FBI Seizes All Servers In Dallas Data Center

1sockchuck writes "FBI agents have raided a Dallas data center, seizing servers at a company called Core IP Networks. The company's CEO has posted a message saying the FBI confiscated all its customer servers, including gear belonging to companies that are almost certainly not under suspicion. The FBI isn't saying what it's after, but there are reports that it's related to video piracy, sparking unconfirmed speculation that the probe is tied to the leaking of Wolverine."

Comments

Too late FBI

[dave562]

On the train on the way home there was a guy walking through the car selling the latest X-men on DVD. I think this is the proverbial "horse already left the barn" situation. However, what happened serves as a good example of what the future holds once the Federal government gets enhanced "cyber security" powers. Imagine what happens when say, for example, a Chinese botnet operator decides to launch an attack against (insert agency here) using zombies exclusively on Verizon's network. Oops... millions of Verizon customers are suddenly SOL. If you've ever had to deal with law enforcement when it comes to recovering what they took from you, you know what a nightmare this could turn into.

Re:Too late FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even have the slightest grasp of the English language you dolt. For fuck's sake, KNOW and THEY'RE... I'd suggest a few more years of schooling for you before you post again.

Re:Too late FBI

[ottothecow]

I'm not sure I understand a full scale FBI raid for determining who actually leaked the copy...

this is a civil contract issue right? Guy working at effects shop or whatever has contractual obligation not to steal shit from work (and probably signed an NDA with the wolverine job). Guy then breaks contract by taking a copy of the movie and then either uploads it or is careless with it and it gets uploaded.

Sure, there is some punishment in order but the guy who leaked a work print probably isnt responsible for the "billions of dollars" that the industry will say the leak cost them...he is at most responsible for one act of infringement when he uploaded it plus breaking a contractual obligation not to do so (and any punishment that shows up as too serious in a contract will just get invalidated).

Re:Too late FBI

[poetmatt]

Umm, you missed the significance here, which is the last sentence they said: "If you've ever had to deal with law enforcement when it comes to recovering what they took from you, you know what a nightmare this could turn into."

If I recall correctly, laws let them hold this shit for up to a month before they're obligated to move their asses and even start giving it back. That doesn't even mean they will. It's beyond ridiculous, people sue all the time for this abuse.

Re:Too late FBI

[johnsonav]

I'm not sure I understand a full scale FBI raid for determining who actually leaked the copy... this is a civil contract issue right?

Nope. This is criminal (Section 506(a)(1)(C)).

Re:Too late FBI

[geekoid]

A) we don't knwo this has to do with WOlverine

B) He just used that as a launching point for a cyber security rant.

That is what I was addressing. Adding the the act that the FBI wouldn't confiscate millions of servers.

Typically, they get a court order go to the company and then gather more information.

OTOH, this data center occupied two floors of a high rise. So we aren't talking about millions of computers.

I understand that it can be difficult to get stuff back from law enforcement, and I agree that is an issue that should be addressed.

Re:Too late FBI

[ottothecow]

Hmm, that it is so long as it can be proved to be intentional in which case it looks like max 3 years + a fine.

Of course if it was a guy taking it home to work on or show his family and it got leaked (or they don't have any evidence to the contrary)...

Either way, how many 3-year max sentence criminal offenses warrant full scale FBI raids that costs numerous other businesses REAL money.

Re:Too late FBI

[0xygen]

I think perhaps the fact it's largely other people's UNRELATED stuff is where the issue really begins to rub people up the wrong way.

There were a bunch of raids like this in the UK. The police keep taking entire sets of Indymedia servers and not giving them back for ages.

Re:Too late FBI

[Festering Leper]

As a Canadian i have to take issue with the way you spelled 'oot'.

Re:Too late FBI

[Jerry]

Your example would never happen.

Apparently you have never heard of the RICO Act, a law passed to fight organized crime.

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=215

RICO has metastasized from its original intent, which was to deal more effectively with the perceived problem of organized crime. Federal prosecutors have discovered that RICO is a powerful weapon that can be wielded against most business owners, should the feds choose to target them. Rudy Guiliani's prosecution of Michael Milken and other Wall Street luminaries in the 1980s--the springboard from which Guiliani rose to become first the mayor of New York City and ultimately a popular public speaker collecting $75,000 per speech--involved some of the early attempts to expand criminal RICO provisions to prosecute private business figures who clearly were not mafiosi. Today, federal prosecutors use RICO routinely to win easy convictions and prison terms for individuals who in the course of business run afoul of federal regulations. For every John Gotti who is brought down by RICO, many obscure business owners and managers are also successfully prosecuted under this law.

In tracing the development of RICO, we find that the law was little more than a "bait-and-switch" statute that has had little or no effect in stopping or inhibiting the crimes--murder, rape, robbery, and so forth--that most concerned the public in 1970. Instead, RICO has enabled federal prosecutors in effect to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers between the national and the state governments. Since RICO's passage, the once-clear jurisdictional boundaries between state and federal law enforcement have been erased as more and more individuals find themselves in the federal dock with almost no chance of acquittal.

The idea for the acronym RICO came from the character Rico played by Edward G. Robinson in the 1930s gangster movie Little Caesar. Nixon signed the bill into law on October 15, 1970, declaring that the new law would "launch a total war against organized crime, and we will end this war" (qtd. in "Nixon" 1970). Indeed, the new law empowered federal law enforcement authorities to engage in activities that seemingly deprived defendants of due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution. Writes Daniel Fischel:

To achieve its objective of preventing the infiltration of legitimate businesses by organized crime, RICO gave the government sweeping new powers, including the power to freeze a defendant's assets at the time of indictment and confiscate them after conviction. Traditionally, criminal defendants are presumed to be innocent and face punishment only after conviction. RICO, by allowing the government to seize entire businesses connected even indirectly with a defendant at the time of indictment, before any proof of guilt, is a major exception to this general principle. The government is authorized, in effect, to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury in the same case. The government under RICO is also able to make it more difficult for the accused to wage a defense by, for example, seizing the funds that a defendant would have used to hire an attorney. And if a defendant is convicted, RICO provides for onerous criminal penalties. (1995, 122-23)

In answer to your statement that it "could never happen" you should know that RICO is used at least 10,000 times a year in the US, mostly against ordinary citizens like you and me. Most raids are made on the basis of information from jail house snitches who are trying to make a "deal".

Like the infamous "PATRIOT ACT", the RICO ACT is an abomination to the Constitution. With its expansive vagueness prosecutors can use it to criminalize any activity for any reason or no reason and be fairly sure of a conviction. As Justice Robert Jackson [warned], few things are as dangerous as a prosecutor who finds a target, the

Re:Too late FBI

[jonwil]

Its not about stopping the distribution of the film. Its about finding the guys who leaked it and sending them to federal pound me in the ass prison.

Re:Too late FBI

[okooolo]

would a company be able to sue FBI if it had it's stuff on one of those confiscated servers but was totally unrelated to the case? or can FBI legally take them all down, sort them out later?

Re:Too late FBI

[theillien]

This isn't a matter of closing the barn door after the horse already left. It is a matter of finding the people responsible for letting the horse run away in the first place. Just because you dislike the law doesn't make it wrong.

Re:Too late FBI

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

Depends.

If the situation is such that in order to prevent destruction of evidence of a criminal enterprise they need to take them all down, they can do so.

If it were later determined that they obtained the warrants based on information they knew was false (misconduct) or should have known was false (incompetence) there may be a case for a suit.

But just being wrong?
Nope.
That's not cause.

Re:Too late FBI

[joocemann]

The best is that when a 'victim' sues the government for their lost/damaged property, and win, its the taxpayers that foot the bill.

Re:Too late FBI

[an unsound mind]

s/will/have/

Re:Too late FBI

[ServerIrv]

You forgot to correct the AC on his/her ellipse usage. Although ellipses are accepted in less formal settings, a semi-colon is often preferred. For a more pedantic view of the English language, you should read "Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation." It's amazing how many nationalized differences there are with punctuation usage and spelling.

And now for something on-topic that doesn't feed the trolls. Although the "horse already left the barn", that won't stop the MPAA from getting the FBI to nail someone to the barn door. Given enough publicity, even a pathetic attempt at stopping the spread of an already leaked movie will probably deter some people from future movie pirating. This makes me think of older criminal punishments with a high "public spectacle" quotient like the stockades or the fictional "Scarlet Letter." Anyway, through their eyes, disrupting 50 business and possibly 911 services is a minor inconvenient means to an end.

Re:Too late FBI

[nizo]

Meanwhile, thousands of actual criminals commit much more heinous crimes and go unpunished while the FBI wastes their time on this.

Re:Too late FBI

[mOdQuArK!]

Just because it's the law doesn't make it right, either.

Re:Too late FBI

[bradkittenbrink]

I think perhaps the fact it's largely other people's UNRELATED stuff is where the issue really begins to rub people up the wrong way.

There were a bunch of raids like this in the UK. The police keep taking entire sets of Indymedia servers and not giving them back for ages.

Seriously. How about if the FBI confiscated the luggage from every room in a hotel, just because 1 of them had 50 kilos of cocaine in their room? I have no idea how they've been getting away with these tactics.

Re:Too late FBI

[dave562]

If I recall correctly, laws let them hold this shit for up to a month before they're obligated to move their asses and even start giving it back. That doesn't even mean they will. It's beyond ridiculous, people sue all the time for this abuse.

In theory, they have up to a month. Unless what they seize is "part of an ongoing criminal investigation", in that case, it belongs to the FBI until they are done with the case. The crappy thing for the businesses is that their insurance doesn't cover "FBI raids". So in order to get back up and running, they are going to have to take out a loan or find some other way to come up with the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase new servers. Then when they actually do get their (now obsolete) servers back, they aren't going to be able to resell either the new ones, or the old ones for anywhere near what they had to spend to replace them.

Re:Too late FBI

[dave562]

I wasn't meaning to imply that the FBI would confiscate millions of computers from Verizon customers. Having re-read my post, I can see how you might have interpreted that way. When it come sot "cyber security ranting", it isn't all that far fetched that sometime in the future, during an attack on a "critical piece of infrastructure", the FBI, DHS or some other organization might decide to unplug an entire net block in order to mitigate an attack.

Re:Too late FBI

[mOdQuArK!]

No. If it is against the law, that means only that it is illegal. That doesn't mean the law is "right". The semantics are important, since many people will not understand that there is something wrong with the law if they confuse what is illegal with what is morally wrong.

Re:Too late FBI

[NeutronCowboy]

You're missing the distinction between legal and legitimate, both of which are encapsulated in the word "right".

Re:Too late FBI

[Eil]

I'm not sure I understand a full scale FBI raid for determining who actually leaked the copy... this is a civil contract issue right?

Nope. In the U.S., copyright infringement (under the misnomer "piracy") seems to be a federal crime.

You can probably thank the MPAA, RIAA, and BSA for that.

Re:Too late FBI

[McFadden]

A) we don't knwo this has to do with WOlverine

Posting from your iPhone again?

Re:Too late FBI

[darkpixel2k]

Seriously. How about if the FBI confiscated the luggage from every room in a hotel, just because 1 of them had 50 kilos of cocaine in their room? I have no idea how they've been getting away with these tactics.

FBI warrant application form:

Justify your search and/or seizure under Constitutional amendment four: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

*agent scratches head*

Uh...anything with blinkenlights.

Yeah--that ought to do it.

Re:Too late FBI

[GodfatherofSoul]

I agree with the sentiments of the FBI case, but not their methods. The movie industry is getting hammered by these unauthorized releases. You're talking potentially billions in losses to the industry. Of course, the FBI will act on this.

Re:Too late FBI

[whoop]

Yeah, like the FBI's computer nerds are really going to be the ones to go out and bust down doors at your favorite meth lab if they weren't working on this case. Just like moving NASA scientists to medical research won't get a cure for cancer/aids any faster, forcing KDE devs to just work on Gnome won't do anything, etc. This is what their computer crimes division does.

Re:Too late FBI

[Jawn98685]

I understand that it can be difficult to get stuff back from law enforcement, and I agree that is an issue that should be addressed.

Jeez, ya' think?

Why the hell isn't this CNN's lead story. Oh, wait. Mass murderer with a gun in New York...

So why the hell isn't this the other lead story? This is outrageous behavior on the part of law enforcement, on an almost unbelievable scale. I manage the IT infrastructure for an Internet retailer. We have gear in two (other) data centers, in Dallas. Losing that gear, for weeks, would be very costly. Yeah, we have a DR plan, but the idea of having to use it because some FBI cowboy decided he needed to seize every box in a commercial data center is outrageous in the extreme.

You can bet that I will have some hard questions for our reps at those two data centers. They and their competitors/colleagues had better be getting together and making a huge stink about this. I intend to recommend to the company principals that they contact our state and U.S. elected representatives to voice our outrage as well.

Re:Too late FBI

[meerling]

Steve Jackson Games STILL hasn't gotten back all their stuff from the FBI raid 1 March 1990, and the FBI even issued and apology for f-ing up!

Screw one month, that's over NINETEEN YEARS !!!!

Basically, if the Federal Bureau of Idiots confiscates your stuff, be happy if you ever get it back.

Re:Too late FBI

[TapeCutter]

Yep the taxpayers payed someone to do the damage so they pay the costs, the rest is just red tape.

Re:Too late FBI

[nicolas.kassis]

What about data. Lets be honest, not everyone has good backups.

Re:Too late FBI

[mariushm]

And normally the police would have people hired and capable of creating images of the hard drives and returning the servers the next day, not keep them for evidence for months or years, until the trial is over.
In this case, FBI didn't even research if that company still had servers in the datacenter. They just knew the company had at a certain time servers there so they took ALL the servers from the datacenter. This should be illegal and there should be a law that would allow contesting the warrant and refusing entry to the premises if it's too broad.

Re:Too late FBI

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh...anything with blinkenlights.

Note to self: Removing blinking LEDs from computer.

Re:Too late FBI

[ShakaUVM]

Umm, you missed the significance here, which is the last sentence they said: "If you've ever had to deal with law enforcement when it comes to recovering what they took from you, you know what a nightmare this could turn into."

I had a friend who had his box confiscated by one of the three letter agencies. After 5 years, they gave it back to him.

"Oh, thanks... a 5 year old box."

Re:Too late FBI

[Maxmin]

You are conflating acts of legislation with moral beliefs. One's beliefs about right and wrong have no bearing upon whether a law is right or wrong. That's one reason we have courts, to balance what's right or wrong in the laws of a jurisdiction. Bad laws get struck down, sometimes.

Would you think a law "right" if it permits what you consider to be immoral acts? Let's say you believe prostitution to be immoral, wrong. Are Nevada's prostitution laws "right" to you, just because they're the law?

What's "right," and therefore moral, is up to the individual. A group of elected individuals collectively decide what's "right" (to them) for a given jurisdiction's citizens. But the law may be dead "wrong."

Consider the Jim Crow laws of the 20th and 19th centuries. Were they "right," just because they were enacted pieces of legislation? Nope, they were wrong, and ultimately many were struck down, or were legislated out of existence.

Re:Too late FBI

[dave87656]

Yeah man! Verizon is such a powerful company they would never get taken downfds983217#@~ End of carrier..

I didn't get it at first, but that is classic!

Re:Too late FBI

[dave87656]

My thoughts exactly. With that kind of education level, it's no wonder he things such powers would never be abused.

Re:Too late FBI

[theillien]

Therein lies the issue. I'm drawing distinction between the legal aspect and the moral aspect. My moral opinion plays little role whether a law is right or wrong as far as the courts go. However, if I am accused of something which I do feel is wrong, I have legal recourse to try to change it. But, while my actions for change would be ongoing, the statute as it is currently written will continue to be enforced because at the time, it is the right interpretation.

I'm not arguing the morality of it. I'm arguing the societal civility of it. You abide by the law because that is what it is. Society requires that you abide by it lest anarchy ensue. If you attempt to change it, you still abide by it until the changes are in effect else you suffer the consequences of standing laws. Because that is what is right whether you agree with it or not.

Re:Too late FBI

[Wrath0fb0b]

On the train on the way home there was a guy walking through the car selling the latest X-men on DVD. I think this is the proverbial "horse already left the barn" situation.

No, they can't roll things back to the way they were, but why doesn't that imply that they shouldn't punish those responsible? This is the way it works in the vast majority of criminal cases -- we can't reverse the crime, but we can punish those responsible, keep them from victimizing anyone else and maybe even rehabilitate them so they can be normal at some point.

Now, perhaps pirating the movie shouldn't be again the law -- it's way OT to start debating reworking copyright law (as good an idea as that is) -- but it is. Given that, I don't see any reason that the FBI should not find and punish the perpetrators. Complain at Congress, if you must, I really don't see any fault on the FBI's part.

Re:Too late FBI

[fractoid]

Well, if the FBI raided my house and took all my shit because they suspected the guy next door of breaking some law, and then took months to give my stuff back, I'd sure as hell want compensation. Some collateral damage is unavoidable in some cases but that'd be beyond reasonable.

TBH I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between "cloned the hard drives and returned the hardware the next day" and "left the entire data center in a warehouse to rot for a year" is whether anyone on the paper trail has a personal beef with the company in question.

Re:Too late FBI

[dbIII]

Civil computer disputes tend to draw paramilitary responses for some reason. The bizzare response of an international team armed with automatic weapons to apprehend a teenager in quiet Scandinavian surburbia (DVD Jon) is the rule instead of the exeception. I really do not understand where all the hype is coming from unless it is some superstitious overreaction to "white man magic" by people in charge of law enforcement.

The major downside is that harsh penalties are sought to justify the overreaction - and then things escalate over time. Simple fraud is now "cyberterrorism" while really that word shouldn't be used unless there is a robot with a bomb.

Re:Too late FBI

[Wrath0fb0b]

this is a civil contract issue right? Guy working at effects shop or whatever has contractual obligation not to steal shit from work (and probably signed an NDA with the wolverine job).

No, both the original leaker and any subsequent copy-makers are violation of Federal criminal law -- 18USC506(a)(1)(C), in case you want to look it up. Now, perhaps it's a stupid law to have (and I'm sure there is plenty of lively commentary on reforming copyright law, surely a good idea) but, given that it is a Federal criminal matter, FBI involvement seems unsurprising.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

he is at most responsible for one act of infringement when he uploaded it plus breaking a contractual obligation not to do so (and any punishment that shows up as too serious in a contract will just get invalidated)

Aside from doing 3 years in the slammer, the original copier is actually legally responsible for all the subsequent copies that can be proven to be contingent on his crime, that is, they would not have happened "but for" the original act. That's how tort law generally works -- we are responsible for all the consequences, direct or indirect, for our actions that would not have happened but for the tortious act.

See, e.g.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=966380
http://www.justia.com/injury/docs/us-tort-liability-primer/expansion-of-tort-liability.html

Re:Too late FBI

[theillien]

For the sake of clarity:

It is understood that morals play a role in the creation of laws. Every society has values that are generally accepted by the population. These values are encapsulated in the laws which are created. However, once a law is in effect, individual morality has no place in its interpretation. Even when a person feels a law is wrong it has to be shown that it is wrong on a societal scale not just in the eyes of the individual in order for change to be effected.

For this reason, we have groups of people who have been entrusted to enforce the laws as they are written, to interpret the laws as they are written, and to determine if those laws are, in fact, written correctly. The most recent example I can think of is the gaming bill vetoed by the Utah governor.

We can't just go deciding for ourselves that a law is wrong. We can make a case to change it and hope to convince enough people that society needs the change but, as citizens, we have to abide by it even while working to change it. Continuing with my example, while Jack Thompson is working to change laws, it is being shown over and over again that just because he thinks they are morally wrong, they aren't legally wrong (or at least, he hasn't convinced enough people that they are morally wrong).

Re:Too late FBI

[mazarin5]

How about if the FBI confiscated the luggage from every room in a hotel, just because 1 of them had 50 kilos of cocaine in their room?

And to make it even more appropriate to this situation, the man with the cocaine hasn't stayed at that hotel for months.

Re:Too late FBI

[fractoid]

It's an indicator of the sad state of the world that I'd give you a +1, informative if I could.

Re:Too late FBI

[Wrath0fb0b]

Hmm, that it is so long as it can be proved to be intentional in which case it looks like max 3 years + a fine.Of course if it was a guy taking it home to work on or show his family and it got leaked (or they don't have any evidence to the contrary)...

In order to figure out whether it was intentional, they sort of have to find him first. Seems like it's quite premature to start talking about whether or not he has a defense of non-willful infringement before we know who he is.

Re:Too late FBI

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

Well, you're not the only one repeating other people's assumptions.

The didn't seize all servers in a data center.
They seized all equipment under the control of one customer of a data center.

As to contesting a warrant - that's pretty unworkable.

What's the likelihood of electronic evidence not being destroyed if given a chance?

Re:Too late FBI

[jcr]

thousands of actual criminals commit much more heinous crimes and go unpunished

No kidding. I know of a group of criminals who just looted hundreds of billions of dollars and gave it to their buddies who run failed banks and manufacturing companies.

-jcr

Re:Too late FBI

[westlake]

Hmm, that it is so long as it can be proved to be intentional in which case it looks like max 3 years + a fine.

17 USC 506

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain:

18 USC 2319 (b)

(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both... [copies with a retail value of over $2,500]

(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense

(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.

17 USC 506

(B) [retail value more than $1000:]

18 USC 2319 (c)

(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both

(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense

17 USC 506

(C) distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

18 USC 2319 (d)

(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both

(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both, if the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain

(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense

(4) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined under this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (2)

17 USC 506. 18 USC 2319

It's perhaps worth a reminder:

When a federal judge says "three years," you serve three years, with no significant time off. The repeat offender gets hammered.

Petty crimes, crimes of violence, almost always come under state jurisdiction.

Interstate crime, economic crimes, high-tech crime, has a very, very, good chance of bringing the geek into the federal system.

Where he is not likely to do particularly well.

Re:Too late FBI

[mellon]

Millions of *dollars* worth of servers. Which at today's prices means probably a thousand machines, give or take, and depending on how many millions.

Re:Too late FBI

[Toonol]

There's no law against adultery, so it's never wrong. Good to know. I think I'll avoid taking ethical advice from you, though.

Re:Too late FBI

[mshmgi]

Copyright violation is a felony - not civil - offense.

Re:Too late FBI

[chromas]

Family Entertainment and Copyright Act

That would make a great acronym if they could somehow fit "L" in at the end.

Re:Too late FBI

[robably]

You forgot to correct the AC on his/her ellipse usage.

It's called an ellipsis, not an ellipse.

Re:Too late FBI

[0xygen]

I wish I had not already posted in this thread, or you would definitely be getting some of my mod points... Let's hope someone else notices you post! :)

Re:Too late FBI

[commodore64_love]

>>>I'm not sure I understand a full scale FBI raid for determining who actually leaked the copy..

"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." - Thomas Jefferson, June 1776. It's about exerting power and control, and in this case "he" is not the president of congress, but the powerful corporations which use them as puppets. As for why the FBI instead of some other office, the FBI is tasked to investigate copyright infringement. See the start of any VHS tape or DVD you have handy.

Re:Too late FBI

[Cederic]

Or, depending on the nature of the datacentre and the servers it housed, around 4 racks.

Hardware gets expensive fast.

Re:Too late FBI

[TheoMurpse]

"Eats, Shoots and Leaves [Guide] to Punctuation"

I'm sorry, but if the book is missing an Oxford comma in its own title, it's a book for Joe Hillbilly as far as I'm concerned. ;)

Re:Too late FBI

[Larryish]

And at the hearing the judge says,

"I believe that the officers who took your machines and refused to return them were acting in good faith. Case dismissed."

Then you can start the long and twisted process of suing to get back your equipment.

Re:Too late FBI

[Pictish Prince]

Steve Jackson Games STILL hasn't gotten back all their stuff from the FBI raid 1 March 1990, and the FBI even issued and apology for f-ing up! Screw one month, that's over NINETEEN YEARS !!!! Basically, if the Federal Bureau of Idiots confiscates your stuff, be happy if you ever get it back.

I suspect most ./ers have never heard of Operation Sundevil.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
- George Santayana

Re:Too late FBI

[theillien]

Just don't get caught.

Re:Too late FBI

[Hatta]

Well, if the FBI raided my house and took all my shit because they suspected the guy next door of breaking some law, and then took months to give my stuff back, I'd sure as hell want compensation.

Yeah, and I want a pony. We're both going to be disappointed.

Re:Too late FBI

[joocemann]

Well -- I believe the taxpayer is paying these people (the policemen) for a service. That doesn't mean that the taxpayer is responsible for the reckless disregard or illegal actions that the policemen may be involved in.

I think the police will likely operate more 'legally' if they are held responsible for their actions.

Re:Too late FBI

[fractoid]

Maybe I should rephrase. "If the government that I've allegedly elected and that is supposed to protect and represent me thinks that on a whim it can fuck me without lube and not even give me a lollipop afterwards, then either I'm leaving or it is. If it pisses me off enough I just might force the issue so it's the government that leaves, not me."

Re:Too late FBI

[OldSoldier]

Well, if the FBI raided my house and took all my shit because they suspected the guy next door of breaking some law

I'd be interested in hearing a lawyer respond to this. I certainly hope and expect that there's a difference between people and corporations in that laws of unreasonable search and seizure are more stringently applied to people than to businesses. IMANL, but that is my wish.

Also... way back when Steve Jackson of Steve Jackson Games had his company's computers seized because he was writing RPG materials on things like building bombs or whatever I immediately thought the "right to bear arms" should be extended to the "right to bear computers". To me the same principle applies... when this country was founded the main way the government would keep its citizens down was through arms (in the US's case this would be Britain keeping the colonies in line), now a-days it seems to be information. If the founding fathers drafted the 2nd ammendment today not only would it include the current arms language, but may also go like this:

A transparent government, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep computers and monitor their government, shall not be infringed.

I'm not saying that THIS is what happened in Dallas, but I am saying that if computer ownership rights were as vigorously defended as gun ownership rights this story would at the very least be more headline worthy than it appears to be.

Re:Too late FBI

[mpe]

I'm not sure I understand a full scale FBI raid for determining who actually leaked the copy...

Especially when nothing like this happened with McColo. Which involved 24/7 lawbreaking and undoubtedly many criminals. That's before even considering the likes of scammers and phishers operating on the Internet...

Sure, there is some punishment in order but the guy who leaked a work print probably isnt responsible for the "billions of dollars" that the industry will say the leak cost them...

A big part of the problem is that unless a high doller amount is claimed the FBI just won't be interested. Thus you get corporate interests claiming entirely bogus values. Whilst the real crooks get away with huge sums of money because they take "only" tens to thousands per transaction. No doubt some of these would earn more in a month from their activities than the production costs of one movie.

Re:Too late FBI

[mpe]

Either way, how many 3-year max sentence criminal offenses warrant full scale FBI raids that costs numerous other businesses REAL money.

Someone may want to do damage to one or more of those other businesses. Or someone who was using their machines. e.g. some kind of bot net "turf war".
Or the "leak" may have been deliberate by the studio or the MPAA. Both as "viral marketing" and to make a political point...

Re:Too late FBI

[Muros]

His example just did happen. Residents in certain areas were WITHOUT 911 EMERGENCY ACCESS. That's a fuck up of enormous magnitude, and if it was instigated on grounds of a movie being pirated I would want the entire chain of events scrutinized and the people who authorized it brought to account. Whatever your views on piracy, corporate interests do not come before public safety.

Re:Too late FBI

[Muros]

this data center occupied two floors of a high rise. So we aren't talking about millions of computers.

I don't think anyone even imagined we were talking about millions of computers. But you could pack many thousands of servers into two floors of a high rise, and that is a shitload of computer infrastructure.

Re:Too late FBI

[mpe]

Civil computer disputes tend to draw paramilitary responses for some reason. The bizzare response of an international team armed with automatic weapons to apprehend a teenager in quiet Scandinavian surburbia (DVD Jon) is the rule instead of the exeception.

Whereas it would make more sense if this were happening in Eastern Europe, North West Africa, etc. The kind of places the real "cyber criminals" are likely to hang out.

I really do not understand where all the hype is coming from unless it is some superstitious overreaction to "white man magic" by people in charge of law enforcement.

You can see similar things happening with "anti terrorism". Where a lot of fuss is made about catching people who arn't even much of a danger to themselves. Whereas those who actually are likely to be dangerous tend to be ignored by law enforcement and the press. Even when they get sent to prison. Contrast Robert Cottage and David Jackson with Bilal Talal Samad Abdullah and Mohammed Asha

Re:Too late FBI

[mpe]

Meanwhile, thousands of actual criminals commit much more heinous crimes and go unpunished while the FBI wastes their time on this.

Wonder any of these crooks did anything to "help" the FBI make this time wasting a priority.

Re:Too late FBI

[mpe]

I agree with the sentiments of the FBI case, but not their methods. The movie industry is getting hammered by these unauthorized releases.

Or so they claim. Any independents backing this up? Remember we are talking about an industry which uses such bogus accounting that no movie appears to have even made its production costs back in decades. Yet somehow the companies involved are still operating...

You're talking potentially billions in losses to the industry.

Even if this claim was true there are other criminal activities which already have resulted in far bigger losses.

Of course, the FBI will act on this.

They shouldn't because they quite literally have "bigger fish to fry".

Re:Too late FBI

[mpe]

Yeah, like the FBI's computer nerds are really going to be the ones to go out and bust down doors at your favorite meth lab if they weren't working on this case.

Probably because they should be too busy with spammers, 419ers, phishers, botnet operators, virus writers, etc. With a view to getting their bank accounts frozen, even if they can't get other agents to go and visit them. This really should be their primary task. A secondary task would be to try and locate people using The Internet to plan and execute crimes in the "real world". They literally shouldn't have the time to go after something as trivial as a single movie being pirated. If they have been ordered to drop everything else to investigate this movie issue then at best their boss is an idiot who should be fired, at worst they are conspiring with criminals and should spend the rest of their life behind bars.

Re:Too late FBI

[worldthinker]

Ah no. You're seriously deluded. Civil Abatement puts the burden of proof on YOU to prove that the material that was confiscated is not an aspect of a criminal operation. No due process, no "Habeas Corpus" no nothing. They can sell YOUR shit after several months even if you can't come up with a competent legal defense to get your stuff back.

A very corrupting thing unfortunately. It motivates police departments to stop people passing through small towns and seize cash or other assets they may possess.

Re:Too late FBI

[mpe]

This isn't a matter of closing the barn door after the horse already left. It is a matter of finding the people responsible for letting the horse run away in the first place.

The problem is this "horse" is a small pony foal. It makes no sense to even bother with it whilst there are herds of much larger horses running around because someone keeps demolishing their stable doors.

Just because you dislike the law doesn't make it wrong.

It's more that limited law enforcement resources should be used wisely. e.g. it makes no sense to ignore burglars whilst arresting anyone who steals trash. It only makes sense to do anything about the latter once you have done all you can about the former.

Re:Too late FBI

[HiThere]

In other words, *IF* this is about "Wolverine" they don't know whether it's a criminal act or a civil tort...and they took down 911 anyway.

This makes me really TRUST the govt.

Re:Too late FBI

[xelah]

It's amazing how many nationalized differences there are with punctuation usage and spelling.

Not to mention tenses. 'Horse already left the barn' is incorrect in UK English (or, at least, it sounds very wrong to me, and is not typical use). US English seems allergic to the perfect tense for some reason. In the UK it'd be written 'The horse has already left the barn', which indicates the sentence is about the current state of horselessness and not the moment of leaving.

Re:Too late FBI

[Crudely_Indecent]

I ACTUALLY know this guy!

He IS an actual criminal. This isn't his first run-in with the FBI. Charges weren't filed the first time for lack of usable evidence.

Data theft, identity theft and fraud are well within his moral boundaries.

Re:Too late FBI

[Hognoxious]

It's amazing how many nationalized differences there are

Another bailout?

Re:Too late FBI

[tyler_larson]

Because clearly the appropriate response when the behavior of a single party might or might not have decreased the potential revenue on a product for a single entertainment company is to do millions of dollars worth of damage to hundreds of other unrelated companies.

The FBI: think of it like heart surgery with a backhoe.

Re:Too late FBI

[Helldesk Hound]

" If I recall correctly, laws let them hold this shit for
> up to a month before they're obligated to move their
> asses and even start giving it back. That doesn't
> even mean they will."

Of all western nations, only in the USA - the land of the free - could the state get away with doing this sort of undemocratic stuff.

In other nations there would need to be a valid search warrant issued first, and it would need to specify what they are looking for and where they want to search. They can't just confiscate machinery without just cause.

Re:Too late FBI

[jaredmauch]

I recall someone saying this about a provider (in Ohio iirc), paranoid that the FBI was overstepping their bounds and it turns out they were a bunch of criminals. Now if only we could get peoples machines taken away that were compromised as part of spam operations...

Re:Too late FBI

[jedidiah]

...since when the original owner doesn't lose anything except CONTROL.

Actual theft as a crime goes back to British common law and
ultimately all the way back to Hammurabi. The idea that copying
an idea or book is a crime only goes back about 200 years.

Most of the "criminal" aspects of copyright don't go beyond 30 years back.

Re:Too late FBI

[Restil]

I thought the secret service was responsible for that particular debacle...

Re:Too late FBI

[fractoid]

To me the same principle applies... when this country was founded the main way the government would keep its citizens down was through arms (in the US's case this would be Britain keeping the colonies in line), now a-days it seems to be information.

I seem to recall a post a while back in a discussion on strong encryption (I think in relation to export laws or government snooping) suggesting that the best thing possible would be the government to classify encryption as munitions, so that the right to 'own and bear' it was protected under whichever crazy amendment you have that says you can have guns. :)

Re:Too late FBI

[daviddth]

I'll say one thing, my main website (plus 4 personal ones) were part of the "Collateral damage" of this farcical raid. 9 hrs server downtime, lost customers, lost income, and 3 hours to restore the databases from an offsite server thanks to them being shut down in a far from nice manner. I'd LOVE to start saying what I think of the FBI and their raid, but I'd probably get extradited to the USA because I upset them or some such rubbish. I WILL be sending them a bill for the down time, but dont expect payment lol

Re:Too late FBI

[0xygen]

Guess you did not been read the news later in the day. Turned out the whole raid was actually over a large fraud investigation into unpaid telco fees for VoIP operators, whose large number of servers were taken.

Re:Too late FBI

[Crazycool]

I have been reading some stuff on various independent boards and stuff and it looks like this was all started by 1 disgruntled employee; Marcus Wentrcek. And if the information is correct this is the third data center they have raided in less than 1 month. If true they are going to great lengths on the basis of 1 person. http://www.uwwwb.com/

Re:Too late FBI

[NeutronCowboy]

We can't just go deciding for ourselves that a law is wrong.

Ah, state obedience at its finest. On the contrary, it is your obligation as a citizen to determine whether a law is right or wrong. Without it, you're unable to even start down the path of working for change.

As for your Jack Thompson example, you're wrong in your assessment of why he keeps failing: he fails because others disagree with his stance. More critically, the ones who disagree are voters and legislators. Otherwise, they'd change in a heartbeat.

To repeat myself: the only law that is legally wrong is the one that is found to conflict with a more fundamental law. Think of it as a compiler error. Fixing a wrong law can be done two ways: fix the law that is conflicting with the more fundamental law, or vice versa. However, this is a disappearingly small portion of the changes that are made to the general body of laws. The vast majority are changes because enough (or the right) people decided that change was needed.

This is why your critical assessment of a law is absolutely necessary in your acceptance of it. Without it, you're merely following orders.

Incredible

[nicolas.kassis]

This is nuts, every server in a data center? do they realize the cost that might incur to all these non infringing companies? The wolverine leak nothing, no one was deprived of anything so there is no monetary loss but this? This is plain incredible. Good job FBI, you just caused many people a lot of trouble for a stupid movie.

Re:Incredible

[geekoid]

It's actually kind of add.
Normally they get a warrant and work with the data centers. I wonder if they tried that and he refused leaving them little choice? That is , of course, speculation.

Just the man power, cost, and effort is extraordinary doing it this way.

Of course we need to remember what we have is one side of the story.

Even from a wacky government conspiracy point of view this doesn't make sense.

Of course, it doesn't look like it was a lot of servers, so that may have played into it.

Re:Incredible

[nicolas.kassis]

In this case, they should pool up and hire a legal team as large as the team needed to raid their datacenter. 1 for 1, Lawyer to Agent rumble.

Re:Incredible

[ShieldW0lf]

Note to self: Install claymores in data center.

Re:Incredible

[TubeSteak]

This is nuts, every server in a data center?

I agree...
But numerous other websites (all the same "IDG News" article) mention this:
FBI spokesman Mark White confirmed that agents had executed a search warrant at the 2323 Bryan Street address on Thursday, but declined to comment further on the matter.

which then brings us to this bit of hyperbole FTFA

Simpson closed his online letter with the statement, "If you run a datacenter, please be aware that in our great country, the FBI can come into your place of business at any time and take whatever they want, with no reason."

The FBI had a warrant, which means they didn't go in for "no reason".
Unfortunately, the fact that they seized everything leaves us with few possibilities
1. The FBI lied about what they needed to seize on the warrant affidavit & a Judge signed it
2. The warrant was narrow & specific and the FBI exceeded the warrant's scope
3. The FBI actually needed to seize everything (incredibly unlikely)

Re:Incredible

[Paracelcus]

Not claymores, thermate in vacant server bays with a remote igniter.

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge who OK'd this warrant acted criminally/incorrectly or the actors on the warrant exceeded the authority of the warrant. Warrants must be very specific. They need to list the place to be searched and what is to be seized. If the FBI didn't specify what was to be seized they acted illegally. You can't simply put down "all servers" at some address when all servers encompass multiple unrelated entities which have no relation and specific servers could have been listed. Therefore this is clearly an illegal search even with a warrant.

Re:Incredible

[palegray.net]

thermate

Does that go well with Coffee Mate?

Re:Incredible

[marcello_dl]

There is no conspiracy, all is in the open and the message is clear: no matter what your reasons may be,dear isp, if we like to, we pull the plug on you... punish 1 to educate 100.
I`d call this soft terrorism.

It would be a conspiracy if tomorrow some national security guy went knocking at other isps saying: you wanna avoid such incidents? let us snoop into your traffic without warrant, and we promise we won`t give you trouble.

Re:Incredible

[fm6]

Core IP Services doesn't have the whole datacenter at this space. Telx has a huge datacenter in this building, and Core IP resells rackspace there. Note that only 50 systems were affected. It sounds like the FBI pulled the plug on a set of cages or cabinets rented by Core. See this message from Core's owner.

Not to defend the FBI's stupidity, but their approach is not that different from those Black Hole Lists that many Slashdotters defend. I used to work Help Desk for Hurricane Electric, and the most frustrating aspect of my job was helping shared hosting customers whose email was being blocked because one of our IP blocks was on a blacklist. Why was it being blocked? Because of spam that supposedly came from our IP blocks. If this was real spam at all (and not a legitimate newsletter that some heuristic filter interpreted as spam) it was from somebody who had a shared hosting account with somebody who rented rackspace from us. Or even on somebody who provided shared hosting on rackspace they rented from one of our customers! In other words, everybody in our IP space was being punished for the misdeeds of a customer of a customer of a customer! Getting the spammer offline meant going through multiple abuse desks, and was thus pretty slow.

(Of course, it didn't help that our own abuse desk and the BHL maintainers were always throwing snits at each other.)

The lesson here is to think things through before you get all self-righteous. Otherwise you accomplish nothing but hurting innocent bystanders.

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I think they missed a server or two:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4816113/X-Men.Origins.Wolverine.2009.WORKPRiNT.XviD-NoRar_

Re:Incredible

[Fulcrum of Evil]

their approach is not that different from those Black Hole Lists that many Slashdotters defend.

In much the same way as ignoring someone is the same as throing them in a hole.

Re:Incredible

[drinkypoo]

There is no conspiracy, all is in the open and the message is clear: no matter what your reasons may be,dear isp, if we like to, we pull the plug on you... punish 1 to educate 100.
I`d call this soft terrorism.

It's a conspiracy of the moneyed against the masses.

This is going to be used to justify the cybersecurity act, mark my words.

Re:Incredible

[digitig]

This is nuts, every server in a data center? do they realize the cost that might incur to all these non infringing companies?

It's possible that they do, and want to "send a message". Those other companies, and the people who might lose their jobs because of the cost to their employers might not have cared about video piracy before, but I bet they do now.

Re:Incredible

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

Ah, if only I had mod points to bestow upon you....

I posted pretty much the same thing.

I used to admire slashdotters - now they just seem like weak spineless sheep, always at the ready to jump on the Me Too Brigade.

Speaking of RBL's - ever get stuck on one that's no longer maintained, but still being used by Clueless Admins?

I went through that a couple of years ago.

Re:Incredible

[Darinbob]

So who's the judge who signed the warrant allowing them to take all servers?

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

Thermite is what you meant, and just for saying that the FBI now knows that you read the Anarchist's Cookbook. Too bad you're not anon! I am!

Re:Incredible

[KORfan]

What, have they forgotten the raid on Steve Jackson Games?

Re:Incredible

[einhverfr]

Personally I can't believe that a judge signed off on such a warrant. That just seems way, way overbroad.

They did have a warrant, right?

Or are they trying to fundamentally sabotage any prosecution that comes from this?

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

Or option

4. Your average FBI agent doesn't know an Ethernet Switch from a SAN Cluster, so they kind-of had to take everything.

Re:Incredible

[fm6]

In much the same way as ignoring someone is the same as throing them in a hole.

Right, blocking millions of non-spam emails is an entirely harmless activity.

Re:Incredible

[HiVizDiver]

do they realize the cost that might incur to all these non infringing companies

I'm fairly certain that they don't, and I'm also fairly certain that even if they did, that fact would be wholly irrelevant to them.

Re:Incredible

[Sponge Bath]

There can be only one!

Re:Incredible

[twiddlingbits]

I happen to live in Dallas and the local news showed them removing van loads of servers from the building so it was more than just a few ( no idea how many were actually in the building) so the FBI didn't execute on a tightly targeted warrant. FBI LIE to get what they wanted..NEVER.. ;) But wouldn't it have been easier to just take the data center down, cut the external connections to the backbones and analyze in place? Find the offending box, yank it out of the rack, trash any backups of that server and let the rest go. Unless this was a very shady ISP, with some sort of connections to the Wolverine "theft" normally an ISP has no knowledge about content and no control over the content on the servers, they just manage the hardware. Yes I know that you must promise not to do certain thing on their boxen but how would the know what you are hosting? Of course it the traffic to IP A.B.C.D all of a sudden takes a 100X jump you would think they might to check into that or maybe not if it's a nice big over the allocated bandwidth fee.

Re:Incredible

[einhverfr]

4: The judge didn't understand what he/she was signing off on.

However, the thing about this is that it seems likely that this will result in anyone they charge challenging the search warrant and excluding ALL evidence related to it, or fruits from it.

Someone at the FBI needs to develop more of a brain than the average housefly has.....

Re:Incredible

[kingramon0]

No, he really did mean thermate.

It burns hotter than thermite.

Re:Incredible

[twiddlingbits]

Read that message you linked to again. it says 50 BUSINESSES are without service. It could be more or less than 50 systems.

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm fairly certain that they meant exactly what they wrote: thermate. It's basically souped-up thermite that burns hotter.

I really dislike it when ignorant people try to one-up someone else who actually knows what they're talking about. At least Google the word or something before you try and show everyone how smart you are.

Re:Incredible

[kamathln]

Oh No Anonymous!! Now the FBI is gonna raid /. servers to track you down. damn!

Re:Incredible

[Cassini2]

Wouldn't it be simpler to create an encrypted file system with a self-destructing key?

That way, when the FBI seized the servers, they could automatically delete all the data for you. Then when it hit court, it would be "well your honour, if the FBI told me what they were up to in advance, then I would have cooperated with them. As it is, this device prevents thieves from accessing sensitive company data. It prevents data thefts like the ones that happened at the department of defense, the CIA, the IRS, and the FBI."

The cops might be seriously annoyed with you, but you are going to be a criminal anyway ...

Re:Incredible

[Antique Geekmeister]

Yes, they do. They want ISP's to take notice that even allowing clients to host such material, or a failure to prevent such "violations", is a serious business risk. The Secret Service pulled the same sort of nonsensical, conviction, overstepping raid against alleged crackers around the USA decades ago in the Steve Jackson case.

Re:Incredible

[einhverfr]

One thng that occurs to me is that they raided the guys house as well, so it is obviously his company and him that are under investigation.

I don't think we are hearing all of the story, but even under these circumstances, the search seems unreasonable.

Re:Incredible

[DarkAce911]

this is where you find out that most lawyers are idiots and judges will sign anything the FBI puts under their nose.

Re:Incredible

[jafiwam]

The key difference here is the state is acting to take the servers, data, and equipment.

In the case of spam black holes, users are voluntarily deciding to participate in the list activity and ignore emails.

Sort of like, say, you jerk off a lot, which is fine. So the guy across the street thinks he can jerk you off and you don't like it.

Sorta like that.

FOAD spammer moron.

Re:Incredible

[NeutronCowboy]

Hurricane Electric - great little hosting company. Support was always top notch. From an old satisfied customer - thanks.

Re:Incredible

[modecx]

A powerful Novec 1230 (or other similar halon like) gaseous fire suppressing system, with a hair trigger and poor fresh air ventilation might be about as effective, and far less messy. And, best of all, it would appear to actually serve a legitimate use in a data center.

Re:Incredible

[einhverfr]

Sure, but search warrants can be challenged prior to trial, sometimes with disasterous effects on the prosecution.

If the FBI agents want this to even get to trial, they shouldn't be siezing 911-related phone equipment without good reason.

Re:Incredible

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

I don't think the point is to destroy the data...

Re:Incredible

[tftp]

I wonder if they tried that and he refused leaving them little choice?

1. If they had a warrant and he refused, he'd be simply handcuffed and probably arrested on the spot for obstruction of justice. This hasn't happened.
2. If they didn't have a warrant then his request for a warrant (and denial of access until the warrant can be produced) is legal.

Since the FBI was able to get a warrant for the search they presumably could with much less trouble get a warrant for a single server. This eliminates the second possibility (with the warrant the owner would have cooperated.)

Here is my speculation. The owner of the business says at his Google blog that FBI was looking for a server that belonged to a company who is no longer a client. Probably he told them so, but FBI refused to take "no" for an answer and decided to show who is the boss here, to search the *whole* set of servers. In this situation he'd be really in trouble, since it's awfully hard to surrender a computer that you do not have, with a warrant or without.

Re:Incredible

[rrossman2]

Guess you didn't read the posting on the first link: "Today at 6:00am, the FBI conducted an unwarranted early morning raid of our 2323 Bryan Street Datacenters, on the 7th and 24th floors."

Re:Incredible

[nicolas.kassis]

They probably think that 911 is hosted on some nice little server inside some hospital somewhere. Why would these servers run something critical? Oh I dunno, it's not the gov stuff so it can't be important.

Re:Incredible

[slashkitty]

He said 50 /BUSINESSES/ ... which could be any number of servers. The fact that at least one of them is a phone company is very troubling.

Re:Incredible

[s0litaire]

Hope the lift was buggered so they had to carry them down the stairs!! :D:D

On another note!
Heard that a couple of the hosted servers were part of the area's emergency digital phone system (It's been reported that 911 number was dead in the surrounding area at the same time the FBI entered and started taking Servers!!)

Re:Incredible

[Jawn98685]

Or option

4. Your average FBI agent doesn't know an Ethernet Switch from a SAN Cluster, so they kind-of had to take everything.

False, at least in my limited but direct experience. I was doing some work on gear we had colo'd in a commercial data center a few years ago. The place was usually deserted but for a tech or two, but this day there was a crowd of serious looking gentlemen gathered outside a couple of cages, with a couple of obvious tech guys actually doing whatever hands on work was required. I remarked about the crowd as I was leaving and was then informed that it was the FBI. Quite the contrast to what is being reported in Dallas, that op appeared to be run in a professional manner and manned by folk who knew what they were doing.

Re:Incredible

[s0litaire]

They might have worded the warrant to include the owners home address and place of business looking for:
"Information related to, and or, items involved in the distribution, and or, storage of copyrighted materials. And to stop the destruction of evidence (in the form of electronic log files) related to said distribution of copyrighted materials."
basically anything with a CPU or hard disk can be taken!!

Re:Incredible

[einhverfr]

But in that case, it gets to the question of probable cause. If incriminating evidence is found on one of the siezed servers, the defendant might be able to challenge the scope of the search warrant and get a LOT of evidence thrown out.

If that is what is going on, the FBI needs to fire all involved.

Re:Incredible

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucktard if you believe that you're in the right.

You're basically claiming that a government agency *STEALING* innocent people's equipment so that they can't use it anymore is the same as *INDIVIDUALS* using a public list to protect their networks from known asswipes.

You deserve everything you get.

Re:Incredible

[TheSkyIsPurple]

They do tend to work with copies of the data, so as to preserve the evidence. If they didn't, even on a simple system, they might screw up the last access dates, etc... and once you've shown they've messed up part of the evidence, the whole shebang is useless.

Re:Incredible

[Yogiz]

No. Someone at the FBI needs to develop better moral judgment. It's the judge that needs to develop a brain.

Re:Incredible

[mysidia]

It just shows they probably had no idea what servers they were seizing, or what each server was. They just decided to indiscriminately take everything, no matter who owned it, or what type or purpose the equipment had. An utter failure to comply with the constitutional requirement of "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

This is like getting a search warrant for Main Street, and seizing all the hundreds of cars parked along it, and anything displayed in any store windows along the street.

A hosted environment is a virtual city. The colocation provider is a landlord, but their commission of a crime does not entitle law enforcement to search all their tenants' effects without probable cause..

Search warrants for datacenter environments should include the right to compel compliance to a search and possibly download a copy of all contents of certain servers, if so warranted, but no privilege to take a site offline.

Depriving innocent business users' of their customers can easily be more severe than the damage done by any crime allegedly committed.

It renders the actions of government ineffective for serving the purpose of government, and is an instance where law enforcement does more harm than good.

Re:Incredible

[Renraku]

Actually, this brings up an amusing point. Lets say that you did run a hosting service, and it was so hands-off that you actually did install claymores in the building. You had no staff.

Then someone breaks in, steals a claymore, then falls on their sword.

Their family sues you for millions because your building wasn't safe.

Sorry, bad joke.

Re:Incredible

[fractoid]

If I lost my job because the FBI destroyed the (innocent) company that I worked for, I'd care a lot more about making sure it didn't happen again (move countries, bomb the FBI, depending on how pissed I was) than about not downloading a fucking movie which I couldn't afford to buy on DVD any more anyway because I'm suddenly unemployed.

Re:Incredible

[dbIII]

Local police maybe can be trusted to play by the rules if you upset them, but agencies are different. When you are dealing with people that are not interested in the rule of law it's "Yes Sir, No Sir. OMG what is that dog doing to my naked ass!". Don't make yourself a target unless there is a really good reason and there are trustworthy witnesses. Remember that it's not always professional law enforcement especially when people that want to play James Bond get involved.

Re:Incredible

[dbIII]

I think it's about "sending a message" and was an intentional outcome possibly to some minor obstruction. They can use this example to threaten any other datacentre they deal with in the future. Nasty third world secret police tactics come home to roost.

Re:Incredible

[Darinbob]

So the question is, did the FBI really do a seizure without a warrant, which is clearly illegal, and the receptionist could have barred them from entry? Or did the CEO just say it was unwarranted, meaning "they didn't have a good reason that I could see"? Or did the CEO fib that they had no search warrant?

Re:Incredible

[Z00L00K]

No - a data center shall be filled with an inert gas like Argon from the beginning and an airlock. Any works there shall require breathing equipment.

And all data servers shall be assembled with tamper-proof screws where the screw head breaks off when you have assembled the computer so it's only possible to move the computer rack as a whole unit with a weight of at least half a ton.

Using the TPM module on the motherboard to control the encryption of the data on the hard disks will make it impossible to re-assemble the disks in a different disk array.

Oh how evil a data center can be set up to make a raid from law enforcement rendered useless or at least very impractical.

Re:Incredible

[KahabutDieDrake]

Interestingly, if this was a self storage facility, they would need a warrant for each unit. If this was an apartment complex, they would need a warrant for each apartment. If it was a parking lot, they would need a warrant for each car (owner).

But because it's a hosting facility, they can just take everything and sort it out later? That will go on until they piss off the wrong company and get slapped down so hard they'll be lucky if they can get a warrant to wipe their asses. Then, later, the FBI will whine about how they can't get warrants for this sort of enforcement anymore, all the while oblivious to the fact that their overzealous and overreaching activity is what caused the problem in the first place.

Now that is how I define irony.

Re:Incredible

[KahabutDieDrake]

4. The FBI said "this guy has access to all the computers" The judge is an illeterate moron, and decided that this means that all the servers needed to be seized.

The FBI probably knows better, but didn't care. More than likely because this guy is a criminal in their eyes, and therefore gets shafted in every way they can legally justify. Given the above judge, legally justify isn't as hard as it should be.

Re:Incredible

[GodKingAmit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney

Re:Incredible

[Jared555]

This would be a very bad thing to do.... What about the poor servers that are hit by the blast when the agents come in?

Re:Incredible

[Stripe7]

Analysis in place should have been done. Anyone who has ever done a data center move with trained professionals knows what a nightmare it is. You have to know what servers are hooked up to what network's SAN's etc.. Without a full network topology map of the servers being removed the FBI will have a heck of a time bringing up the servers, if SAN's were used and software as well as hardware raid structures they can destroy the data they are looking for just powering up the servers and SAN's in the wrong configuration. Were the shutdown's graceful? Did they just power off the machines? Imagine what that does meta data for the volume management software then having the SAN's powered up in the wrong configuration as well. Heck, just shutting down the servers will get you a chance of blowing up some components, and if they did not move the machines properly some of the computers won't even boot up due to parts being shaken loose and possibly shorting out on power up as well as the disk failure or two that usually happens in a data center move.

Re:Incredible

[Tynam]

Well it's a nice theory, but in practice courts hate excluding evidence for any reason, and there's lots of nice justifications they can use for allowing it in cases much more egregrious than this.

The material they grabbed will be allowed in evidence.

Re:Incredible

[grahammm]

The FBI had a warrant, which means they didn't go in for "no reason".
Unfortunately, the fact that they seized everything leaves us with few possibilities
1. The FBI lied about what they needed to seize on the warrant affidavit & a Judge signed it
2. The warrant was narrow & specific and the FBI exceeded the warrant's scope
3. The FBI actually needed to seize everything (incredibly unlikely)

4. The FBI knew that the server(s) they needed to seize was in the data centre but did not know which physical server it was. So they just seized everything.

Re:Incredible

[fermion]

It may or may not be legal, but it may be effective. There is likely little need for a conviction. Simply harassing anybody who hosted the content, and identifying the person or persons responsible will be sufficient to set an example.

For example, look at Ted Stevens. Clearly someone who was abusing power, with a significant portion of his lifestyle given to him by those who wanted political favors. What was necessary was to remove him from power. Locking him up for years would do no one any good. Without power he was no longer a significant threat, and he could be allowed fade away. So the case was made to gain a conviction even if it was a sloppy conviction, and then made it go away after he was removed. Was it ethical? I don't know. But he had the option to bow out, the voters were given the option, and a thin majority decided that he had been there long enough. Justice seems to be served.

In this case, this seems like some initial pain to avoid future pain. Studios are going to take situations like this seriously. It would be better for people not to steal prints just because they want to win cool points with their friends. It causes pain for the rest of us who don't care about the X-Men movies and might look down on people who would risk discomfort just to be the first people to see it. Sure there are a lot of blameless victims here, and sure the FBI went way overboard, but can you imagine a more senseless crime that stealing a print just to show to your friends. Sure, we call it liberating the film, but as we see so often, liberation is not always a desired state.

Re:Incredible

[BarefootClown]

There's a world of difference between refusing to accept mail from a given netblock--for whatever reason--and the seizure of property by force, with its attendant consequences (business impact, financial losses, etc.). Trying to equate an overbroad search and seizure with an e-mail blacklist is absurd at best.

Re:Incredible

[twiddlingbits]

All good points, and I guess if they trash the boxes looking for the data they 1) won't find it and 2) they don't pay for the damage. If they didn't take any SAN and any networking gear to rebuild the topology, they'll be back for that stuff you can bet on it. The video I saw was of agents carry 1U and 2U servers out to a white truck, at least they should have had sense to forklift out a whole rack. As I understand it the FBI and CIA both have a strong need for highly talented US CITIZEN computer systems experts. Of course, the pay sucks and you have to work in Washington, DC which double sucks.

Re:Incredible

[Cid Highwind]

Does anyone who wasn't into tabletop gaming the 80s (or hasn't read "The Hacker Crackdown") remember the Steve Jackson Games raid? I doubt many FBI field agents fall into either category...

Re:Incredible

[Cid Highwind]

Not to defend the FBI's stupidity, but their approach is not that different from those Black Hole Lists that many Slashdotters defend.

I'm not much of a fan of email blacklisting but this is, pardon me, a fucking stupid argument. Being deprived of physical property by the government is not in any way shape or form like some third party refusing to accept your customers' email.

FBI data center raids are just like man-eating Indonesian tigers. I can't believe how many hypocritical slashdotters are willing to condone wildlife conservation, but complain about this raid!

Re:Incredible

[nurb432]

You forget they really don't care about the costs incurred by the other companies, or the potential 4th amendment violations. ( and others ). Not their problem.

You an also bet they will search them all and if they just happen to find other things unrelated, it will be noted.

Re:Incredible

[blhack]

When you're computer equipment gets raided, it doesn't ever get shut down. IF it did, you could just let everything live in a ramdisk and not worry about it.

they use this: Hotplug

That "mouse jiggler" thing that you see sold on thinkgeek and the like and laugh at? That is what it is for.

Re:Incredible

[fm6]

You're probably right. But so am I. It world take more than 50 businesses to fill up this data center.

http://www.telx.com/?q=facilities/Dallas_Colocation_Provider

Re:Incredible

[cenc]

which is another way of saying they seized things they did not have a warrant to seize, excluding the possibility that they had a good reason to grab everything.

Re:Incredible

[cenc]

Hey, I live in a third world country and don't have to worry about these sorts of seizures. You might want to rethink the use of the term.

Re:Incredible

[HiThere]

And that was just blatantly provocative. The FBI has a record of getting even totally absurd warrants on request that's difficult to beat.

So they were basically saying "Warrants! We don' got to show you no stinking warrants!". They didn't need to, but they did it anyway. Either because they could, to prove that they could, or as a justifier for something else.

It's the kind of action that really *should* be allowed to be punished as treason, but which doesn't meet the constitutional definition. Malfeasance is evident. Anyone doubt that they'll get away unpunished?

Re:Incredible

[Blakey Rat]

Landmines or medieval swords?

Re:Incredible

[ShieldW0lf]

You got me. They're in my data center. On the moon. Next to the easter bunny. Behind Jesus.

Re:Incredible

[dbIII]

Very good point, but many on this forum don't follow things well enough to have heard of Pinochet, to know what the Shah was up to or be aware of the current situation in Algeria. That's why I was using a lazy shorthand which I'll stop using.

Re:Incredible

[twiddlingbits]

yep, seems it takes about 60.."Today, more than 60 network and solution providers currently within the Telx Interconnection facility at 2323 Bryan Street".. I've been in the other MUCH LARGER facility on Stemmons Freeway when I worked for Sun. It's a very large facility, 1000's of racks. Used to be a different name which is why I didn't clue in.

Re:Incredible

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

It depends on your point of view.

A knowledgeable admin subscribing to a well maintained rbl with transparent policies is one thing.

Unfortunately, not all rbl are created equally.
Some are just about as predatory as the fave AV sites, and about as honest as the spammers.

When rbl admins do not respond to inquiries, there should be a reasonable period - say 24 hours - after which the rbl's connections are severed.

I'm not saying all disputes must be resolved in 24 hours - but if they can't at least respond in that time, they aren't doing anything positive, and their uplink should suspend their connectivity temporarily to get their attention, and remove it permanently for repeated offenses.

Anyway....the previous poster's point was that the Feebs are abusing a system to grind a personal axe - much as certain rbl providers are using the ignorance of the average email administrator to prove their point, because it's more fun and a lot easier than actually contributing to solution.

All servers!!!!!

[IamGarageGuy 2]

Do the Americans now live in a police state that is controlled by the RIAA. This may sound alarmist but when innocent companies are hurt by the use of FBI force - how far away is it?

Re:All servers!!!!!

[interkin3tic]

Do the Americans now live in a police state that is controlled by the RIAA.

Nah, the FBI has never been too concerned about pesky rights. I don' think you can lay this one entirely at the *AA's feet, this seems like standard law enforcement "they're all guilty of something" SOP.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[davidbrucehughes]

This is exactly why we relocated to Chile six months ago. We had already moved to the end of a dirt road in the mountains of Mexico, but that wasn't far enough away. Now we're at the end of a much, much nicer dirt road in a country that is not ruled by mad-dog copyright censors. (And where you can rent a furnished, 5-bedroom house with cedar paneling on 2 acres of land for US$400.)

Not that we are into downloading copyrighted material; far from it, we generate our own material and publish it under a Creative Commons license. But there are such things as principles...

Re:All servers!!!!!

[sgt_doom]

A resounding YES!! The FBI, headed by unindicted co-conspirator to the coverup of the BCCI investigation (and probably the Iran-Contra affair as well, when he was head of the Justice Department's criminal division - appointed by George H.W. Bush), Director Robert Mueller, is the last person in America I would trust with any investigation. The fact that they have time for such matters, when they should be pursuing the war criminals of the Bush Adminstration and the financial fraudster super-crooks on Wall Street, is truly mind-boggling......

Re:All servers!!!!!

[illumnatLA]

Yes, we do live in a police state in a way.

With the speed that law enforcement works at, it'll be months, if not years before those innocent companies get their equipment back... if they get it back at all.

You see, in many places, laws were passed that allowed law enforcement agencies to keep property that is *suspected* to have been used in a crime. For example, the police think you've been dealing drugs out of your car. You go to court and are proven innocent (you don't even necessarily have to be charged witha crime!) Cops get to keep your car anyway because they *suspect* it was used in a criminal activity. Great system don't you think?

See this article for one example... there are many others... Property seizures seen as piracy

The state's asset seizure law doesn't require that law enforcement agencies file criminal charges in civil forfeiture cases. It requires only a preponderance of evidence that the property was used in the commission of certain crimes, such as drug crimes, or bought with proceeds of those crimes.

That's a lesser burden than is required in a criminal case. And it allows police departments and prosecutors to divvy up what they get from such seizures - what critics say is a built-in incentive for unscrupulous, underfinanced law enforcement agencies to illegally strip motorists of their property.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[DarkOx]

This government has totaly grossly exceceded its mandate. I am already longing for the Bush years.. I say we tar and feather the entire Legislative branch and all the officers in the Executive president included.. Who is with me?

Re:All servers!!!!!

[anagama]

me.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Or perhaps the company ... you know ... actually did commit a crime. The leaking of wolverine was not an accident. Some guy actually walked in, comitted massive fraud and abused many people's trust, and you'll have to admit the chance is pretty damn huge this was done with malice. And now proof is needed that this guy not only abused many people's trust, but also actually did what the FBI alleged.

What if it was done to prevent destruction of evidence, and was actually the right thing to do ?

If anyone from Coreserver actually gets convicted in this case, I'm sure you'll change your opinion. Right ?

(I'm not really so stupid as to actually consider the thought that you might realise the FBI actually does stop criminals, and saves lives and property ... You're just trying to attack someone you suspect, obviously without a shred of proof or even thought, in narcissistic grandiosity, of being "out to get you". That thought is so much more comfortable than the truth, that noone cares at all).

Re:All servers!!!!!

[evanism]

this is EXACTLY why you don't do business with either Americans nor in America. Its a business nightmare wrapped in a fascist state wrapped in a police bashing. Yes, this is a flame, and its all goddam tru

Re:All servers!!!!!

[Ceiynt]

To hell with the Bush years. This should be done every 8 years, regardless of who's in charge, and should have started in the 30's.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true.

Since the occupational government does not respect the rights of surfs, 'owning' property in the USA has become a liability. It may be stolen at any moment for something somebody else may or may not have done. Did you use the same ISP as a drug dealer who didn't pay his protection money? You may be put out of business when all the computers are siezed and held for years. Do you have an address easily confused with that of someone who refuses to take Federal Reserve Notes? They may kick in your doors and shoot your dog.

On the other hand, if you're a billionaire that owns a few Congresswhores, then the USA is better than ever!

Re:All servers!!!!!

[westlake]

Do the Americans now live in a police state that is controlled by the RIAA.

You don't know the FBI was searching for.

You only have a rumor.

Search warrants always have the potential to impact the innocent.

That doesn't make them go away.

The innocent bystander might more usefully be asking why he trusted this host - and why he didn't have a back-up plan.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[ElectricTurtle]

Yeah, the 1830s... could you imagine the look on that prima donna Andrew Jackson's face? Or Martin Van Buren?

Re:All servers!!!!!

[fm6]

Let's not blame everything on the RIAA. The FBI might also be going after somebody who's peddling kiddie porn, running a "terrorist" server, or running a botnet.

Judging from the angry rants from the agent in charge and the deployment of so many uniformed cops, I'm guessing kiddie porn.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[Rynd]

Me too.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[olddotter]

Do the Americans now live in a police state that is controlled by the RIAA. This may sound alarmist but when innocent companies are hurt by the use of FBI force - how far away is it?

Apparently the answer is yes.

Forget money, some data can cost lives. While rare, I have worked on databases of information that a few times a year save the lives of people in hospitals. What if that type of info is unavailable due to this type of fishing net equipment grab?

Re:All servers!!!!!

[nicolas.kassis]

Except why would they need to get ALL the servers from this data center. And why were the owners of those servers not notified also that a warrant was out for their property? Core did not own all this stuff according to the news I've seen.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[chipset]

Me, too.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[evanbd]

Even if someone at the data center was involved, that doesn't mean they should take all the servers. Those servers don't belong to the data center; they belong to the people who own them, even if they're sitting in the data center.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[fractoid]

It makes perfect sense. The GPP could no longer bear to live under the oppressive regime in the U.S. and so they moved to Chile. Hell, I'm tempted to do something similar myself, I'm sick of being smothered by Australia's pantywaist politics. I could just see myself moving to some remote corner of northern Thailand, say, and holing up with an internet connection, surviving on savings and occasional online contract work.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[ZxCv]

(And where you can rent a furnished, 5-bedroom house with cedar paneling on 2 acres of land for US$400.)

Right, because you live at the end of a dirt road in Chile. It had damn well better be cheap to live there.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[Trogre]

Of course not, what a preposterous notion.

This, clearly, is the work of the MPAA.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[hxnwix]

what does this have to do with bush?

Re:All servers!!!!!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Of course it wasn't. Let's assume that a coreserver employee said "hey, I've got this bitchin bandwidth at my office, I'll host this movie here and become famous!" (How the employee got a hold of the film is an exercise to the reader). Someone at the MPAA discovers an FTP site on Server X. Why is the FBI collecting servers Y,Z, and the rest of the alphabet?

Because the employee was from coreserver itself, but hosted the movie on one of the customer's servers. But due to some ip configuration trickery they can't be sure which server.

Or even if they know the ip, that will tell you, at best, behind which router the server is connected. If you want to prevent said employee from destroying evidence, you'll have to shut down all those servers by surprise and take all of them out of reach of said employee.

"Customer" server, in a managed services company, is a relative term. In my experience most employees from managed services companies have access to at least a large part of customer servers. Sometimes, they're even the only ones with access to "customer" servers. In those firms "customer" server means the customer pays for them.

Furthermore, this is a capitalist democracy, if those servers were taken without good reason (as decided by a judge), the owners will be compensated fairly. The same thing happens if the police impound your car and you prove that it was not wrongly parked. You get your car back, and $2000-3000 to cover the expenses incurred due to your car getting impounded.

If the case is that a coreserver employee was guilty, any damage recoups will have to come from coreservers of course. That the FBI impounded their servers because one of them comitted a (large, costly) crime means they are themselves responsible for the damage incurred by the impounding.

In any case, the customers get a legal damage claim due to this action. Either against the FBI, or against coreservers. And yes, it sucks losing a server. But a judge (ie. not you) will decide if it was justified.

I'm thinking, they did this, knowing the risk, so they're pretty damn sure they'll get the ceo or cto or some such of coreservers convicted. This also means they probably did not have too many other options, and thought the risk of evidence getting destroyed extreme.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[interkin3tic]

You're just trying to attack someone you suspect, obviously without a shred of proof or even thought, in narcissistic grandiosity, of being "out to get you".

Uh... no, I'm saying that the FBI has a long history of dramatically overstepping their bounds and being irrational. I've never personally been affected by the FBI or law enforcement unfairly. It is in their mentality though.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[cenc]

You are not the only person who has moved to Chile for similar reasons, myself included.

Very strong constitutional protections for private property in Chile. Real protections, not political lip service to their protections.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[cenc]

By the way I might add that the largest ISP in the country, boldly displays a sign in their office window advertising no restrictions on bittorent or P2P downloads.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[phorm]

Longing for Bush? You think that just a few months after taking over the president was aware of and personally involved in every police raid? Do you think that the laws (or lack of oversight) in this RAID are due to a policy implemented in these last few months?

While I don't expect the current government to be completely perfect in this regard, and Obama has already shown certain favoritism to the media companies, I doubt that these particular goings-on have much of a connection to the party or president that has recently come into-power.

Re:All servers!!!!!

[toddestan]

Maybe he meant the first Bush years?

Ye gods

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is true and equipment totally unrelated to the suspected parties (apart from being in the same building) was also confiscated then every data-centre in America could be shut-down due to one badly behaved server hosted in it?!

Re:Ye gods

[illumnatLA]

Well, yes... since that data center is, in fact, connected to all other data centers, then logically speaking, all other data centers are also to blame. In order to fully investigate properly, surely the FBI must seize the servers from all other data centers as well!

Re:Ye gods

[samriel]

Well, yes... since that data center is, in fact, connected to all other data centers, then logically speaking, all other data centers are also to blame. In order to fully investigate properly, surely the FBI must seize the servers from all other data centers as well!

Well then, arrest all the datacenter owners, because they received and distributed stolen property. Also prosecute anyone who has ever publicly admitted to filesharing for the same reasons (Lars, I'm looking at you.) Since the Internet is required for all of this transfer of stolen property to be going on, arrest Tim Berners-Lee for inventing the internet. Since computers are required for the invention of the internet, specifically Tim's NeXT computer, arrest Steve Jobs, the founder of NeXT. His ownership of the company would not be possible if he hadn't been forced out of Apple, so arrest the entire then-board of directors. After you go through all of it, frickin' Charles Babbage is to blame for all of it.

These criminals must be stopped!!!

Getting old, I guess...

[rewt66]

... and the memory fades with age. But I seem to remember a time when this was a free country, with due process of law and such.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[rewt66]

A search and seizure warrant for all servers in the datacenter, no matter what company owns them? Either they exceeded the scope of the warrant, or it's a horribly over-broad warrant. Either way, that's not "reasonable" search. It's still a violation of due process - what due process is supposed to mean, that they can't just take people's stuff on a whim.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[samriel]

A search and seizure warrant for all servers in the datacenter, no matter what company owns them? Either they exceeded the scope of the warrant, or it's a horribly over-broad warrant. Either way, that's not "reasonable" search. It's still a violation of due process - what due process is supposed to mean, that they can't just take people's stuff on a whim.

Right, and I have a feeling that's what will be argued. If the judge couldn't think this far enough into the future, then he should face some consequences. Indeed, quoting others in this thread, it will be months or years until the other companies get their equipment back, if at all.

IANAL, IDNRTW (I Did Not Read The Warrant)

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[merchant_x]

They are trying to make an example of this company, IMHO. Pure speculation on my part but the overboard manner in which this was executed makes me think they wanted to send a message to this company and other data center operators. I'm guessing that perhaps Core IP may not have been as cooperative as the FBI would have liked them to be in past inquiries. So they used whatever excuse they have currently to get an over broad warrant and shut the whole operation down. That's just my straight out of my ass feeling though.

I hope this backfires horribly on the FBI. I hope that the affected completely innocent companies get some lawyers and go to town on the FBI for this.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[KingMotley]

Apparently this isn't a standard piracy bust. They are going after the owners of the data center for something. Possible they thought that the company was using the other machines to do something illegal with or without the owners permission (That assumes they allow you to bring in your own hardware, and they aren't just renting).

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

bullshit.

It's possible that the warrant was overbroad - but that's not been demonstated.

There are a number of possible scenarios in which it would be crucial to a criminal trial to gather all possible evidence.

If this is a more or less legit data center, there is every possibility that the systems were compromised by a third party - ie: dey waz hax0r3d.

Additionally, hacking someone else's server for profit is clearly a criminal act, however much one wishes to poo poo possible ip infringment.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

Doubtful.

It's hard to mount a revolution when all you have to work with are /. idiots in tinfoil hats.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[physicsphairy]

The thing to remember is, the FBI is going to come out of this justifying themselves. Because somewhere in all of that data is going to be something illegal, practically as a given.

But let's forget temporarily about our rights (taking a cue from the judge who signed this)--it had better be a really important crime if the FBI is going to spend the resources to examine an entire datacenter's worth of data. There are more than enough understaffed and unsolved murder cases etc. that if they're doing this to track down the leek of the new X-Men movie (as alleged) I'll be pretty pissed.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[bigstrat2003]

Yes, it's so fascist to be balanced and not go screaming "THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF FUCKING LINE!!". How dare he wait for some facts before making a judgement??

Knee-jerk reactions like yours do nothing but drag us all down into a mess like the one we're in now. I don't give a damn how good your intentions may be, your knee-jerk reaction helps no one.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[Antique Geekmeister]

Oh, please. Tell that to the Nisei (the Japanese-Americans locked up during World War II), the slaves of the USA's first 100 years of existence, women without the vote or property rights, the victim's of the McCarthy era witch hunt against Communists, the hippies of the 1960's, and various people whose have rights have been trammeled since the beginning of the USA. We're a nation of laws on good days: on bad days, we've been nationalistic thungs.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[Danathar]

You must be 150 years old because the last time this was a free country was BEFORE the 16th and 17th amendments to the U.S. Constitution which were pushed through the country by PROGRESSIVES (Note I don't say democrats or Republicans) at the end of the 19th and early 20th century.

The writers of the constitution KNEW that concentrated power leads to less freedom which is why they purposely tried to distribute power to the states as a check against the federal government. Once the federal government got the ability to directly tax people and take away the state's ability to decide for THEMSELVES how senators were appointed they (states) became nothing more than crack whores on federal $$$. Senators care more about their federal gigs than the states they represent (except during elections).

So now we have

1. States that can no longer check the federal gov like designed.

2. An interpretation of the constitution which means whatever the politicians and laywers want it to mean based on the idea of "implied powers of the constituion"

Notice that everybody in Washington is talking about the bailouts and expansion of federal gov in terms of MONEY and not a reduction of freedom and liberty which is more important than the gargantuan debt.

Welcome to the Alexander Hamilton's US of A. May he rot in hell for what he did to Jefferson and Madison's dream.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[DerekLyons]

Yeah, and civics education seems to have faded from your memory too... The FBI had a warrant, a warrant is due process.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[symbolset]

There are five lights!

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[dryeo]

How old are you? Perhaps if you can document your age you can get in the Guiness book of records, probably beat the age record by at least double.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[Pictish Prince]

Oh, please. Tell that to the Nisei (the Japanese-Americans locked up during World War II), the slaves of the USA's first 100 years of existence, women without the vote or property rights, the victim's of the McCarthy era witch hunt against Communists, the hippies of the 1960's, and various people whose have rights have been trammeled since the beginning of the USA. We're a nation of laws on good days: on bad days, we've been nationalistic thungs.

You left out the original inhabitants of North America.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[Antique Geekmeister]

Good point, although in some instances that land was purchased legally, so I'm reluctant to confuse my historical reference with "all but a few percent stolen by theft, invasion, and genocide".

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[fm6]

TPP wasn't very well thought out, but I didn't see anything in it that could be labelled "fascist". And even if there were, there's no need to throw a tantrum.

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[Danathar]

Good point. But my argument still holds water :)

Re:Getting old, I guess...

[Danathar]

I don't deny that a pure Jeffersonian USA would probably of not survived the early part of the 19th century, but the result was the start down a path of Federal power trumping just about everything else.

The Wolverine is out of the bag.

[Beelzebud]

It's all over p2p networks, it's in IRC channels, it's on usenet. Good luck getting rid of all traces of it.

Re:The Wolverine is out of the bag.

[iminplaya]

They're just after the original leaker. SOP... "Shoot first", ask questions later

Re:The Wolverine is out of the bag.

[nicolas.kassis]

Probably in google's cache somewhere now.

Re:The Wolverine is out of the bag.

[geekoid]

That's not the point.

Re:The Wolverine is out of the bag.

[AdmiralXyz]

That's a bit like finding a homicide victim and saying "Well, he's already dead, no point in doing anything now." They're not trying to get it off the internet, they're trying to find who uploaded it.

Umm

[Anonymous Showered]

Hasn't the FBI heard of data center control panel software to find the specific server(s) in question? My colocation facility's web panel tells me the switch #, power plug #and location and a whole ton of other shit. WTF is up with this?

Re:Umm

[nicolas.kassis]

I'm wondering the same thing, how the hell can they get servers own by different entities. Does the warrant not require a specific person to be raided? These FBI went to far on this one and the job who approved this is a idiot.

Re:Umm

[Princeofcups]

Any enterprise class server has no local disk, or system disk at most. All data is stored on SAN disk. It would be hilarious if they grabbed all the servers but left the storage array.

Re:Umm

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

No - it doesn't - it requires that the scope of the search not be excessively broad, and that it be clear. You can get a warrant for a closet, or the whole house, depending on what you want to search and the nature of your evidence.

Re:Umm

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

Rubbish.
It was a data center - which typically houses a wide variety of types of servers.
SAN's are not appropriate for most servers.

Re:Umm

[mysidia]

This is a fishing expedition.

Re:Umm

[nonumnos]

This of course presumes that a law enforcement officer could distinguish between a server, a storage array, and a lite brite!

Re:Umm

[mysidia]

A datacenter is not a house.

It's more like a bank vault.

If law enforcement suspects a former customer of a bank may have conducted illegal activity and left evidence in their safety deposit box, do they get a search warrant for the whole vault, drill the locks, and seize all the safety deposit boxes [and their contents] as evidence?

Re:Umm

[dbIII]

I suspect they wanted to punish the data centre for being obstructive or something. Either way the data centre has been punished severely and I'm sure this will be used as an example if it looks like similar businesses are not going to be cooperative. It's the idea of the rule of might and not the rule of law.

Re:Umm

[dbIII]

Your "enterprise class" server might work that way but there are many others, and there are many ways to handle storage. I bet it even has some MS thing installed that can't even handle 4GB of memory.

Re:Umm

[blueroo]

RAWFUL! Your comment tells me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Enterprise gear doesn't use disk? Good grief.

Cloud computing

[xra]

Stories like that make one realize how risky cloud computing is...

Re:Cloud computing

[Satertek]

Wrong. When I take planes, they just fly straight through the clouds. Think how hard it would be to suck up and confiscate all of them.

Re:Cloud computing

[bluesatin]

Wait, what?

Re:Cloud computing

[mysidia]

Stories like that make one realize how risky cloud computing is...

If you were on the cloud, you didn't lose any investment in hardware, which may be abused, damaged, or have its lifetime reduced (in the process of searching it), and (if you have a backup), you can start your server right back up on another provider.

Re:Unconfirmed speculation

[Beelzebud]

It's not speculation that the data center was raided and shut down, including businesses that aren't doing anything wrong...

According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof...

[JimXugle]

When a police officer seizes computer hardware from a business in the course of an investigation, they can be held civilly liable for any loss or damage caused to the business by their actions.

At least thats how it is for Pennsylvania State Police.

Re:According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof...

[ikono]

civilly, eh? Good luck fighting the unions...

Re:According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof...

[Anonymous Coward]

Three points...

1. We hope that at some point the FBI will have to pay the full restitution for restoring service and loss of business etc.

2. Good excuse to have redundant servers in multiple jurisdictions (i.e. at least one outside of the US..)

3. Good excuse for people running colo's to get onto their congress critters to setup specific laws preventing this type of action (i.e. limit search and seizure to exactly the servers specified and no specifying ALL servers for a location that has multiple commercial services) ..

The exact and precise analogy would be to have them show up at a reasonably sized office building with multiple lease holders and demand to search and seize every computer in the entire building. It is a ridiculous idea and they would be laughed out of court. Colocation sites need to be recognized as having the same legal setup and protections.

Re:According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof...

[JimXugle]

Okay okay. I should have thrown a spell check in there before posting my somewhat relevant post.

Re:According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof...

[Anonymous Coward]

Source? Federal law explicitly says otherwise. The doctrine of "qualified immunity" protects any law enforcement officer acting in good faith in accordance with his duties from any civil liability associated with those. This matter has been extensively litigated over the past 100+ years and there is a solid body of case law dealing with it.

A police officer serving a search warrant cannot be held liable for any civil damages resulting from that action unless he had reason to believe the warrant was not valid or he went about serving it in a grossly incompetent fashion.

The statute in question is: 42 U. S. C. s 1983. Qualified Immunity of Police Officers.

I suggest you start your research here.

Re:According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof...

[JSBiff]

I would imagine the police officers/agents would be immune, personally, but what about the police agency/city/county, or the FBI/US Government?

I mean, if it can be shown that they seized servers that were in no way related to the alleged crime (which is almost certain in this case), it seems to me that they have violated the 4th Ammendment with regards to the other companies computers (remember, if I colocate my computer at a data center, the computer and the data on it are still my property (except, well, to the extent that software/data is other people's property that I've licensed).

Seems to me like even if they have evidence of crime being conducted on specific servers at the Colo facility, that doesn't give them any constitutional right to grab all the servers.

I mean, imagine if you rented a storage unit at one of these large storage rental places with acres of units. So, someone is storing guns and drugs in one of the storage units - that doesn't give the ATF, DEA, or FBI the right to open and sieze the property in every single storage locker.

This is totally bizarre.

Re:According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof...

[Cheviot]

How'd it work out? He won $300,000 in his suit.

Re:According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof...

[egcagrac0]

IANAL, but I would say that impounding 50 servers (most of which were probably not involved in the alleged crime), and sending 15 police cars to an empty house qualifies as executing a warrant in a grossly incompetent fashion.

Re:According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof...

[WatcherXP]

$300,000 of taxpayer money.

Everybody wins!

While they are at it..

[johnmark76]

They should have taken all the toilet paper from the bathrooms in the building. It doesn't do much good - but then again - it will cause lots of discomfort to people not involved - so why not!

Wrong **AA

[NixieBunny]

I'm assuming Wolverine is a movie not a music album, so that would be our overlords at the MPAA, not the RIAA.

Re:Wrong **AA

[egcagrac0]

MafIAA, MaPhiAA. They'll merge soon enough. Kind of surprised they haven't already.

Re:Wrong **AA

[jimicus]

I'm assuming Wolverine is a movie not a music album, so that would be our overlords at the MPAA, not the RIAA.

While this is true, I would ask exactly how many major record labels exist which do not have sister companies that make movies?

Is Copyright still a fair deal?

[thesupraman]

This is not the question to ask.

The question to ask is what good are the public getting in return for giving up such freedoms, AND paying for the giving up of such freedoms (dont forget who pay for the FBI, Police, etc), and paying for the protection of the revinue to copyright owning entities.

Now, this is supposed to be the entering in to the public domain (as in becoming free..) of creative content at the end of the copyright period - a fair and equitable arrangement one could say - we protect their profits for a period, and at the end of that, we gain the advantage of their creativity openly.

However, that was in the days of limited copyright periods, these days thanks both to DRM (an unbroken DRM means an item cannot become free after its legal protection stops) and changes to copyright periods (a lot of things we have already paid to protect should be public now, and are not..) we, the people, have lost our end of the 'bargain'.

Perhaps it is time for the copyright owners to be carrying the full costs of enforcing their copyrights, since they don't feel the public should be allowed future advantage of their content?

I wonder what the yearly government costs of copyright enforcement is, it seems more and more public resource is bring piled in to protecting it..

Or perhaps the people (that is, government) should simply cease on their end of the bargain in return, and in light of technological DRM, revoke copyright laws, as they were enacted to protect otherwise unprotectable items (such as books) - does DRM mean we shouldn't have to suffer copyright laws?

Once upon a time there was balance, an equitable deal between the state and copyright holders - the copyright holders have long since stopped holding up their end of the bargain....

Re:Is Copyright still a fair deal?

[KiloByte]

Perhaps it is time to abolish copyrights and patents, period.

Re:Is Copyright still a fair deal?

[geekoid]

What freedoms did we give up?

Oh, I just thought of a great hippie paranoia term:
We had freedoms, now we have feedoms.

heh, feedoms I love it.

Why don't we see if this actually about Wolverine? that is just idle speculation.

Re:Is Copyright still a fair deal?

[Mr2001]

What freedoms did we give up?

Free speech/press. Not that those were ever absolute, but copyright restricts them even further: copyright law introduces entire classes of facts that you are not allowed to share with other people.

Re:Is Copyright still a fair deal?

[dryeo]

Actually I wonder how copyrights are even constitutional? The main body does say that congress can create copyright laws but the very first amendment to the constitution says that congress will make no law limiting speech.
Don't the amendments amend the constitution? Copyright is obviously being used to stifle free speech.

Re:Is Copyright still a fair deal?

[dryeo]

Shouldn't the first amendment trump the main body of the constitution?

Re:Is Copyright still a fair deal?

[FlyingGuy]

Where is the Pointlessly-Clueless when you need it.

Re:Is Copyright still a fair deal?

[fractoid]

The question to ask is what good are the public getting in return for giving up such freedoms, AND paying for the giving up of such freedoms (dont forget who pay for the FBI, Police, etc), and paying for the protection of the revinue to copyright owning entities.

We get to consume big-budget media that would never be created if the investors behind it couldn't be assured of some sane business model that works at the scale required.

Whether that's a fair tradeoff is up for discussion, but bear in mind that the vast majority of illegal copies are copies of big-budget media, so people obviously want very much to consume it.

Re:Is Copyright still a fair deal?

[Ostracus]

And by that copyright has fulfilled it's part of the bargain. The breakdown is that economics can't give people what they want at zero cost. Maybe we're questioning the wrong thing?

SWAT?

[Meneth]

This sounds worse than the Pirate Bay / PRQ raid of 2006.

Yay!

[MightyMartian]

Because, after all, the FBI has absolutely nothing better to do than to be the MPAA's attack dogs.

Re:Privacy????

[SuperMo0]

I share the sentiment of your first paragraph. I've never been one to be too upset about government surveillance, because I realize it helps keep me safe, and such.

I wouldn't jump so far as to say "This is a dictator-esque move", though. This is a move that shows what happens when you take a phone call from someone hysterically complaining about something and don't wait for them to calm down before you do whatever they told you to.

Okay, 2 points here, both in humor

[Torodung]

1) Why does this shit always happen in Texas, when the Dems are in power. First Waco, now this?!

2) I hope the EFF and the ACLU form up like some Mecha-Voltron and tear Eric Holder a new one over this.

Holy shit. I don't care *why* they did it, you can't rip up some railroad tracks because someone's smuggling drugs by train. We're going to have to find a subtler, more sensible way to deal with alleged criminals who run data centers.

--
Toro

Re:Okay, 2 points here, both in humor

[Goobermunch]

It's not limited to Dems, thankyouverymuch.

Check out Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service. It's the case about a Secret Service Raid on SJ Games in which the Secret Service seized a number of computers, nearly crippling a business. The details can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service.

For the record, the seizure of the computers took place in 1990, under the Bush (I) administration.

--AC

Re:Okay, 2 points here, both in humor

[Goobermunch]

And I fail at reading the entire subject line.

I'll have my order of crow, well done, with a side of my foot. And can you cover that in my own words?

--AC

Re:Okay, 2 points here, both in humor

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

Coupla points here:

1> What most posters are bitching about never happened. The Feeb's didn't raid an entire data center. Core IP Networks doesn't own a data center. They colo with Telx. The Feebs didn't seize all of the servers in Telx's data center - they seized those under the control of Core IP Networks.

2> Core IP Networks smells fishy to me. I don't know of a single tech company, no matter how esoteric their product, nor narrow their market, that doesn't have some significant web presence. Core IP Networks doesn't have any noticeable web presence.

Re:Okay, 2 points here, both in humor

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

Yeah - what's the url for the company's home page?
I wanted to go look em up - you can often find really interesting things in domain registration records.
If they had a domain.

Re:Umm Well, maybe there IS something there, and

[davidsyes]

the act of taking every single server is to:

-- be punitive
-- scare other colos
-- dissuade this current target from going back into operation without screening clients

It's probably the greatest fear of every rental property manager/at-home landlord, that renters/tenants would conduct illegal activities on the premises, then subject every occupant to subpoena and total confiscation of every electronic and paper file, loss of hardware, and invasion of privacy, and stultefying disruption of business, schooling and other activities.

But, really, FBI, why not just run a deep scan using your own cracking tools? You could be on and off the property. We pay MORE than enough tax dollars that you guys & girls could arrive and spend 3 or 4 hours collecting what you need via data and paper scanners. Once you get stuff into a property room and all tagged, what is the likelihood of expedient recovery by the original owner? What if you guys REALLY find NOTHING, and there is some internal intertia to not look stupid, which might induce a decision to delay for as long as possible the return of confiscated stuff.

Hell, if i'm under suspicion, i'd GLADLY let you scan in exchange for not hauling my shit off. And, since you guys have the technical means to record virtually every electronic transaction or all traffic long before you descend upon your targets, they may never even be aware of being a person of interest. Even if they are guilt of SOMEthing, do you need to shut down every single aspect of their lives to prosecute a subpoena-limited scope of crime? You may as well seize their account balances AND take their debit cards and garnish their wages to prevent repurchase of new hardware onto which recovery tapes NOT at the target address will go. Then what, cat and mouse? Get the target to self-incriminate by demanding to know every last data archive location?

We need a more civilized form of crime prosecution that does not add insult to injury before the "suspect" even goes to jail. Oh, and for those who wish to slam me, yes, i am aware that by the time the new footage shows boxes being carried to the evidence van while the cuffed suspect is led to the warm mobile chariot seat is *likely* long under surveillance *AND* is guilty as hell even without a trial date come and gone, there STILL are times when law enforcement just goes in and scoops up EVERYthing as if to shut down someone. Many times, judges allow the suspect who is not a flight risk to post bail or be out on OR if tagged/collared. In the meantime, it is a MEAN time to be at an upsidedown-turned home, lacking all gear, and feeling watched. Yep, the pirates of nation-crumbling data and apps, kiddie-porn peddlers, stock options inside traders, illegal gambling and secrets thieves SHOULD be watched, but some crimes that are prosecuted (pursued before prosecution as well as punished by jury/judge) are done so at the behest of some foul-play-crying corporation having a hosed up business model.

Alas, you're going to need a new constitution

[Mateo_LeFou]

Eldred v Ashcroft holding was that a copyright law (in that example the one that extended Mickey's copyright protection) is presumed constitutional if it doesn't explicitly say it's for "infinite length" and if it maintains the distinction between idea and expression.

Although your reading -- that a copyright law is unconstitutional if it does not promote Science and the Useful Arts -- makes a lot of common sense, it just isn't the case.

In America, I mean. As presently Constituted.

Re:Alas, you're going to need a new constitution

[geekoid]

No it is not unconstitutional. Congress also get sot determine what "promote Science and the Useful Arts " means.

Re:Alas, you're going to need a new constitution

[RKThoadan]

Unfortunately, no Congress does not really get to determine what the Constitution or anything else the Legislative branch writes means. The Judicial and Executive branches of the government get to determine what the Legislative branch meant. If the Legislative branch disagrees than it can attempt to craft new legislation or amend the old.

Re:Alas, you're going to need a new constitution

[JesseMcDonald]

That assumes that Eldred vs. Ashcroft wasn't itself an incorrect judgment. Even USSC judges aren't fallible, after all, and they're hardly impartial when it comes to the scope of the government's legislative, executive, and judicial powers.

Personally, I've always thought the legitimacy of a court which derives its powers from the Constitution defining the meaning of that Constitution to be highly suspect. The Constitution is supposed to be an agreement between the government and the people, after all; in what other circumstance would it be deemed acceptable for one party to an agreement to have exclusive control over that agreement's interpretation? Particularly when that party is the agent, not the principal?

sounds like you need a lawyer

[iccaros]

from the owners statements.. "unwarranted early morning raid" Fist they must have a warrant and it must specifies each piece of equipment that they are taking and why, This is why you have an attorney on call, and it also sounds like the agent threated this person, which is a crime.. Under the Fourth Amendment, searches must be reasonable and specific. This means that a search warrant must be specific as to the specified object to be searched for and the place to be searched. Other items, rooms, outbuildings, persons, vehicles, etc. may require additional search warrants. (from Wikipedia) Just like when the police came by (and had the wrong house) and wanted to see my car, I asked to see the warrant.. When they got done talking lots of crap about how much trouble I was in for not letting them search my car, they then figured out that they were at the wrong house.. just because they ask does not mean you have to let them in.. also if you are an effected business, I would contact your lawyer and have them contact the FBI about loss of productivity, and if your servers were not on the warrant, then start a suite on unlawful seizure..

The Wolverine leak is an unconfirmed

[geekoid]

reason.
There is also speculation on illegal drug communication.
Also not confirmed.

Things to remember.
A) They had a warrant

B) We are only here one side

C) There is a lot of speculation as to why.

Lets watch closely, but avoid jumping to any conclusion.
No I'm not new hear, just overly optimistic.

Re:The Wolverine leak is an unconfirmed

[anagama]

Lets watch closely, but avoid jumping to any conclusion.

It seems to me, presuming the government has a good reason for anything it does is the conclusion to which we should avoid jumping.

Re:The Wolverine leak is an unconfirmed

[samriel]

1) You had a warrant for an entire IP block/server farm???

2) When the one side says, "hey they took all our (and your) shit", that's pretty definitive.

3) Who cares why, the basically said "this ENTIRE community is arrested because someone in it did something bad", that's pretty fucked up.

Obligatory snark, the word is "here".

Remember kids, one bad apple ends up getting the entire community's asses thrown in jail.

< /sarcasm >

Re:The Wolverine leak is an unconfirmed

[chazzf]

Because the government always lies, but the individuals who compose the government are saintly truth-tellers.

Re:The Wolverine leak is an unconfirmed

[mcrbids]

Lets watch closely, but avoid jumping to any conclusion.
No I'm not new hear, just overly optimistic.

Optimistic to the point of idiocy, perhaps. What happened here is analogous to getting a search warrant for downtown Chicago because there's reason to believe a crime has been committed.

In case you haven't been in a bona-fide data center, they are usually !@# HUGE. Even the smallish one that I host at is large - servers well into the thousands. All high-capacity equipment. Even a rather popular site like Slashdot could be easily served out of a single rack, maybe even just a half-rack! A data center is usually divided into locking cages, locking racks each the size of a large refrigerator, and often into half-racks which can hold up to about a dozen 1U rackmount servers.

Logically, it's more like a huge apartment complex - each separately locking cage, rack, or half-rack belongs to a different party.

In the IT world, a datacenter is not analogous to "a house" or even "a building", unless by "a building" you're talking about the feds getting a warrant for the ENTIRE EMPIRE STATE building.

This is farking nuts, and makes me nervous, even with our D/R plans and fully redundant, off-site hosting, off-network hosting.

Re:The Wolverine leak is an unconfirmed

[Dhalka226]

Or the Exact Server that Wolverine was uploaded to?

It would still be retarded. According to the article, over 50 businesses' sites are down, and some people can't dial 911 because several of the biggest companies are telephone companies--all because of this raid. Even if they do happen to find exactly what they're looking for on one of these machines, they've grossly overstepped their bounds or what any reasonable person would find an accept breadth to their search.

If they've done all of this over a case of COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, that doesn't make it better. It makes it much, much worse. They damn well BETTER find terrorism or kiddie porn just to save face, and I'd still be pissed off even then. This is supposed to be a land of laws and process. You don't get to seize everybody's server because you think one of them might house something wrong.

Re:The Wolverine leak is an unconfirmed

[ion.simon.c]

...some people can't dial 911 because several of the biggest companies are telephone companies...

Cite? It seems remarkably short-sighted to put E911 service in the hands of a single facility. What happens if a meteor hits it? Power failure? etc. etc. etc.

They damn well BETTER find terrorism or kiddie porn just to save face

Heh. They'll just pull some out of the vault and plant it on a server or two.

Re:The Wolverine leak is an unconfirmed

[dmclap]

The details have come out, and apparently it was unrelated to the Wolverine leak, which one might have thought was obvious. It deals with a case of massive fraud against AT&T and Verizon, potentially costing millions of dollars. I guess this is what happens when stories with rampant speculation hit /. .

Tin foil hat

[Ghubi]

More evidence that the current economic mess is the result of conspiracy.

It's sad when people can't wait...

[erroneus]

... It's an ugly thing that people thought it necessary or even a good idea to give out pre-released movie material. To clarify my position, I like downloading movies from the pirate bay. The movies I like, I usually buy... the movies I like a little, i wait until they are in the bargain bin at WalMart. If I didn't like it, I don't buy it.

With all that said, I once ruined my interest in buying the Stargate SG-1 movie by downloading and watching a pre-production copy of the movie from the pirate bay. I might buy it one day if I have that amount of cash in my pocket at the time I see it on the shelf, but the combination of events and circumstance have to make it seem like the thing to do at the time. I might still enjoy the production edited version of the movie with all effects and stuff installed, but I will still see this "unfinished" crap in my mind because that's what I saw first. Never again will I watch a movie before it is complete.

I want to see the Wolverine movie... trailers look cool. But I am not going to get the pre-release from the pirate bay because I don't want to ruin it.

Re:It's sad when people can't wait...

[samriel]

I haven't seen the new Wolverine movie, but I have seen a few pre-release torrents. Usually, they're copies of the DVD that get sent to the ratings board (complete with "You are liable for this DVD" messages at the bottom of the screen) or stuff like Oscar nominations DVDs.

Don't let one bad trip spoil the loot for you.

Re:It's sad when people can't wait...

[old and new again]

it's exactly the reverse for me, i just watched it, and it's really cool to see it that way with tthe cables and green screens, an its like 10% unfinished, not totally fx-less

Re:It's sad when people can't wait...

[amazeofdeath]

Seeing a movie ruins it? Hmm, looking at most of the Hollywood titles from recent years, I guess you are right...

Re:It's sad when people can't wait...

[erroneus]

Every purchase made is something of a gamble as to whether or not value will equal to or better than that which was traded. However, if you know something sucks before you buy it, you are likely to reverse your intentions to buy. It simply makes sense.

I have had bad experiences at restaurants and after complaining about the quality, I have been afforded a reduced or zero invoice for the service.

That which has been seen cannot be unseen, it is true. But the act of seeing does not mean it is worth it. I pay when something is worth it and I pay when I feel there is a chance that it may be worth it. When I am wrong, I feel that I have been wronged. There is nothing inconsistent in my attitude or behavior.

The very reason people are required to pay in advance for so many things is due largely to the risk that the buyer may be disappointed and will no longer wish to pay the amount requested. Many experiments have been done along the lines of "pay what you think it is worth" and this often works quite well for good restaurants. But when it comes to something as subjective as entertainment, the risk for refusal to pay would be far too high. And that risk, from the point of view of entertainment media publishers, is best left shifted to the consumer rather than on them leaving the consumer faced with all the risk.

I manage my risks whenever and wherever possible. Any wise person does. If you have been cheated or deceived, would you continue to carry out on your word or intentions merely out of a sense of personal honor? Most people wouldn't continue to pay child support after finding out the child wasn't theirs... unless of course the courts and the men with guns would force them to. I think your sense of fairness and balance is a little shallow. Dig a little deeper and explore a little more. Truth is often soured when it means you may have been mistaken in your beliefs for so long.

Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone?

[onyxruby]

Too many people are tied up in the idea that Obama is some kind of mesiah, that they forget to look into the facts. Look Bush was arguably the worst president in US history, but that is no reason to give his successor a free and unquestioned ride. This is the guy who chose Biden, long the media's lapdog and has subsequently posted top **AA lawyers to the justice department....

Bottom line is people need to hold Obama accountable for these things (he sets the tone for things in the Fed gov just as Bush did before him) and stop putting him on some kind of plinth.

Re:Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone?

[linuxwrangler]

top **AA lawyers

Don't you mean ??AA or, perhaps (RI)|(MP)AA or ..AA (pick your favorite regex or glob)?

Re:Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone?

[Quarters]

No,

People need to hold the Senators/Representatives who never read the PATRIOT act and voted it into law without realized what they were doing responsible. People need to hold the Senators/Representatives who voted the DMCA into law responsible. People need to hold Bush responsible for signing PATRIOT and Clinton responsible for signing DMCA. The laws that led to this state of affairs were enacted long before Obama took office. He has no more ability to unilaterally repeal these laws than he does to just make laws up. We have a three party government that is (nominally) a representative democracy. To stop these sorts of situations people need to hammer on their Senators/Representatives to draft legislature to repeal or amend the laws that got us here. Trying to blame president Obama for inaction in this particular instance is at best ignorant and at worst an attempt at revisionist history to deflect blame away from the congressmen who are truly responsible for this mess.

Re:Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone?

[onyxruby]

Your comment is misguided, I also hold Clinton responsible for the DMCA and our Senators for passing laws etc. I certainly agree with holding congress critters accountable, unfortunately you did not carefully read my post, and have posted a reply that does not address my point. The point is that heavy handed action by the justice department has now publicly begun under the Obama administration.

The justice department has long taken direction for it's priorities from the president at the time. Since senior justice department lawyers are ex **AA they have directed the justice department to take a heavy handed approach on this type of matter. It was no different under Bush or Reagan with their priorities (war on drugs etc).

You are a naive fool if you think Obama does not have influence on such matters. He has already used his influence with those he appointed. Much as many people held Bush accountable for the actions of Justice under him (Patriot act actions and so) they must also hold Obama equally culpable.

Re:Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone?

[tftp]

$ touch MPAA
$ ls **AA
MPAA
$

Re:Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone?

[shentino]

That middle one's supposed to be(RI|MP)AA you insensitive clod!

Re:Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone?

[Quarters]

I'm not the one calling any other poster in this thread "misguided" or a "naive fool". I usually find that the first person in a debate that resorts to directed personal attacks is usually covering up for the inability to field a rational argument in defense of their position. The justice department is beholden by laws. In this case they are beholden by laws that Bush, Clinton, and the Congresses that were in session during the previous twelve years enacted. Regardless of how the previous President chose to ignore laws and/or craft signing letters that essentially negated the very laws he was signing, Obama can not just ignore those same laws and tell the Justice Department to stop enforcing them. While you may feel justified and oddly empowered by your ability to continually repeat your opinion that Obama's inaction in this one instance points to him being ineffectual it's not valid. The people responsible are Clinton & the 105th US Congress for enacting DMCA, Bush & the 107th US Congress for enacting PATRIOT, and the 106th, 108th, 109th, and 110th US Congresses for not doing anything to limit or repeal those laws. I'm giving the 111th US Congress a pass on this currently since they've only been seated for three months.

Re:Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone?

[base3]

Fuck. And me without mod points. Well done nonetheless.

Re:Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone?

[MrMista_B]

Why would you think Obama had anything to do with this?

Do you also think Bush was at Gitmo?

Re:Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone?

[badkarmadayaccount]

Shouldn't that be two pipe symbols and not one, for representing a logical OR?

Re:Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone?

[handsomepete]

Who uses the word "plinth" instead of "pedestal"? While it's always fun to learn new words, I'll never get back those 5 seconds during which I was scratching my head trying to figure that out. And the 30 seconds it took me to post this pointless reply. You owe me 35 seconds sir!

Re:Privacy????

[Jherek Carnelian]

I normally don't care about privacy issues. The government can tap my phone if they feel like it, they can look into my purchasing records, they can stake out my house. They can look into my past work history. I really don't care.

They don't care about you. It isn't about you. They care about rising politicians and others who challenge the status quo.

I care deeply about personal privacy for the same reason I care deeply about gun rights - chances are that I will never carry a weapon in my life, but our society as a whole is made safer and more resilient by the fact that law-abiding citizens can own and use them in self defense. Similarly our society is made stronger and more egalitarian when everybody has privacy, the people who can make a difference and the common peons like the rest of us.

E-mail server not responding

[Andrew Lindh]

I love the end of the story "CBS 11 News emailed Simpson about the raid, but as of Thursday evening he had yet to respond"..... I wonder why? May be the FBI took their mail server too?

Re:Umm Well, maybe there IS something there, and

[Hurricane78]

You write much, but get little. Sorry.

Who profited from this the most? Even if it has nothing to do with a leaked movie.

There, all base for your reasoning is gone.
This is all just a giant theater. Psychology. Simple, but effective.
I think it is another step to a 1984 type "society".

Do not think they are stupid. They know exactly what they doing.
Maybe not the grunt who was raiding. But the guy behind the big desk for sure.

WTF

[FLoWCTRL]

The FBI have become the copyright cartels' gestapo?

Re:damn

[nicolas.kassis]

Yes, I'd call the EFF right now if I was him. They are looking to blame someone and it might fall on him. Is the MPAA looking to make a scapegoat to scare all the Datacenters around?

ONLY patronize non US CoLo(s)

[Paracelcus]

Romania or Belarus, where nobody gives a shit!

Re:Incredibly ironic

[j-stroy]

A police agency disconnects 911 service and the media tries to email a guy whose email servers are all fubar from the raid.

I wonder who carries the liability here, the FBI for disconnecting customers 911 service, or the data center for harboring evil doers?

FTFA:
"According to Simpson, some residents' access to 911 is also being affected because some of Core IPs primary customers include telephone companies."

"Simpson claims nearly 50 businesses are without access to their email and data. ... CBS 11 News emailed Simpson about the raid, but as of Thursday evening he had yet to respond."

Well, thank God!

[Brett Buck]

I am relieved to see that the FBI has caught all the terrorists, drug dealers, and child molesters! Otherwise they wouldn't have time to chase down trivial leaks of movies that should probably handled through the civil court and lawsuits.

        Brett

Re:Well, thank God!

[Ant P.]

They didn't catch them, they hired them.

Re:Well, thank God!

[MemoryDragon]

Ah those are just the scapegoats for getting better surrveilance technology, the real problem is the movie leaks.. Btw. I thought the same, nobody will care about the movie any more in a few weeks time, but the people bound by this operation probably could have saved a few lives in the meantime.

So speaking of killers, the movie industry in this case is indirectly also involved of some people being killed, because they bound law enforcement in their greed inforces stupidity.

Btw. I could live entirely without movies if that would mean we finally could get rid of the entire movie studios and their stench from hell...

Re:All servers!!!!! Wasn't Neil (Neal?) Sweetcheek

[davidsyes]

s Bush at the heart of this? Wasn't he, as a favor to his daddy, appointed to a position for which he had ZERO qualifications for the job? I bet we are still paying on the BCCI thing. Wasn't it something like $5,000 for every (working?) man and woman (and if not working people, then every child, too) to pay this thing off?

I wouldn't mind getting a one-time $25,000 0-tax check from Uncle Sam in exchange for, say, SSI. Or, a deep reduction in the interest rate or the principle in my now-worthless school loan on which i am still paying and won't finish paying on without winning a lottery, or unless i live on $5.00 per day while diverting all net income to attack the debt load (or, create products to let me earn income that overcomes the level of taxes i can expect....)....

Re:Privacy????

[anagama]

The second paragraph is one reason why your feelings stated in the first paragraph are harmful to you and everyone else.

Privacy is its own reason.

hmmm

[thatskinnyguy]

OK. First think about how much money was lost by the movie being leaked.... Alright. Got a figure in your head?

Now think about how much this raid is costing tax payers, legitimate businesses and individuals in downtime and labor-costs for fail-over... Got a figure in your head for that?

If you think the first number is larger than the second, please forfeit your right to be called a sane, competent individual.

Re:hmmm

[MemoryDragon]

Counter question, how many people have died in the meanwhile which could have been saved because the persons in the FBI were bound by this instead of being assigned to real crime prevention and resolution tasks...
I guess a lot!

On the other hand if one dead person does not count very much like it is in certain countries then you probably are right *sarcasm off*

Government assisted attack

[ArmchairGeneral]

Talk about the easy route to create a DoS attack. Get the government to do it for you! Good to know they've got nothing better to do though. The war on drugs is over, children are no longer hungry, all the criminals are behind bars, so now we can focus on the other important things at hand. Puleeeze.

Re:damn

[thatskinnyguy]

If this guy was running a malicious botnet using all of the servers in the datacenter, I would say "Sure! Nail the bastard!". But if this turns-out to be the FBI running an errand for the MPAA, this guy has ground for all kinds of civil lawsuits. Of the least of them, trouncing his daisies.

followup

[starjax]

They didn't take all the servers from the datacenter. Just the ones they had co-located there. Electronic forensics has gotten much more efficient over time. So instead of taking months to return said servers, it should take them on a few days to a few weeks. Unfortunate for those affected. However, there are many variables on how the servers were configured, how they were managed, how the data was organized, backed up and archived. They take the systems away so they can do anaylysis in a controlled environment. It does sound like they have a very good idea of what they are looking for. Local news (in dallas) reports today that they are looking for info related to a mass fraud investigation.

Cloud

[Akita24]

Now picture a future where your entire business was running on the just seized "cloud" .. remind me again how this is a good idea.

Re:Cloud

[kylemonger]

Well, if you're using one of the big providers like Amazon, who have multiple datacenters, you just start new server instances and carry on. I don't think the FBI is going to shut down Amazon.

Re:Privacy????

[maxume]

I want the feds to steak out my house.

Bar-B-Cue!

Who says this has ANYTHING to do with the movie?

[harmgsn]

Seriously, who said this has anything to do with the movie? Way to jump to conclusions! There's bound to be another reason behind it.

Heinlein already said that

[mangu]

Or perhaps the people (that is, government) should simply cease on their end of the bargain in return, and in light of technological DRM, revoke copyright laws

We, The People, already revoked copyright laws. As Robert Heinlein once wisely wrote:

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am responsible for everything I do."
("The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", 1966)

Nothing like easily broken laws and internet anonymity to set a man free...

Re:Heinlein already said that

[sgtrock]

"To whom is a "free" man responsible?"

Himself. Duh.

Re:Core IP Networks LLC???

[fluffy99]

I agree, 50 customers might translate to a single server. If the FBI really did take "millions of dollars" of equipment and the warrant allowed it, the collaterally affected folks should sue the JUDGE for issuing such a broad baseless warrant.

Losing RIghts

[moxitek]

Unfortunately, his only probable recourse is a lengthy and costly lawsuit. I can't imagine how much money Core IP and their customers are losing right now. All for what appears to be guesswork on the behalf of the law enforcement agency.

Re:Losing RIghts

[man_ls]

The Police are generally immune to lawsuit for damages based on their actions during the course of a lawful investigation.

A friend of mine had the police tear the shit out of the interior of his late-model Volvo because he had taken his injured dog to the vet in the back seat, it bled on the upholstery, and during an unrelated traffic stop his vehicle was seized under suspicion of being connected to a murder.

They returned the car with huge chunks removed from all the upholstery and no apology. He had no recourse under the law because the police were immune by statute from being sued for the damage when it turned out he had done nothing wrong at all.

Steve Jackson's fault

[peacefinder]

They probably found another copy of GURPS Cyberpunk.

Re:Unconfirmed speculation

[Aladrin]

The customer may have done nothing wrong, but the hosting company may have been using every computer under their control for illegal uses.

We simply don't know and it's pointless to get up in arms with no information whatsoever.

They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[Anonymous Coward]

They told if George W. Bush got elected...
we would be seeing over-the-top raids like this and an attack on our civil liberties.

I can hardly wait until we elect a Democrat and all of this will stop.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[jcr]

I can hardly wait until we elect a Democrat and all of this will stop

I never expected it to stop. The most I was hoping for was lefties having to admit that their guy wasn't any better.

-jcr

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[GodfatherofSoul]

You have a talent for gross simplification if you think Obama is no different from Bush. That being said, this raid does piss me off.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't hold your breath on that. Obama is a puppet in the hands of big corporations as GW was and as every other politician who wants to make a career is. Come on, do you really think there is one politician in the entire world who will protect normal citizens against the will of any giant corporation?

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[Onymous Coward]

Before we let run wild our confirmation biases...

We might wait on news of what the raid is actually about? Man, trotting out the partisanship at this point is pretty ugly.

Speaking of jerky behavior, the agent in charge of the raid was reported by the CEO to have said:

I received a call 15 minutes later from FBI Agent Allyn Lynd. Mr. Lynd would not tell me why he raided our datacenter or what he was looking for. He also accused me of hiding inside my house in Ovilla, Texas. I was actually in Phoenix, Arizona when this happened. I told him that, and he told me that he was "getting the dogs" after me, and hung up on me. I found out from an employee that there were 15 police cars and a SWAT team at my home in Ovilla.

Geez, the CEO must be a real criminal to merit that treatment. Better pre-emptively pull out his toenails.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[Maxmin]

Politicians love power, and what President would want to limit his own? Look for Obama to amend such laws late in his first term, when it looks better, if that even comes.

But don't you think it's a bit early in his term, one encumbered from the start with heavy baggage, to begin dealing with the myriad problem laws that have been passed during the last half century?

FWIW, RICO was passed in 1970, and the Feds love its vagueness to death. Easy prediction: Obama will receive no recommendations from his cabinet or federal appointments to crimp or change it. Between RICO and Patriot, we're not going to see the end of fracked-up warrantless situations like Core IP, not until a President alters the makeup of the Supremes, and subsequent legal challenges bring down the over-broad aspects of those laws.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[santiagodraco]

Yeah, he's in office for a little while and everything should have magically changed.

I wonder if people really want what they profess to want or simply use it as an excuse to get up on a personal podium.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[jcr]

I didn't say he wasn't different. I said he wasn't any better.

-jcr

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[jcr]

Politicians love power, and what President would want to limit his own?

Exactly. That's why it's so tedious to hear people claim that everything will be just fine and dandy if you just give the vast accumulation of power in violation of our constitution to their team instead of the other team.

Power is like Uranium. Get too much of it in any one place, and Bad Things Happen.

-jcr

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[jcr]

Yeah, he's in office for a little while and everything should have magically changed.

Nothing magic about issuing an executive order to countermand previous executive orders.

But hey, why should I worry? He called off the raids on medical marijuana dispensaries for a whole WEEK!

-jcr

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I agree with you generally. But I also find somewhat odd and even disturbing that they can raid you and not tell you why? How long do they keep the computers? Do you have any recourse or compensation? Something like this could make a company go bust, so I would think the raid would have to be justified properly.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[jcr]

But I also find somewhat odd and even disturbing that they can raid you and not tell you why?

Think that's bad? We had a president back in the 1940s who locked up thousands of innocent people without charges just for having Japanese ancestors.

-jcr

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[TapeCutter]

Yep, no difference there.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

Do not forget the House Committee on Un-American Activities. I find it horrible whenever I hear 'un-american' used in a discussion. As happened with the Dixie Chicks only a few years ago.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[commodore64_love]

Well when Dubya was elected I was hoping he would be better than Clinton, and he was at first, but after 9/11 he turned into a War Hawk. Very disappointing. The proper response to 9/11 should have been the same as if it was a major traffic accident that killed 1500 people - mourn, rebuild, move on. NOT go out and commit mass murder against Iraqi and Afghan citizens, which makes us no better than the terrorists. (I'm glad I voted libertarian.)

As for Obama, I never expected much from him. An outstanding speaker is not necessarily a good executive. Plus he's doing exactly what I expected - spending our children and grandchildren's income. Nice job.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[commodore64_love]

>>>"Mr. Lynd would not tell me why he raided our datacenter or what he was looking for."

So in other words the FBI agents violated law. And not just regular law, but Constitutional law. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." They should be immediately rounded-up by the Executive branch of the U.S. and tried for treason (imho) for seizure without a proper warrant.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[commodore64_love]

I'd simply ask them, "What do you mean by un-American?"

Followed by: "And what's wrong with that? Isn't this a free country? Aren't we guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, in whatever fashion we choose, so long as we don't physically harm another?"

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[commodore64_love]

>>>Don't you think it's a bit early in his term, one encumbered from the start with heavy baggage, to begin dealing with the myriad problem laws that have been passed during the last half century?
>>>

Yes. Is that why Obama appointed two prominent RIAA employees to his cabinet? I can understand him taking his time, but I cannot understand why he put persons who issue extortionate letters against citizens ("Give RIAA $5000 or else.") into a position of power.

 

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

good luck with that.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[Larryish]

Nope, afraid there isn't.

There used to be one, but he got shot while riding in his car with his wife, twice from a distance and once by his personal bodyguard.

Then it was blamed on some loser-ish twit named "Harvey" and swept under the rug.

News at 11.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[Niten]

The most I was hoping for was lefties having to admit that their guy wasn't any better.

The problem, precisely, is that we liberals don't have "a guy". He may be a bit more sane than the last guy on social issues such as stem cell research and abortion rights, but in practice Obama represents a wholly inadequate shift to the left from the previous administration.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[Pictish Prince]

Nope, afraid there isn't.

There used to be one, but he got shot while riding in his car with his wife, twice from a distance and once by his personal bodyguard.

Then it was blamed on some loser-ish twit named "Harvey" and swept under the rug.

News at 11.

His "name" was Oswald.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[Gnascher]

Obama's only been in office since Jan. 20th ... in this time his primary focus has had to be the economic crisis and the wars in the Mid-East.

Bush had a full 8 years to put all of his policies into effect. Do you think it's reasonable that Obama could reverse all of that in such a short time in office? Our new President has been very efficient since taking office and has put many wheels in motion trying to reverse much of the damage that Bush Co. has done to our country. But he can't do it all with a simple stroke of the pen, and he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to just "make it so" with a stroke of his pen for many of the things he'd like to do. His policies must follow the process of law, or he's no better than Bush.

Any objective observer would give Obama very high marks for his first 74 days (as of this writing). Granted he's got many people on the right who will cry foul at many of his moves, and people from the left who are whining that he hasn't given attention to their pet issues, but you have to admit the man has been very busy and very efficient even if you can't agree with what he's done.
It will take time for the 'cultural change' within the government to take hold. Many Bush appointees still hold office, many gov't agencies still have the mindset of the last 8 years and it takes time to enact cultural change within an organization as complex as the US Government.

It's not the time to judge Obama yet, give him time to get his agenda in place. Stay vigilant, yes. Complain that everything hasn't changed yet? C'mon ... be realistic.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[godrik]

Such a politician will not be elected. Is he/she still a politician in this case ?

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[mpe]

So in other words the FBI agents violated law. And not just regular law, but Constitutional law.

The branch of law enforcement which would typically handle such cases being known as "The Flying Pig Squad". A title which is ironic or several levels.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[mpe]

That's why it's so tedious to hear people claim that everything will be just fine and dandy if you just give the vast accumulation of power in violation of our constitution to their team instead of the other team.

It's not as if there is much evidence that giving law enforcement increased powers (often with less accountability) actually helps much with catching what most people would consider "real crooks" anyway. (The latter currently including a rather large number of banking executives.)

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[mpe]

Oh, didn't you hear? Obama was the one who promised to attack Pakistan.

Whatever Bush's faults he didn't threaten to invade a country which actually has nuclear weapons (and probably the ability to deliver them by rocket to anywhere on the planet)...

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[mpe]

The proper response to 9/11 should have been the same as if it was a major traffic accident that killed 1500 people - mourn, rebuild, move on.

Probably also investigate both to find out who was involved and why so many things failed so badly.

NOT go out and commit mass murder against Iraqi and Afghan citizens, which makes us no better than the terrorists.

Especially when the only basis for attacking either of these countries is a highly dubious conspiracy theory in the first place...

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[PMuse]

Agent Lynd likely hung up because he had some urgent calls to Phoenix to make.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[deets101]

Politicians love power, and what President would want to limit his own?

George Washington

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[HiThere]

I'm not exactly a lefty (well, I don't think I am), but I *did* vote for Obama. (Mainly because the opposition appeared worse.)

I didn't expect him to be good, just to stop pushing things to totalitarian quite as fast. And possibly to reduce the scale of the war on the govt. against it's citizenry. He hasn't exactly done that, but he *does* appear to be less malign. He generally has at least a veneer of a reasonable argument. (But I *haven't* been pleased by the media honchos that he's been appointing to communications posts. And I despise the way he continues to support increased war.)

The things that he's doing that are bad aren't anything that the previous administration wasn't already doing. And he's making a few steps toward helping people. Not a very high recommendation, but considering the alternatives...

(Does that meet your criteria?)

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[HiThere]

That's not treason. That's malfeasance.

The constitutional definition of treason is highly circumscribed. You can't point to evidence that even Bush or Chaney were guilty of it. Malfeasance, nearly certainly. Treason, probably not. Violation of their oath of office. Definitely. But not treason.

Treason traditionally, and outside the domain of criminal law, just means betrayal. In that sense he's a traitor. But in the restricted meaning that applies within the domain of criminal law, I really, really doubt it.

Caution: IANAL.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[Larryish]

Wow, really?

I had no idea. ;)

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[jedidiah]

> Think that's bad? We had a president back in the 1940s who
> locked up thousands of innocent people without charges just
> for having Japanese ancestors. ...During a war with Japan where we had a serious chance of
actually LOSING unlike all of our recent bullying escapades.

Sure it was unwarranted but it wasn't without context.

Moral pretense is kind of destroyed by that sort of blatant dishonesty.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[Peil]

Yet there have been Predator drone strikes in Pakistani territory for over a year now....

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[Fjandr]

Fer shure I though his "name" was Lee! /facepalm

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[jcr]

Any objective observer would give Obama very high marks for his first 74 days (as of this writing).

You're kidding, right?

Besides the parade of disastrous appointments, he's continued and worsened Bush's incompetent handling of the financial crisis. The house is on fire, and more gasoline won't help.

-jcr

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[jcr]

If you're going to try to rationalize locking people up without charges, then you and I have no basis for further discussion. FDR was a tyrant.

-jcr

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[jcr]

I *did* vote for Obama. (Mainly because the opposition appeared worse.)

If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you still get an evil.

-jcr

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[HiThere]

You're right, but that's a part of the design of the system. Voting for a third party is just a fancy way to not vote. If we went to Condorcet or Instant Runoff, this wouldn't be true, but with the current system it is.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[commodore64_love]

>>>During a war with Japan where we had a serious chance of actually LOSING unlike all of our recent bullying escapades.

That's no excuse to imprison *American-born* citizens. The Constitution is the highest-law in the land, and I can not lay my hand on any part of it that authorized the U.S. Government to imprison Natural-Born Americans without due process of law. The politicians responsible should have been tried for treason, or shot by the citizens and replaced by better men.

Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected...

[jcr]

The politicians responsible should have been tried for treason, or shot by the citizens and replaced by better men.

Sadly, we don't always live up to our principles.

-jcr

Good point!

[mangu]

Good luck getting rid of all traces of it.

Well, I had no interest at all in this movie to begin with. But you got me thinking, if it's so important to "them" to suppress it, it's in everyone's interest to make "them" fail. So I joined the revolution, I'm downloading it now, from the 100000+ seeds.

As someone once said, if you're not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Right now the problem is getting rid of those copyright nazis. If downloading Wolverine eats into their profits, let's all download Wolverine!

Amazon says w00t!

[kylemonger]

There couldn't be a better advertisement for dispersed compute and storage services like Amazon's S3 and EC2, which presumably are too large for the FBI to sit on in this fashion. Unless you're the droids they're looking for, you just launch new instances for your services and keep running.

overreact much?

[roc97007]

Assuming this is about the leak of some high profile action movie, does anyone else think the reaction is even a tad out of proportion to the importance of the crime? When I read about data center seizures, I hope to read that it was a child porn ring, or some botnet organization, or a terrorism conspiracy, even a spam ring... you know, something important. Not suspicion of leaking a popcorn flick. I know, there is the perception of a lot of money at stake. But it's kind of a bizarre set of values when a movie company's grievance can result in an operation of this magnitude when there's so much other stuff going on that's actually dangerous.

Re:Who says this has ANYTHING to do with the movie

[harkabeeparolyn]

Indeed. I can't believe the FBI would put foot to ass in so heavy a fashion over a movie leak. Much more likely this has something to do with kiddie porn, large scale identity theft, extortion, etc. Bread and butter FBI stuff.

Cloud Computing and Government Outsourcing

[userw014]

This certainly adds a new twist to the cloud computing - if you put all of your IT into "The Could", it could disappear in a flash due to an FBI raid on someone else.

It also adds an interesting twist to what happens if the data center is involved in supporting outsourced government services - like DNS.

And just think of what would happen to internet services as a whole if this happened to Akami or Edgesuite.

Re:Cloud Computing and Government Outsourcing

[kylemonger]

The notion of businesses too big to fail probably applies players like Akamai, Google, Amazon, et. al. Pull the big plug on them and you'll have angry billionaires in addition to hundreds of millions of people unhappy with you. As long as the shutdown is localized, these companies will be able to shrug off the disruption and so will their customers.

Dallas

[Hadlock]

Not suprising. I got 5mb down when torrenting that film and I live less than a mile from that datacenter. I never get more than 3.8mb typically for steam downloads, let alone regular torrents (1-2mb). The dialog is awful btw

Re:Privacy????

[SuperMo0]

My being okay with government paying attention to what's going on inside its borders is... harming me?

Say what, now? Your tinfoil hat's on too tight.

How about...

[drolli]

applying the same approach when somebody tries to brute force ssh access to 100000s of machines (and will manage with some, because some users are just too stupid). Oh i forgot. That is a "lesser crime". The economic damage is more distribute, no need for the FBI to act.

heh

[lord3nd3r]

All your sevrers are belong to us.

FBI warning?

[T Murphy]

People have said it's an unfinished product- does it have the FBI warning at the beginning? If not I think this is a moot point and the FBI is way out of its bounds. Without that warning at the beginning you'd have no clue it might be illegal.

Re:Unconfirmed speculation

[einhverfr]

So, this justifies pulling the 911 service servers in what way?

You see, search warrants are supposed to be narrowly tailored to those areas where it is more likely than not that they will find the evidence they are looking for. Pulling 50+ servers without even checking to see who is using those servers (we don't know how many servers, we know that 50 companies were affected) seems to be blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment.

It is worth noting that the 4th Amendment was included partly in response to the common law larger-area search warrants which would allow police to search a string of houses because they were pretty sure that the evidence they were looking for was SOMEWHERE in that range. We require a tighter level of control than that.

Yet to respond

[JShadow21]

CBS 11 News emailed Simpson about the raid, but as of Thursday evening he had yet to respond.

Because they took his servers, duh!

This company is basically done

[rennerik]

Unbelievable.

I've worked in three different datacenters in my professional life, and I think I can safely say that this company is done for. Five+ days of all servers being offline... not just offline, but seized and inspected thoroughly... clients are going to cancel in droves once things come back online, if they haven't already called the company and made their intentions clear.

Whether or not this had anything to do with the whole Wolverine leak is unknown to me, but if it is, how is it OK to seize the assets of an entire datacenter? I sincerely doubt that the majority of those customers were engaging in the distribution of pirated material. What justification could you possibly have for affecting not only the longevity of the service provider, but the customers *at* the service provider, just so you can find some sleezy pirate with your movie on his servers. Is it worth hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions) of dollars in *others' money*? Yeah, I don't think so.

The only time this would be even remotely OK is if the datacenter housed some gigantic criminal operation where the vast majority of its customers were committing crimes, and the DC was in on it.

I really wonder what this says for other datacenters that unknowingly house customers who engage in criminal behavior. Because, statistically, every datacenter that serves the public at large is bound to have at least one. As a provider, how am I to know what's going on in every corner of my DC? Am I to surveil all the traffic, all the servers, everything? And if that's my duty now, isn't that a bit disturbing?

Re:This company is basically done

[failedlogic]

WIthout knowing what the content in search or context of the search, I was going to bring up this very point. If criminal organization(s) are running servers at said data center, is this reason enough to seize an entire operation? Was one of the servers used to house a SPAMMER, drug cartel, pirate, child porn, terrorist ..... how high up the food chain exactly does this go?

Even if it is at the top, there are (one would suppose) hundreds of perfectly legit businesses in the area. If your local pizza shop is run by the mafia, you don't take down all the hundreds of local businesses surrounding it because they are associated because of proximity. I'm not going to jump to conclusions but it seems that government does not interfere with government affairs, government can interfere with business (and not reap any consequences) and politicians welcome the 'influence' of business. It seems that when the government wants to investigate a business they don't care if there's any parties that are suffering unnessiarliy - the government workers still have their jobs after all.

FBI training has some amount of role-play in it I would think. To take down the terrorist you have to be one, to understand the victim you have to be one. So, they should have to run a small, successful business for a few months, depend on the income of it to feed their families and then have an FBI investigation cut it right off. Lets see if they won't be as quick next time to take down an entire data center.

*THIS* is Back-up!!!

[mangu]

Stories like that make one realize how risky cloud computing is...

Dude, right now the story I get from btjunkie is "Seed 109961, Leech 155165"

You call that risky? When was the last time you had 109961 full copies and 155165 partial copies of your work?

Legality

[Venim]

I seriously doubt that the FBI can legally do this. Warrants are not suppost to be as broad as this. something is most definitely wrong here.

Re:Privacy????

[anagama]

Paying attention != spying

Governments have throughout history been a terrible danger to the people subjected to the governments. That is why a set British Colonists decided to rebel against their government and form the US some time ago. That is why they created a constitution designed to limit government power.

So yes, you conflating "paying attention" with violating privacy and violating constitutional principals to which our government is supposed to be subservient, is dangerous, self-destructive, and the height of unpatriotic behavior.

Re:Wow!

[ppanon]

Well, the GP did actually say that as a result of Obama picking Biden (who has strong *AA ties) for VP, that there are a number of ex-*AA lawyers appointed to the Justice Department. So he did try to establish a line of responsibility

In fact, the transition committee, which was composed of a number of Democratic party old guard, probably said "who can we get for these Justice positions?" and Biden could have thrown the names of some people he knew in the hat. Obama is said to have personally approved at least the cabinet level candidates once vetted by the search committee. In practice, the vetting process sucked and the *AA background of those people may not have been on the fact sheet that would have shown up in front of Obama. The ones that weren't picked by that committee would have been picked by Holder. At some point though, the President has to delegate or nothing gets done, and that means that things get out of his direct control. He can't stay on top of what's happening in the US government like he did with his campaign

Now if some more SNAFUs like this happen and Obama doesn't call people on the carpet for it, then I think there will be some reason to blame him, but I think it's a little early to do that. Let's face it, with the crap he's got on his plate right now, this is small potatoes that he just doesn't have time for. Now if something like this happens again in a year, I'd be more interested in seeing if he puts a few Justice heads on the chopping block.

Company has poor records

[topham]

I expect it will turn out the company had poor records of which server is which; or refused to provide the information required to restrict the scope.

Re:Company has poor records

[Skapare]

Maybe.

Or maybe the information the FBI had was faulty in some way. There is the accusation the customer in question is no longer a customer there. If the FBI came in asking for access to the servers of that customer, and there was no record in the active files of that customer, then the FBI may have perceived that as the provider not being cooperative.

Any steps to defeat encryption?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be interesting to hear whether or not they took any steps to make it easier to defeat full partition encryption. Did they just power everything down or did they try to make copies of ram while the systems were still powered up in order to grab any encryption keys that were in use?

Re:Any steps to defeat encryption?

[cpghost]

Why would a hosting company waste CPU cycles and electricity to decrypt data it ultimately serves to the public?

What if it was google instead?

[Danathar]

How would the FBI approach this if my data was in some amorphous cloud like google? (technically and legally). Just thinking out loud...

Too late cloud seizures.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking stuff like this could be the proverbial thorn in the side of cloud computing.

Did a Judge sign this warrant(s)?

[vic-traill]

IANAL, and I'm not familiar with what it takes to get a warrant such as this. This being /., that shouldn't slow me down a wit here. :) Didn't a Judge have to sign this?

If yes, then it is the Judge who really needs to have a hard long look cast in their direction. Law enforcement agencies are *always* going to apply a warrant as broadly as possible. They want to turn the case from red to black - it's the same thing as account managers making their number, whereby a lot of them will sell *any* service, regardless of whether you can actually support what they're proposing, as long as they can argue they hit their number.

The Judge should be the check/balance in the process, and force for a narrowing of the warrant's scope to a reasonable point, which allows the FBI to gather the evidence required (I mean, most of us want the bad guys to get caught, right?), while ensuring that other companies are not unreasonably hosed by the warrant. Being hosed means losing all your gear and service delivery facilities when the evidence used to get the warrant in the first place in *no* way implicates your company.

It doesn't take much grey matter or thought for a Judge to figure out that a finer granularity of shutdown than the main power supply switch for the building or data centre floors does indeed exist.

The Judge is a jerk-off, based on current facts and my wildly speculative opinions and lack of experience.

Re:Did a Judge sign this warrant(s)?

[tftp]

The Judge may have been misled:

Dear Judge,

We, the FBI, uncovered several solid clues that company X is involved in a certain computer crime. Several listings of our intercepts are provided for your review, all printed in octal code for your convenience. We ask you to allow us to perform search of premises of company X and to seize the computer equipment present, for our crime labs to work upon and determine if further proceedings are required.

Signed, [...]

Re:Did a Judge sign this warrant(s)?

[cenc]

My father was a prosecutor for 20+ years. He told me he never has seen a judge not sign a request for a warrant, accept when he had directly told the judge not to sign because he believed it to be a bogus request by the police. They are almost always rubber stamp operations, especially early in any investigation. Police need to produce very little by way of explanation, or proof of what they are telling the judge is true.

Re:Did a Judge sign this warrant(s)?

[HiThere]

The FBI get to choose whichever judge they feel will give them the best terms. Given that, it's not surprising that they can find a pliant judge.

I'd say that should be fixed, but in the few cases where a particular court needs to be the one to approve the warrant, records tend to show stunningly few refusals. Apparently only the most pliant of judges ever get appointed to such courts. Which seems to mean that the entire system has a bug at a much more basic level.

Government has to respect private property

[tjstork]

The dirty secret here is that neither party really respects private property or individual freedom. Both seem to make exceptions that suit their own embittered radicals that drive the whole show.

If there is any hope for this country, it is going to be that the middle is going to have to reassert itself, and start brokering compromises that restores freedom to both sides. Let's have conservatives come around and support gay marriage, if liberals can come around and support the 2nd amendment. Let's have both sides resist eminent domain. Let's trade a slightly higher tax rate for a real cap on entitlements. Let's compromise on calling off the DEA on the average joe and at the same time call off the IRS on the same.

The illusion that this country is under, is that, compromise makes you weak, but bashing your way through a majority makes you strong, and I think the opposite is true. It is easier to give into the radicals that support you, when you are in office. It is easier to avoid compromise and deadlock the government until the balance of power is on your side. It is easier to ignore the other side.

We conservatives were wrong to do what we did in 2000-2004, just as liberals are wrong to do what they are doing now. All this shit does is piss people off on both sides of the aisle, and sooner or later, this constant escalation and going for the jugular will lead to civil war.

Re:Incredibly ironic

[he-sk]

"Simpson claims nearly 50 businesses are without access to their email and data. ... CBS 11 News emailed Simpson about the raid, but as of Thursday evening he had yet to respond."

I can hear it now: "I wanted to mail in my term paper by friday, but the FBI seized my ISP's mail server."

Millions vs. millions...

[geekmux]

...OTOH, this data center occupied two floors of a high rise. So we aren't talking about millions of computers.

Millions of servers vs. millions of people affected by a dozen servers confiscated. What the hell does it really matter on the hardware number if the impact is the same?

Bottom line is I can spot pure laziness (borderlining in incompetence) as much as the next guy. Who was more lazy, the FBI agent who didn't want to bother doing more homework to determine exactly WHICH servers that NEEDED to be taken, or the judge/supervisor approving the warrant/raid without even questioning the text that likely read "ALL on floors 33 and 34".

Blanket excuse for incompetence?

[geekmux]

Depends.

If the situation is such that in order to prevent destruction of evidence of a criminal enterprise they need to take them all down, they can do so.

If it were later determined that they obtained the warrants based on information they knew was false (misconduct) or should have known was false (incompetence) there may be a case for a suit.

But just being wrong? Nope. That's not cause.

Seems your first situation pretty much gives the FBI the "master" bullshit excuse on why they HAD to take everything.

Next thing we're going to hear are the words "could neither confirm nor deny". Then again, who the hell needs excuses when "oops, my bad" seems to be a valid get out of jail free card...Talk about abuse of power.

FBI...Hollywood hired guns.

[geekmux]

This is nuts, every server in a data center? do they realize the cost that might incur to all these non infringing companies? The wolverine leak nothing, no one was deprived of anything so there is no monetary loss but this? This is plain incredible. Good job FBI, you just caused many people a lot of trouble for a stupid movie.

I agree. Let's not even get started on the fact that this resides within the FBIs jurisdiction in the first place. Utter bullshit that my tax dollars are being wasted on this.

Re:Unconfirmed speculation

[rrossman2]

I keep seeing people post about the warrent, but the link to the posting by Matthew Simpson clearly says:
"Today at 6:00am, the FBI conducted an unwarranted early morning raid of our 2323 Bryan Street Datacenters, on the 7th and 24th floors."
So which is it? Did they have a warrant and the "unwarranted" is meaning uncalled for, or did they literally use the new technique of not obtaining a warrant and doing what they want anyhow?

Fanboi

[belg4mit]

I guess Mr. Mueller's a big X-Men fan and couldn't find a decent seed?

Re:Fanboi

[belg4mit]

s/seed/tracker/

I RTFA'd, that CEO is FOS

[GodfatherofSoul]

The FBI isn't going to raid his house if it was just his servers being used as a conduit for illegal activity. He himself is the target of the investigation.

What if this WAS a valid search?

[BitZtream]

Every post I've read so far assumes this wasn't a valid search.

What if it was?

The didn't take an entire data center, they took an entire customer out of a datacenter. That customer was coreip. coreip resells rackspace. coreip only has 50 machines. This puts things in perspective to me.

Perhaps the FBI is aware of some illegal operation that Core IP was fronting for? Perhaps most of Core IP's customers were dummy customers. Could be a spam network. Could be a bunch of malware hosts or something silly. If they think that Core IP is just a front and only a limited number of the customers are legitimate customers then it is a whole lot easier to take everything then wait for the couple of real customers to call you so you can confirm they are a real business.

I'm just throwing it out there, not that I really know anything. No one really does at this point so my theory seems just as likely as anyone elses.

Re:What if this WAS a valid search?

[Epsilon Moonshade]

A thought which supports this:
If anyone was on that particular set of servers, they now know that the hammer is dropping on them, so to speak. If the target isn't Core IP themselves, whoever's targeted would hopefully be in custody. If not (on either count), this is exceptionally sloppy IMHO.
I know that if this were my server which got raided, I'd be on my way to Canada/Mexico/etc. right now.

Re:What if this WAS a valid search?

[Weedhopper]

The didn't take an entire data center, they took an entire customer out of a datacenter. That customer was coreip. coreip resells rackspace. coreip only has 50 machines. This puts things in perspective to me.

Exactly. Despite /.'s kneejerk reaction that the FBI is in the wrong on this one, no one here knows for sure what was on the warrant and why.

Reading between the lines, Core IP's machines were seized because Core IP itself is the target of the investigation.

Under what circumstances do you send 15 police cars and a SWAT presence to the home of the CEO of a IT firm?

My guess, something fishy's going on at Core IP.

Re:What if this WAS a valid search?

[phorm]

coreip resells rackspace. coreip only has 50 machines

Judging by the 9-1-1 outage I'd say that it wasn't just coreIP services affected...

How to Destroy a Business

[Udigs]

Congrats, FBI. As if it weren't hard enough for a small business to make a living, surely losing all of your customer's servers will be a great way grow business.

Seriously. I'm sure Core IP (and all associated C*Os) are shitting in their collective pants about now.

Not Wolverine, but the Worm?

[BlackRookSix]

What if this is actually, say, that they found the host/source of the April 1 worm we all laughed at two days ago?

Re:Not Wolverine, but the Worm?

[Zantetsuken]

It could easily enough be argued that a server was unknowingly compromised and used to host part of it, and considering such actually happened to make parts of the French Navy, British military, etc, all criminal as AFAIK Conficker is now using a P2P update system...

Re:Who says this has ANYTHING to do with the movie

[BlackRookSix]

What about the Conflicker worm? Possible host/source in that DC?

Re:Unconfirmed speculation

[einhverfr]

The same letter talk about a search and siezure warrant. There evidently was a warrant, though we dont know what it said....

Steve Jackson Games Precedent

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Well, my memory goes back to this: SJ Games vs. the Secret Service, which happened in 1990. So your memory must be longer than mine to recall a time when such things didn't happen.

Btw, what was the outcome of that? Oh yeah:

The judge gave the Secret Service a tongue-lashing and ruled for SJ Games on two out of the three counts, and awarded over $50,000 in damages, plus over $250,000 in attorney's fees.
and
the creation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

And that all occurred after a raid on a pretty small company. Imagine what will happen this time. Provided that the colo provider can survive the loss of it's tenants.

How far away is it?

[symbolset]

Not far. Not far at all.

Fascinating point

[XanC]

I had never thought of it like that before. It doesn't make any sense, does it?

Re:Core IP Networks LLC???

[icebike]

> Sue the Judge

Good luck with that.

Re:Unconfirmed speculation

[Eternal Vigilance]

Ahh, but remember - 911 changed everything.

Worse, FTA....

[maz2331]

"Simpson claims nearly 50 businesses are without access to their email and data. Some of those clients provide internet services to car dealers and other companies."

It seems like the collateral damage could be truly huge here. If, as TFA states, 911 service was affected negatively, and something "bad" happened, there will be some 'splainin' to do here.

Re:Unconfirmed speculation

[mysidia]

The implication is when they say "unwarranted", they don't mean that there was no warrant, but that the raid was unjustified.

As in unnecessary and absurd, no real reason for it to be done, etc.

Can you say "fourth amendment violation"?

[jcr]

Mr. Lynd would not tell me why he raided our datacenter or what he was looking for.

Let's see... Where was that? Oh yes;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Agent Lynd needs a remedial reading lesson. It's not merely illegal, it's unconstitutional to search without a warrant, and the warrant has to say what they're looking for.

-jcr

Re:Can you say "fourth amendment violation"?

[Onymous Coward]

Do we know for a fact a warrant was not used? This is my point.

Being rude to some guy on a telephone isn't the same thing as a warrantless seizure.

I'm all for screaming about civil injustice. But I'm all against screaming about a reality you only expected instead of the one that actually exists.

As if they will even find what they're looking for

[CreamyG31337]

I mean did they really thing this through? What are they going to do with all the servers? Build their own data center in the crime lab? I guess my point is that reconnecting even one server properly would be a pain, but obviously if it has raid or virtual operating systems or whatever, you can't just pull all the drives and read them individually... Maybe they thought since they can't narrow their problem down they will just collect everything and figure it out later, but they didn't realize they just made their problem way harder. I hope they blow the buildings power grid when they hook up all the servers at once or something similarly hillarious.

Re:Wow!

[ppanon]

That said, I hope that somebody shows Obama a copy of this week's episode of Bill Moyer's Journal. Hopefully followed by Obama demanding Geithner's resignation and replacing him with somebody who will do what needs to be done to clean up the banking sector, and that's not just buying up toxic assets.

One of my greater fears

[kilodelta]

I use virtual hosting too and I have a certain fear that someday my business website will be taken down because someone uploaded a copyrighted work on the same server my legitimate site is on.

Re:One of my greater fears

[MemoryDragon]

I use virtual hosting too and I have a certain fear that someday my business website will be taken down because someone uploaded a copyrighted work on the same server my legitimate site is on.

Keep backups at your own company... so you can be on in a very short time if this happens...

Re:One of my greater fears

[kilodelta]

I do so, but then finding an alternative hosting service incurs expense on my part. I've worked with government investigative teams in the past, they're not the most discriminating types. If they can't figure out where the offending content is, they just take EVERYTHING.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

http://uwwwb.com/

[rogermcdodger]

A few weeks ago the same Agent and agency involved performed a similar raid on another company. The owner claims the following:

"They continued to ask me questions for 4 to 5 hours, and although I swear on my skin I gave them nothing but the truth, this guy repeatedly told me I was lying, and he knew I was lying, because the truth I told him didn't match the stories of the their "informant" Marcus Wentrcek. The amazing thing is that this guy was fired almost 2 years ago. So NONE of the information the FBI had was even current."

"The most damaging false statements made by the "Informant", was that we didn't have a single customer, and that anything that happened from the data center or our 64,000 IP addresses, was part of my evil empire of cyber crime. So the feds seize the data center based on that 2-year old statement from a very unreliable source.

Well, one of my customers, of which I had 300 - 400 of, was Intelimate. This is a government contractor; they provide all the phone service for prisons in 3 states. All of which lost their phone services when the FBI raided the data center. We also had a Credit Card Processor, Mortgage companies, and dozens of VoIP companies as well. The FBI effectively did tens of millions of dollars in damages to dozens of businesses within a few minutes based on bad intel, and no investigation whatsoever. I actually got a copy of the 40 page affidavit they submitted to a federal magistrate to get the search warrants...it's 90% outright lies, and 10% misrepresented truth. With a lot of "my experience as a special agent of the FBI for X number of years leads me to believe..." as excuses for a warrant."

http://uwwwb.com/

Re:Incredibly ironic

[jimicus]

There was a gmail email address right at the bottom of TFA.

Meanwhile, if this is to become SOP for law enforcement, then a lot of businesses may want to think about clustering across national boundaries.

Re:Unconfirmed speculation

[twistedcubic]

I was an air warrant. The FBI agent waived it as he entered the premises.

Re:Backup strategies

[SpzToid]

Yes, and for $10 annually, you can setup a DNS round-robin, so that if one of the servers doesn't respond by delivering the precise web page as expected by zoneedit, zoneedit removes that particular server from the DNS pool until it works as-expected.

http://www.zoneedit.com/

I'm sure other firms can do this also; and I'd like to know who they are. For the functionality, given cheap hosting and a little rsync love, this affords Cheap Redundancy.

Glad that the FBI knows its priority

[MemoryDragon]

Burglaries, Drug kings, heck free roaming so called ceoÂs who stripped their customers and companies via shady practices...

Well not important a leaked movie is almost the end of the world, the FBI has to act immediately.
I am glad they know their priorites!

shut up you self righteous Tool

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up you self righteous Tool!

Why see an unfinished copy?

[Fuzzums]

I liked X-Men and i'm looking forward to W-man.
I'm not going to see some unfinished copy and have my experience spoiled by whatever is not finished yet in this copy...

Re:Film industry BS about "losses"

[GodfatherofSoul]

lol yeah right. So, if there are no losses then why doesn't the film industry leak ALL of their movies for the free "publicity"? Oh, that's right, because that's not how a business is run.

Core IP eh?

[niall111]

Chances that the feds think this Core is really the old w4r3z group from the 90's? (maybe they're still around, i don't keep up anymore.)

I'm usually behind most of the FBI, BUT

[ancient_kings]

this is a major mistake by them. Their raid on this company is equivalent to person A threatening person B over the telephone, and the FBI comes in and shuts down Verizon or AT&T or (insert phone company) instead of the perp. Whoever sanctioned this in the FBI should at least be fired.

You're a fucking spam apologist dick

[Nicolas MONNET]

Not to defend the FBI's stupidity, but their approach is not that different from those Black Hole Lists that many Slashdotters defend.

If I put you in a black hole list you can't send mail to some people.

If I take your datacenter, you can't send to anyone, can't receive, and may have lost a lot of business.

If you can't understand the difference, you're a moron.

The Real Reason for the Raid

[shaymon]

http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=40667@ktvt.dayport.com

Sue FBI, Federal government

[unity100]

blanket confiscating servers is an incompetency fbi has to account for. if they do not know that a datacenter houses countless corporations' gear, they have to pay for it.

FBI Terrorist Agency

[Bobx23456]

A terrorist organization that will use internationally banned "WMD" poison gas (CS) to anhillate a whole village of American men, women, and dozens of children, and then burn the bodies, will not blink at merely robbing computers from honest men. The FBI and all their agetnts are the enemies of a free nation.

Re:Unconfirmed speculation

[Aladrin]

Again, you have -no- clue why they pulled the servers or how they picked which ones to pull. It's every bit as likely that they're in the right as in the wrong. Sitting back and judging them with no facts is beyond pointless... It's irresponsible.

Federal agents for a silly movie?

[nurb432]

Glad they don't have anything better to do, say like protect us from actual theft, or being killed by gangs or something.

Misuse of tax dollars to stroke their contributors is all this is.

Core IP Networks LLC????

[Jayfar]

Funny google never saw a website for this supposed company and its 'datacenter,' it only appears as a listing in a couple online business directories with no real information. Nearly 50 customers out of service? As another poster suggested, I suspect this is one small potatoes colo/hosting reseller who had their rack of servers confiscated from a larger colo facility.

Re:Privacy????

[Pictish Prince]

I normally don't care about privacy issues. The government can tap my phone if they feel like it, they can look into my purchasing records, they can stake out my house. They can look into my past work history. I really don't care. But this is ridiculous. There were many levels of non-thinking going into this one. It's a move you might make if you were a dictator and wanted to remind people to stay in line. In fact, it is similar to things that happen in China. But.......this is the USA.

s/USA/USSA/

And it's folks like you, who have "nothing to hide" and don't care how far the gummint crawls up your anus, who are helping to make it that way.

unconfirmed speculation

[Cyrus20]

sparking unconfirmed speculation that the probe is tied to the leaking of Wolverine."... also who gave reports that it was linked to video piracy? some nut in a news room looking for a story? until I know more I for one will hold my judgement

FBI??

[akboss]

Ah the wondrous FBI. The ones that withhold evidence and consort with the DOJ to make sure it can railroad people and destroy lives. The wonderful FBI and the DOJ the same ones that botched a simple ethics trial for a US Senator and instead forced the AG to toss the case with prejudice because of so many misconduct violation. The wonderful FBI that over uses force (see Ruby Ridge) to make a point. The wonderful FBI that has a whistle blower that they blew the whistle on because he stood up to his corrupt bosses. This instills in me suck a sense of security and comfort.

Good Post!

[sk999]

The linked video (from a local CBS affiliate in Dallas) states that the raid was instigated by AT&T and Verizon r.e. a good old-fashioned fraud scheme. No mention of pirated movies.

What do you confiscate if it is virtual?

[marknmel]

So, is this what you confiscate if the system is virtualized - just take it all? The fact is these days - a server != a website. With VMware/Zones/(name vm tecnology here), you have the ability to run many to one consolidation. And even if you did confiscate the servers, whats to say it would even "run" once you moved the server? There may be central storage services (NAS/SAN) that may not be local or available to the server. What kind of research does law enforcement perform, before breaking down the door of a co-lo? Do they understand what is involved, or how the infrastructure is configured? I suspect not...

Oh, right because gun license = law abiding

[sunbird]

I care deeply about personal privacy for the same reason I care deeply about gun rights - chances are that I will never carry a weapon in my life, but our society as a whole is made safer and more resilient by the fact that law-abiding citizens can own and use them in self defense.

Ummm, yeah, the shooter who killed 14 in NY state "had a permit for two handguns and wore body armor, indicating he was prepared for a confrontation with police."
source.

Re:Oh, right because gun license = law abiding

[Jherek Carnelian]

Ummm, yeah, the shooter who killed 14 in NY state "had a permit for two handguns and wore body armor, indicating he was prepared for a confrontation with police."

You must live in some fantasy world - nothing, not one thing in this world is 100% good, or 100% bad for that matter. There are costs to all choices. The question is - what is the net benefit? When you include the fact that guns are used as a deterrent to crime over a million times per year, then the net benefit of gun ownership seems pretty clear.

The FBI can multi-task

[westlake]

Meanwhile, thousands of actual criminals commit much more heinous crimes and go unpunished while the FBI wastes their time on this.

You don't know what they were searching for.

You are only repeating a rumor.

The FBI employs about 12-13,000 special agents whose job it is to investigate violations of 300 or so federal statutes.

That is not a particularly large number, when you come right down to it.

In the American federal system. investigation of the "heinous" crime is almost always a local and state responsibility.

The rare terrorist act makes headlines. White-collar crime - economic crime - comes closer to the truth of what the FBI is all about:

FBI: Internet Fraud Rates Rose 33% Last Year

Re:Unconfirmed speculation

[einhverfr]

Ahh, but remember - 911 changed everything.

So much so that the FBI decided the service had to go and in this case disconnected it!

Search warrant must have details

[WindShadow]

But... a search warrant must have the item or material to be sought described. Did a judge really sign a search order specifying only "computers?"

I have to think this story is less than complete, and other governments would be making much noise if their 911 service was really shut down.

Re:Incredible - Mod Parent Up!

[Cassini2]

That's evil. Note to self: automatic data deletion devices must include accelerometers.

You seem to know what you are talking about. Just how hard is it to build a secure computing resource at a remote site, that isn't (easily) vulnerable to data loss if someone steals the equipment? Something that can stop the common criminal?

Is this constitutional?

[AlgorithMan]

The FBI isn't saying what it's after, but...

I don't know how this is in the USA, but in germany cops and such have to tell you what you are accused of, before they can seize anything... not doing this reminds me to secret trials...

ThePlanet outage was likely worse, and they're stl

[phorm]

ThePlanet had a fricking explosion at one of their Texas DC's that took down some boxes, took our power/networking, and basically dropped all servers present off the map. Some of our actual boxes were down for a week, but our backups were located elsewhere and we were able to restore service at another location. I highly doubt that most of their customers - and there would be a *LOT - were quite so lucky.

Slashdot carried an article on it and approx 9000 servers were affected.

X-Watchmen

[deanston]

After the Watchmen blockbuster results at the box office, WB realized they must generate some kind of buzz to ensure another big budget investment not fall into the black hole.

As an old-time comic book fan already tired of the umpteen "origins" of Wolverine that Marvel put out regularly for quick profit, I would not watch the movie even if somebody dropped a free DVD on my lap. Doesn't the FBI have better things to do - like finding real terrorists - or at least those who continue to destroy the economy by rehashing old trash instead of inventing the future?

Woosh!

[jggimi]

The title of this book refers to a joke about the Oxford comma.

A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.

'Why?' asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

'Well, I'm a panda', he says, at the door. 'Look it up.'

The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. 'Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.'

Re:Woosh!

[TheoMurpse]

It's not a play on the Oxford comma, as the addition of one wouldn't change the meaning one bit:

-Consumes, fires, and departs.
-Eats stems and sunlight-receivers.

Note that neither of those has only one comma as in the title (thus a list without the Oxford comma).

So it's not a pun on the comma; it's a pun on the meaning of the words in the sentence (a/k/a double entendre).

It could be a pun on the use of the first comma, but it's definitely not a pun on the Oxford comma.

But that's getting crazily pedantic ;)

Re:Umm Well, maybe there IS something there, and

[davidsyes]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/04/1515239&art_pos=9

Now, what have you to say about retaliation and knowing what they are doing? Did you THINK that i was just pulling those comments of mine out of my ass? You DO know the reason for the statement "Do not assume", do you not?

"The 41-year-old software engineer said they also confiscated numerous personal files and documents relating to a pending lawsuit he has against the department alleging harassment -- which he says makes it obvious the raid was an act of retaliation." A local publication quotes Pataky saying, "We have heard internally from our police sources that they purposefully did this to stop me... They took my cable modem and wireless router. Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem." "

Now THIS is a REAL case for the FBI to investigate, and if the FBI finds evidence of retaliation, then heads in PD should roll, retirement packages should be rescinded, and blacklisting from being cops in another city should be initiated for all those involved, if that blogger was telling the truth about the retaliation through raid and confiscation.

Re:Film industry BS about "losses"

[jedidiah]

They're clueless megalomaniacs.

They are so fixated on the idea of "control"
that they can't acknowledge that letting go
of a little bit of it could actually be in
their own interest ultimately.

Re:Where is it written that taxpayers have rights?

[joocemann]

If you are not clear in what you are trying to convey, you will not be understood.

WTF are you trying to say?

Re:Here is some more information

[Douglas Goodall]

http://cbs11tv.com/technology/Core.IP.Networks.2.975776.html

Re:Not about a movie

[Douglas Goodall]

This looks to have been about fraud involving AT&T and Verizon and may not have had anything to do with a movie. See http://cbs11tv.com/technology/Core.IP.Networks.2.975776.html

Re:man

[fm6]

A dully sworn warrant counts as "due process". The probability that the agent who applied for it and the judge who granted it are both morons makes it a stupid application of due process, but its still due process.

By the way, I have this application that generates random obscene insults. Would you like a copy? It would save you a lot of time composing your Slashdot posts.

Re:man

[Reality Master 201]

Heh. You're out of your league, kid, by miles or more.

Re:man

[fm6]

I'm curious as to why you switch to your Condescending Asshole persona when talking to me. I don't really see how it's any more effective than your usual Angry Asshole persona.

Have you considered giving up assholedom altogether? I think you'll find there's a whole world of non-asshole social interaction models that are a lot more fun.