Slashdot Mirror
Anyone Can Play Big Brother With BitTorrent
An anonymous reader writes "I was at the 3rd USENIX Workshop on Large-Scale Exploits and Emergent Threats yesterday, and there were people from the French Institute for Computer Science who have continuously spied on most BitTorrent users on the Internet for 100 days, from a single machine. They've also identified 70% of all content providers; yes, those guys that insert the new contents into BitTorrent. As a BitTorrent user, I was shocked that anyone with a box connected to the Internet can spy on what everyone is downloading on BitTorrent."
looks like something that won't work for those who understand that plenty of these IP addresses could be spoofed or not even uploading, or knows what I2P does, or uses VPN. This is just a list of IPs that they are assuming are 100% valid because they were listed in the tracker when the content went up. They're saying that if someone is listed on more than one tracker, it confirms who they are.
That= a bad study.
All they're saying is "We can tie an IP to a torrent", but that doesn't mean you can get anything more than that. Judges already don't accept an IP simply being tied to a torrent.
I care about privacy and I only use bit torrent for legitimate purposes.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
With ISP cooperation you can narrow an IP down to a physical address. At that point, you're screwed.
Speak for yourself. I do all my bittorrenting from open wireless networks ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm not going to get into the copyright violation vs theft argument (again), but this is just plain WRONG. Drivel like this reeks of **AA and artist entitlement whining.
YOU are denying the person who created the content the sale.
No, because I had no plans on buying whatever it was I'm downloading. If I can get X for free, I'll grab it. If I can't, I'll do without. No sale lost.
YOU have denied them the money they would have made.
They wouldn't have made any money, ergo I denied them nothing.
YOU have TAKEN from them something that was rightfully theirs. THE SALE.
Again, there was no sale to be made. 0 - 0 = 0.
If you want to argue on the basis of morals then I imagine most people would agree that violating a (sane) copyright is wrong. When you start talking about 120-year old copyrights or trying to prevent what most feel is fair use then people will start to disagree.
Regardless of all that, the monetary value of a potential sale is exactly $0.00.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
The enlightened argument is not that the act of copying is theft, but that illegal copying deprives the copyright owner of monetary gains which would otherwise have been earned.
So does simply choosing to go without. Should that be illegal now as well?
You can't "steal" the expectation of income. Only that which is owned is subject to theft, and theft only occurs when one is deprived of its use. If one cannot be deprived of the use of a thing—as is the case for everything subject to copyright, since mere duplication cannot deprive anyone of use of the original copy—then that thing cannot be stolen.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat