's only one way to deal with this problem and that is to nip it in the bud. All non-IE browsers should be outlawed forthwith and anyone caught using them should be sent to Guantanamo for interrogation.
Just remember CNET is an MS Shill, has been for a long time. Someone at MS decided to take a shot at other browsers in a way they though no one would complain to much about. After all we are good law abiding sheep ^H^H^H^H^H citizens who need police friendly software and DRM to protect us from the evil terrorists, right?? While we are being protected from the terrorists, the hackeers/scammers and spammers are cleaning up! Just change the name of your Firefox directory to Donut Store Locations and they'll find it in a flash!
From Apple's website:
"Using Safari's new Private Browsing feature, no information about where you visit on the Web, personal information you enter or pages you visit are saved or cached. It's as if you were never there."
Investigator: Okay, I'm at the desktop.
...
Tech Support: Now, click on the icon that looks like a blue, lower-case E.
Investigator: Um.. I'm not finding anything, chief.
Tech Support: That's okay, take your time.
Investigator: No, really. There are no blue E's. Just something that looks like.. an exploding basketball? Or an orange fetus, maybe?
Tech Support: Wait, wait. No E?
Investigator: No E.
Tech Support: I'm sorry, sir, but you'll need to create a customer service ticket. In the meantime, try running Windows Update.
Investigator: Christ, we're dealing with a professional!
Nobody should ever make it easy for script kiddies (especially because they have a Chicken Inspector Badge).
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I run BeOS. Now the feds can never catch me Bwahahahahah.
Since when did operating systems become a religion?
Detroit, MI - The American Union of Automechanics is complaining loudly that different makes and models of cars use different parts. "It makes our job very difficult." said Winston Q. Crescenthead. "I mean, we have to work on a Vega, and then turn around and try to fix one of these new Toyota 4Runners. Some of these cars even use different kinds of wrenches. You should see the tools I have to use." Other mechanics have shared similar horror stories. "I got some little British roadster in the shop. It's taken six months of deep psychotherapy, and I think I might be up to the task of putting air in my kid's bicycle tire." The AUA is demanding that Congress pass law a forbidding the sale or use of any vehicle other than a 1972 Chevy Nova.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The one thing that has always bothered me about such "forensic analysis" in computer crime investigation is the fact that it is fairly trivial for a competent developer-type person to artificially create this information and tell any story s/he wants. If someone wanted to frame a person for a computer crime they could even develop a trivial piece of malware that would actually visit target sites from a person's computer over time, such that even the ISP's and target host's logs would confirm the user's activity. Such a program could be configured to activate only when a user was at a computer. The only technical challenge to creating such a piece of software would be finding a means to install it, but it's common knowledge that there are a great variety of means (both social and technical) to accomplish this step.
It would be my guess that it would be fairly difficult to convince a jury that the real criminal was an "evil program" running behind the scenes. The only real hope for a defendant in such a scenario would be to find some flaw in the malware program to suggest its existence (for example, if it activated when the defendant was out of town and his/her spouse was using the machine).
It concerns me that somewhere, someday, someone might go to prison as a result of the forensic analysis of his/her computer when in fact the criminal act was committed by a third party solely for the purpose of landing his/her victim in prison.
... homicide investigators admitted they were stumped when a murderer used an aluminum bat to bludgeon his victim to death rather than the standard lead pipe.
... traces from a pipe ... lead is what makes it a crime scene."
Said an officer who wished to remain anonymous: "We're not even sure there was a murder without some trace of lead at the scene. A bullet
that's too funny. Ok, so lets for one second "suppose" that for some really funny reason what TFA says is true. IE doesn't hide anything and Firefox and Opera do.
This is, just by the way, not true. IE puts some hidden stuff in that Content.IE5 folder which seems to not exist on your hard drive (it's not hidden or operating system protected) but pops up if you type it into the address bar after your temporary files. OOOOOh, that's fucking straightforward.
So AAAnyway, let's "suppose" that this is all backwards and that somehow Firefox hides data. Think about that for a moment? What are they proposing? That everyone switch to IE so that it's easier for the FUCKING GOVERNMENT TO SEARCH THROUGH OUR SHIT? LOLOLOLOLROTFLMAO. Moreover, lets suppose that all reason and rationality has just jumped out of a 10 story building, if everyone does switch to IE to enable the government to better monitor us, are the terrorists and people with shit to hide going to do the same thing? NO MAN, HOLY FREAKING GOD, NO. THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF BEING A THIEF AND A PIRATE AND A FUCKING TERRORIST.
Article summary: terrorists are uncooperative with authorities because they use a file structure which is non standard and harder to search.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I almost pissed my pants. Dude, the fucking government should be worried about how to recover files from hard disks that have been literally blown up in explosions to cover up data. Jesus christ. CNET is like, really dumb.
These guys have degrees in Counter-Strike? Shit! The 1337 and policing our nation - you know those terrorists are wallhacking.
Actually it does suck, and I say this as an OS X fan. I don't want my home directory encrypted. Why should I encrypt my mp3s and photo collection? But I do want the option of encrypting a folder. The amount of data that really needs encryption is tiny compared to the amount of stuff on my hard drive.
In some states, parole for sex offenders can require that they don't look at pornography.
Their parole office will drop by periodically and check their PC. They have some sort of forensic software that does this.
I've heard some jurisdictions require that you only run Windows on your computer as a condition of your parole. Logically this translates to going back to prison for owning a knoppix cd.
There simply aren't the resources to train all parole officers in computer forensics, expose them to various obscure operating systems, or to perform regular offline analysis of offenders hard drives.
The resources are (probably) there for big cases, but when there are probably close to half a million sex offenders on parole - it's just not practical.
What if I look at pr0n with Lynx?
Sie ist tunbar!
It shows they're criminals because it forces Law Enforcement to use non-standard methods of entry (like through a window).
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
That was my thought, after seeing "And the data formats haven't changed that much since the days when Netscape was the dominant browser.".
It's not like Firefox is open source or anything.</sarcasm>
From article:
Firefox and Opera store information on typed URLs in a different file than IE does, and the files are somewhat tough to decipher, Lewis said. He showed his students--mostly law enforcement agents and private investigators--how to do it.
Look at the source for the browser, silly.
"Each browser has its intricacies," he said. "You can find some details online, but often it is difficult."
You have to wonder if they're talking about the same Firefox browser here.
Eh, not that I've poked around the source or would know what to do once I found the bit telling how it stores its cache or anything. But still..
By using Firefox or Opera, you are supporting global terrorism and "open-source" communists! Switch to IE, now called Freedom Browser!
Boo Hoo!
If you wear pants, that means that you've got something to hide.
Hide a linux lapatop with wireless in a closet somewhere and use vnc to access it. Hell, just use a disk on your neighbours wlan.
You can find clues of these things though. Look at the vnc history, try pinging the broadcast address on the subnet, look in the arp cache, see if there are clues in the registry that another drive was mounted.
I suspect it would be very hard to thwarte a computer forensics expert, but i'm sure the VAST majority of petty criminals can be caught by someone with a weeks worth of training.
Yeah, it happened at work, and it was not pretty.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
""Allegations in an article over at CNET propose that alternate browsers such as Firefox and Opera impede law enforcement and investigation efforts because they "use different structures, files and naming conventions for the data that investigators are after", which can "cause trouble for examiners.""
Allegations in an article over at Police Magazine propose that alternate vehicles such as motorcycles and buses impede bank robbery law enforcement and investigation efforts because they "use different shapes, different numbers of seats, and different logos for the manufacturers that investigators are after", which can "cause trouble for get-away car examiners".
Obviously, only Dodge Chargers, like the "General Lee" should be allowed to criminals, to make them easier to catch.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
After looking over the site, I suspect that "The High Technology Crime Investigation Association (HTCIA)" is a front; it is really a for-profit money-making venture, not a legitimate professional association, as it presents itself. For a genuine professional association, they make too strong an effort to convince us that's what they are. It would work like this: A few guys collect the attendance and membership fees, keeping a big profit for themselves. The fees are paid by governments. The conference attendees, mostly law enforcement officials, receive some stupid advice. Masquerading as a professional organization instead of a for-profit business creates good will, helping them to fleece taxpayers.
The content of the training seminars is especially suspicious. Really, how easy is it to uncover the "secret" history files of "alternative" web browsers? I timed myself, and it took me about 90 seconds using Google to work out some good keywords and find the answer. See the first link in my google search.
Something else suspicious about this professional training: Because the source code for Firefox is available for free to the public, which is not the case with Internet Explorer, it should be easier, not more difficult, to uncover where and how Firefox logs history.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I spent 2 years doing electronic crime analysis, and as all law enforcement, the pay and conditions suck. Lack of resourses and lack of understanding the requirements to constantly update skills/knowledge adn training (from the non-technical bean counters ) make life difficult. Add this to report writing and presenting evidence in court to clueless laywers and all in all you have a shit-house job. But on the plus side, chicks dug it !!
Firefox is OPEN SOURCE! That means the file formats are OPEN. Microsoft IE is CLOSED SOURCE, meaning you need to reverse engineer everything to figure out where stuff lives.
That said, I wonder what would prevent someone from creating a wireless fileserver and embedding it behind their drywall. Using an NFSmount or Share, an evildoer's PC wouldn't hold anything evil when the FED's nabbed it.
Realistically I bet it would though - They can do some pretty amazing things with Forensics these days, and I wouldn't be surprised if they could take a ram chip and see previous states of 0's and 1's.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
I work in computer forensics and it isn't that goddamned hard to develop tools to process different kinds of databases, encrypted or otherwise. Besides, I'm certain that if it were in the interests of "National Security", Federal investigators could get ensure cooperation between developers of FireFox or Opera and the contractors who actually do the forensics work.
All you have to do is play "follow the money" and it quickly sounds like Micro$oft is using the God-and-Country argument to win by default the Second Browser War. Considering how invested Micro$oft has been in the US Justice Dep't. (one of former USAG John Ashcroft's biggest campaign contributors and still heavily involved to this date) it would be unsurprising if they were the ones pulling the strings on the issuance of a statement like this.
What ought to happen is for the Dep't. of Homeland Security to proclaim Internet Explorer as the single largest cause of "electronic terrorism" because of Micro$oft's half-assed security measures.
That'd shut them up real quick...
Even worse, those non-IE browsers make it really hard for police to install spyware and keylogging software on the user's computer. With IE, they just insert a little bit of code into any web page and they are done, but Opera and Firefox put up obstacles to that kind of legitimate law enforcement activity! Evil! Terrorism!
I don't know anyone personally, but I can tell you that you've come to the right place! ;)
The point was that it's now possible to encrypt data so that other people can't read it unless they have appropriate credentials.
True story:
One of my coworkers thought NT4+NTFS was an incredibly secure platform. So I put a Knoppix CD in the drive, rebooted, mounted the NTFS partition, went to his profile directory and showed him the contents of his cookies. I then explained to him that NTFS security was cooperative, meaning that the security was based on the idea that a security flag in the filesystem would say "please don't read this file" and the operating system would respect that request. As soon as you find a way to ignore that flag then anything resembling security is out the window (pardon the pun).
Cry me a river. How about hiring real computer science/computer security experts to be examiners, instead of using the good ole boy system? Maybe then they will be able to figure out the trivial differences between different caching systems of different browsers.
If they're having so much trouble with just a different browser, I can't imagine what they would do when faced with a different operating system like Linux or (God forbid) Mac OS X.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
I love it. Think of the advertising potential.
Male voiceover
"Microsoft, used by 100% of all sex offenders. Its not only the law, it their punishment."
Oh! I just fell off my chair.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Part 1
Part 2
Using an off-the-shelf undelete utility or such to find evidence of wrongdoing may be sufficent in order to fire or investigate someone, but any competent laywer would rip that 'evidence' to shreds.
To get a serious felony conviction, evidence has to meet defined standards. For example, recently many DUI's got tossed out in my area because the officers did not properly document the temperature of the equipment.
All evidence needs a documented, trusted, chain of custody. If you suspect an employee of storing kiddie porn on a company computer, and you do anything with that computer before the police get it, the evidence loses a lot of value.
Proper forensic software; just like Breathalyzers, DNA/Fingerprint equipment, and anything else used to collect/store potential evidence needs to be known and trusted, and used by certified forensic folks, because it's not a mad scramble to get as much data as possible, it's an attempt to prove a crime was commited beyond a reasonable doubt.
As an example, it would be difficult to convict someone for having a few peices of child porn in their cache... how many of you have goatse somewhere on your hard drive, does that mean you willfully went there? But if hundreds of photographs are stored in a deliberate fashion, you might have something.
The feds have a nice little chip, weighing under 1 ounce that goes inside of an existing keyboard attached to the wires leading to the PC that logs keystrokes to a buffer for later retrieval. Handy for getting passwords to encrypted drives and such.
At the time, I read through it and noted some "smart" things. They know about dead-mens switches etc; they NEVER boot up the PC. The drive gets removed and hooked up to a scanning system. The scan then looks for anything dodgy or the officer can browse it. If the software needs updated to include bookmarks/history from other sources, then I'm sure it's not all that big a deal to add this in. Even then, bookmarks & history? They are all too easy to clean and/or fake.
If you think the computer forensic expects boot up the PC and try to save your bookmarks to a floppy, you are sadly mistaken.
What worries me more is that computer evidence is so easilly fakeable yet is often seen as gospel by the courts. It would be easy to create "logs" showing bad activity from someone you don't like. If I ever get hastled from the RIAA, the court will be presented with "evidence" that shows the guys bringing the suit were paedophiles, just to show how ridiculus the idea of third-parties producing "evidence" from a remote system claiming you downloaded "X on date Y". The forensic guys have been trained and undoubtably have sworn and oath or signed a contract to be honest. Some anti-p2p company hasn't and it is also in there commercial interest to provide more of this evidence. Worrying times...