Slashdot Mirror
MediaDefender's BitTorrent-Based DOS Takes Down Revision3
Sandman1971 writes "Over the long Memorial Day weekend, Revision3 was the target of a malicious Denial Of Service Attack which brought R3 to its knees. After investigating the matter, it was discovered that the source of the attacks came from MediaDefender, the famed company hired by the MPAA and RIAA to try and stop the spread of illegal file sharing. The kicker? Revision3 was taken down for running a bittorent tracker to distribute its own legal content."
Cute sig!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Very true. It's just like Scott McClellan. By the time McClellan had taken the office of White House Press Secretary in July 15, 2003, it was pretty clear that not only were the WMD claims false*, it was also clear that the White House Press Secretary, potentially already regardable as the lying mouthpiece of the President**, was especially servicing that position in the Bush administration. In short, the fact that years later he would leave and write a book about it hardly sets him up as the innocent victim that's telling his sad tale.
Oh, and don't think this at all means that Vader should get off the hook in any way.
*For those who actually listened to the news at the time, Hans Blix made it very clear that although Saddam had many times tried to stall and otherwise shield his activities***, there was still very high confidence that Saddam didn't actually have WMDs. Certainly, there was no "slam dunk" evidence of WMDs.
**This is a general accusation. Politicians lie; hence, their PR guy is the head or sub-head (under the Politician themself) liar. The White House Press Secretary is the head, or again sub-head, PR guy of Presidents. Hence, taking over the position amounts to accepting that one is taking the job of liar.
***This was presumed to include things like trying to obtain or make WMDs. There is little contention that Saddam on whether Saddam *wanted* WMDs****. But the fact is, he didn't actually have them. Nor could he readily make them (ie, it wasn't some technicality that left him on the verge of possessing WMDs, ready to make them nearly immediately for use).
****And wanting them and attempting to obtain the materials to make them might very well have been against the treaty signed by Iraq. But, that treaty was signed as apart of the UN. Ie, the UN refusing the use of force against known violations removes any clear impetuous to action*****. In short, the US wanting to declare war unilaterally had the same legal standing as Iraq's venture into Kuwait. The UN, again being pragmatic, is unwilling to invest in a direct armed conflict with the US (in part because the US holds a permanent veto chair) because the risks outweight the gains to the international community. And so, the US is free to employ more rogue behavior than most other countries are capable of without risk of being declared a rogue nation or otherwise be sanctioned. Aka, the strong-armed bully can do as he pleases.******
*****As much as there was an Oil-for-Food scandal, the primary reason that the UN was unwilling to act with force against Iraq primarily had to do with pragmatism. Specifically, given the choice of having to invade and occupy an otherwise contained country and trying to use diplomacy and sanctions to control an otherwise contained country, the latter had the least risks to the international community and potentially the same long-term positive outcomes. If every violation of every possible treaty was turned into war, we'd have already had WW3 by now (consider how many proxy wars that would have been legitimate justification for the USSR and US to nuke each other). Personally, I'd consider that a bad thing.
******And admittedly, the US has engaged in strong-arm tactics in the past (passing arms to anti-communist renegades and otherwise engage in intelligent work to usurp the legitimate power of other nations). But, in the past, the international community happily welcomed the US (and Britains and many other nations) to engage in such activities over (a) nuclear war or (b) having a sole bully would would target them. As horrible as the Cold War was, having a virtual stalemate was preferred in the same way many in the US prefer that Republicans and Democrats are stalemated in Congress and the President, to "limit the damage". But, that's the general mindset when one believes that governments in general can only produce more harm than good in their actions.
Now, feel free to mod be Funny instead of Off-topic; my last off-topic rant was modded too quickly to off-topic for my tastes.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
I hate Big Media. I hate MediaDefender.
However, I don't know of any hospitals or other critical infrastructure that is hosting a torrent tracker. It seems like a bit of FUD for Jim Louderback to say "But what if MediaDefender discovers a tracker inside a hospital, fire department or 911 center?". What MediaDefender did was bad enough (for once in my life, I'm rooting for the FBI here) -- it's not necessary to resort to these logical scare tactics.