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.

29 of 105 comments (clear)

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

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

  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 tbuddy · · Score: 3

      Fraud.

  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 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.
    2. Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    3. 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.

    4. 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...

  4. 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 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.
    4. 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.

  5. 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 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.

  6. 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 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: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.

  8. 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
  9. 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?

  10. 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?
  11. 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 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...

  12. 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.

  13. 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 (||)
  14. 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???)