Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

File-Sharing Site Was Actually an Anti-Piracy Honeypot

Posted by Soulskill on from the oh-bother dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The administrator of file-sharing site UploaderTalk shocked and enraged his userbase a few days ago when he revealed that the site was nothing more than a honeypot set up by a company called Nuke Piracy. The main purpose of the site had been to gather data on its users. The administrator said, 'I collected info on file hosts, web hosts, websites. I suckered $#!&loads of you. I built a history, got the trust of some very important people in the warez scene collecting information and data all the time.' Nobody knows what Nuke Piracy is going to do with the data, but it seems reasonable to expect lawsuits and the further investigation of any services the users discussed. His very public betrayal is likely meant to sow discord and distrust among the groups responsible for distributing pirated files."

29 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Good thing no one used it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, UploaderTalk is a no-name site.

    1. Re:Good thing no one used it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gotta agree there. I've more or less gotten out of that life-style and only occasionally keep track of file-sharing news when it was something big. I'd never heard of this guy or his sites.

      That said, now that this story is Slashdotted... what will the Internet vigilantes do to this guy?

    2. Re:Good thing no one used it by RDW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can (partially) forgive The Guardian for taking this story at face value, but Slashdot ought to be a bit more selective. Looks like this guy got kicked out of WJunction, set up his own site (which failed to attract much traffic), and is now claiming it was all part of a Cunning Plan to join the antipiracy industry (working for a company nobody has ever heard of, with a website that must have taken all of 15 minutes to set up). He can probably be reached for comment at his Top Model girlfriend's Manhattan penthouse (or more likely, in his mom's basement).

    3. Re:Good thing no one used it by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, it's likely he won't stay anonymous for long.

      The whole thing makes me scratch my head though. Seems like a bad and unprofessional idea to just announce it's a honeypot. If I were setting it up I'd just say the site is closing down then dish out lawsuits or what have you or whatever else, I don't know. An anti-piracy stance (in the typical MPAA fashion) is a very unpopular one on the internet. There's nothing to gain.

      But he even announced he's doing it again, and it's likely he'll be tracked down and effortlessly exposed.

      Sounds more like some script kiddie who is pulling some prank or what have you. But apparently tracking down who was behind was just handed to us on a silver platter, right here. Names and address included.

      So it's a legitimate business. Well good luck against the internet, if they even take your vBulletin forum and website that was coded by fifth grader seriously. I wonder if they even know how to extract the data in any meaningful way.

    4. Re: Good thing no one used it by Yaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tbqh this doesn't pass the sniff test. More likely scenarios: 1) its a hoax/false flag and piracy nuke is the target. 2) He got a c&d and thinks that pretending that it was an anti piracy thing all along will help him with the lawsuit.

    5. Re:Good thing no one used it by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems like a bad and unprofessional idea to just announce it's a honeypot.

      Not if you're an attention whore and a wanna-be internet vigilante.

      An anti-piracy stance (in the typical MPAA fashion) is a very unpopular one on the internet. There's nothing to gain.

      Well, there is something to gain; it's blackmail material. That's what the MPAA/RIAA use it for, and there's no reason you couldn't sell the information to a third party to try and extort money from them "If you don't pay us to keep quiet, we'll reveal your illegal activity to the authorities." I mean, that's pretty much classic blackmail. The data he has does have value, and if you view this announcement as a bid for potential buyers of his data, then it suddenly makes sense.

      The announcement is a false flag; It isn't a signal to us that he's turning the information over to authorities, it's a signal to the criminal community to come forward and begin bidding. Now instead of it being "bad and unprofessional", it's a clever way of acquiring plausible deniability by appearing to be retarded.

      Sounds more like some script kiddie who is pulling some prank or what have you. But apparently tracking down who was behind was just handed to us on a silver platter, right here. Names and address included.

      Not a script kiddie; a paid industry shill. And as is typical for idiot hacktivists, a simple google search without a deeper understanding of business filings reveals that it's fingering the wrong guy; They failed to check for legally registered aliases. Incomplete investigations are incompetent investigations. Hasn't the Boston Bomber Reddit Witchunt taught us anything, Internet?

      You cannot conduct a proper investigation using just google. Google is exploratory not confirmatory, and if you act on this information you will likely be exposing yourself to far more legal liability than using some badly designed "honeypot" website.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    6. Re:Good thing no one used it by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe he's trying to start a vigilante honeypot.

    7. Re: Good thing no one used it by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except it won't because

      1.-The clueless will never hear of this guy, and

      2.-The ones that know WTF they are doing and put up the most files don't hang around sites that look like they were coded by a 14 year old girl.

      Most likely all the "data" he collected is a bunch of clueless wannabes trying to play big fish in a teeny tiny pond and won't be worth shit.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re: Good thing no one used it by jodido · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As opposed to a 14-year-old boy? Girls can't code?

    9. Re:Good thing no one used it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, there is something to gain; it's blackmail material.

      There's another angle that hasn't been brought up yet:

      The announcement is sowing mistrust amongst the various sites. People are going to be less willing to blindly trust whatever new sites just pop up. In turn, this will reduce the number of sites that need to be watched, allowing a reduction in costs and an increase in results.

    10. Re:Good thing no one used it by jmac_the_man · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is a stupid argument and you're a stupid person for making it.

      There have been no updates on the journalist's files being seized illegally. No new information has come out about it since that story. Nothing has come out since the story to make it seem that it's a hoax.

      "Googling for where that story came from" reveals that it was first reported at The Daily Caller. (So would clicking on the link in the Slashdot story, for that matter.) If, in your mind, the very fact that the story comes from a conservative outlet is reason to believe the opposite of the story is true, you're a hyperpartisan troll.

    11. Re:Good thing no one used it by tragedy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Entrapment doesn't really exist as a legal defense any more. The courts accept the catch-22 logic that taking an action is absolute evidence of predisposition to take that action. To win with a defense of entrapment, you'd pretty much have to prove that they held a gun to your head to make you do it. Even then modern courts probably wouldn't consider it entrapment.

    12. Re: Good thing no one used it by Anarchduke · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm guessing the site had ponies.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    13. Re:Good thing no one used it by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      it's classic ad hominid.

      Does he say "you're an Australopithecus, and they're all liars"?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. I liked this story better... by hawks5999 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...when it was called The Scene

  3. Implicit permission? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So for the months that the site was active these files (and links) were being shared with the implicit permission of the copyright umbrella groups? Neat. Bless 'em.

  4. User data? by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The main purpose of the site had been to gather data on its users.

    So they have a bunch of anonymous IP addresses from a bunch of public WiFi sites. Even a trusted file sharing site can put people at risk if the FBI kicks the door down and seizes the servers. So any smart pirates will take measures to protect their anonymity, honey pot or not.

    In the meantime, thanks for all the disk space. It was fun while it lasted.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  5. Whaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are no important people in the warez scene. That's why they can't stop it.

    1. Re:Whaaa? by newcastlejon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Take those down and it will become quite annoying.

      For about five minutes until another springs up. Groups such have these have become less and less important as fibre becomes more prevalent.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:Whaaa? by EdZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's a secret: anyone with a tuner card and the ability to feed the captured transport stream (IIRC encapsulated MPEG2 for you ATSC guys in the US) into x264 can do the exactly same as these 'scene groups'. Probably a better job too, if you use CRF rather than constant-bitrate or target filesize.

    3. Re:Whaaa? by aliquis · · Score: 3, Funny

      Seriously what can Disney say about the people sharing Pirates of the Caribbean?

      Would 28 days later really be the same movie without all the sharing?

      How would Independence day have ended if there was no uploaders?

    4. Re: Whaaa? by loufoque · · Score: 5, Informative

      Internet piracy: choose what you want to watch and watch it. Available on the day it is aired on or released, in any country or region around the world, best quality, all versions available, subtitles for all languages, no ads, transferable to any device.

      DVDs: find a shop that has what you want and is willing to sell it in your region, or order them online. Go to the shop or wait. Put the DVD in your current DVD reader in its box. Put the DVD you just bought inside the DVD reader. Watch the mandatory ads. Go through some horrible and unpractical menu. Bad subtitles. Not transferable. Bad resolution and often interlaced video. No easy way to keep track of which version of the video it is and whether there are better ones that got released later or in other regions. Must use the DRM-locked interface of your DVD reader to do anything.

      Blurays: pretty much like DVDs, except the quality is better and the non-transferability and ads are even worse.

      TV channels: you must be present at the time of broadcast to see the show, or set up the appropriate recording with an inept interface (assuming you have paid the premium to be allowed to do this). If your connectivity fails or stutters during the broadcast, you've missed the bit in question. Ridiculous amounts of advertisements (especially in the US). Very bad subtitles, if they're even available. Not transferable to another device. Must use the DRM-locked interface of your TV box to do anything.

      Video on Demand: Number of shows available fairly limited, even with the best services, since only the shows for which the provider has struck a deal are available. Shows only available quite after they've been aired or released. Not transferable to another device. Services tied to particular geographic regions. Some problems similar to that of TV channels with some services. Must use the DRM-locked interface of your TV box to do anything.

  6. No name fake site that has no rep is a honeypot... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    News at 11.

    Honestly they were barely known and had ZERO rep in the community. In fact most people never even knew about them or knew to stay away because it was too new and too unknown.

    If this is the best they got, then there is no worries out there. Now find out that TPB was a BSA sting operation.... THAT is real news.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  7. serious ? by Spaham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they were anything serious they wouldn't have gloated that way.
    Sounds so much like a whining kid trying to annoy people...

  8. Re:No name fake site that has no rep is a honeypot by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Tiger4 on slashdot is the best piracy source out there. Talk to them they have all the good stuff.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  9. Re:Don't you believe it. by Sun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not when you have to go through the "justice" system.

    If you are a copyright holder, or acting on his/her/its behalf, and you seed a torrent for me to download, you have, in fact, given me the file. Since you are the copyright holder, that file was given lawfully. You cannot now turn around and sue me for taking from you what you have lawfully given. Your harm, such that there is, is entirely self inflicted.

    Honeypots are a useful tool to learn techniques that the other side uses, but they are, by and large, useless as a technique to sue over copyright infringement.

    IANAL

    Shachar

  10. How can one tell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Occasionally I'm looking for a TV show I want to watch. It's often hard to know where to find it. Hulu, crackle, netflix, amazon are big names but there's lots of other little ones as well. So how can one tell when one clicks on a link to watch something if it's a legit site or a copyright violator. Regardless of how you feel about copyrights, my main goal is to avoid some hassle-- not worth it to me. The last thing I want is some honeypot offering me Game Of Thrones season 3 for free and then after I watch it get dragged into court or worse blackmailed with the hassle. Thus I'm not trying to find stuff that's pirated. I just want to know how I should know?

    With some common sense one can figure out that if you fand something on mega upload or a torrent site that, well, chances are pretty good one should be wary. But what about a site like CookiesandCream. Lots of TV shows there. Click to stream. no torrents, no rapidshare or mega uploader. outwardly it looks legit. SO I can't tell. And there's lots of places just like that.

    Furthermore there's sites that sort of consolidate things CanIwatchIt which deeplinks things so you don't even see the site it's taking you too.

    While one should suspect a free lunch it's not always possible to tell. AMC and Hulu often release some episodes or all of a series for a limited time. This happens even when Amazon is charging for the episode. So you can't just assume that some major show like breaking bad, or 30 rock or the killing should not be available somewhere for free.

    It used to be easy to tell. Now it's actually reasonable that someone can make a mistake. THe rise of honeypots makes this even more perilous.

  11. Re:Don't you believe it. by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not when you have to go through the "justice" system.

    If you are a copyright holder, or acting on his/her/its behalf, and you seed a torrent for me to download, you have, in fact, given me the file. Since you are the copyright holder, that file was given lawfully. You cannot now turn around and sue me for taking from you what you have lawfully given. Your harm, such that there is, is entirely self inflicted.

    Honeypots are a useful tool to learn techniques that the other side uses, but they are, by and large, useless as a technique to sue over copyright infringement.

    IANAL

    Shachar

    They won't sue you for downloading the torrent, they will sue you for uploading to others without permission.

  12. Re:Entrapment by westlake · · Score: 3, Informative

    The site smells of entrapment to me.

    There is more to making good a defense of entrapment than being caught in the trap.

    In criminal law:

    A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.

    Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion.

    Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime."

    Entrapment --- Elements