Slashdot Mirror
Are UK Police Hacking File-Sharers' Computers?
superglaze writes "Following its takedown earlier this week of the music blog RnBXclusive, the UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) has claimed that "a number of site users have deleted their download histories" in response. Given that the site didn't host copyright-infringing files itself, how do they know? We've asked, but SOCA refuses to discuss its methods. A security expert has pointed out that, if they were hacking using Trojans, the police would themselves have been breaking the law. Added fun fact: SOCA readily admits that the scare message it showed visitors to the taken-down site was written 'with input from industry.'"
"a number of site users have deleted their download histories" What does that even mean? Cleared their IE Browsing History? Deleted their Chome cache? Removed things from FireFox's "Recent Downloads" folder?
SOCA, How about a message from the people that pay you, "You are not above the law".
Never let the facts get in the way of good propaganda.
UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency
The Internet is Serious Business
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Perhaps they were using browser exploits to determine if people had cleared their history or cache. Most (all?) of the major browsers used to allow Javascript to detect if links had been visited, so it could check known pages on the site to see if they had been accessed. Similarly the server can tell if files are in the browser's cache because it doesn't re-download them.
Combine that information with IP address logs and you know... well, nothing actually, but if the message they posted on the site is anything to go by they either don't understand that or are just lying deliberately. My guess is that this claim is the latter.
If you look at the site now the threats have been removed, like someone told them to stop breaking the law themselves. The result of IPCC complaints probably.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If SOCA, Serious Organised Crime Agency dealing with serious organized crime is fighting copyright infringement, then what is the agency called that deals with such things as mobsters, thieves, assassinations and illegal prostitution gangs? Those organized crimes aren't serious enough for SOCA? They sure are causing a lot more harm to the tax-payers.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Jesus.
These cretins ought to be dealing with people traffickers, gang crime and other actual Serious Organised Crime.
That they are taking down music sharing sites is ridiculous. The justification I heard recently was even more laughable. It was serious organised crime because it cost the record labels 15 million.
Ah, record label mathematics, even better than cop math!
I don't doubt that these sites are hives of illegal activity. What they are not is a serious threat to the British public, which SOCA should be concentrating on, not pissing into the wind trying to clamp down on piracy.
and organised!
Korma: Good
What judge granted the 15 million claim? You can't take down people's businesses just because someone claims they are costing them money in illegal damages. If that's the truly a fact, they could sue in court for the losses. Once the losses were validated by a Judge, they could first ask the losses to be paid. If those weren't paid, they could have the assets of the business confiscated. Maybe *then* you would have a case for taking down the website, but not before.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
What they did there was make a false allegation against him and anyone who downloaded music. He can't now get a fair trial because he's been accused of theft by the police publicly but they haven't brought a theft charge against him confirming it is a false claim.
They prejudiced his trial.
So what they need to do at this point is get back within the limits of the law, and stop propagandizing. The police have no place in society as a political campaign group.
Also they need to recognize that RIAA now represents less than 30% of music sold, and that 2011 was the biggest year for music sales on record. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, it's dealt with by copyright laws, not theft laws. The only input they should be seeking on a take down notice is LEGAL input on the LAWS as they stand in the UK. Nothing else.
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/cue-the-music-driven-by-digital-music-sales-up-in-2011/
What will happen now, is those false claims they made will be used in court as evidence of police misrepresentation of evidence.
... it's legal, and you end up in jail
When you hack cops' computers, it's illegal, and you end up in jail
Head you lose, tail, you also lose
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Write them a letter if you are in the UK even. In fact, it'll probably be more effective.
Personally for me, as a British citizen living in the UK, admittance by a police officer that my PC may have been hacked simply for visiting a site linked in a news article gives me all the justification I feel I need to submit a formal complaint to the IPCC and to my MP.
Whether it has or not, and whether the officer knew what he was on about is neither here nor there, the fact he believes that it's legitimate policing needs to be stamped right out.
If it is an admission by a police officer, then don't write to SOCA, write to the IPCC, who have the power to investigate claims of misconduct by members of SOCA.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Here's what I sent them. If I had been wider awake, I would have skipped the last paragraph. I enjoyed writing it, but sarcasm is almost always counterproductive.
Dear SOCA,
When I saw the takedown notice at RnBXclusive, I was sure that it was a spoof. The bald statements about the guilt of "the individuals behind this website," apparently unproved in court, the threats of prosecution to myself, and the speculative claims about the "future of the music industry," seemed too absurd to be written by a serious law enforcement agency. Then, the advertisement for pro-music.org at the end made it clear that this was either a spoof by pro-music, or more likely by an opponent trying to embarrass pro-music.
I was astonished to find acknowledgment on your own web site that this absurd text was indeed your own.
I never heard of RnBXclusive before, and have no opinion whatsoever regarding the legality of the behavior of "the individuals behind" that website, nor your takedown of the site and reported arrest of the "individuals." But I hope that you will be more careful in the future to post only relevant and sensible notices that stay well within the scope of your legal mission.
I recommend to you the Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org) as a source of careful analysis of online behavior by individuals, corporations, governments, and law enforcement agencies. They do not appear to have posted any specific comments about RnBXclusive, SOCA, or your recent arrest and DNS takeover, but they can provide some of the best advice available when consulted.
If you must advertise legal sources of music downloads, let me recommend my favorite, magnatune.com, which is not represented by those "behind" the pro-music.org website, and which will perhaps suffer competitively from your public endorsement of pro-music.org.
Sincerely Yours,
Michael J. O'Donnell
The University of Chicago
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/