Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Anti-Piracy Law In Australia Already Being Abused (abc.net.au)

Posted by timothy on from the as-has-gits dept.

Gumbercules!! writes: A small Australian ISP has received a demand that it block access to an overseas website or face legal action in the Federal Court, in a case in which a building company is demanding the ISP block access to an overseas site with a similar name. This case is being seen as a test case, potentially opening the way for companies and aggregated customers to use the new anti-piracy laws to block access to companies or their competition. The ISP in question has obviously been selected because they're very small and have limited financial capacity to fight a legal case.

73 comments

  1. Wrong incumbent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just tell them to go talk to the registrar of the .com domain and that you (as the ISP) aren't a party in their trademark claim.

    1. Re:Wrong incumbent by TheReaperD · · Score: 5, Informative

      The whole point of this is to avoid going after the correct organizations that have laws and lawyers on their side and instead get what you want via a backdoor opened by this law that allows you to go after the smaller fish that don't have the resources to fight your will in court and then, once you have the court judgement, you can use it to browbeat the larger players into submission without ever having to challenge them in court directly as they were never a party to the original claim but, the judgement will apply to them anyway. It's a dirty trick that I'm sure was put in this law by design as large players such as ICANN and Google have been very successful at fighting off claims like this in court. Now they will be able to get court orders against them without ever having to directly face them. No one can believably claim that this is an "accidental" legal loophole provided by the law. It was just obfuscated enough to get it past the general public without much of a fight.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    2. Re:Wrong incumbent by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Worse than that, this is a law designed for copyright being abused for some idiot to try to enforce his trademark by claiming a company in another country is somehow infringing.

      This site is not anywhere near "the primary purpose of the online location is to infringe, or to facilitate the infringement of, copyright".

      This has nothing to do with copyright.

      This is exactly what happens when you put the onus of policing these things onto the fucking ISPs.

      The ONLY way this should work is companies go to a court, prove their case, and then the court say "OK, block this". If the law is so badly written it can be used by a company to bully an ISP into doing something the law isn't intended to do .. then the law is terribly written.

      Essentially the law was written that each ISP has to be the defender of any site they are asked to block, or will just blindly block them out of sheer laziness.

      And, once again, the copyright cartels have bought themselves a law which allows them to do anything they wish, with no consequences, and shift the cost of keeping things in check onto others. Any law which allows people to make copyright claims without proving them has been designed to pander to one industry at the expense of every other industry.

      Now, apparently, you can just claim copyright infringement, and be able to do that for free and make it someone else's problem.

      This is what happens when you let companies write their own damned laws in such a way that they can do anything. From the sounds of it, this law was intentionally written as to allow copyright holders as much leeway as possible ... which means it's an utterly useless law.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Wrong incumbent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does Google do a lot of business in Australia? What if they just told the Australian courts to F*** off?

    4. Re:Wrong incumbent by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

      It was just obfuscated enough to get it past the general public without much of a fight.

      This was negotiated in secret, the governments deliberately acted to prevent the public from knowing in advance what was going to be imposed on them. Large companies were let in on the negotiations which is why it contains clauses to help the screw the public and small business.

    5. Re:Wrong incumbent by neilo_1701D · · Score: 1

      It was just obfuscated enough to get it past the general public without much of a fight.

      This was negotiated in secret, the governments deliberately acted to prevent the public from knowing in advance what was going to be imposed on them. Large companies were let in on the negotiations which is why it contains clauses to help the screw the public and small business.

      Much like the TPP, then. How comforting to see such consistency, especially from the Australian government.

    6. Re:Wrong incumbent by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Except pretty much every government is doing this, because apparently these days the entire function of governments establishing laws and treaties is to enshrine in law the protection of corporate profits.

      Pretty much every treaty I've seen mentioned in the last bunch of years expands copyright, places the burden of policing copyright onto someone else, is negotiated in secret, and can really only be described as undermining our rights for the benefit of corporations.

      Governments no longer represent citizens, they represent the interests of multi-national corporations. And as a result, they time after time pass laws which really only benefit multi-national corporations.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Wrong incumbent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the longest sentence that I have ever read. Wow.

    8. Re:Wrong incumbent by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      The content cartels have been trying to push the bullshit "Intellectual Property" term for quite some time; obfuscating whether a claim is a patent, copyright or trademark. They have been trying to create an umbrella "protection" for content that is as loose on requirements as trademarks, length of copyrights (or longer) and with the legal enforcement powers of patents (or more). Their wet dream is to be able to claim anything as "IP" with an unlimited term and even more enforcement powers than currently allowed with patents because they are trying to get it where they can send the police after you on their word alone without a judge overseeing them with no appeal process. Some of this was rammed into the TPP but, not all of it. They keep using the slow boiling pot method to try and move this through without people fighting it. They tried pushing this stuff through much faster and in larger pieces and it always backfired. Secret negotiations and votes seem to be a common tactic now, bending the laws of a lot of countries to keep them hidden from the public until it is too late. In short, the corporations are trying to create a system where they own everything and you have to pay monopoly rates to them in perpetuity because you have no other choice as no one is ever allowed to compete with them.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    9. Re:Wrong incumbent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen worse. There are a couple of clowns on this board who find that capitalizing the first word of a sentence too hard to do. I ignore their posts as I don't feel like doing the extra work necessary to parse their paragraphs.

      In this instance, though the first sentence was fairly long, I had absolutely no problem parsing and understanding it. My kudos to the GP.

      sr

    10. Re:Wrong incumbent by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should put claims against the content cartel's sites. I think that NBC.com is stealing my copyrighted material for their own profit, they should be blocked by the ISPs for their terrible temerity of stealing my intellectual property!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re: Wrong incumbent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a sweet $2 billion in revenue...

    12. Re:Wrong incumbent by Cederic · · Score: 1

      what's wrong with adopting a more colloquially informal conversational style on a message forum

    13. Re:Wrong incumbent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sentence with 101 words! Man, how did you manage that?

    14. Re:Wrong incumbent by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The content cartels have been trying to push the bullshit "Intellectual Property" term for quite some time

      They found a weak government that was only interested in slogans and keeping the other party out of power. A soft target for them.

    15. Re:Wrong incumbent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This site is not anywhere near "the primary purpose of the online location is to infringe, or to facilitate the infringement of, copyright". This has nothing to do with copyright."

      You are right, but this is how it works: Bully's lawyers send ISP a threat for a massive law suit. ISP weighs up threat for a massive law suit against the loss of one customer who they make only small change off anyway. ISP axes customer. Bully is happy. ISP relieved. Customer is screwed but can't do anything but suck it down.
      Law = Whoever has the most money wins. http://www.crimemagazine.com/e...

    16. Re:Wrong incumbent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      English. It is already difficult to ensure things are expressed with nuance. It needn't be complicated by the lazy and inept who muddy the waters with their idiocy.

    17. Re:Wrong incumbent by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      It wasn't intentional. I just used that many words to get that particular thought out. After the comments, I even went back and re-read it and thought to myself "how the hell did I do that?"

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  2. Functioning as Intended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Law functions for purpose for which it was designed.

    Informed citizens not surprised, sheep finally start making baaaa sounds.

    1. Re:Functioning as Intended by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The problem is, this law will affect "normal" people. You can only silence what the majority doesn't use. Silencing dissent requires you to do it in a way that doesn't keep people from getting their Lolcats.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. No s**t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No fucking s**t... really?

  4. "limited financial capacity" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a myth among the hoi polloi that lawyers are magicians so smart and so experienced that they can argue anything out of nothing, therefore they are necessary in expensive hordes in order to win a legal battle.

    Now, there are complex commercial battles in civil law where the lawyers might as well be chanting spells at each other - and the outcomes of such cases are as beneficial to society as waving a wand - but these are few and far between.

    In most cases, one intelligent legally trained person will be able to see a legal team trying what is little more than bullying, and there will be little difference between employing them and hiring a crack team of elite legal vultures, as the argument will come down to the same thing.

    I heartily recommend that everyone take some basic legal courses, and spend time reading judge's arguments (the original reports, not media summaries) in random cases. They usually aren't that complicated, and - most importantly - they usually make logical sense in the context of the law.

    (I still think the law is skewed in favour of what would classically be called the "owning classes", but not nearly as much as it could be. Its bark is worse than its bite.)

    1. Re:"limited financial capacity" by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      You seem to have misunderstood the whole argument: it's not about needing a huge horde of lawyers to win a case because they can magically come up with the most logical arguments, rather, it's about the one with the larger team and more resources often being able to draw the fight on for so long that you'll incur some severe drop in your financials and even possibly going bankcrupt. The one with limited resources often has no choice but to just accept the other one's demands as they never would have the money to be able to fight the thing to conclusion. Also, court cases rarely come down to the party with the most logical argument winning and instead they often come down to which party can find the most favourable loopholes or past judgements, and for those a larger team is definitely an advantage.

    2. Re:"limited financial capacity" by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What should be happening is the company who wants to issue the takedown has to go to court and prove their assertions, and then the court tells the ISP to add it to the list.

      But, since this is a copyright related law, the people who bought it didn't want any pesky burden of proof, so it's written in such a way that the ISP is responsible for defending the content.

      Take the ISP out of the equation until the court has ruled. Otherwise all you're really doing is allowing someone to make an unsubstantiated demand, and having that be someone else's problem.

      It's time we stopped giving copyright laws such wide room for interpretation and abuse, and make the people who want to claim infringement have some actual standard of providing proof and showing how the content is actually infringing.

      Right now they have bought themselves the right to say anything they want, with no burden of proof, and no consequences for being wrong or outright lying.

      That's an utterly insane law, because it lets them just make up anything they want to, and it's others who have to comply.

      Imagine if I could go to the police and say you stole my car .. and they will come and take your car and give it to me, and then you have to prove that it was actually your car.

      This is a law which essentially assumes the accuser is in the right, and the accused must prove their innocence. And, make no mistake, this law is written like this by design, because in all likelihood the people who wrote it are the people who paid for it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:"limited financial capacity" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The point isn't that lawyers can turn black into white provided they're expensive enough. The point is that this small ISP can't simply drag out the case 'til nobody gives a shit anymore.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:"limited financial capacity" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      draw the fight on for so long

      How does one "draw the fight on for so long"? Do you think you can just sit in court talking crap for weeks on end, wasting the judge's time with irrelevance? Have you ever sat in court as a lawyer? defendant? witness? juror? observer?

      The one with limited resources often has no choice

      Sometimes. Almost all the time it's about intimidating the smaller party, not about the smaller party having no hope if the case is actually heard.

      the most favourable loopholes or past judgements, and for those a larger team is definitely an advantage.

      Almost all court cases don't create precedent, and when they do, it's a toss-up whether the judge is going to agree with you on how wide its applicability. It's a rare case where a judgment hinges on someone's clever legal handwaving rather than on a level of legal maturity that any experienced lawyer will routinely apply. Ever been to a doctor? Elite specialists are an essential part of the medical profession, but almost every single health matter does not benefit from consultation with an elite specialist.

  5. eh by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    Damn those aggregated customers they can be so....aggregating!

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    1. Re:eh by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

      Sorry - autocorrect on a phone is a pain. I would have thought the editors would pick that up (and I should have too). This is why I shouldn't submit stories from my phone, in bed.

      Then again, maybe the slashdot guys approved it from a phone, in bed, too! :-P

    2. Re:eh by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Sorry - autocorrect on a phone is a pain. I would have thought the editors would pick that up (and I should have too). This is why I shouldn't submit stories from my phone, in bed.

      Then again, maybe the slashdot guys approved it from a phone, in bed, too! :-P

      Heh it's me that should apologize...I just couldn't resist :-)

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  6. Seems legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you go to the infringing site you might get the impression that this is the Australian builder. It is not. Scroll to the bottom and the contact info is in India. The actual Simonds Homes is something else.

    Looks like deceptive practice on the part of CHM Constructions. What can Simonds do to defend itself?

    1. Re:Seems legit by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's not because of a "similar name" as TFS would have it. CHM seem to be claming (if you can wade through the mangled English) links with Simmonds.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Seems legit by Jahta · · Score: 1

      If you go to the infringing site you might get the impression that this is the Australian builder. It is not. Scroll to the bottom and the contact info is in India. The actual Simonds Homes is something else.

      Looks like deceptive practice on the part of CHM Constructions. What can Simonds do to defend itself?

      Yes, the CHM web site does look fishy. But this is _not_ a copyright issue. CHM (whoever they are) are claiming a business relationship with Simonds Homes. If no such relationship exists, Simonds Homes should be taking CHM to court under company law, not trying to get one small ISP to block CHM's web site.

      This does appear like a stalking horse case for bending the new copyright law for other purposes.

    3. Re:Seems legit by Geordish · · Score: 4, Informative

      Absolutely. The following sentence on their about us page says it all:

      "CHM Construction By Simonds Homes, Australia's Legacy of 65 years in Constructions and Public listing Builder Group."

      They are claiming to be the same company.

    4. Re:Seems legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "CHM Construction By Simonds Homes".

      Define "by".

    5. Re:Seems legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Yes, the CHM web site does look fishy.

      Guranteed.

    6. Re:Seems legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can take it to court via the channels that are established for the purpose, rather than attacking a carrier.

    7. Re:Seems legit by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Looks like deceptive practice on the part of CHM Constructions. What can Simonds do to defend itself?

      Since the offender has published their address, maybe some old fashioned techniques would work best.

    8. Re:Seems legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like deceptive practice on the part of CHM Constructions. What can Simonds do to defend itself?

      Since the offender has published their address, maybe some old fashioned techniques would work best.

      thousands of pizzas and jehovas witness bibles?

  7. Trademark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CHM Construction website contains a Simonds Homes logo

    If the oversees site is using the logo to confuse people into thinking it is an official site then it is trademark infringement. Does not seem Trademark falls under the law. But I won't lose sleep if they block a fishing or scam site.

  8. They need help. They should get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is most obviously in the interests of the big ISPs to beat this. Therefore it is obviously in their interests to somehow finance the legal fight against it. But then how many can see farther than the next quarter?

  9. And nobody's surprised by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

    Did anybody not expect this? The real question now is whether this will get worse or whether judges and lawmakers will grow brains

  10. So.... by CimmerianX · · Score: 2

    If I am an Australian PC Maker, I should quickly form a company under a shell corp, register www.dwell.com, then file a claim against Dell stating they are infringing on my name and block access to the site.....

    Just brilliant.

    1. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your 15 minutes of fame is calling. and i am waiting! get to it!

      the only way to combat these stupid laws is to troll them by using them in the stupidest manner possible with in the word of the law and generate a story like this to get people to say... wait... what the EFF?

    2. Re:So.... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 2

      Does Microsoft have an Australian branch? If so, expect to see them register or buy www.googel.com.au any day now. And as a defensive measure, they may also want to pick up www.bong.com.au -- although that one may raise some eyebrows.

  11. Dear Mr Squiggle by warewolfsmith · · Score: 1

    Section 115A didn't exist in 1968, therefore the letter of claim is incorrect and probably unenforceable in the federal court.

  12. So follow the LAW by dacullen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the demand letter, Simond's actually quotes the appropriate legal action that they should be taking: Get an injunction. Simonds undoubtedly recognizes that their case for a copyright injunction is weak and is trying for an end run by running over s small ISP with hopes of using their acquiescence as a tool to enlist more ISP's. Look at the CHM site, I get why Simond's is fighting mad. So they're beating up the nearest 98 pound weakling they can find in an effort to "do something NOW"

  13. DMCA, or.. by Dynamoo · · Score: 1
    It's a kinda interesting conundrum. Obviously Simonds have a complaint against CHM Constructions but if their lawyers have advised them to do this, then I think they need better lawyers.

    Blocking access to the site from Australia probably won't make a whole lot of difference, because the real reputational damage might arise elsewhere. Simonds need to get the site shut down or amended.

    The most obvious way to do this would be to file a DMCA complaint. "But wait," you say ,"neither party is in the US!" True - but chmconstructions.com is hosted in the US, and all the major search engines are *also* hosted in the US, do they *do* have to comply with a DMCA complaint. In my opinion, there is sufficient copied material on the Indian site to justify a DMCA complaint. And you don't even need to get lawyered up for that.

    The other way to do it is to hire a law firm in INDIA and threaten legal action over there. Indian lawyers are not expensive, but in my personal experience in a similar case.. they are of highly variable quality. Probably better than the Ozzie lawyers Simonds hired though. But if you actually want to *do* something about the problem, then India is the place to go.

    --
    Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
  14. Hooray for Hollywood by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    Hooray for Hollywood used to mean something positive. Now it refers to the copyright industry destroying the Internet bit by bit. Anyone thinking that Australia decided to do this all by themselves without massive pressure from the US Gov't = USTR = Hollywood, please read up.

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    1. Re:Hooray for Hollywood by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was just a song. Still is, in fact. It's just a song, man. People aren't running around yelling "Hooray for Hollywood in any context, good or bad.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  15. Telephone access also? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this law have the ability to force the phone company to block calls to the company also?

  16. check out the site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you'll see why Simonds has a pretty good case. CHM Constructions blatantly acts as though they are Simonds. Simonds has a right to protect itself inside its own territory. This isn't someone comparing themselves to Simonds, it is a flat out rip-off.

    If your name was being abused overseas, would you want or only remedy to be to go to that country and try to prevail?

    1. Re:check out the site by fullmetal55 · · Score: 1

      Yes they have a very good case against CHM Constructions... not against the ISP though... and they're suing the ISP not the foreign company.

    2. Re:check out the site by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      A company in Australia has a very good case against a company in India?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  17. Indian Fraud Site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am assuming that this site is attempting to defraud potential home buyers in Australia.

    There seems to be a number of scams targeting Australians via Tech support and fake tax evasion warning scams. The callers seem to have Indian accents and this site's postal address is also Indian.

    This site must be stopped, but the approach lawyers have taken is wrong. Rather than going after the website they should go after the person or criminal syndicate. I assume Indian and Australian governments have an interest in stopping these scams. If not they have their whole tech/call centre business tainted by fraudsters.

    1. Re:Indian Fraud Site? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      That's using an elephant gun to kill a pissant.

      Here in the states, we get this kind of shit all the time.

      Being grown-up Internet users, we just put up with the bullshit and ignore it.

      We get IRS scams (you owe us or we take all your money), phishing scams (your email has been compromised, sign on using our link), the UPS package you (didn't even) sent has an invoice problem; open the attached invoice ...

      Lots of companies pretend to be legitimate and we've learned to tell the difference.

      You don't need to bring down a goddam ISP for this shit.

      All it takes is a little education on the part of the people who are the targets of scams.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  18. Bong.com.au? May be popular with junkies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmmm bong might catch on... especially by the junkies.

  19. Dear Miss Jane by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    The name of an act doesn't change just because it's amended.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  20. Just wait until TPP gets enacted by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    With the way the copyright section is written copyright rulings in one jurisdiction will be applied in others. It doesn't apply in this case since it's blocking at the ISP. But having something called a copyright infringement in Australia lets a company go to a Canadian ISP and have content taken down even if it doesn't infringe on copyright in Canada.

    In this case the Australian company should have just filed a complaint with ICAAN to get the domain moved to them as the Indian company was obviously trying to make the site look like the Australian company.

  21. block both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    block both sites. nothing of value lost

  22. Oh look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are taking a page out of corporate America's book!

  23. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #1/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

    Where'd I say it? Show us. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

    See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there on OpenDNS free (I use it) + AD in my security guide.

    + how to migrate hosts across a LAN (admin/scripts not GPO)-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ... apk

    ---

    I'm RIGHT on admin priv + hosts (WFP/SFP)!

    "figured out why privilege escalation's a bad thing?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

    How else can I programmatically update hosts itself?

    ---

    "it requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

    Hypocrite later admits it!

    Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware DEMANDS it or it can't do a job fully like many security tools!

    ---

    "Needing admin privileges every time a program updates is poor design" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

    Mine doesn't to get new data to update hosts vs. threats. Only hosts itself updates need it vs. WFP/SFP. Users set it too. It's not programmatic impersonation.

    ---

    "90's tech to fight modern war" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

    Ozymandias/Watchmen per a namesake:

    "I resolved to apply antiquities teachings" (hosts) "to our world today & began my path to conquest - Conquest not of men but of the evils that beset them: Fossil Fuels (antispyware), Oil (antivir), Nuclear Power (addons) are like a drug & you gentlemen along w/ foreign interests are the pushers"

    It works Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    Oliver Day (Symantec) too-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts' Admin hosts+recommends APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

    APK

    P.S.=> Con't. in #2/5... apk

  24. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #2/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

    62 sources of good repute show + /. users say otherwise:

    Proven safe by 57 antivirus programs in its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Same for the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    Per VirScan its installer too -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... /.'ers say my work is good too:

    "his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

    "I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

    "APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

    "his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

    ---

    You tried using Computer Associates antivirus that I overturned on false positives (1/8 over time) were caught in ACCOUNTING SCANDALS FRAUD http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...

    Reputable source (not): They had to sell off their PC security suite too (crap too) LOWERING the 'threat level' on THAT program (not my hosts file engine) TO ZERO!

    * YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERY ACCOUNT NOTED!

    APK

    P.S.=> Con't in part #3/5... apk

  25. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #3/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Virus scanners/Adblock software don't need admin priv to update" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    Neither does my program. AV does to remove threats - Adblock addons = Vastly INFERIOR in abilities + efficiency vs. hosts as I proved & no one proved me wrong to date!

    ---

    "your software does" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    No, hosts do due to WFP/SFP - Intake update of new hosts data doesn't!

    ---

    "won't reveal your source code" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    I don't owe you it. I don't give away work to be stolen by others so it's misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

    ---

    "What's stopping you from pointing my bank's web site at your private server?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    I don't keep a server. Security guru (not - you create no ware for security & your forensics skills = non-existent): Put it in a VM, trace it using process monitor + wireshark to prove it (don't need code)!

    ---

    "the possibility of being caught, which would be pretty hard to catch w/ such a large hosts file, as no one can go through it manually." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    I place hardcoded fav sites @ top of hosts for speed & reliabilty - you'd spot it easily & bulk of hosts is sorted blocked known bad threats.

    ---

    "What are you going to do when Windows gets rid of the hosts file completely?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    Hasn't happened!

    ---

    "They have already taken steps to make it useless in Windows 10." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:14PM (#50904323)

    It works there!

    Telemetry tracking's killing 10 by itself: Win10 = Win8 = flops - who're you fooling other than yourself?

    APK

    P.S.=> Con't. in #4/5... apk

  26. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #4/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coren22 'eats his words' vs. me 2x yet again:

    "introduces risk you are relying on a 3rd party to update a hosts file potentially opening you up to MITM attacks" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

    How can my program do it?

    Only things it puts in as non-blocking IP addy to hostnames is ones users give it as their favs to speed up @ the TOP of hosts REVERSE DNS VERIFIED!

    (For more speed, & reliability + security - in RAM as 1st resolver queried = faster & more secure vs. remote DNS w/ all its security issues in Kaminsky flaw, DNSChanger malware IP stack settings, routers bushwhacked in DNS settings, rogue DNS, Open DNS servers abused by malware. It aids in reliability vs. redirects).

    YOU'D SPOT IT INSTANTLY AS THEY ARE @ TOP OF CUSTOM HOSTS & can easily edit anything you want out of it!

    (Rest = known bad sites from 10 reputable security community sites for blocking - the MAJORITY of what's in my hosts files!)

    ---

    "maybe one day you can get a score 5 comment" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

    See subject & ~ 12 +5 upmods making you "eat your words" vs. me (1st one: You tried using what I post there against me to FAIL):

    +5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly" (11):

    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
    http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
    http://science.slashdot.org/co...
    http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
    http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
    http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
    http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    "You believe you are getting the better of me" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 17, 2015

    YOU GOT THE BEST OF YOURSELF in tech fails & lies about me. Your immature signatures about me SCREAM you're butthurt - You did it to yourself.

    APK

    P.S.=> Con't. in #5/5... apk

  27. Coren22's "greatest hits" fails #5/5... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "defame me saying things he knows aren't true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

    Hypocrite You're projecting & your signatures do the rest.

    "the feeling of icky his software - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

    I show /.'ers say differently by quoted testimonials - Show us you've done better: YOU can't!

    "maybe someone will think they are true - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

    Quotes of you = true - & You can't keep your word + projecting what YOU do (AD/DNS lie).

    "I don't have time for the Troll APK, and refuse to respond anymore to a post signed APK" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

    I protect users speeding them up, helping reliability, & security + anonymity online w/ more ability & efficiency than ANY 1 solution doing more w/ less - do you? No.

    "I should change my signature again to rile him up more." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 03, 2015

    Childish sigs = all you've got!

    "I refuted his assertions - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 04, 2015

    &

    "You claim I have never proved you wrong...a flat out lie." - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

    &

    "I proved you wrong on numerous occasions" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2015

    Where & on what tech? "Cat got your tongue"??

    "written in shitty Delphi, "How to secure Windows" docs I could have written in my sleep when I was 20" - by Coren22 on Monday November 16, 2016

    You're 30++ & haven't done either!

    Show you've done MORE vs.a small partial list of mine & better, + earlier:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    THEN talk vs. TALKING OUT YOUR ASS!

    CIS Tool took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... which you doubted & my layered security guides got me paid http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... MILLIONS use.

    APK

    P.S.=>

    "I never admit you were right" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday November 10, 2015

    You PROVED I am... apk