Slashdot Mirror


How Apple and Facebook Helped To Take Down KickassTorrents (pcworld.com)

Reader itwbennett writes (edited): Artem Vaulin, the alleged owner of the torrent directory service KickassTorrents, was arrested in Poland earlier this week, charged with copyright infringement and money laundering. As we dig deeper as to what exactly happened, it turns out Apple and Facebook were among the companies that handed over data to the U.S. in its investigation. Department of Homeland Security investigators traced IP addresses associated with KickassTorrents domains to a Canadian ISP, which turned over server data, including emails. At some point, investigators noticed that Vaulin had an Apple email account that was used to make iTunes purchases from two IP addresses -- both of which also accessed a Facebook account promoting KickassTorrents.if you're wondering where exactly iTunes came into play, here's a further explanation. It all started in November 2015, when an undercover IRS Special Agent reached out to a KickassTorrents representative about hosting an advertisement on the site. An agreement was made and the ad, which purportedly advertised a program to study in the United States, was to be placed on individual torrent listings for $300 per day. When it finally went live on March 14th 2016, a link appeared underneath the torrent download buttons for five days. Sure it was a short campaign, but it was enough to link KAT to a Latvian bank account, one that received $31 million in deposits -- mainly from advertising payments -- between August 2015 and March 2016. Upon further investigation of the email accounts, and corresponding reverse lookups, it was found that the account holder had made a purchase on iTunes.

105 comments

  1. If this is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vaulin is a retard. That is all. There were so many ways to make this impossible to happen, it defies belief that he would be this dumb.

    1. Re: If this is true... by fliptw · · Score: 2

      Remember Al Capone got done in by not paying his taxes.

    2. Re:If this is true... by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      yeah, all he had to do was make the site free to use with no advertising and not make any money off it

    3. Re:If this is true... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should read copyright law?
      Money has absolutely nothing to do wether there is an infringement or not.
      Otherwise everyone had allhis books, videos and music as a free download on his web page. Facepalm.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:If this is true... by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should read copyright law?
      Money has absolutely nothing to do wether there is an infringement or not.

      I think you missed the poster's point. The guy was tracked and found by the ads.

    5. Re:If this is true... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More seriously, he made a large number of enormous mistakes, here are the biggest:

      1. Looks like his real name was on the goddamn hosting for KAT. Perfect job for an anonymous shell company held by a Russian lawyer, but instead he left a business card on a neat little stand at the crime scene.

      2. Not separating his real name completely from his identity as KAT admin OR his casual pseudonym. He should've created a completely new identity for the KAT admin that doesn't touch any others with a 30-foot pole.

      3. Apparently he thought Canada was a good place to host the servers safe from the reach of US lawmen. Such a US-unfriendly place this is, that he felt confident storing incriminating info on the server for some reason.

      4. Insufficient money laundering. He even could've accepted ad payments in Bitcoin. Really, he put less effort into laundering criminal proceeds than your average 1%er puts into not paying taxes.

      5. Being on Facebook never helps.

      In short, he was running this operation almost completely in the open, relying only on the assumption that he couldn't be extradited and the obfuscation of naming the company Cryptoneat instead of KickassTorrents Inc. to keep his ass out of prison. Ross "You'll take payment in Bitcoin without a second thought, Mr. Mob Boss? Seems Legit." Ulbricht looks like a genius in comparison.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re: If this is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? What was he supposed to do, declare his illegal income on his tax returns?

      Yes, I know there actually is a spot for that on the forms, but you don't use that if Uncle Sam doesn't know about it. Otherwise you are giving them evidence to use against you.

      But IANAA, so maybe I'm wrong.

    7. Re: If this is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Multiple accounts with new advertisers going into a new account each quarter that he doesn't touch the funds of for 2 years. At the end of the two years they get folded into one of his primary accounts, of which he'd want at least 3. Any legit pocket money purchases like fucking iTunes come out of a sub-$5000 account.

    8. Re:If this is true... by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Insufficient money laundering. He even could've accepted ad payments in Bitcoin. Really, he put less effort into laundering criminal proceeds than your average 1%er puts into not paying taxes.

      He was a complete nerd and had to look up "money laundering" in a dictionary.

    9. Re: If this is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck does that have to do with Al Capone's tax evasion? I legitimately wanted to know if there was any way for Mr Capone to have not been put away for tax evasion, that did not immediately give the feds all the info they needed to put him away for another reason.

    10. Re: If this is true... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I legitimately wanted to know if there was any way for Mr Capone to have not been put away for tax evasion, that did not immediately give the feds all the info they needed to put him away for another reason.

      Of course. Funnel his ill-gotten gains through a bunch of legitimate businesses, i.e. money laundering.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:If this is true... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      But that was not the point he wanted to make.

      He basically claimed if the guy had run his torrents add free and made no money it would not be a copyright infringement. At least that is how I understood it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:If this is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Similar to Dread Pirate Roberts of Silk Road fame. Really, if you decide you are going to do something criminal in a big way get away with it you have to really, really be serious about protecting yourself. . Oh, and once you get a certain amount of illicit gains...take your winnings, and leave the business and never go back, never talk about it. And F-ck yeah, never, ever, ever, use FB or iTunes or any of that crap.

    13. Re: If this is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He could have bought out the IRS. He didn't do it because he didn't realize it was necessary. He had people pretty much everywhere else. Of course he didn't buy every single individual, a few in key positions are enough to make sure investigations get nowhere.

    14. Re: If this is true... by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      Multiple accounts with new advertisers going into a new account each quarter that he doesn't touch the funds of for 2 years. At the end of the two years they get folded into one of his primary accounts, of which he'd want at least 3. Any legit pocket money purchases like fucking iTunes come out of a sub-$5000 account.

      Does that period of time, 2 years, have any basis? Or is it just a period you think would be long enough to let the money cool off?

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    15. Re:If this is true... by Nehmo · · Score: 2

      He was a complete nerd and had to look up "money laundering" in a dictionary.

      There's a coin laundry right by my house! I can't believe this goes on right in front of everybody!

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    16. Re:If this is true... by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      More seriously, he made a large number of enormous mistakes, here are the biggest:

      1. Looks like his real name was on the goddamn hosting for KAT. Perfect job for an anonymous shell company held by a Russian lawyer, but instead he left a business card on a neat little stand at the crime scene.

      2. Not separating his real name completely from his identity as KAT admin OR his casual pseudonym. He should've created a completely new identity for the KAT admin that doesn't touch any others with a 30-foot pole.

      3. Apparently he thought Canada was a good place to host the servers safe from the reach of US lawmen. Such a US-unfriendly place this is, that he felt confident storing incriminating info on the server for some reason.

      4. Insufficient money laundering. He even could've accepted ad payments in Bitcoin. Really, he put less effort into laundering criminal proceeds than your average 1%er puts into not paying taxes.

      5. Being on Facebook never helps.

      In short, he was running this operation almost completely in the open, relying only on the assumption that he couldn't be extradited and the obfuscation of naming the company Cryptoneat instead of KickassTorrents Inc. to keep his ass out of prison. Ross "You'll take payment in Bitcoin without a second thought, Mr. Mob Boss? Seems Legit." Ulbricht looks like a genius in comparison.

      So, his real sin was being ignorant. Remember that, gang. Do your crimes in such a way so that you won't be embarased on /. post arrest.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    17. Re: If this is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's not the point he was trying to make, it was the point you made up in your own head and then tried to argue.

    18. Re:If this is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably right, unless he found some guy who could act as a cut out. You know, a bit of identity fraud, some bank accounts he never knew about and hey presto, a front who catches the heat and acts like as an early warning system to boot.

    19. Re: If this is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the Canadian ISP was Netelligent. They have a DC on a fist nations reserve. There is a common (mis)belief that hosting on a reservation gives some magical data haven invulnerability and thus worth the exorbitant costs. Clearly this is not entirely true.

    20. Re: If this is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... asking for a friend.

  2. I don't know if they actually 'helped' by trawg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article doesn't seem to say it, but it looks like Apple and Facebook probably just replied to standard (presumably well-formed) requests from law enforcement to hand over information about a suspect in a criminal copyright case.

    Regardless of how you feel about criminal copyright as a thing (and if this bloke was making $31m in your months it's hard to think of him as a brave fighter for copyright reform :), if this is what happened then at least I feel ok about it. He wasn't caught in a massive dragnet that invaded the piracy of millions; it was a targeted search done lawfully with due process.

    There might be more info in the full complaint but it's a bit much reading for me so I'll make do with this somewhat inflammatory headline and my uninformed opinion!

    1. Re:I don't know if they actually 'helped' by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      There might be more info in the full complaint but it's a bit much reading for me so I'll make do with this somewhat inflammatory headline and my uninformed opinion!

      Classic Slashdot.

      And people complain about how this site has changed.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re: I don't know if they actually 'helped' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why does Apple even record the IP address of iTunes purchases. Data mining.

    3. Re: I don't know if they actually 'helped' by tbuddy · · Score: 3

      Fraud.

    4. Re:I don't know if they actually 'helped' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I very much doubt it was anywhere near $31 million. They use large figures to justify the manpower required. Just like when the police confiscate a marijuana crop. They estimate $1500 per plant, even though you might only get an ounce or two (~$150-300) or so per plant. $1500!

    5. Re:I don't know if they actually 'helped' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks more like the NSA the did more work to go after "serious criminals" like in the silk road case, and since it's illegal, they needed some parallel construction to hide it. What better way to fabricate a story, then one that aims to harm a company (in the eyes of privacy advocates) that previously inconvenienced them in the San Bernadino case?

      If you think the government are not vindictive jerks, then I encourage you to read in depth about what happened to Joe Nacchio and Qwest.

    6. Re: I don't know if they actually 'helped' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of shit crop you growing? Try 1-2 pounds at $2000-3000 per pound.

      But it's usually overstated by stating street value like it's all sold in eighths or grams or something.

    7. Re: I don't know if they actually 'helped' by Falos · · Score: 1

      Why WOULDN'T everyone record everything? Every possibly loggable metric in your service, software, app, whatever.

      Even if the data isn't useful, even if you haven't (yet) hired analytics to "leverage further growth", you scoop everything up and dump it in a box.

      I'm not here to say it's malicious or even a bad thing, I'm here to make it clear that expecting otherwise is naive at best. "It's just good business."

    8. Re: I don't know if they actually 'helped' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. That's why the NSA is recording every call made too. It doesn't matter if it's illegal.

  3. Jurisdiction by Luthair · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the servers operated outside the US, and the owner lived outside the US, how does the USA think they have jurisdiction to charge him? Are all American companies subject to laws in every other country as their websites are accessible to users in those countries?

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

      Probably, because Poland agreed to help out an FBI in need

    2. Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yep it's called extradition treaties and they've been doing it for years. Team America: World Police

    3. Re:Jurisdiction by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Informative

      it's called extradition treaties and they've been doing it for years. Team America: World Police

      Many countries have such treaties, not just the United States, and not just with the United States.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Jurisdiction by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The entire globe is subject to US law. That thing in Ireland was just a small glitch. That judge will be dispatched post haste.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "in need". The Polish people should be furious about this.

    6. Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not trying to defend this but technically in their eyes this is the way it works-

      He profited by stealing American IP by selling it to some Americans (selling it here basically means by Americans generating ad revenue for him) so they feel they have the right to charge him and since we have an extradition treaty with Poland it means they will send him over for breaking an American law.

      Same thing would happen if it wasn't digital goods but instead maybe some knock of designer hand bags, if you send a catalog of knock off bags to Americans and they procure your goods then you are guilty of breaking an American law, and if your country has an extrication treaty then off you go. How you prevent this is to not send catalogs to Americans in the first place (block American IPs).

    7. Re:Jurisdiction by Luthair · · Score: 2

      Typically with extradition you've committed crimes in that country. It seems to be one of the flaws with the agreements that the person has limited avenues for appeal within their residing country.

    8. Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let it be a lesson to you. Incorporate your business in a country without extradition, pay off the local government and only pay yourself via dividends from the company.

      It is basically how our companies seem to get around having branches in nations where we are not supposed to do business. At least I think that is how it works, since Chase and a few other banks have operated in Iran for a long time.

    9. Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every company is subject to the laws in the nations they operate in.

      You want to do business in the US? Fine, just do as the government says and you won't have any problems.
      You want to do business in China? Fine, the same applies there.

      If Facebook shares data with the US government then you can expect them to do the same with the Russian and the Chinese government. That is the cost of doing business in any nation.

      If you are lucky your government officials doesn't send important messages to each other using a multinational company.
      If you aren't so lucky then you should probably not worry so much about single individuals leaking information to other governments, because that is insignificant in comparison.

    10. Re:Jurisdiction by Megol · · Score: 1

      The servers didn't for at least a period of time. And that's all it takes.

    11. Re: Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Department of Justice has jurisdiction because for about 3 and a half years of KAT's existence, it was hosted on a server in Chicago. The DOJ is looking at it from a tax perspective: by hosting in the US and buying ads from companies in the US (see: the IRS sting operation) they owe taxes in the US on that income. They have jurisdiction over the owner due to international treaties.

    12. Re:Jurisdiction by Ramze · · Score: 1

      Mostly because it's over the internet, and the charges were for conspiracy. If any party of the conspiracy is within the jurisdiction, they can charge the whole group or any member of the group and extradite as long as there are treaties to allow it. Also, if they're facilitating a crime within the USA and/or people within the USA have access to the website, it's under Federal jurisdiction because the internet is a forum for national and international commerce. It's possible if KAT had blocked all access to North America and Hawaii, it might have avoided charges due to jurisdiction, but even then, It'd be facilitating criminal copyright infringement using a method of international commerce while harming US corporations and there's likely trade treaties with various countries to allow prosecution anyway.

      He's charged with criminal copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The first 2 have a max sentence of 5 years each, the latter has a max of 20 years. If he's lucky, he'll be allowed to plea guilty for the conspiracy to commit copyright infringement in exchange for dropping the money laundering charge, pay a huge fine and lose seized equipment and frozen bank accounts... and get a max of 5 years -- maybe as little as 1 year. That's really not bad for a 30 year old making millions a year off of a website for pirating.

      The USA has its legal tendrils everywhere -- and very few countries won't extradite. Brazil and Venezuela are among a few nice places to live that refuse to extradite citizens... though, they will prosecute their citizens under their own laws if the crime is recognized there.

    13. Re:Jurisdiction by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      No. Obama would never tell Poland how it should run its country.

      Oh shit
      "We now have a continuous presence of U.S. troops in Poland with our aviation detachment at Lask Air Base...
      I recognized that Parliament is working on legislation to take important steps, but more needs to be done.”"

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

    14. Re:Jurisdiction by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I don't know about companies, but from the other perspective Americans are in fact subject to some laws in other countries. I know that some countries have laws regarding fish and wildlife that you can actually run afoul of without ever setting foot outside the US.

      https://www.fws.gov/internatio...

      You can buy things in the US which are technically prohibited from trade or sale in other countries, and if caught here you'll face penalties based on the laws in those countries. It's very convoluted to say the least, and you can "break" these laws without any intent.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    15. Re:Jurisdiction by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Apparently this guy was not in the US, didn't use a US bank, and had a .cr domain (czech?). Sounds more like the american investigator was doing business in eastern Europe.

    16. Re:Jurisdiction by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      (1) Copyright laws are governed by treaties, extradition and otherwise.

      (2, and more importantly) He took $300 in the US. That payment was the "doing business in the US" required for extradition. That's also how those FIFA officials got picked up.

      (3) Yes, US companies are usually subject to laws in countries where they have offices or do business. See also, the EU's right to be forgotten/Google; India's net neutrality/FaceBook; The great firewall payments/Apple; Irish Tax laws/All.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    17. Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's international treaties about copyrights. Not sure about getting someone brought over from Poland to the US to face charges but countries have generally signed things that in theory make a lot of the same stuff crimes anywhere.

    18. Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he store american IP on his servers? I get that this is how the law is interpreted but sharing a torrent file or some other mechanism for others to find each other to download from is different from making the copies yourself. Willful ignorance but just say: I thought the people downloading from me were all law enforcement and P2P researchers. I didn't realize anyone was actually downloading the damn things!

    19. Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Costa Rica. Czech Republic is .cz

  4. Hiding in plain site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look through the criminal complaint it's clear that they knew it was this Vaulin guy very early on. He registered the damn site in his own name in 2009! Facebook and Apple just provided proof to link him currently to the site. He got away with it for so long likely because nobody until now really cared.

    It'd be interesting to note how much this investigation cost, and why it was initiated. It's not as if KAT is exactly new. Doesn't Homeland Security have anything better to do?

    1. Vaulin’s Involvement in KAT at Its Inception
    47. A review of historical Whois information for KAT Website 2 identified
    that it was registered on or about January 19, 2009, to Artem Vaulin with an
    address located in Kharkiv, Ukraine. The telephone number of +380 506693769
    (“Vaulin Phone Number”) and the email address admin@yabloggy.com were listed
    as contact information. The Whois records reflected that it was registered to Vaulin
    through at least on or about February 26, 2011. Vaulin was listed as registering
    KAT Website 3 on the same day as KAT Website 2, with the same contact
    information. KAT Website 3’s registration information remained registered to
    Vaulin through at least on or about September 7, 2010.

  5. iTunes purchase? by andy1307 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The guy running the torrent site is buying stuff on iTunes?

    1. Re:iTunes purchase? by wasteoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess he faithfully follows the "if you enjoy it, support the creators" mantra.

    2. Re:iTunes purchase? by pz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The guy running the torrent site is buying stuff on iTunes?

      Yes, I get the irony of that question. But a better question is why does the guy who is running a company that is seriously illegal in the eyes of interests who have deep pockets not have absolute separation between his personal and corporate activity? He used the same IP address? Really? Isn't he smarter than that? Isn't he (rightfully) paranoid about every single action in his daily life?

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    3. Re:iTunes purchase? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      do they not have prepaid itunes cards in europe?

    4. Re:iTunes purchase? by jandrese · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There have been studies that show that people who pirate also happen to buy the most music. It seems crazy, but really they are the people most interested in music so it's maybe not so surprising.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:iTunes purchase? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      He used the same IP address? Really?

      It may surprise you but a large portion of criminals or people attempting to hide activity which may be considered criminal by some are caught on technicalities, stupidities, or outright mistakes.

      It only takes one.

    6. Re:iTunes purchase? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The also have a strong desire to own, not rent, content. Or, better phrased to match the legality - have copies of, not stream, content. People who don't just have Spotify accounts.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:iTunes purchase? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, people interested in music buy more music than people not interested in music? Where can I find this groundbreaking research?

  6. The IRS ? by gosand · · Score: 1

    I went so far as to look into the IRS Criminal Investigation manual, and I will admit it was a challenge to take it all in. But I found it quite curious that the IRS were the ones who initiated this investigation. (see page 21 of https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/file/877591/download ) Not much more is said about it, but I have to question why was the IRS investigating a torrent site? Is it because someone running it may have been in the US, and may have been profiting from it? That is the only thing I can think of, but that leads to all kinds of other questions.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:The IRS ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What federal agency is just semantics of jurisdiction. It was probably a joint task force where the FBI did the sting to get the add on the page, and then as a US entity, filed a 1099 to follow the money and show a tax debt against the US. With the 1099 the IRS then has tax evasion options to prosecute with. Now you've broken US laws and bullied into extradition.

      Obviously I'm no expert and I'm being overly broad and assumptive; but lets be honest, we know that law enforcement knows how to game the system just as well as the criminals when they really want to get something done. There are too many rules from too many different agencies to properly follow every one of them.

    2. Re:The IRS ? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      I went so far as to look into the IRS Criminal Investigation manual, and I will admit it was a challenge to take it all in. But I found it quite curious that the IRS were the ones who initiated this investigation. (see page 21 of https://www.justice.gov/usao-n... ) Not much more is said about it, but I have to question why was the IRS investigating a torrent site? Is it because someone running it may have been in the US, and may have been profiting from it? That is the only thing I can think of, but that leads to all kinds of other questions.

      Apparently one of the charges against him is money laundering and that falls under the purview of the IRS. Remember, they put Al Capone away for tax evasion.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    3. Re:The IRS ? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It's a lot easier to give someone $300 in the US, and see they launder it/don't report it, than detecting any other crime.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:The IRS ? by gosand · · Score: 1

      But why was the IRS involved in catching him? Because I am pretty sure there were no charges until after this investigation.
      And Al Capone was a US Citizen, in the US.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  7. But apple will not help the FBI unlock phones by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    But apple will not help the FBI unlock phones

    1. Re:But apple will not help the FBI unlock phones by cdrudge · · Score: 0

      I would imagine the difference here is that Apple didn't have to unlock anything, decrypt anything, or write utilities to bypass existing protections to look up an email or IP addresses for a iTunes transaction.

    2. Re:But apple will not help the FBI unlock phones by ArtemaOne · · Score: 0

      We get it, you don't understand what encryption means.

    3. Re:But apple will not help the FBI unlock phones by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      Apple isn't supposed to be able to read what's on your phone. But Apple is very much supposed to be able to access information about purchases made on their store.

    4. Re:But apple will not help the FBI unlock phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems you don't get what apple was asked to do.

      - The phone is running, but locked
      - Apple can install software remotely (i.e. updates or software installed via the itunes website)
      - The FBI asked them to push something, which unlocks the phone
      - Apple refused, probably to avoid a slippery slope

      Apple owns you. Definitely. But they are protecting most people. Wait for more serious accusations and see, if they continue to do so.

    5. Re:But apple will not help the FBI unlock phones by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      They just wanted software to turn off the auto wipe and let an ext keyboard punch in codes

    6. Re:But apple will not help the FBI unlock phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They say they don't unlock them, I don't believe them at all.
      They're an American company at the mercy of the American government.
      I wouldn't even store a secret gingerbread recipe on an iPhone.

  8. Happens All The Time by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Informative

    American companies are sued all the time in other countries. For example, Brizillian authorities arrested Google's top executive in Brazil after officials said he violated the South American country's election law when he didn't take down online videos that allegedly slandered a political candidate.

    So, it's not just the United States, and indeed it happens quite often all over the world.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Happens All The Time by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Informative

      Keyword: "top executive in Brazil." They didn't go fetch Larry Page in his cozy home in the US to make him face justice in Brazil, and the US would've laughed at their face if they asked for that.

    2. Re:Happens All The Time by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But presumably the Brazilian Google exec was just that -- a Brazilian living and working in Brazil, and presumably under the jurisdiction of their justice system (no matter how non-local the video hosting was).

      What I as an American find kind of unappealing is the jurisdictional claims that US law enforcement makes against a foreign national living in a foreign country whose actions took place in a foreign country and only tangentially involved the US, like the guy happened to have a dollar bill in his pocket at the time, so therefore all US laws apply.

      I think it's serious overreach and it makes me wonder how safe I am from the reverse situation, some foreign prosecutor who decides that because I said "boo" on the Internet and it breaks some law in Fuckedupistan that they should get to prosecute me.

    3. Re:Happens All The Time by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      They didn't have to. In large multi-national companies with local presence the most effective means of punishment is on a local level. Attempting to prove that Larry Page, was directly in control would be borderline impossible so it's a waste of effort.

      The buck stops somewhere, and for most things it's rarely the top level unless there was a massive global case to answer for.

    4. Re:Happens All The Time by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

      But presumably the Brazilian Google exec was just that -- a Brazilian living and working in Brazil, and presumably under the jurisdiction of their justice system (no matter how non-local the video hosting was).

      Are you saying that I, an American citizen am not under the jurisdiction of the Brizilian justice system when in Brazil?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:Happens All The Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's even worse is that as an American, You are subject to American Laws even if you don't live in the United States (Ex-Pat) meaning they can charge you, seize your accounts, and extridite you to the States for what ever reason they decide on (Snowden) if the country assists by Extriditing you. Simply put, once an American, you're always an American Slave and can never be free until the earth dies.

    6. Re:Happens All The Time by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I think it's serious overreach and it makes me wonder how safe I am from the reverse situation, some foreign prosecutor who decides that because I said "boo" on the Internet and it breaks some law in Fuckedupistan that they should get to prosecute me.

      That's not really a realistic concern as long as the US is the big swinging dick in the room. We get everyone else to extradite to us because we have both military and economic might. We're the world's biggest arms dealers, too, so we have all kinds of leverage.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Happens All The Time by sjames · · Score: 1

      He's saying that you as an American citizen who is not in Brazil are not under the jurisdiction of Brazilian justice system.

  9. Why exactly is DoHS involved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is Department of Homeland Security involved in this? This has absolutely fuck all to do with homeland security.

    1. Re:Why exactly is DoHS involved? by clonehappy · · Score: 2

      It had fuck all to do with the IRS, either, considering this guy wasn't a US citizen. He wasn't even Polish, he was a Ukrainian living in Poland.

      As to why the US government is involved at all, if you don't know the answer to that then you just haven't been paying attention.

    2. Re:Why exactly is DoHS involved? by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      It had fuck all to do with the IRS, either, considering this guy wasn't a US citizen. He wasn't even Polish, he was a Ukrainian living in Poland.

      As to why the US government is involved at all, if you don't know the answer to that then you just haven't been paying attention.

      1. Non-US citizens can violate US tax laws.
      2. You'd really have to be "not paying attention" to know that countries routinely attempt to extradite and prosecute people for committing violations of the prosecuting country's law.

    3. Re:Why exactly is DoHS involved? by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      Give me a fucking break. He had no assets in the United States, was not operating a company in the United States, seems to have had no ties to the United States.

      And by your definition, a Mexican citizen who commits murder in Mexico should be extradited and tried under US laws? Explain that to me, please, I'll be waiting there, friendly.

    4. Re:Why exactly is DoHS involved? by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      And by your definition, a Mexican citizen who commits murder in Mexico should be extradited and tried under US laws?

      1. He's charged with infringing on the copyrights of US entities, so the victims are Americans. If you mastermind a bank robbery in NYC, but do it from Poland, you can still be charged in the US and extradited (the converse is true as well, of course).
      2. He took ad revenue from US entities, creating another link to the US, (and the grounds for the money laundering charge, I believe).
      3. He's not actually charged with violating US tax laws - I believe the IRS involvement is primarily that their investigators have a lot of experience dealing with money laundering cases.
      4. Looks like he also leased some US-located servers at one point for email service, creating a further US link.

    5. Re:Why exactly is DoHS involved? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Give me a fucking break. He had no assets in the United States, was not operating a company in the United States, seems to have had no ties to the United States.

      He was selling to people in the United States and made money from that. There's your connection.

    6. Re:Why exactly is DoHS involved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by your definition, a Mexican citizen who commits murder in Mexico should be extradited and tried under US laws?

      1. He's charged with infringing on the copyrights of US entities, so the victims are Americans. If you mastermind a bank robbery in NYC, but do it from Poland, you can still be charged in the US and extradited (the converse is true as well, of course).
      2. He took ad revenue from US entities, creating another link to the US, (and the grounds for the money laundering charge, I believe).
      3. He's not actually charged with violating US tax laws - I believe the IRS involvement is primarily that their investigators have a lot of experience dealing with money laundering cases.
      4. Looks like he also leased some US-located servers at one point for email service, creating a further US link.

      Not one American law applies outside of America unless the other country agrees that it applies. Can North Korea charge Joe Shmoe from Dallas for having an improper hair cut? US links don't matter to a non-american. Poland is just playing along for some reason.

    7. Re:Why exactly is DoHS involved? by clonehappy · · Score: 2

      So, let me get this straight:

      2. Selling ads == money laundering.
      3. He's not violating tax laws, yet the IRS is still involved.
      4. Purchasing email services from a US provider somehow makes you subject to all laws of the United States?

      You're really grasping at straws, here.

      As for 1...I agree that his service enabled users of that service to infringe on the copyrights of US entities, but are those copyrights valid in Poland or Ukraine? Do the laws of those countries spell out the punishment for copyright infringement of foreign copyrights? Why isn't he being punished under the laws of either his country of citizenship or residency, then? Masterminding a bank robbery != running a torrent tracker. In that case, there's an actual law being violated in the country where the law exists. Running a website is hardly bank robbery.

  10. More Globalist US Government Overreach by clonehappy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't think we have a Global Government? Think Again!! You can run a site that's perfectly legal in the jurisdiction in which you operate it, make money off it which is perfectly legal in the jurisdiction in which it operates, not even be a US Citizen, or even a citizen of the country you reside in, but the friendly US Government will still come kick your door down and cart you off to the inner empire to a kangaroo court where you'll be railroaded into pleading guilty to charges you have no chance of fighting against.

    I mean if the United States INTERNAL Revenue Service can investigate a Ukranian citizen living in Poland for "conspiracy" to launder money, does any nation on this planet, save Iran or North Korea, really have any sovereignty from the United States?

    1. Re:More Globalist US Government Overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think Snowden fled to Russia? Not even China was safe enough.

  11. Apple and FB didn't "Help" by jjn1056 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple and Facebook were served with warrants that required them to turn over the information. They did not. This isn't 'help', its just following the law.

    --
    Peace, or Not?
  12. Irony by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    That was my 2nd thought. Really, the guy that runs KAT has an iTunes account and thought that was a good idea? He had to know that Apple would be one of the main groups gunning for him. Kinda ballsy, or stupid.

    My first thought was what "Canadian ISP" gave up his personal information? We are supposed to have strong privacy laws in Canada, what exactly happened here? A Canadian ISP would be legally obligated if given a Canadian Warrant, not an American one. The US (RIAA/MPAA) has in the past repeatedly tried to use exactly that method along with a bunch of "John Doe" IP addresses, and it was my understanding that the ISP's told them to take a hike.

    This sounds like a potential violation of privacy law in Canada. Devil is in the details likely in that a request would have to go to Canadian law enforcement, to obtain and serve a warrant, and if they were given enough justification and evidence to do so legally (or did the ISP just give up the information voluntarily).

    1. Re:Irony by fishwallop · · Score: 1

      The ISP appears to be these guys

    2. Re:Irony by DarthVain · · Score: 4, Informative

      For those not willing to sort though the links/doc:

      Name of the Canadian ISP seems intentionally omitted, as it is repeatedly referred to only as that (Canadian ISP).

      As to the details, it is really only referred to as a "request" and doesn't really get into exactly what information was used. I suspect most of what is in the criminal compliant (up to that particular point), which is quite long and you'd probably have to be a lawyer to figure if that was adequate justification or not. Below is the quote from the 48 page document:

      On or about April 12, 2016, in response to a Mutual Legal Assistance
      Treaty request to the Central Authority of Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted
      Police received the business records and made a forensic image of the original hard
      drives associated with the KAT Canadian IP Addresses. Thereafter, those records
      and forensic images were turned over to HSI.

      Would still like to know exactly which ISP was involved regardless. Was it one of the big guys like Bell or Rogers, or one of the small independents? Privacy (or lack thereof) works both ways I suppose as one could probably do an FOI request to actually find out...

    3. Re:Irony by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Montreal eh? Somehow I find that less surprising than most answers that could have been...

      Though as an ISP they're more of a business/corporate solution than personal/individual. Probably used the guise of a company or something I guess. As far as their network goes, "BELL" is the only thing I would recognize as a personal ISP and even then it is likely their B2B type function.

      Anyway it seems a lot less exciting than if it was actually something most people might know or even use commonly as an ISP. So not much to see here, move along...

    4. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would also like to know the ISP as i may be in a position to deliver some level of punishment to the offending ISP. if you know the infrastructure layout intimately, you in essence hold a knife to their Achilles. lots of fiber crossing lots of empty space out there..

  13. Nope by ArchieBunker · · Score: 0

    The dumbass had a server located in the USA. Read the fucking article.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  14. Re:Jurisdiction (Hear o Yisrael!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > how does the USA think they have jurisdiction to charge him?

    Most of the pirated material was made in Hollywood, California, USA, by american-israeli companies. QED

    In fact movie pirates are active anti-semite, because they steal from the jewish people who run Hollywood and provide the goyim masses with entertainment. It is a matter of fact that most goyim are dull and do not have the creative talent required to run a successful entertainment empire. That is a domain of the jewry, the God's chosen nation and if you pirate Hollywood produce than you are an active anti-semite. The anti-semite must be supressed by all means, so that the Shoah can never happen again!

  15. enemies of Free Culture by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    Facebook and Apple are notorious enemies of Free Culture, and they acted accordingly. This is not surprising.

  16. What law was broken? by real+gumby · · Score: 1

    I have read the complaint and the seem to be charging him with not getting permission to link to a file and for putting ads on his site, neither of which is, as far as I know, a crime in any jurisdiction. Which might explain why he didn't try to "hide his tracks" -- why should he? Oh yes, they do say he "stole" over a billion dollars, but that's like saying High TImes sold billions of dollars worth of pot. They don't claim he actually receieved any of this mythical billion, which makes "stole" hard to understand.

    This isn't a troll: I actually don't see a crime being committed.

  17. Apple privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple only cares about your privacy if you are a terrorist. Otherwise, they will hand over all of your details to get you extradited and put in prison because your service may make apple lose money.

  18. KickAss used to follow the DMCA by zedaroca · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They used to remove content when receiving DMCA letters from supposed copyright holders, just like google.
    It seems (to me) that the reason why he was not hiding much is that he was complying with DMCA.
    This means that:
    1. the Department of Homeland Security is part of the copyright police, as is the IRS (these are new for me - used to think it was just the FBI);
    2. complying with the DMCA won't save you from trouble;
    3. they will make up charges to get you extradited and harsher punishment (money laundering???)

  19. Lesson Learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See kids, if you pay for music, you'll end up going to jail.