Who's More Ethical: TorrentSpy Or The MPAA?

from the just-a-simple-question dept

Wired has an interview with Robert Anderson, the guy who hacked into TorrentSpy's servers and handed over a bunch of internal TorrentSpy info to the MPAA. From the interview, it's quite clear that the MPAA knew that it was getting access to content that had not been legally obtained, but it still pushed Anderson for more such info (including asking him if he could obtain similar info about The Pirate Bay). Yet, because they know how to cover themselves legally, they made Anderson sign a contract saying that all of the info he gave them had been obtained legally. But, still, it's quite clear that the MPAA has no qualms spying on people using questionable means. At the same time, however, we've noted that TorrentSpy is so aghast at the idea of spying on its own users, that it shut off US access to its site to protect its users from court-ordered spying. So, which organization comes across as more ethical here? The MPAA, who's actively trying to get confidential information from various torrent tracker sites? Or TorrentSpy, who's actively trying to protect the privacy of its users? Yet, why is it that people act as if the MPAA has the moral high ground here?

Filed Under: bittorrent, hacking, spying
Companies: mpaa, torrentspy

Comcast's Rootkit Moment

from the expected-filing-in-3...2...1... dept

With all the fuss over Comcast's decision to jam certain types of traffic without being even remotely transparent about it, people are starting the countdown to the inevitable lawsuits. This is beginning to take on some similarities to Sony's rootkit debacle, which started to spread in a similar matter. And, just like Sony responded initially by saying rootkits were okay because no one knows what they are, Comcast has said that people shouldn't worry about this because most people won't be able to detect it. In other words, just like Sony, Comcast is seriously underestimating what this is doing for the company's brand. As the link above notes, someone could make a pretty good case that Comcast's method of jamming traffic violates certain state laws forbidding impersonating others -- since, technically, that's exactly what Comcast is doing to jam the traffic. There's also the question of whether or not it becomes an FTC issue for misleading customers into believing they could do certain things with their connection that they could not. If Comcast wants to avoid a full Sony rootkit style mess, it would be good for the company to come right out and make it clear what they do and what that means for its customers.

Filed Under: bittorrent, jamming
Companies: comcast

Comcast Still Dancing Around Its Content Jamming Operations; What's Wrong With Admitting It?

from the shhhh,-it's-a-secret-that-everyone-knows dept

With the news coming out that Comcast's broadband jamming operations actually interfere with other apps as well, Comcast is now trying to respond to the complaints in every way other than telling people what it is that they're doing, which at this point really does appear to be the only sensible response. Comcast went to Reuters (since it was AP who confirmed the original story) and repeated the carefully worded claim that Comcast is not blocking any kind of traffic. Of course, people aren't saying that it's completely blocking any traffic -- just that it's quietly pulling some background tricks to slow down certain types of traffic without letting its customers know. That's the key part, and it's the same complaint that people have had for years with Comcast concerning its fuzzy bandwidth caps. The company advertises unlimited service, but if it's not unlimited, why not come out and explain what the limitations are? It seems only fair.

Perhaps an answer comes from Tim Lee, who was invited to a conference call today with Comcast to help "clear up" the misperceptions Comcast feels are being spread in the media about its actions. The only problem is that Comcast doesn't clear up anything. It basically admits to the traffic shaping but says it can't tell people that it's doing that, as it could help them get around the shaping. Well, sorry, too late for that. Besides, what's wrong with simply telling people what the limitations are and then going after the violators for terms of service breaches? In being so secretive and misleading about it, all it's doing is causing many more people to get upset with Comcast and think that they're being targeted (even if they're not). It's a ridiculous PR situation for Comcast to be in -- and it could be solved easily enough if Comcast stopped beating around the bush, stopped giving gobbledy-gook doublespeak responses that don't actually answer the questions people are asking and simply told people what they're doing and why. It really is that simple. If the company has a legitimate reason for doing what it's doing (and some people say there is) then why not explain that?

Filed Under: bittorrent, cable, network neutrality, traffic shaping, transparency
Companies: comcast

What Else Is Comcast Jamming? Gnutella? Lotus Notes?

from the might-help-to-be-a-little-transparent dept

After the AP confirmed that Comcast was clearly blocking some aspects of Bittorrent, Comcast continued to issue its oddly worded denial statement about how it doesn't specifically block access to any application or content. Of course, that can mean different things to different people, and as the EFF is discovering, perhaps Comcast is being half-truthful in saying it doesn't specifically pick on BitTorrent trafffic. However, that's only because it's doing similar kinds of blocking on other types of traffic, such as content using Gnutella or even Lotus Notes. The EFF has been running a variety of tests and has found that Comcast appears to send forged reset packets for Gnutella, and it points to someone else who found the same thing for Lotus Notes.

Of course, Comcast can do what it wants on its network, but to deny it and not be even remotely transparent about it is pretty questionable (and potentially a violation of FTC rules). Once again, this is the type of thing that wouldn't happen if there were true competition in the broadband market. If people knew that Comcast was arbitrarily cutting off what they could do on their network with no indication (and, actually, actively hiding the fact that they were doing so) many people would look for alternatives. The only problem is that there often aren't any alternatives. Even in the cases where there are, the alternatives often include one other player: a telco like AT&T who seems to be gearing up to do the same thing as Comcast in blocking certain types of content online. It really is a simple question, though: why won't Comcast tell its own customers what it's blocking? When you find out that the company is blocking completely legitimate applications and services with no recourse (or even information admitting it), it's really quite troublesome.

Filed Under: bittorrent, cable, gnutella, lotus notes, network neutrality, traffic shaping, transparency
Companies: comcast, eff

Associated Press Confirms That Comcast Blocks Some BitTorrent Traffic; Despite Comcast Denials

from the someone's-not-being-totally-honest-here... dept

Back in August, there was a report that Comcast was throttling certain types of BitTorrent traffic making it difficult to impossible to seed a download. In response, Comcast vehemently denied this was happening, despite many people saying they were experiencing it. Specifically, Comcast said: "the company doesn't actively look at the applications or content that its customers download over the network. But Comcast does reserve the right to cut off service to customers who abuse the network by using too much bandwidth." The EFF went and spoke with Comcast and got the same story. However, with so many people reporting the same thing, some were wondering how truthful Comcast was. Now the Associated Press has done their own investigation (trying to transfer the Bible since it's in the public domain) and found that Comcast is clearly blocking the ability to upload completed files via BitTorrent, inserting a message to a computer trying to upload a file pretending to be from the downloading computer, telling it to stop sending. This seems to go against what Comcast originally said, though when the AP asked for a comment, Comcast subtly changed its story. Rather than saying it doesn't look at applications or content, now it says: "Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent." No, it doesn't block "access" but it does limit the functionality greatly (including perfectly legitimate uses of BitTorrent) without letting people know about it.

Filed Under: bittorrent, traffic shaping
Companies: comcast

German Court Tells Telco It Can't Advertise On BitTorrent Search Engine

from the you-can-only-advertise-on-sites-we-like dept

A German court has apparently not only decided that it doesn't like bittorrent search engines, but that it's somehow illegal to advertise on one. Specifically, the court has banned the telco Arcor from advertising on the BitTorrent tracker site BitReactor.to. This seems odd for a variety of reasons. First of all, BitTorrent tracker sites are really no different than search engines, meaning that it's a bit of a stretch to claim that they're inherently illegal. But, more importantly, why should the court have any say in where a company chooses to advertise?

Filed Under: advertising, bittorrent
Companies: arcor, bitreactor, vodafone

MPAA Would Rather TorrentSpy Spy On Users Than Stop Offering Service?

from the motivations,-huh? dept

TorrentSpy and the MPAA have been involved in a legal fight for quite some time. TorrentSpy is basically a search engine for files that are offered for download via BitTorrent. However, because the MPAA views such BitTorrent as a tool for unauthorized use, it's trying to sue the search engine, rather than go after those who are actually responsible for sharing unauthorized content. There was a slightly troublesome ruling earlier this year, where a judge ordered TorrentSpy to spy on its users -- violating TorrentSpy's own privacy policy. Rather than do so, TorrentSpy decided to block access to US users. Now, you would think this would make the MPAA happy. After all, the site they were so worried about was no longer an issue for the entire US market. Instead, the MPAA is back in court claiming that this action is merely another illegal move by the company. Apparently, the MPAA would rather have TorrentSpy keep operating, but spy on its users, than block access. That doesn't make much sense if TorrentSpy is really such a huge problem. Unless, of course, the MPAA doesn't have any real evidence that TorrentSpy is doing anything wrong -- and this is about the only way it hopes to prove its case.

Filed Under: bittorrent, log files, search engines, trackers
Companies: mpaa, torrentspy

TorrentSpy Cuts Off US Users, Rather Than Tracking Them

from the and-the-music-played-on dept

BitTorrent search engine TorrentSpy has been involved in a legal battle with the MPAA for some time now. The lawsuit took a slightly bizarre twist a few months back when a judge demanded that TorrentSpy start logging details about its users -- something the company had never done and had no plans to do. TorrentSpy claims that doing so will violate its users privacy and violate its own terms of service. Apparently, however, that hasn't convinced the judge to change the ruling -- meaning that TorrentSpy has now cut off access to visitors coming from the US as a way of protecting their privacy. Of course, it'll probably take all of about 10 minutes for most people to figure out other ways to get to TorrentSpy (or they'll just move on to another BitTorrent search engine). Congratulations to the MPAA for driving a bunch of movie fans further underground...

Filed Under: bittorrent, ip addresses, privacy
Companies: mpaa, torrentspy