The Pirate Bay Starts Using Virtualized Servers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Pirate Bay Starts Using Virtualized Servers

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday October 17, 2012 @12:50AM from the they-took-our-media-jerbs dept.

concealment writes with news of those Swedish pirates improving their infrastructure. From the article: "The Pirate Bay has made an important change to its infrastructure. The world's most famous BitTorrent site has switched its entire operation to the cloud. From now on The Pirate Bay will serve its users from several cloud hosting providers scattered around the world. The move will cut costs, ensure better uptime, and make the site virtually invulnerable to police raids — all while keeping user data secure." They are still running their own dedicated load balancers that forward encrypted traffic to one of their "cloud" providers, rather than dealing with physical colocation. Seems like a sensible decision any IT manager would make.

186 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

TPB owners living the life by PieOk · 2012-10-17 00:53 · Score: -1

It seems like the whole TPB operation was fairly successful and the owners got to live the good life in Thailand (Neij) and Cambodia (Svartholm). They got tons of money to use on drugs (Svartholms drug problem was fairly well known in Cambodia) and living in the sun and beside swimming pools.
1. Re:TPB owners living the life by fred911 · 2012-10-17 00:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And your point is (besides the one on the top of your head)? Now, go sit in the corner untill you have a topic worthy of discussion. I've had far to much of the "holier then thou", slander them with drug use western attitude.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
2. Re:TPB owners living the life by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  Drugs must be good for innovation!
3. Re:TPB owners living the life by crazyjj · 2012-10-17 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you earned you paycheck for today, shill. Go take the rest of the day off and rest beside the pool.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
4. Re:TPB owners living the life by jodido · 2012-10-17 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  You work for the RIAA, right?
5. Re:TPB owners living the life by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-10-17 01:58 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  If what GP says is true, then TPB is making profits (via ad revnue) by enabling people to steal (yes, steal! I said STEAL when referring to copyright infringement!) the creations of others. They are profiting off of the work of the artists and creators without giving any of that money to the creators themselves. How is this any different than the RIAA or MPAA? Please enlighten me.
  If they gave any of that ad money to the creators instead of blowing it on drugs and houses, maybe I'd support them. But I have yet to hear about TPB paying creators any money.
6. Re:TPB owners living the life by VMaN · 2012-10-17 02:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You can use the word "steal" all you want.
  But as long as the artists still have their works, you're using the wrong word.
  And when people are using it wrong on purpose, it makes me care just a little bit less every time.
7. Re:TPB owners living the life by Xest · 2012-10-17 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Jealous much?
8. Re:TPB owners living the life by Shienarier · 2012-10-17 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Is there an actual source for the claim that money are going to drugs and houses?
9. Re:TPB owners living the life by hawkinspeter · 2012-10-17 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  Hey look, I can STEAL your name by copying it: AcidPenguin9873
  
  How does it feel to have your name stolen?
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
10. Re:TPB owners living the life by icebraining · 2012-10-17 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  You're making the unsubstantiated leap from "TPB had an income" and "they have some money" to "their money came from TPB".
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
11. Re:TPB owners living the life by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-10-17 02:44 · Score: 2
  
  Note I said "If what GP says is true". I obviously have no sources to cite to verify the original post. But the responder asked what his point was (in a rather snarky ill-mannered way) so I responded with the obvious answer.
12. Re:TPB owners living the life by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 02:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  From here on out I am calling copyright infringement RAPE. Because, after all, that's how I want to frame it. Every time you infringe a copyright, you are raping the artist. And it should carry the same punishment of up to life in prison (or, as has been proposed in some states, death.) Because I say so.
  Death to the artist-raping file-sharers!
13. Re:TPB owners living the life by icebraining · 2012-10-17 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  GP didn't actually say they got the money from TPB, just implied it.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
14. Re:TPB owners living the life by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  While I completely agree with making a strong distinction between depriving someone of their property/work/etc. and copyright infringement, there are still multiple definitions and uses of the word "steal" that still apply. This semantics argument has always been pathetic and uneducated - and to claim that you wouldn't pay attention to an otherwise legitimate argument simply because you disagree with word choice is ridiculously fallacious.
15. Re:TPB owners living the life by fredprado · 2012-10-17 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to make a point use the right words. Semantics are not optional and much less irrelevant. If you are not even able to be precise in your arguments you should and will be ignored.
16. Re:TPB owners living the life by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  depriving someone of their property/work/etc. and copyright
  Their copyrighted works IS their work.
  The legal system has many words for different yet specific types of theft. Copyright infringement is a legal description of a specific type of theft.
17. Re:TPB owners living the life by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  Except that it's not theft : it's infringment.
  The simple reason is that the losses when copying something are as clear cut as stealing something. In fact, it's virtually impossible to determine the actual loses ( if you think every copy means a lost buy, you are way off ).
18. Re:TPB owners living the life by puppybeard · 2012-10-17 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  What I don't like about TBP is how they were bank-rolled by a man who can be reasonably called a neo-nazi.
  Imagine the outcry if Sony had somebody like Carl Lundstrom on their board.
19. Re:TPB owners living the life by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-10-17 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  Use of the word "steal" to refer to copyright infringement was such an obvious troll on Slashdot, especially the way I wrote it, that I thought no one would bother responding to that part of it. Trust me, I know what copyright infringement is and I know how it's different than physical theft. This was a trollish (maybe childish? I don't care) joke to get a rise out of someone - so congrats, you won!
  I tried to choke off this obvious troll-response that you made by being really, really snarky and insanely egregious about it. But alas, you made the obvious troll-response and got a +5 Informative.
  Ah, Slashdot.
20. Re:TPB owners living the life by BeanThere · 2012-10-17 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure which part of 'being arrested and thrown in jail' you consider 'living the good life'.
21. Re:TPB owners living the life by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  I knew that ofcourse, just wanted to check if you did know it also!
22. Re:TPB owners living the life by mcgrew · 2012-10-17 06:46 · Score: 2
  
  If what GP says is true, then TPB is making profits (via ad revnue) by enabling people to steal (yes, steal! I said STEAL when referring to copyright infringement!) the creations of others.
  Mod me redundant because I and many others have often belabored this point, but AcidPengion is FUCKING WRONG and looks like an idiot.
  Look, Penguin (please change your user name, you're making Linux users look bad), here's how copyright infringement works. I buy (BUY AND PAY FOR) a CD or DVD, make a copy and GIVE it to you. I have infringed copyright, you have not. You have stolen nothing; it was freely given. I have stolen nothing; I paid for my copy.
  Now tell me, Acidhead, how has either party stolen anything?
  Here's how you steal music -- you go into Best Buy and shoplift a CD. That is indeed stealing. Best Buy no longer has the CD they paid for, it's gone. If you're caught, you'll be charged with a misdemeanor and will pay a few hundred bucks in fines.
  When you download a CD's worth of music you didn't steal that music, it was given to you. But say you're uploading and get caught -- that's copyright infringement. Nobody has lost anything, and will likely in fact produce sales, as one book publisher discovered when he commissioned a study to find out how much file sharing was costing him. Unlike stealing music, if you get caught infringing copyright you'll be out thousands of dollars.
  They are profiting off of the work of the artists and creators without giving any of that money to the creators themselves.
  If I buy a used Ford, Ford makes no profit off my money. None at all. If I use that Ford to start a taxi company, I am profiting from Ford's work without giving Ford any of that money at all.
  I have yet to hear about TPB paying creators any money.
  They're giving the artists something for free that the artist would otherwise have to pay very large sums of money for -- advertising. You're not going to pay for a song from a band you never heard, but if someone tells you about them and you DL their work, you're very likely to spend money on them unless they suck* -- money they would not have earned without the help of the Pirate Bay.
  Now go tell your MAFIAA masters you failed in your shillage, tool.
  * I do perfectly understand why a talentless hack would be against file sharing. The only way for them to make money is to sell you a pig in a poke.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
23. Re:TPB owners living the life by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-10-17 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Mod me redundant because I and m...blah blah
  See this post for a response to that. You have been trolled.
  
  If I buy a used Ford, Ford makes no profit off my money. None at all. If I use that Ford to start a taxi company, I am profiting from Ford's work without giving Ford any of that money at all.
  Your example applies to used CDs, used vinyl, used tapes. Used physical items. Not to digital music. There is no such thing as used digital music. You guys said it yourself - people aren't supposed to be able to "own" bits of information, so why on earth should I consider your used-physical-product example as relevant to this discussion?
  
  They're giving the artists something for free that the artist would otherwise have to pay very large sums of money for -- advertising.
  They are forcibly providing a means of distribution for their music. That's not advertising. If an artist wants to use recorded music as an advertisement for live shows, that's fine, but that's the artist's decision, not TPB's.
24. Re:TPB owners living the life by pyzondar · 2012-10-17 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Why? Because it is unfathomable that there can be both good and bad sides to a person?
  I mean, (as far as I know atleast) he has never used TPB to promote his political agenda. Which I appreciate.
25. Re:TPB owners living the life by garaged · 2012-10-17 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  You cant blame for the illegality of it when most artist are not even given the choice at all. Monopolies and oligopolies are forcing people to live their ways, and other people is abusing the fact by breaking laws, stupid laws most of the time.
  
  --
  I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
26. Re:TPB owners living the life by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 21:08 · Score: 0
  
  Drugs are good you should try some.
  The only drug problem is the state.
27. Re:TPB owners living the life by Decker-Mage · 2012-10-17 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  Your example applies to used CDs, used vinyl, used tapes. Used physical items. Not to digital music. There is no such thing as used digital music. You guys said it yourself - people aren't supposed to be able to "own" bits of information, so why on earth should I consider your used-physical-product example as relevant to this discussion?
  You might want to check out ReDigi before making that assertion again.This one is already wending its way through the court system (Capitol Records brought the suit).
  
  --
  "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
28. Re:TPB owners living the life by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 13:34 · Score: 0
  
  this weak argument has been done to death. you know damn well what the poster really meant and the wording doesnt change the impact. grow up child.
  goods not paid for and acquired via illegal means is what is happening.
29. Re:TPB owners living the life by KingBenny · 2012-10-18 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  uhu i wonder why he forgot the childporn pedophile sextourism accusation for thailand there
  
  --
  Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Tor by Weezul · 2012-10-17 00:57 · Score: 1

Is there a tor hidden service TPB hosted from an undisclosed location?

--
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
1. Re:Tor by PieOk · 2012-10-17 01:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Is there a tor hidden service TPB hosted from an undisclosed location?
  Tor hidden service is only secure for end users, not to the service itself. While TOR admins say it should be secure, the attack vectors are fairly well known and USA has the means to discover the real ip behind TOR hidden services.
2. Re:Tor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  jntlesnev5o7zysa.onion
  you can also use the onion.to service
  jntlesnev5o7zysa.onion.to
3. Re:Tor by PieOk · 2012-10-17 01:03 · Score: -1
  
  Oh and let me add what TPB is really doing. They are playing with BGP, ASN's and routing tables to "hide" the location of their services. Simple WHOIS data is not enough to disclose their location as it's just made up, but they have to peer with someone at some point and these information are public. They do have a few different ASN of their own (like TPB-NET, PRQ etc), but they can only hide it far enough and everyone familiar with routing knows this.
4. Re:Tor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Silkroad is still operating, therefore I suspect you don't know what you're talking about.
5. Re:Tor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  They're probably waiting for bigger fishes to come up, so that they can catch them all in one swoop.
6. Re:Tor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  People are already selling kilogram lots of heavy drugs on Silk road (and have been doing so for some time) so I suspect you're full of it.
7. Re:Tor by ski9826 · 2012-10-17 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but they have to register with ARIN and give a legal business and the name of an officer for that business to attach to the ASN right? Seems less than completely safe.
8. Re:Tor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  considering TPB is for downloads, it might be better for it to be on I2P.
9. Re:Tor by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  kilogram lots are still small fish, those are middle men transactions. It's not hard to catch those, you just catch a street dealer and cut him a deal if he rats out his supplier. You catch one of these people, another will rise in their place. The feds are after the big guys, the guys who actually get the stuff across the border in the first place. These guys are dealing with tons, not kilograms. Those busts will put a dent in supply for a little while, until a new group rises to power.
Invulnerable? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2012-10-17 00:58 · Score: 4, Funny

The move will cut costs, ensure better uptime, and make the site virtually invulnerable to police raids
Wanna bet on that?

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
1. Re:Invulnerable? by SJHillman · 2012-10-17 01:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's a little sad when you have to write police raids into your disaster recovery policy. Especially when it's one of the more likely disasters.
2. Re:Invulnerable? by Karzz1 · 2012-10-17 01:01 · Score: 2
  
  Coming from a guy named Roscoe P. Coltrane, I am going to give TPB the benefit of the doubt! :P
  
  --
  Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
3. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  Funny part is that any cloud service company that hosts them will be in danger of getting their servers raided.
  Not a good proposition for the company and its other clients.
4. Re:Invulnerable? by jbmartin6 · 2012-10-17 01:03 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah I will bet on it. I believe he is saying the site can't be taken down by a police raid, thanks to the distributed setup. He's not saying that any individual instance is invulnerable to a raid. Just that the availability of the site wouldn't be affected by a raid. I guess this is at least one of the reasons they migrated to magnet links.
  
  --
  This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
5. Re:Invulnerable? by olivier69 · 2012-10-17 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Wanna bet on that?
  Challenge accepted
  Oh sorry, this is /., I thought I was on YouTube !
6. Re:Invulnerable? by gweihir · 2012-10-17 01:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Quite frankly, anybody not really, really big has to. With "cloud" servers not on your own private cloud, everybody has to.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
7. Re:Invulnerable? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2012-10-17 01:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's a little sad when you have to write police raids into your disaster recovery policy. Especially when it's one of the more likely disasters.
  Come on, that's a bit disingenuous here. It'd be very sad if the concern was fully legit (and actually the problem of police interference isn't new - see the Steve Jackson Games incident, but at best TPB sits in a gray area, to put it kindly.
  
  --
  "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
8. Re:Invulnerable? by ciderbrew · 2012-10-17 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  It will just take more police time to get a whole group of raids going at once.
9. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  Unlike other people, they won't be using anything located on US territory. So, yeah, I think it's a safe bet.
10. Re:Invulnerable? by Sqr(twg) · 2012-10-17 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they mean "immune" in the sense that police raids will never happen. More likely, they mean, when a police raid happens, then a new virtual macine, hosted on a dfferent service provider, and which already holds an encrypted copy of the database, is ready to take over.
11. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yes I do wanna bet on that. You must be dumb as fuck... Take your lame loser ass somewhere else.
12. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  All that means is that now cloud providers are going to start experiencing massive downtime as police across the globe start raiding the cloud data centers.
13. Re:Invulnerable? by crazyjj · 2012-10-17 01:13 · Score: 2
  
  At the end of the day, you need an IP address, and physical server(s) somewhere. The only way to make yourself invulnerable is to take yourself off the net completely, and that would rather defeat the purpose, no?
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
14. Re:Invulnerable? by crazyjj · 2012-10-17 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  I just want to know where they're going to find cloud services lining up to host TPB. Seems like a sure-fire formula to have the police kicking down your door.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
15. Re:Invulnerable? by lengau · 2012-10-17 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  More time and lots of international cooperation. Yes, it's doable, but it does make the prospect that much harder.
  
  --
  I really wanted to change my sig to something witty, but all I could come up with is this.
16. Re:Invulnerable? by anarcobra · 2012-10-17 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  The site will be Virtually invulnerable, as in the virtual server may be invulnerable (because they have many copies), but the physical machine it's running on isn't.
  What's the difference between having virtual servers with different hosting providers and having actual servers with different hosting providers?
  It seems to me both are equally vulnerable to the police, and in any case the load balancers seem like the weak point.
17. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Arrange a raid on all tpbs host providers around the world as well as the hosts failover sites. Yank all the physical servers that might be hosting tpb VMs. Don't forget to grab all the SANs that might be hosting the VMs disks on the way out the door too! Fun for all the family :)
18. Re:Invulnerable? by xeno314 · 2012-10-17 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  From my perspective, the difference would be that virtual servers are far easier to provision/clone/move between providers than physical machines. Seizing a virtual server leaves the hosting provider out in the cold, not TPB. Setting up a new server just involves uploading/transferring an image/template rather than purchasing/installing a new box. It's easier, more versatile and resilient, and costs them far less when the police come knocking.
  (That's not always true with 'cloud' computing, but it seems to be an excellent match for their needs. I'd agree that keeping physical load balancers decreases the effectiveness of the strategy, but virtualizing those could be a good next phase.)
19. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  At the end of the day, you need an IP address, and physical server(s) somewhere.
  You don't really need any specific IP address. All you need is a single archive/zip/whatever file containing Magnet links (essentially just hashes) and text descriptions. It's not even a very big file (less than 1Gb IIRC). All TPB has to do is issue regular new versions of this single file, which then gets passed around by all/any relevant means with 1000's of copies popping up everywhere. The actual 'master server' in this setup can be offline.
20. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  When it becomes this difficult to take down a site we (pro free-communication types) can re-raise the question of whether or not government (assuming the government where you live is trying to take down the pirate bay internationally) should even attempt it, this time adding "gross waste of the taxpayer's money" to the pile of outrageously unethical acts.
  I'm glad to see that there are so many freedom-loving groups of people out there that are actively improving infrastructure like this and offer my support.
21. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  It is sad that gray area have to always live in fear. I think that is the point. And everything is in the gray area, to put it kindly.
22. Re:Invulnerable? by RabidReindeer · 2012-10-17 01:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's a little sad when you have to write police raids into your disaster recovery policy. Especially when it's one of the more likely disasters.
  Sad, but true. It has already been amply demonstrated that you can end up offline because someone else in the farm got raided and the police simply confiscated things wholesale.
23. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  Unlike other people, they won't be using anything located on US territory. So, yeah, I think it's a safe bet.
  Riiight... The US have never pressured other nations to do stuff...
24. Re:Invulnerable? by interval1066 · 2012-10-17 02:20 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Hey. You. Got off of my cloud.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
25. Re:Invulnerable? by icebraining · 2012-10-17 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that you just need to be on the same blade server to be affected; see Pinboard.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
26. Re:Invulnerable? by icebraining · 2012-10-17 02:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No, you can have many physical servers with many IPs.
  Eventually people will start using distributed torrent discovery (see Tribler), which coupled with integrated torrent signing for the release groups to authenticate theirs, will be invulnerable to such raids.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
27. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  Or the Scottish version-
  Hey, McLeod, get of of my ewe!
28. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  If you do ANY business with the US at all, then yes, "rise of fascist regimes" should be one of your disaster recovery scenarios.
29. Re:Invulnerable? by Lennie · 2012-10-17 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, you should.
  An organisation like the FBI just takes a bunch of servers any time they like:
  http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/f-b-i-seizes-web-servers-knocking-sites-offline/
  If they are from the right tenant does not really matter to them. It will take many months before your server is returned.
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
30. Re:Invulnerable? by fredprado · 2012-10-17 03:22 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Everything in the face of the planet stands in a "grey area". In today's complex law system there is no person or entity that is totally innocent. Truth is your government, whichever it may be, can put you in jail for something already. It just needs to want to do it badly enough to take the trouble.
31. Re:Invulnerable? by cpghost · 2012-10-17 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. What's really sad is that the police has been pushed by those in power to switch sides: from public servants to enemy of the people whom you have to protect yourself against nowadays. Can't we please get the original police back, you know, the helpful guys you call when you feel threatened by some real robber? Let those parasitic MAFIAA and their ilk employ and pay their own gang to enforce their grip on the populace and leave the regular police do its original job!
  
  --
  cpghost at Cordula's Web.
32. Re:Invulnerable? by Sarten-X · 2012-10-17 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  ...But my boss tells me that the cloud is fantastic, and saves everybody so much time and effort, and we never have to worry about things breaking!
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
33. Re:Invulnerable? by helix2301 · 2012-10-17 03:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I think it's funny that pirate bay has better disaster plan then most legitimate businesses I know of in my area.
  
  --
  http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
34. Re:Invulnerable? by jbmartin6 · 2012-10-17 03:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They may not even know. Remember when Amazon was hosting Wikileaks? Uh, we are? They said. Setting it up is all pretty automated, it might stay there until someone explicitly looks for it. After all, from the cloud perspective they are just renting an IP and some data storage, they wouldn't necessarily know that it was TPB unless they read the data. Which they aren't supposed to do.
  
  --
  This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
35. Re:Invulnerable? by fustakrakich · 2012-10-17 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Let those parasitic MAFIAA and their ilk employ and pay their own gang to enforce their grip on the populace...
  You mean you prefer they hire Blackwater? I think I'd rather make them go through proper channels, to keep it semi-legal at least.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
36. Re:Invulnerable? by TubeSteak · 2012-10-17 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Just that the availability of the site wouldn't be affected by a raid. I guess this is at least one of the reasons they migrated to magnet links.
  They moved to magnet links for two reasons
  1. Significantly less storage and bandwidth resources are required if they no longer have to host torrent files.
  2. By no longer hosting torrent files, TPB can't (well, shouldn't) be accused of hosting infringing content. All they offer you is a url with a hash.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
37. Re:Invulnerable? by suutar · 2012-10-17 05:19 · Score: 2
  
  practice makes perfect :)
38. Re:Invulnerable? by cpghost · 2012-10-17 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why not Blackwater? Wouldn't it be more honest and character-like this way (I'm sarcastic, of course!)? Let's keep the police outside of economic rows between private entities and do its real job. Abusing the police to enforce private interests has always been the slippery slope that eventually leads to fascism. We should be forewarned enough about this to not repeat the same mistakes again and again.
  
  --
  cpghost at Cordula's Web.
39. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  That would take one hell of an effort that would be likely to fail because they forgot the backup hidden in the floor safe or some sleeper servers that come up when the normal piratebay network goes down...
40. Re:Invulnerable? by CBravo · 2012-10-17 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  It is always possible your datacenter is no longer accessible (e.g. a bankrupty or legal battle over bills). A police raid is just another reason for that occurance.
  
  --
  nosig today
41. Re:Invulnerable? by fustakrakich · 2012-10-17 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well, in the name of Godwin, I believe the gestapo was a private police force. And since government exists or is dissolved at the whims of private interests, there's really nothing to distinguish.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
42. Re:Invulnerable? by myxiplx · 2012-10-17 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I suspect this means they can now have a whole host of *offline* backup servers ready to be launched the second the main site goes offline.
  It's going to be kind of hard for the police to get a warrant to shutdown something that doesn't exist yet.
43. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  but at best TPB sits in a gray area, to put it kindly.
  They weren't when they started but the laws have crept a bit since then.
44. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  The move will cut costs, ensure better uptime, and make the site virtually invulnerable to police raids
  Wanna bet on that?
  Last time they got raided they had a downtime of three days.
  Now that they have fixed the host localization issue I think it is pretty safe to say that the site now is virtually invulnerable to police raids.
  To shut down pirate bay you now need to coordinate the shutdown with several ISPs, you can't just cause a temporary outage by sending grunts.
45. Re:Invulnerable? by fredprado · 2012-10-17 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  No private entity should have police power. Giving police power to a private entity is actually a good sign that a regimen has dived into authoritarianism.
46. Re:Invulnerable? by fredprado · 2012-10-17 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  As all traffic is encrypted I doubt most of them know they are hosting piratebay servers.
47. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 17:53 · Score: 0
  
  No, the Gestapo were civil servants, and some received pensions after the war.
48. Re:Invulnerable? by Decker-Mage · 2012-10-17 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  Heck, if you want, you can get a (reasonably) current copy of the database right on TPB.
  
  --
  "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
49. Re:Invulnerable? by Decker-Mage · 2012-10-17 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  32.1 MB file names with magnet links. 1.15 GB for the whole database (add comments, etc). I find it in Other/Other under Browse Torrents.
  
  --
  "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
50. Re:Invulnerable? by gweihir · 2012-10-18 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Time to switch jobs...
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
51. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  dont worry. theyre hiding their IP addresses with unregistered shareware.
52. Re:Invulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  Well, it stands to reason.
  Previously they were invulnerable to police raids.
  Now that they are using virtual servers, they are virtually invulnerable to police raids.
  Q.E.D.
and so the story continues... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:04 · Score: 0

Long live TPB
Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:05 · Score: 0

Now why does a site that is only used for legal purposes (hosting Linux ISOs is the usual excuse) need to be immune from police raids?
1. Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. by ciderbrew · 2012-10-17 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  because "legal" means different things out side the USA.
2. Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Now why does a site that is only used for legal purposes (hosting Linux ISOs is the usual excuse) need to be immune from police raids?
  In case you haven't got the memo, the police (among others) doesn't give a flying fuck about legality when it comes to all things internet. Witness the Megaupload fiasco, witness the RIAA willingness to put offline through its government bought agencies legal sites for years at a time. Proactive mesures are necessary, lest your online presence be tossed in a moat never to be seen/heard from again. But hey, what's that they say about collateral damage anyway ?
3. Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. by icebraining · 2012-10-17 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  Because just being on the same rack as a "presumed illegal" website can put you offline. Ask the Pinboard guy when the FBI seized the whole blade, putting dozens of websites offline.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
4. Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. by hawkinspeter · 2012-10-17 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  If you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind us strip-searching you.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
5. Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  > only used for legal purposes (hosting Linux ISOs...
  Bwahahahaha
6. Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. by Githaron · 2012-10-17 06:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I do have something to hide. I don't intentionally show my naked body to strangers. Just because someone wants to hide something it doesn't mean it is illegal.
7. Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  While this is true Megaupload may have been better served with a distributed approach. Having just a few employees all located in the same or near jurisdictions could be an issue. They may have remained up had the system been made distributed in every which way and had a policy of ignoring the law (human, key, laptops/control, servers, domain names, countries, financial models, etc). What they had was reliance on a top down structure that could be easily attacked. There were multiple weak points.
8. Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  In case you haven't got the memo, the police (among others) doesn't give a flying fuck about legality when it comes to all things internet.
  
  I think the GP's point was that it is difficult for multiple police departments in multiple countries/jurisdictions to coordinate raids tightly, and since the first raids will cause disruption to many other of the cloud provider's customers, it will get negative publicity which will cause political pressure on other police departments in other jurisdictions to abort their planned raids.
9. Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, if a stranger wants to see my big fat naked geek body, who am I to say no. It's their eyeballs they'll want to rip out afterwards...
10. Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 14:57 · Score: 0
  
  You: But what's with the photographer?
  TSA: Oh, he's not with us.
  You: WHAT?!
  Me: You don't have anything to hide, do you? (Leer)
11. Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 00:50 · Score: 0
  
  Unlike the pirates, who obviously care very much about legality.
Wow. by poofmeisterp · 2012-10-17 01:06 · Score: 1

Now the (police,feds,both,etc) are going to shut down multiple cloud-hosting data centers just to prove they are still king. Watch. Just watch.
1. Re:Wow. by gweihir · 2012-10-17 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. The police are still brutes in many countries in most regards. If they really do this (and I expect there will be quite a few in power that are stupid enough", this could change a few things though.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
2. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  Megaupload should have seen this earlier!
3. Re:Wow. by poofmeisterp · 2012-10-17 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. The police are still brutes in many countries in most regards. If they really do this (and I expect there will be quite a few in power that are stupid enough", this could change a few things though.
  That's what I'm a'fearing. Make it more difficult, release testosterone in the opponent, crash, recover, later, rinse, repeat. :-/
4. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  Now the (police,feds,both,etc) are going to shut down multiple cloud-hosting data centers just to prove they are still king. Watch. Just watch.
  and watch the whole "CLOUD" thing evaporate.
  Hey maybe it's worth the cost. Fuck the CLOUD, bring back local computing.
5. Re:Wow. by poofmeisterp · 2012-10-17 01:23 · Score: 2
  
  Megaupload should have seen this earlier!
  LOL I think they were 'running' before they were walking.
6. Re:Wow. by F.Ultra · 2012-10-17 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I have a really hard time beleiving that the police would in any way raid the sites of Amazon, Google or Microsoft. It wouldn't happen.
7. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  But there's an incredibly simple answer to this: TPB simply uses the same cloud providers as thr RIAA, MPAA, TimeWarner, EMI, Sony, UMG etc.
  In fact, they could revert to physical servers placed in the same data centre as (for example) UMG's servers. TPB simply places a big "Property of UMG" sticker on the front of it's box, and any police raid would conveniently leave that server still in place! :)
  Security by obscurity/deception, FTW!
8. Re:Wow. by poofmeisterp · 2012-10-17 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I have a really hard time beleiving that the police would in any way raid the sites of Amazon, Google or Microsoft. It wouldn't happen.
  Oh, not THOSE ones. :)
  The ones with TPB in them.
  Now, if TPB could get in the same vm hosting data centers that any of the large corporations are in..... but they can't because they have to stay outside of the U.S. territories. :(
9. Re:Wow. by poofmeisterp · 2012-10-17 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  But there's an incredibly simple answer to this: TPB simply uses the same cloud providers as thr RIAA, MPAA, TimeWarner, EMI, Sony, UMG etc.
  In fact, they could revert to physical servers placed in the same data centre as (for example) UMG's servers. TPB simply places a big "Property of UMG" sticker on the front of it's box, and any police raid would conveniently leave that server still in place! :)
  Security by obscurity/deception, FTW!
  Now that's something I would love to watch the security camera footage of. HA! Good one. Good one, indeed. :)
10. Re:Wow. by F.Ultra · 2012-10-19 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  But TPB does host with them, they may not host the front-end there but they do host the back-ends to which they tunnel the traffic from the fronts.
ISP blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:09 · Score: 0

Does that affect my ISP's government-prescribed Piratebay blocking? I'm sure there are ways around that anyway, and people are likely to educate me about those below, but will this make any difference here (in the UK)?
1. Re:ISP blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Does that affect my ISP's government-prescribed Piratebay blocking? I'm sure there are ways around that anyway, and people are likely to educate me about those below, but will this make any difference here (in the UK)?
  Use TOR to access the piratebay and download the torrent/magnet files.
  Close TOR, fire up bittorrent and you're good to go.
  Using Firefox makes it a breeze, using Opera is a little bit more complex but in the end works just as well.
2. Re:ISP blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  It won't affect the gov-prescribed blocking... about your education: (but I don't know the magic beneath it) you can probably access it through http://tpb.pirateparty.be/
3. Re:ISP blocking by hippo · 2012-10-17 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well if you look for the IP address of tpb.pirateparty.org.uk and paste that into your browser it may work. I wouldn't know.
4. Re:ISP blocking by hawkinspeter · 2012-10-17 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  You can just point your browser at tpb.pirateparty.org.uk - that works for me and I'm on Virgin Media.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
5. Re:ISP blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-19 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  1. Go to https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy.html.en
  2. Download the software to the Desktop Folder (Windows)
  3. Double-Click the downloaded file and hit extract
  4. Double-Click newly created folder on desktop which includes the extracted files
  5. Double-Click on "Start Tor Browser"
  6. Don't touch your keyboard or mouse for 2 minutes
  7. Browse the Internet and perhaps go to www.piratebay.se
  God Bless Moscow.
re: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:19 · Score: 0

One of them is Microsoft Azure
What kind of RAID by aktiveradio · 2012-10-17 01:19 · Score: 4, Funny

You think they are using RAID5 or RAID10 to stop the police?
1. Re:What kind of RAID by ledow · 2012-10-17 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Though I suspect you were attempting humour based on the similarity of the word "raid" and the acronym "RAID":
  It would be quite easy to "RAID" remote devices, even encrypted ones. The beauty of the Unix "everything is a file" concept. Nothing stopping someone accessing files from remote servers via authenticated and encrypted connections, mounting them as a loopback filesystem, applying RAID to those filesystems, and compensate for any dropping-off that may occur without losing data.
  Or, if you could do it properly, you'd have it so that only X% of the data existed on each node and you needed the data from Y nodes to make sense of it or know you had complete logs, ala things like Tahoe-LAFS.
  I hope they used similar techniques on their "real" servers as well as their "virtual" ones.
2. Re:What kind of RAID by poofmeisterp · 2012-10-17 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  You think they are using RAID5 or RAID10 to stop the police?
  Geeks. Psh.
  Oh, wait. :)
3. Re:What kind of RAID by aktiveradio · 2012-10-17 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Your suspicion was correct that was humor.
4. Re:What kind of RAID by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  I'm going with RAID 1. All sites need to be taken down for their to be a loss of service or data.
+1 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:29 · Score: 0

upvote
Sounds like foggy thinking to me by whizbang77045 · 2012-10-17 01:29 · Score: 1

Sounds like foggy thinking to me.
1. Re:Sounds like foggy thinking to me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  no no, that requires a local cloud
i2p ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:36 · Score: 0

OK, maybe tor is not sufficiently secure for this.
How about i2p?
Isn't it time to move some of the torrent traffic to more secure channels? They may keep the site accessible on the normal net and in the same time make it available on i2p with some i2p trackers available only to i2p users. This would give a boost to i2p.
I think somebody has to start doing this. It's about time.
Is there any technical difficulty?
1. Re:i2p ? by SuricouRaven · 2012-10-17 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Serious, serious overhead issues. i2p would fall apart under the load mass-torrenting would place upon it.
DNS by miguelzinhow · 2012-10-17 01:50 · Score: 1

Mostly pointless. Just hijack thepiratebay.org and thepiratebay.se DNS registry and be done with it.
1. Re:DNS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  Good luck, they're behind 7 proxies.
2. Re:DNS by Kidbro · 2012-10-17 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Hardly
  
  --
  May we live long and die out
GET MORE "OH THOSE DIRTY RUSSIANS" INVOLVED !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 01:58 · Score: 0

Because if anyone knows how to steal most effectively, it's "oh those dirty russians", as B-M likes to say !! And with this, you can move all torrent servers to russia, because, well, that is obvious !!
1. Re:GET MORE "OH THOSE DIRTY RUSSIANS" INVOLVED !! by dmacleod808 · 2012-10-17 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  In Soviet Russia, file torrents you!
  
  --
  There Can Be Only One...
2. Re:GET MORE "OH THOSE DIRTY RUSSIANS" INVOLVED !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  Well, I guess someone had to say it.
Good to study by onyxruby · 2012-10-17 02:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is actually good area to research for everyday organizations that are not about to be on the receiving end of a police raid. The reason is simple, the most common disaster (not failure) that strikes most servers is the legal subpoena. Can your business survive a legal subpoena that would take a large portion of your data?
This is not an idle consideration, it's actually a very common consideration. Places like OnTrack do far more business recovering data for legal services like subpoenas than they do with disk failures. You usually get a certain amount of time (couple weeks or so) to respond to a subpoena with the requested data. If you don't get the request filled in time, or if the other side convinces the judge you might mess with the data they will simply seize your servers / data by court order?
Can you survive this? If you can survive this scenario, than chances are you can recover from just about any other reasonable disaster you might encounter. The pirate bay scenario is one that should be studied from a disaster recovery standpoint, regardless of your stance on piracy.
1. Re:Good to study by cpghost · 2012-10-17 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  The Internet was designed with a very specific failure mode in mind: big cities and their switching centers being obliterated, i.e. nuked, and the need to route around the damage. The current failure mode, lawfare by all kinds of pressure and interest groups, is quite different in nature, and much more dangerous, IMHO. The research question is how well does the original design of the Internet adapt to this new kind of threat? TPB is currently testing the limits of hiding behind a distributed non-uniform legal system. As long as we don't have a world government under US, Saudi or whomever's thumb, there's a slim chance that TPB will survive longer by playing mouse against the MAFIAA's fat cats and their governmental peons. But when that happens -- and it's just a matter of time until it does --, will the Internet still be able to adapt to a globally hostile legal environment?
  
  --
  cpghost at Cordula's Web.
2. Re:Good to study by Ash-Fox · 2012-10-17 03:57 · Score: 2
  
  The Internet was designed with a very specific failure mode in mind: big cities and their switching centers being obliterated, i.e. nuked, and the need to route around the damage.
  You're confusing the Internet and ARPANET. The Internet does not offer the same level of redundancy or fail overs in such a situation because it's all about having uplinks with various IXPs and uplink providers that didn't exist on ARPAnet - There was no need to have formal agreements to do any sort of fail over on ARPAnet. The Internet is not designed the same way, the network topology is different, hell, even the protocol was different (NCP).
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
3. Re:Good to study by onyxruby · 2012-10-17 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  The current failure mode, lawfare by all kinds of pressure and interest groups
  "Lawfare", never heard that before, I think I like it and Googling it I find it's definitely in use. Seems to be a very appropriate made up word that I think we'll see more of in the future.
4. Re:Good to study by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  TCP on the internet will still do re-routing around failed paths. You fail.
5. Re:Good to study by Ash-Fox · 2012-10-17 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  TCP on the internet will still do re-routing around failed paths. You fail.
  Not without negotiated peering which ARPAnet didn't require, it won't. And considering that most IXPs are in major cities, and service providers don't usually peer with more than one IXP, nor do back bone providers provide redundant connections geographically like traditional ARPAnet... One nuke, yeah, I don't expect magic rerouting to happen.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
6. Re:Good to study by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Who cares about ARPANET - we're talking about today's internet and its TCP implementation.
7. Re:Good to study by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  You need to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retransmission_(data_networks)
8. Re:Good to study by Ash-Fox · 2012-10-17 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  You need to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retransmission_(data_networks)
  
  Which doesn't help when there is no alternative routes to use because ARPAnet style infrastructure isn't used anymore - No fail overs. You nuke a city that has an IXP, it's highly unlikely anyone but the biggest telecommunications networks have a secondary peering with another IXP setup and they won't route traffic for others because they don't act as IXPs. And even if you did have a system setup to fail over, most automated BGP updates for route changing take much longer than the OS's default timeout for packets, so a ARQ isn't going to be of much use at all in this instance.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
9. Re:Good to study by Ash-Fox · 2012-10-17 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares about ARPANET - we're talking about today's internet and its TCP implementation.
  Indeed, and if you followed the thread properly, you might just be able to understand the relevance of my post.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
10. Re:Good to study by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Use ARPANET then (good luck). The modern internet does routing of packets past failed points and retransmissions.
11. Re:Good to study by Ash-Fox · 2012-10-17 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Use ARPANET then (good luck)
  It doesn't exist anymore.
  
  The modern internet does routing of packets past failed points and retransmissions.
  Not in the advent of a nuke taking out an IXP in usual circumstances.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
12. Re:Good to study by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  This is not a forums on or topic ARPANET. This is a discussion about the modern day internet in Pirate Bay Servers using Virtualization. In your dimension or time track did a nuke go off around 1970 or something?
13. Re:Good to study by BitZtream · 2012-10-17 16:22 · Score: 0
  
  Uhm, my CABLE PROVIDER has MULTIPLE PHYSICAL NETWORKS that serve its service area.
  Did you read that correctly? My provide alone has multiple big fat ass pipes and they aren't reliant on their own pipes 100%, they have backup routes with peers and they work just fine.
  Sure, they prefer their own pipes for cost reasons, but cut one of the fibre trunks and I see about 5 minutes of disruption while everything settles into place. Its happened. Hell in our town they have fibre on BOTH SIDES of the main street so just doing something stupid on one side of the street can be routed around.
  Look at any network map of the US, nuke any major city or even a few of them, all you'll lose is speed.
  I'm not sure what area you live in, but in the US There is plenty of routes to deal with issues such as a few cities getting nuked.
  Thats not what will happen though, when the nukes fly, it'll be other infrastructure that fails causing me to not give a shit about the Internet and be far more concerned with trucking my ass to the lake to get some water and hunting.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
14. Re:Good to study by Ash-Fox · 2012-10-17 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  This is not a forums on or topic ARPANET.
  You seem to have problems following threads, I will make it simple for you. This particular thread is about "You're confusing the Internet and ARPANET." in response to "The Internet was designed with a very specific failure mode in mind: big cities and their switching centers being obliterated, i.e. nuked, and the need to route around the damage."
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
15. Re:Good to study by Ash-Fox · 2012-10-17 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  Uhm, my CABLE PROVIDER has MULTIPLE PHYSICAL NETWORKS that serve its service area.
  My answers to other posts have sufficiently answered this already on this topic. To give you a hint on what to look for: automated, peering agreements, IXPs.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
16. Re:Good to study by mbstone · 2012-10-17 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  Losing your data isn't the biggest risk.
  After all, prudent people backup or mirror their data on other clouds or servers in other physical locations.
  The greater risk is a substantial, unexpected cost. If you use a cloud provider such as Amazon, and your instance is subpoenaed, under Amazon's TOS you have to pay whatever Amazon charges you for their compliance with the subpoena, which could run hundreds of $/hour.
17. Re:Good to study by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 02:28 · Score: 0
  
  The topic is The Pirate Bay Starts Using Virtualized Servers. That's modern internet not ARPANET. You fail and should not give advice when you yourself have wandered off topic.
18. Re:Good to study by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  You spoke of ARPANET which doesn't even exist anymore and is off topic.
19. Re:Good to study by Ash-Fox · 2012-10-18 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Your lack of reading comprehension reminds me of this other guy called APK.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
20. Re:Good to study by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  Your lack of intelligence reminds me of you.
That's your security? by BlueCoder · 2012-10-17 02:51 · Score: 1

It's obvious where your transit router is. They can monitor IP addresses, connection times and bandwidth to determine the load balancer. From the load balancer they can find the virtual machines which you use as muscle for the search engine and backend processing.
Any VM image can be accessed live. They can inject all the Trojans they want and track everything. But most importantly they can monitor where the admin commands come from. Have to assume they/you use tor or a botnet proxy. But everyone slips when it comes to security. Just takes one ping from a non anonymized computer to catch the scent. Then they can piece together all the admins one by one within three months.
Now of course there is more to your security than this. But let's not call your implementation here security.
What I would call it is robust and practical.
What I think would be more impressive is if you implemented your own voluntary cloud with all your willing users out there.
1. Re:That's your security? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 12:50 · Score: 0
  
  As I caught this from another source, you are mostly right.
  1. Virtualized transit routers in clouds in separate countries, all running in RAM only, encrypt the traffic to the load balancers
  2. Virtualized load balancers (maybe in other clouds/countries) redirect the (encrypted) traffic to the TPB servers
  3. *Encrypted* virtualized servers (in other clouds/countries) handle the traffic and reroute data back the way it came (all encrypted still).
  The cloud owners don't even know what they run and TPB has no clue where the physical servers are where there encrypted server images run. Double deniability.
  If TPB gets targeted, e.g. during a raid that follows the chain, the TPB servers are indeed able to detect irregular traffic and for instance close shop if the traffic blocks for 8 hours or more (after which they can only be restarted using a key/password via their cloud hoster, in effect: only by TPB admins),
  It's a pretty robust setup. Worthy for real life reputable businesses and organisations I'd think.
Pirates and Porn by unixhero · 2012-10-17 02:52 · Score: 2

Pirates and Online Porn has always been at the forefront of internet technologies.
Woo hoo! More software without paying! by smooth+wombat · 2012-10-17 02:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, you go TPB. That just means more software for the taking without having to pay someone for it. It doesn't matter if it took you 2-3 years to make that new game, my first thought won't be, "How much is it?" but, "Where can I get the torrent?" And you'll help me find it.
To the guy who was asking how to get paid for free software, you want paid for something I can get for free? Hahahaha! Sucker. No one pays for software any more. We just take what we want because we don't care if you get paid or not.
Go TPB! Long live not having to pay someone for their efforts!

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Mobile Servers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 03:05 · Score: 1

They need to have servers on the move, in vehicles, and high capacity SD cards, etc.
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by bzipitidoo · 2012-10-17 04:08 · Score: 1, Troll

Wrong. I'll fix it for you.

more software for the taking without having to pay someone for a copy of it.

No one pays for a copy of software any more.
And then you make this leap:

Long live not having to pay someone for their efforts!
On the contrary, we feel that creators deserve compensation for their efforts. Yes, many people do pirate and pay nothing. Many would pay something if it was possible, but often it is not, and that's the fault of industry. We disagree with the business model, that is, copyright and charging for each copy as the means of compensation.
Established businesses have sought to abuse this model to not pass on any savings whatsoever from technology driving down the cost of creating a copy to near zero. When the CD was first created, they set the price at $15 per album (LPs were about half that at the time), and promised that as production costs came down, they would pass some of that savings on to us. That never happened. Even as stacks of blank CD-Rs dived under $0.25 per disk, albums were still about $15, and to add to the insult, 90% of it was filler material to appease fans who really only wanted the one good song on the album. And then we hear that the industry cheats the very artists we're trying to support! As if that wasn't enough, they've tried to terrorize us all with lawsuits and police raids, attempted to infect our computers with viruses (Sony rootkit, you know), annoyed us with DRM that goes too far, pushed extreme laws that trample upon our freedoms (ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, DMCA, and more) and extended copyright to ludicrous lengths, and when they couldn't get their way by force, resorted to laughably bad propaganda. And they still think that preserving copyright justifies all their anti-social efforts and extremism. It took distribution of music in the mp3 format to break their schemes and force them to stop wasting money on things like all the elaborate anti-theft measures such as the oversized packaging and sensors for their precious disks, to say nothing of the disks themselves. They deserve to go out of business.
And you want to apologize for them?

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Good-bye 888 Poker Pop-Ups? by Vegan+Cyclist · 2012-10-17 04:46 · Score: 1

Maybe now they're saving money they can disable the 888 Poker pop-ups that occur when you click on anything on the site? So. Damn. Annoying.
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by twocows · 2012-10-17 05:05 · Score: 2

Nobody thinks content providers don't deserve money. People resort to piracy for all sorts of reasons: availability, lack of funds, convenience, try-before-you-buy, etc. I don't think anyone pirates purely out of spite for someone, and if they did they'd be pretty darn stupid.
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/6387721/Java_Altern by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 05:22 · Score: 0

http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/6387721/Java_Alternative_Microsoft_MS_Java_Virtual_Machine_msjavavm50380
Mikhail Gorbechav uses MS Java instead of Sun. That's why he's so important.
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 05:35 · Score: 0

Then whip up some competition. But stealing is not an option.
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:45 · Score: 0

I don't think anyone pirates purely out of spite for someone, and if they did they'd be pretty darn stupid.
And if they did, there is nothing you can do to chance them. It is stupid even to try to change them.
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 06:58 · Score: 1

Hey, we tried to pay them!
We figured, if all we get is a mere copy (that took no work to make) of information (that took work to make),
we'd pay the same way: With a mere copy (that took no work to make) of out money (that took work to make).
Then they bitched and whined and blabbered about intellectual "property", as if they could "own" information,
despite physical evidence showing that that is ludicrous impossible concept, when you give out that information to *everyone*.
Then we found out, that the money doesn't even go to the original makers of said information, but merely to the *distributors*. Who, clearly, didn't move a *single finger* for it.
And we stopped caring about them and their organized crime.
Moral of the story: If you're too fuckin' stupid, to use a business model, that resides in *reality*... then go fuck yourself and die in a corner!
Cause nobody cares about you bitching and whining because you can't STEAL real actual *physical* money that took real work to make from people while doing ABSOLUTELY NO WORK IN RETURN!
I'm so ashamed for being a Swede. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 07:07 · Score: 0

The news that reach the outside world are these smug thieves' bullshit, and the stuff you don't hear about is even worse...
I wish they would fuck off already. Clearly the ones in power have an interest in this warez hub being online since they haven't done a thing to stop it. (Believe me -- they could take it down within minutes if they actually wanted to.)
Users Associated With Pirate Bay: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 07:07 · Score: -1

dpass@bloomberg.net, msadicario@bloomberg.net, mbosso1@bloomberg.net, jwilliams145@bloomberg.net,
mmusolf@bloomberg.net, christina2@bloomberg.com, yharada10@bloomberg.net, hughwiley@bloomberg.net,
ckurtz@bloomberg.net, pbrownlow@bloomberg.net, lbenson6@bloomberg.net, khosravanlo@bloomberg.net,
negblomasse@bloomberg.net, mmills@bloomberg.net, tcastro@bloomberg.net, rfroude@bloomberg.net, afoot@bloomberg.net,
marcsiegel@bloomberg.net, release@bloomberg.net, lmeller@bloomberg.net, pstraus@bloomberg.net,
ttrippet@bloomberg.net, mbalenske@bloomberg.net, belina.tan@bloomberg.net, nharland1@bloomberg.net,
jgoodkind@bloomberg.net, cthomas106@bloomberg.net, mwomack4@bloomberg.net, pamsnook@bloomberg.net,
vnewhouse@bloomberg.net, drewkerr@bloomberg.net, jbaustin@bloomberg.net, acowie@bloomberg.net,
angelamartin@bloomberg.net, jturtletaub@bloomberg.net, stephen.beasley@lubbockonline.com,
jeff.brown@lubbockonline.com, shelby.caballero@lubbockonline.com, julia.childs@lubbockonline.com,
kay.ellington@lubbockonline.com, kristi.holt@lubbockonline.com, brandon.hughes@lubbockonline.com,
lubbockcustomerservice@lubbockonline.com, victor.uriegas@lubbockonline.com, sales@lubbockonline.com,
classified@lubbockonline.com, chris.berry@lubbockonline.com, ajannounce@lubbockonline.com,
ajlegals@lubbockonline.com, charlene.harris@lubbockonline.com, laurie.burdick@lubbockonline.com,
terry.greenberg@lubbockonline.com, karen.brehm@lubbockonline.com, james.ricketts@lubbockonline.com,
shelly.gonzales@lubbockonline.com, william.kerns@lubbockonline.com, dnsadmin@townnews.com,
krickhoff@billingsgazette.com, tlutey@billingsgazette.com, ntlutey@billingsgazette.com,
info@billingsanimalfamilyhospital.com, tscott@missoulian.com, sprosinski@billingsgazette.com, comments-northern-
flatehead-tally-lake@fs.fed.us, cjohnson@billingsgazette.com, cirish@billingsgazette.com,
ncirish@billingsgazette.com, mpickett@billingsgazette.com, nmpickett@billingsfazette.com,
rrogers@billingsgazette.com, french@billingsgazette.com, bfrench@billingsgazette.com, nfrench@billingsgazette.com,
the_demiurge@live.com, funtrainingdogs@rbbmt.org, dahl@aqwestoffice.net, dhealy@billingsgazette.com,
cuken@billingsgazette.com, ncuken@billingsgazette.com, contact@bigskyhonorflight.org, rcuken@billingsgazette.com,
gtuttle@billingsgazette.com, billingsadventurebootcamp@gmail.com, springlanecon@afo.net, weseben@hardinauto.com,
zach.long@lubbockonline.com, walt.nett@lubbockonline.com, george.watson@lubbockonline.com,
ajnews@lubbockonline.com, sports@lubbockonline.com, ajobits@lubbockonline.com, lifeclerk@lubbockonline.com,
karen.michael@frenshiptoday.com, webmaster@lubbockonline.com, info@nypost.com, nypipadsupport@nypost.com,
nypostdigital@nypost.com, cory.sears@dowjones.com, webeditor@nypost.com, sports@nypost.com, letters@nypost.com,
scuozzo@nypost.com, rwilner@nypost.com, dlandsel@nypost.com, mshain@nypost.com, esmith@nypost.com,
dating@nypost.com, drentas@nypost.com, library@nypost.com, aaquilina@nypost.com, calendar@nypost.com,
golden_hands@smartbro.net, sales@rian.ru, i.gushchina@rian.ru, i.bakhtina@rian.ru, press_service@rian.ru,
a.nadezhkina@rian.ru, pressclub@rian.ru, ktlacaptioning@tribune.com, support@wsj.com, wsjsupport@wsj.com,
mobilereader@wsj.com, tablet@wsj.com, wsjprosupport@wsj.com, cfojournal@wsj.com, ciojournal@wsj.com,
support@barrons.com, barronssupport@barrons.com, tablet@barrons.com, mwfeedback@marketwatch.com,
customercare@nytimes.com, circulation@nytimes.com, kerrie@nytimes.com, subs@iht.com, news-tips@nytimes.com,
thearts@nytimes.com, bizday@nytimes.com, foreign@nytimes.com, metro@nytimes.com, national@nytimes.com,
sports@nytimes.com, washington@nytimes.com, executive-editor@nytimes.com, public@nytimes.com,
publisher@nytimes.com, president@nytimes.com, advertising@nytimes.com, wedinfo@nytimes.com,
timesdigest@nytimes.com, schools@nytimes.com, nytn
1. Re:Users Associated With Pirate Bay: by BitZtream · 2012-10-17 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  God your an obnoxious douche aren't you?
  You really feel better now that some secretary is going to get spammed forever thanks to your ignorant stunt?
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by BitZtream · 2012-10-17 16:25 · Score: 0

On the contrary, we feel that creators deserve compensation for their efforts. Yes, many people do pirate and pay nothing. Many would pay something if it was possible, but often it is not, and that's the fault of industry.
Show me any high ranking item on TPB that you can't buy. I'm not going to wait around while you try, I don't want to grow old and die, but I challenge you to find something on TPB that you can't buy legally fairly easy.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by Tom · 2012-10-17 20:14 · Score: 2

I live in a city with a strong gaming development community. The business models are shifting, but the general trend is up rather then down.
Also, I sell some software. No DRM or anything. It is probably out there on a torrent somewhere. Do I care? Nope. I make money and I realize that most of the people who torrent it very likely would not buy it even if the torrent would't exist.
Copying has been an issue for commercial software development pretty much since the cassette tape. If you look at the world around you, it hasn't exactly killed the software industry.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 20:33 · Score: 0

Yeah, ranting can be fun at times.
In the real world, we so called "pirates" continue to pay more than most for our entertainment, including music, games and whatnot.
But don't let facts get in the way of your ranting. That would spoil the fun for you. And we can't have that.
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by Intrinsic · 2012-10-17 21:41 · Score: 1

Wow, someone who understands the issue. Very rare.
People need to quit complaining about piracy its just an excuse to not take responsibility for your own success, crybaby attitudes.
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-17 23:01 · Score: 0

You mod him as troll, he should be modded as insightful as the guy I am posting below has said nothing but truth the entire way. smooth wombat did a troll post and it was actually modded as insightful while this got troll.....
Yes, many use it for piracy, but not all of them.
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 04:54 · Score: 0

If your budget has enough money to buy 4 games per year, does it matter if you play only 4 games or you play 10 games? Money is finite, where as software is effectively infinite, how much you can use is limited by your free time. No piracy means I might buy 10 games for my console and pirate 0, while with piracy, I would buy 10 games for my console, and pirate another 100, most of those aren't worth playing though and won't be played more than once or twice.
Another example. No piracy means i have to go use a shared computer, that isn't available all the time, and it's a mac, to use something like Adobe Illustrator, because it has a licensed copy. With piracy, I can use the windows PC at my desk anytime I want. Either way, Adobe was paid for one license. You can't just magically make more money appear in your budget to buy every single person their own license. We are using taxpayer money, do you want us to buy 30 copies of Adobe Illustrator despite the fact that we are only using maybe 1-3 copies at a time? And hence have less money to spend on more useful work? Or do you want to punish our productivity, by making access to software inconvenient? Or, should we buy 0 copies of Adobe products and suffer using inferior open source software? Either way, no piracy reduces the amount of contribution we make back to the taxpayers.
Why do you seem to think that the alternative to piracy is to buy everything? Most of the time, probably over 90% of the time, the alternative to piracy is to go without. How does going without help the developer/creator?
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 08:57 · Score: 0

+1
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by masterjames · 2012-10-18 13:05 · Score: 1

looks like someone's feelings were hurt. developers need to start from here on out with the idea that people are going to pirate stuff. make it free in the first place and find a different way to make money. stop fighting against the way technology moves. bit-torrent technology is amazing. as time goes on people figure out new ways to do stuff and its time for the producers of software/movies/music to realize that they are prey and move on to a different business model.
Noooooooooo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-18 14:45 · Score: 0

Give it back to meeee!
I feel so violated.
Re:Woo hoo! More software without paying! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-22 09:25 · Score: 0

I download a ton of stuff but I still pay for software. In the last few years I've bought copies of Windows, SolveiggMM Video Splitter, Xplorer2, and FeedDemon. I have a few pieces of cracked software but most of my other stuff is free/open. The cracked software is stuff I rarely use. People do pay for stuff still, but people download for multiple reasons. I still go to the movies for big budget movies but most small stuff I have little interest in I download. I also download TV shows because I like to watch shows from the beginning and I want to watch them on my media center using my remote control. I refuse to use DRM or iTunes. Since Netflix now offers streaming shows and such it's less of a necessity.
I also write software and although I haven't released anything for public use yet (just private companies), when I do, I plan to use a model which implements a free edition and a pro edition. The pro features will offer features that will be implemented in the next edition or will be minor improvements over the free edition, convenience features or something. I'll implement a fair use license (no DRM, free for personal use on unlimited systems, all upgrades up to major revisions) and I might use a donation system for pro features with a minimum value pre-set. Pro users would also be able to vote on new features and such. I've heard of people having good success with models such as this. Plus I feel it's fair enough that most people will buy a licence for the pro features.