Colocation Provider PRQ Raided; Wikileaks and Many Torrent Sites Offline

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Colocation Provider PRQ Raided; Wikileaks and Many Torrent Sites Offline

Posted by Unknown on Monday October 1, 2012 @10:50AM from the defense-turret-proves-ineffective dept.

An anonymous reader writes with some chilling news about PRQ, the infamous colo founded by two Pirate Bay founders. From the article: "Stockholm police raided the free-speech focused firm (PRQ) Monday and took four of its servers, the company's owner Mikael Viborg told the Swedish news outlet Nyheter24. While a number of bittorrent-based filesharing sites including PRQ's most notorious client, the Pirate Bay, have been down for most of Monday as well as PRQ's own website, Viborg told the Swedish news site that the site outages were the result of a technical issue, rather than the police's seizure of servers." Torrentfreak is reporting that the Pirate Bay isn't using PRQ for anything important (if at all), and that their downtime is due to a faulty PDU that happened to fail as a coincidence.

18 of 138 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

same country that wants Assange just raided.... by davydagger · 2012-10-01 10:58 · Score: 5, Informative

Same Country that wants assange on funny smelling charges of "rape", just raided his server room.
1. Re:same country that wants Assange just raided.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 11:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Same Country that wants assange on funny smelling charges of "rape", just raided his server room.
  Sorry but that is untrue.
  PRQ hosted wikileaks back in 2010.
  What did get removed was a number of torrentsites.
2. Re:same country that wants Assange just raided.... by Baloroth · 2012-10-01 11:39 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Same Country that wants assange on funny smelling charges of "rape", just raided his server room.
  Obviously not, given that Wikileaks is still up, and never went down according to the story. What are down are a couple of torrent sites. The only known relation to Wikileaks or TPB is the fact that this host has served both. Why was it mentioned in the headline, you may ask? Clickbait, so that people who were following those causes would read it, even though it was almost 100% completely unrelated in every possible way.
  This is part of the reason it is hard to take the whole "Assange is a persecuted martyr" seriously: his supporters never seem to know all the facts, they simply react. Knee-jerk reactions do not help, and make your entire position look bad. So, if you really want to help Assange and think he and his cause are worth helping, stop it, and read the damned articles. Or don't, since, you know, clickbait.
  Oh and wait for some actual information to come out, since at this point no one knows anything at all, especially given the number of technical issues (unrelated, I might add) PRQ seems to be having/have had.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
3. Re:same country that wants Assange just raided.... by Cruciform · 2012-10-01 15:25 · Score: 2
  
  I only read some of the reports in the initial couple of weeks of the sex charges being waved about, so someone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the issue not about "rape" but rather that of informed consent? He was having sex with two different women and failed to inform them of either of it, which is apparently treated more seriously there than it would be in North America.
  And that was why one of his accusers was reported to be saying they were pressuring her to make serious allegations against him when she had just made the initial complaint while she was still pissed off.
  Being a dick and being a rapist are two completely separate issues.
4. Re:same country that wants Assange just raided.... by girlintraining · 2012-10-01 15:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is part of the reason it is hard to take the whole "Assange is a persecuted martyr" seriously: his supporters never seem to know all the facts, they simply react. Knee-jerk reactions do not help, and make your entire position look bad.
  Dude, you are smoking the cheap $3 Propaganda brand crack. Assange isn't a persecuted martyr because he's still breathing. He is being persecuted, however. The fact that he's a political figure simply can't be ignored or dismissed. You may agree or disagree with the charges. You may think he's an asshole, or the greatest thing since sliced bread. And we can argue the minutae of it until the heat death of the universe, but it's pointless. You and I are just random people on the internet. An embassy, a sovereign foreign government responsible for millions of lives, has come out and said "Something smells fishy about this." These aren't the kind of people to make rash decisions. You and I may not have all the facts. His supporters may or may not. But the embassy officials that put their country's pride and reputation on the line do have them. It would be reckless of them to have offered him asylum if they didn't feel there was firm ground to stand on. Remember -- The British government was inches away from wiping their arse with the Geneva conventions and storming the place, creating a massive international diplomatic incident... the kind of incident wars have been started over in years past.
  The statement he isn't being persecuted is readily refuted by the simple observation that diplomats aren't irrational. It's a job requirement that they consider carefully the consequences of each action, and even in a small country there's going to be a vetting process to ensure that their interests are represented by someone who isn't nuts. Bottom line is he is being persecuted; You can agree or disagree with it, but you can't outright deny it. The evidence simply can't support your position.
  All that said, let me step away from intellectual discourse now and say I think the man was a fucking moron. Who in their right mind moons the government with the largest standing military and biggest economy by GDP on the planet? I could give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut about whatever charges they're bringing him up on, or the diplomatic incidents he's created -- the dumb bastard's gonna have his ass battered and deep fried at the end of this, one way or another. Maybe what he did was right, maybe it wasn't, but goddamnit man... if you're gonna shine the biggest badass in the room, at least be a man and take your lumps right then and there, not run off and hide under someone's skirt after.
  *cough* We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame fest, already in progress...
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
5. Re:same country that wants Assange just raided.... by SuricouRaven · 2012-10-01 19:07 · Score: 2
  
  The charge is usually translated 'rape' because there is no precise analog in either UK or US law. It could be rendered as 'sex by deception.' There is something very suspicious going on though, because the case was closed very soon after the initial complaint - but then reopened shortly after the US cable leaks, for reasons the Swedish police claim are coincidence. It's enough of a coincidence that it seems quite plausible some political pressure may have been applied to find any excuse to arrest him, such as reopening an old case. If this is indeed the case then nothing can be certain, as everyone involved - the women, the police, the government - has a strong incentive towards deception.
6. Re:same country that wants Assange just raided.... by Rei · 2012-10-01 19:51 · Score: 2
  
  There's so much misinformation going around about the case from Assange fans. Here's the four actual charges from the European Arrest Warrant, as reported in the lower court ruling:
  
  1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
  2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
  3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
  4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
  Charges 1-3 are concerning one woman, and charge 4 is concerning a different woman. Charge 1 is unlawful sexual coersion, 2 and 3 are molestation, and 4 is rape. Charge 4 is also the most clear-cut and has the most absurd defense by Assange's legal team. SW (the second woman) had already been freaking out in conversations with friends (who also testified under oath, and there's also texting records) over what Assange had done to her when she talked with AA (the first woman). This didn't come out of that conversation; all that came out of that conversation was the realization that what happened wasn't an isolated incident.
  All four charges were judged by the three British courts hearing the case to all be crimes in Britain as well. F'ing a sleeping person to work around their refusal to consent to unprotected sex is not "being a dick". It's 100% unambiguously rape.
  
  --
  All them years of priest training, taken out by one bounty hunter.
I don't understand by Spy+Handler · 2012-10-01 11:07 · Score: 2, Funny

how this happen in a freedom-loving liberal socialist paradise such as Sweden? I thought only evil USA does stuff like this.
1. Re:I don't understand by fredprado · 2012-10-01 13:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Sweden is quickly turning into USA:
  
  http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-remains-locked-up-without-charges-120930/
Re:Free speech under attack. by fustakrakich · 2012-10-01 11:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Spot on, and seeing this happen in a place like Sweden makes it even more disturbing. We are in regression, or devolution. Don't know which is more correct, but it's not good. It can only result in a new, very dark age. The desire for freedom is seen as a sign of lunacy to many.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Home Depot? by Nethead · 2012-10-01 11:26 · Score: 2

..their downtime is due to a faulty PDU that happened to fail..
So, anyone got a spare powerstrip?

--
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Wikileaks not offline by poity · 2012-10-01 11:32 · Score: 4, Informative

http://wikileaks.org/
and even if the main site is taken down the mirrors will chug along.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
And the response.... by sgt_doom · 2012-10-01 12:01 · Score: 2

.....
http://www.thelocal.se/43552/20121001/
Recommend Andy Greenberg's This Machine Kills Secrets brilliant on cypherpunks, WikiLeaks,and privacy for the Web.
And please don't forget...
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/suspicious.pdf
Re:Free speech under attack. by Grishnakh · 2012-10-01 13:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

What I want to know is why sites like this keep trying to locate in unfriendly countries. Why not put them in someplace safe, like Russia? Is the bandwidth there a big problem or something?
And yes I know, Russia isn't exactly a big fan of free speech either, but they don't give two shits about IP laws and certainly not about protecting American IP. If you put something on your servers that criticizes Putin, sure you'll get shut down. But if you put up tons of pirated American media for people to download (let alone simply torrents), they're not going to care, instead they'd welcome the business.
Re:Free speech under attack. by psiclops · 2012-10-01 14:37 · Score: 5, Informative

Because Abu Hamza [wikipedia.org] has only one country which has to approve his extradition (instead of two in the case of Assange), has few fans (compared to Assange, who according to polls has on the order of hundreds of millions), was trying to *set up terrorist training camps inside the US* (instead of leaking videos and cables), has no "get out of extradition free" card from being charged with an intelligence-related crime (Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence matters), and on and on... and he's *still* in the UK.

So your argument against the belief that he is only being extradited to Sweeden so that he can then be sent to the U.S. is to present evidence of how difficult is is to get someone extradited directly from the U.K to the U.S.?

And we're supposed to worry about Julian F'ing Assange and his paranoid fantasyland? Especially after this [guardian.co.uk]?
you're sourcing a news article that's nearly 2 years old. Try looking at what's being going on more recently. like Within the last week we have news that "THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency."
"Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death."

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Re:Free speech under attack. by evanism · 2012-10-01 18:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't think we have ever been really free, at least in a modern sense.
I suspect the early Picts, Vikings and other tribes had significantly more freedom than we have today.
We live in a pervasive information society, one where the government is the biggest customer and companies are all too happy to sell our data to it.
Our grandchildren will piss on our graves for what we have allowed.

--
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Re:Free speech under attack. by Grishnakh · 2012-10-02 01:07 · Score: 2

Don't forget, the other thing you have to take into account is the level of enforcement. China, for instance, professes strong protections for IP. But everyone knows that's a total joke. So IP laws don't necessarily equate to actual IP enforcement (particularly in response to claims by foreign copyright holders).
Re:Free speech under attack. by Rich0 · 2012-10-02 01:45 · Score: 2

Unless something has changed, this is not how Tor works. It is a closer description to how Freenet works.
A Tor relay does nothing more than pass along packets. Tor exit nodes allow the Tor network to connect to sites on the internet. Anybody can also run a Tor hidden service, which is just a webserver that talks to a Tor node. These do not require exit nodes to operate and should be more secure as a result.
However, I'd be concerned about running something like this on Tor. The fact is that there aren't all that many nodes on Tor. I would think that an adversary could contribute a large number of nodes to the network as a result and get a pretty good idea of what is going on. If they could manage to get a message to pass from a client they control through a set of relays they control to the site hosting the hidden service then they'd be able to identify where it is hosted. Tor also is a low-latency network making network analysis possible.
The sorts of things that make Tor more tolerable from a usability standpoint make it much less anonymous.