Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet United States Your Rights Online

US Government Seizes Torrent Search Engine Domain 305

Posted by Soulskill
from the war-on-torrents dept.
Voulnet writes with this excerpt from TorrentFreak: "This morning, visitors to the Torrent-Finder.com site are greeted with an ominous graphic which indicates that ICE has seized the site's domain. 'My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!' the exasperated owner of Torrent-Finder told TorrentFreak this morning. 'I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy, I noticed the DNS had changed. GoDaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN,' he explained. Aside from the fact that domains are being seized seemingly at will, there is a very serious problem with the action against Torrent-Finder. Not only does the site not host or even link to any torrents whatsoever, it actually only returns searches through embedded iframes which display other sites that are not under the control of the Torrent-Finder owner."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Government Seizes Torrent Search Engine Domain

Comments Filter:
  • Hoax (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:37AM (#34350672)

    This is a hoax. Whois the IP's involved.

    • Re:Hoax (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Svippy (876087) on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:27PM (#34351080) Homepage

      This is a hoax. Whois the IP's involved.

      I did. And torrent-finder.info resolves to 208.101.51.56, while torrent-finder.com resolves to 74.81.170.110.

      On first inspection, those two IPs seems to be very distant from one another IP-block-wise, but you never know with the internet, so both got a whois, and apparently 208.101.51.56 is owned by Softlayer (as a poster prior to me mentions), while 74.81.170.110 is owned by Caroline Internet, Ltd.

      So maybe the guy changed the IP for his .com-address and bought hosting somewhere else? I don't know what this Caroline Internet, Ltd. But if he did buy a virtual machine at a datacentre, then I will say 'will played, good sir!' That is a lot of a bucks spend to fake a site takeover.

      • Re:Hoax (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mauriceh (3721) <maurice@3.14harddata.com minus pi> on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:39PM (#34351148) Homepage

        CarolinA Internet - Lets get that name straight first.
        They are in Charlotte, NORTH Carolina - Lets get the location right as well.

        They are well know for hosting porn and other dodgy sites.

        AND they are crooks. A lot of their equipment has been fraudulently obtained.

        https://www.caro.net/about [caro.net]

        There, just setting the facts straight.

        • by Svippy (876087)

          Thank you. The unintional misspelling of their name probably let to the wrong results online. Though, I did find caro.net, which seems to be a datacentre.

          My point remains regarding whether it is a hoax. I doubt the owner of torrent-finder purchased a machine at a datacentre to successfully carry out the hoax.

          So even if they are crooks, and does host porn and other dodgy sites. The conclusion should be that either the government is lending servers for their ceases from crooks (which would not seem unreas

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I believe this can indeed be a hoax, the DNS configuration for torrent-finder.com is kind of odd or is at least not fully propagated yet, I am able to have three different sets of nameservers show.

      Under a WHOIS, you'll see these two:
      Name Server: NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM (74.81.170.109 - IP owned by CaroNet Managed Hosting)
      Name Server: NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM (74.81.170.108 - IP owned by CaroNet Managed Hosting)
      &
      Name Server: NS51.DOMAINCONTROL.

      • by unixan (800014)

        The DNS is slowly rolling over. For example:

        - Each of the GTLD servers ([a-m].gtld-servers.net) are delegating to ns[12].seizedservers.com

        - Comcast's national opt-out DNS (75.75.75.75) has changed the delegation.

        - OpenDNS.com's free filtering DNS (208.67.222.123) still delegates to ns5[12].domaincontrol.com, for about the next 3200 seconds (53 minutes) when its cache of the NS records expires.

    • Domain Name: TORRENT-FINDER.COM
      Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
      Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com/ [godaddy.com]
      Name Server: NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM
      Name Server: NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM
      Status: clientDeleteProhibited
      Status: clientRenewProhibited
      Status: clientTransferProhibited

  • by Tovias (798585) on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:39AM (#34350696) Homepage
    How long before the government takes control of sites that hosts or links to information that the government just doesn't like or deems "unpatriotic"? What kind of oversight is involved before the government can just take down a site? I'm not pro-piracy or advocating it in any way, but I'm definitely all for due process.
    • by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:50AM (#34350788) Journal

      What kind of oversight is involved before the government can just take down a site?

      Thats the thing - apparently there isn't any! The site owner didn't know what was going on, and even his web host had to do some investigating to figure it out. If neither of them were adequately informed about whats going on - that suggests some serious inbalance in power. People worried about an Internet Kill Switch? This demonstrates they already effectively have access to such a mechanism.

      And given that the site doesn't hosts the files themselves, only links to other sites - NONE of this should have happened. This is no different then me going "Hit Movie Torrent" in Google and clicking on a link that takes me to the sites with Torrents. Why hasn't Google been taken offline? In fact I'm sure most people who want to get into Torrenting go use Google to find the Bittorrent application. Then they use Google to find a torrent site.

      It's injustice, they aren't blindly applying law as it should be - they're picking and choosing who they want. And the laws they've posted on the Torrent-finder aren't even relevant! Wilful Copyright infringement: Torrent finder isn't infringing on the copyrights. They are not hosting or distributing them either. Trafficking counterfeit goods - not only is a direct copy of the data not counterfeit but again, they aren't the ones trafficking the data.

      • Why hasn't Google been taken offline?

        Because they pay taxes in the USA. :P

      • by bhagwad (1426855) on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:06PM (#34350896) Homepage
        Isn't due process a constitutionally guaranteed right in the US?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          It should be. If I were the site owner, I would start a giant lawsuit in the multi-millions for damages caused. Not only for lost traffic (thus lost revenue) but also damages to their reputation.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by camperdave (969942)
          So? Due process does not involve informing the criminals* that you are shutting them down. Due process means getting court approval. Just because neither the website owner nor hosting service were informed does not mean that due process was not followed. Lack of communication does not imply lack of due process.

          I am not saying that hosting a torrent site, or even linking to a torrent site is criminal.
          • I am not saying that hosting a torrent site, or even linking to a torrent site is criminal.

            Would you say that informing the public of what is considered criminal should be part of Due Process?

          • by bhagwad (1426855) on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:47PM (#34351222) Homepage
            Doesn't it require due process in order to label a particular act as criminal in the first place? And doesn't that involve the right to defend your act before it's labelled as criminal?
            • by Rich0 (548339) on Friday November 26, 2010 @04:47PM (#34353194) Homepage

              Based on the wording on the notice, if this was actually done by the government it was done under seizure laws.

              Seizure is a legal principle where no human being is accused of a crime. Instead, the government files a complaint against the property itself, and then finds it guilty of crime. The constitution only grants human rights to humans, so the theory is that all those constitutional protections don't apply.

              The fact that the property actually belongs to a human being isn't of great concern to the courts, apparently.

              Of course, this is nothing more than an end-run around due process. If somebody tried to do this back in the 1780s there would have been lots of tar and feathers involved.

          • by Sloppy (14984) on Friday November 26, 2010 @02:47PM (#34352046) Homepage Journal

            The notice was on display: in an unlit cellar (with no stairs leading to it), in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."

        • by Ethidium (105493) <chia_tek@yah o o . c om> on Friday November 26, 2010 @01:08PM (#34351348) Homepage Journal
          It is, and it's a fair question. Assuming that this is a real seizure and not a hoax, the due process works like this:

          0) Somebody allegedly uses property for an illegal purpose. By law, they are deemed to have transferred title to the United States Government by dint of the illegal activity (if in fact the illegal activity can be proved).

          1) The government files for a seizure warrant in US District Court. The owner of the property (here, the domain) does not get a say, nor any notice that this is happening.

          2) The government seizes the property and provides notice to the owner, if known, and any person who might have a claim on it. For example, if the property is a car with a bank lien, they must notify the owner and the bank.

          3a) The government files a complaint for forfeiture in US District Court (or in state court). This is called an "in rem" action--meaning that it's not a lawsuit against an individual, but a suit to determine title to property. The United States claims that it owns the property because of the transfer-by-law that occurred at zero, supra. Anybody who disagrees can stake their claim. The judge determines who gets the stuff.

          3b) The government doesn't file anything, and the owner sues the government for a civil rights violation by unlawful taking of property without due process. The suit proceeds as above.

          ===

          The cases determining whether due process has to occur pre-seizure or post-seizure are complicated, and beyond the scope of this author's knowledge or this post.

          For reference, I am a lawyer and have posted this explanation based on my legal study, but it should be considered scholarship (information for general knowledge) and not legal advice (information specific to an individual's problems). If you are in need of legal advice, you should consult a qualified lawyer in your jurisdiction.
          • by bhagwad (1426855)
            I'm interested in point "0" with the phrase in brackets, namely: "if in fact the illegal activity can be proved" To prove such a thing, doesn't the person who's allegedly using the property get to defend his or her actions?
          • by Culture20 (968837)

            due process works like this:

            Big Government takes whatever it says it's due. Unless you're another sovereign country, don't even try to stop the process.

        • by houghi (78078) on Friday November 26, 2010 @01:23PM (#34351488)

          Isn't due process a constitutionally guaranteed right in the US?

          This proves that time travel is possible as you have clearly arrived directly from the 1960s. A lot has changed. Perhaps you might feel as if Soviet Russia had won and taken over the USofA, but that is not the case.

          Do not be alarmed by strip searches in airports, the government spying on their own people or companies, not people, being the important ones. When you go back to the 1960s, look at all the people you will soon call 'hippies' as it is that generation that is doing this to us.

          Perhaps when you go back, you can warn everybody and save us all. Bhagwad: the future of the world lies in your hands.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jhoegl (638955)
        Actually it wasnt the "site owner", it was a DNS redirect. Or in the hacking world a "DNS poison" initiated by the government, owners and controllers of ICANN.
    • by JWSmythe (446288) <jwsmythe&jwsmythe,com> on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:12PM (#34350966) Homepage Journal

          I'd suspect it won't be very long. The Internet was generally untouchable. With flexing new found power, they will expand the use of it until the people complain too much about it.

          Consider air travel. It went from x-rays and metal detectors, to puff/sniffer rooms to detect for explosives, to full bodyscans and intrusive patdowns. When enough people started refusing to get more radiation on every flight than they get from normal medical screenings, it became a problem. And yes, I'm one of them. I refused standing in the machines, not for the sake of a political stand, but for the sake that it's not necessary. We, a people as a whole, are refusing to submit to the continued abuses, and they realize that they have to back down.

          I guess the question then becomes, what action will the people take about this? Do they passively accept that the government did this for our safety? Then the actions will continue. Soon enough, people will see that sites like this are now directed to seizedservers.com, with two IP's and the web server on the same subnet at CaroNet Managed Hosting, Inc, and the domains are now "owned" by "immexGroup IT Solutions", a government contractor. Expect the DDoS to begin, but not without retaliation by the government.

          Americans have become passivized. They may moan and groan about things that they don't like, but they won't take actions against it. Most likely, users of seized sites will just say "oh, that sucks", and move on to somewhere else, until they find that the other things they enjoy are gone also.

          Slashdot is down the list a bit, but I wouldn't be totally surprised if some folks would like to see it go away. There are the trolls, who can just (and still) be ignored. There are those who preach passive acceptance, which is in the best interest of the government overreaching their powers. And finally, there are some who say "Stand up against what you believe are injustices". If there's anything the government hates more than those who mess with corporate America, it's those who try to suppress the government's uncontrolled powers. And I am one of the later. If you don't like it, stand up against it. Don't just make a little noise. Make a lot. If you do this, you may find yourself with a good number of followers, and you yourself may find yourself participating in government. What would we do with leaders who actually believe in and protect the freedoms of the individuals?

      • by marcelC (592689) on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:33PM (#34351118) Homepage
        ImmixGroup seems to have "been awarded a contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Cyber Crimes Center (C3)" http://www.immixgroup.com/news/pr_display.cfm?ID=117 [immixgroup.com] . That would make a hoax unlikely.
        • by JWSmythe (446288)

          I wasn't suggesting that it is a hoax. Actually, being a government contractor, I fully believed that they were authorized. Running on one IP, with both nameservers on the same subnet, it appears to be just a little site, and extremely vulnerable to DDoS traffic. It appears to be a Linux box running Apache. That gives no hints on it's capabilities. Slashdot effect may cripple it (if it had been posted in the story), or it may be a well equipped, and the only thing that would slow it down

    • The only way to beat this is with money. A large scale boycott of big media would change everything, but that suggestion never gets any traction.

      It's been almost 10 years since I purchased a CD, DVD, or a ticket to the movies. I say so in conversation whenever the topic comes up. I've suggested in on /. several times but it never seems to get any traction ('it's too hard, not enough people will participate so I won't either, etc).

      Fools are always on slashdot bitching about the state of copyright law, all

  • by TheLink (130905) on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:42AM (#34350716) Journal
    Good to see the US Gov has its priorities right.

    I'm sure everyone in the US can sleep easy at night, knowing that Homeland Security is keeping a vigilant eye over torrents and other similar threats to the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
    • by gstoddart (321705) on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:48AM (#34350766) Homepage

      I'm sure everyone in the US can sleep easy at night, knowing that Homeland Security is keeping a vigilant eye over torrents and other similar threats to the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

      Have you missed the parts lately where protection of US copyrights is a matter of national security?

      Why do you think that god awful ACTRA treaty is being pushed down everyone else's throats?

      Expect this to become commonplace -- anything which can deemed to have a primary function of telling people where to download copyrighted works will be squashed quite thoroughly. I fully expect the RIAA/MPAA to allow the rest of us to use the internet under their terms now.

      • by Spad (470073)

        It *is* a matter of national security. The US and other "Western" nations have now farmed out so much of their manufacturing infrastructure to places like China that pretty much the only thing they "make" any more is Intellectual Property. Thus, protecting that property from anything that removes its revenue stream from their control - be that Torrenting, counterfeiting or the heinous crime of listening to a song twice having only paid for it once - is essential to ensure the continued survival of the econo

    • by westlake (615356)

      I'm sure everyone in the US can sleep easy at night, knowing that Homeland Security is keeping a vigilant eye over torrents and other similar threats to the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

      ICE [ice.gov] is U.S.Immigration and Customs Emforcement, the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the second largest investigative agency in the federal government.

      ICE now has more than 20,000 employees in more than 400 offices in the United States and 46 foreign countries.

      Crime

  • who's got the IP of torrent freak? let's just get together and put up a public DNS server somewhere of domains that have been blocked.
  • Alternative DNS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:47AM (#34350744)

    I believe its time to support alternative DNS resolution that is outside of the governments control and possible a network of VPN's or Onion-like routing.

  • by bkmoore (1910118) on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:48AM (#34350758)
    Unless you've been living behind Jupiter, you probably have figured out that the government is for sale to the highest bidder. You can bet that the RIAA, MPA, etc. have all made their political donations and now are cashing in. Most legislation in America is written by lobbyists anyway. But it's nice that the DHS is keeping us safe not just in the skies, but online as well.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:49AM (#34350772)

    $9 million [opensecrets.org] of campaign contributions buys you a lot I guess.

    • by bkmoore (1910118)

      For all their shouting matches, the thing both parties have in common is both offer their legislative services to the highest bidder. The voters only matter on election day if at all. Actual elections are tolerated as a necessary evil. Where I originally come from, the one thing both Republicans and Democrats actually agree on is gerrymandering themselves safe districts to prevent elections from actually deciding anything.

  • What possible basis could Immigration and Customs Enforcement have for seizing a domain name associated with bit torrent? I can see a dozen ways the USG could reasonably go after a bit torrent tracker, but this one just doesn't make sense.

    • by Rockoon (1252108)
      Wait till someone tells them that you can find Torrents with Google.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bkmoore (1910118)
        They won't block google because google has made political donations and has some lawyers, probably not as many as Oracle, but enough.
    • by gstoddart (321705)

      What possible basis could Immigration and Customs Enforcement have for seizing a domain name associated with bit torrent?

      Customs is responsible for enforcing bringing illegal goods into the US as I recall. A torrent of a movie with a US copyright has now been categorized as this -- at least, that's my guess.

      In short, the US government is now an enforcement arm of the RIAA/MPAA cartels, and they're forcing treaties on almost everybody else to make sure that this can now happen worldwide. Basically, the int

      • It has been for some time - they are just getting better at working with different multi-national corporations for mutual benefit at the expense of the users.
  • Durr hurr (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    > "Not only does the site not host or even link to any torrents whatsoever, it actually only returns searches through embedded iframes which display other sites that are not under the control of the Torrent-Finder owner."

    When is the nerd class collectively going to get over its spergtastic fantasy that the technical letter of the law is far more important than its intent? (For that matter, how is an iframe not a link, or even opening an iframe showing one not 'providing' it?) This kind of blatant attempt

    • Re:Durr hurr (Score:4, Insightful)

      by phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:04PM (#34350874) Homepage
      In your analogy, it would be like saying:

      "I didn't kill him your honor: all I did was point out who did."

      posting a link to other content is not in any way analogous to killing someone. hell, in this case it helped the copyright police FIND the infringers.

      to me, this is like taking a Private Investigator to court for "not reporting a crime before it had sufficient evidence to even know what was going on was a crime."
  • by Low Ranked Craig (1327799) on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:53AM (#34350810)

    Also note that they are also collecting IP address information of people who visit the site...

    try { var piwikTracker = Piwik.getTracker(pkBaseURL + "piwik.php", 1); piwikTracker.trackPageView(); piwikTracker.enableLinkTracking(); } catch( err ) {}

    They also have google analytics turned on - UA-19806388-1

    • well, good thing I always connect to sketchy sites via a set of proxies with a sandbox virtual machine! :P
    • by nurb432 (527695)

      Well of cousre they are, as only criminals would go there. I wonder if that will be considered 'intent to defraud' and be enough for a search warrant of your home?

      Also, why is ICE involved? I would not think that would be the appropriate agency?

    • by FooAtWFU (699187) on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:17PM (#34351004) Homepage
      I have some bad news for you. You don't actually need JavaScript trackers to collect IP addresses of visitors to your website. It happens automatically, really.
      • by Spad (470073)

        Your computer is currently broadcasting an IP address! With this address, someone can immediately begin hacking your system!

    • by duguk (589689)

      Also note that they are also collecting IP address information of people who visit the site...

      try { var piwikTracker = Piwik.getTracker(pkBaseURL + "piwik.php", 1); piwikTracker.trackPageView(); piwikTracker.enableLinkTracking(); } catch( err ) {}

      They also have google analytics turned on - UA-19806388-1

      Oddly, they're detecting HTTPs and using "https://74.81.170.107/piwik/" - which doesn't have a valid security certificate. Course that doesn't mean much, but it's an idiotic mistake.

      Not that they need JS to store IPs anyway.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    If only we had a powerful idealogical liberal/progressive government in control, we could halt this wave of warrentless searches and seisures....

    O wait... meet the new boss... I forgot.

    • by windcask (1795642) on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:12PM (#34350960) Homepage Journal

      Wake up, man. The rights of the individual are not a partisan issue. Progressives will stand behind you if you want to shit on the Bible or burn the flag, sure, but they'll be the first to sign a bill to keep you from smoking or eating French Fries.

      So how does this relate? Neither side really cares about individual rights except when it relates to their talking points or agenda, so don't expect either to be free of the influence of the entertainment industry.

  • Expect all domain name providers to move there REAL soon.
  • by 3seas (184403) on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:59AM (#34350842) Journal

    just put "legal" in the name.
    try legal torrents in google..

  • You know... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by windcask (1795642) on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:04PM (#34350876) Homepage Journal

    Usually, I try to find the opposite side of the story and see things from the perspective of the people who are making and enforcing these laws to protect our country and our people's interests.

    I got nothing. This is unadulterated bullshit. This basically says that the interests of the music and movie industries are put up on such a high pedestal in this country that they can and will circumvent due process when it suits them.

  • by Vinegar Joe (998110) on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:05PM (#34350882)

    I can't wait for Obama to be inaugurated!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...then it's rather clear that the U.S. gov't is taking advantage of ICANN's incestuous relationship with their benefactor, the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

    Now's the time to seriously start looking at alternative DNS frameworks [opennicproject.org] that aren't whored out to ICANN.

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:18PM (#34351008) Homepage Journal

    Sigh.

    Freedom -1. Government +10.

    • by thijsh (910751)
      Freedom -1, People -1, Government -1, Corporations +10, Rich +$$$

      How many people still have faith in the government? They are also losing because of this kind of shenanigans...
  • EXIF Info (Score:4, Informative)

    by bruns (75399) <bruns AT 2mbit DOT com> on Friday November 26, 2010 @12:43PM (#34351192) Homepage

    Out of curiosity, has anyone bothered to look at the EXIF information in the big image that was posted?

    Camera Software: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
    Image Created: 2010:11:18 09:37:21

    Xmp m m history:
    <rdf:Seq><rdf:li stEvt:action="created" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:03801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T14:46:01-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:04801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T14:46:51-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:05801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T14:51:37-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:06801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T14:57:21-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:07801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:05:28-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:08801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:08:05-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:09801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:13:59-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:0A801174072068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:22:36-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:468E45EF0D2068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:31:41-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:478E45EF0D2068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:32:55-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:488E45EF0D2068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:34:46-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:498E45EF0D2068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:35:11-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:4A8E45EF0D2068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:37:47-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:4B8E45EF0D2068119109B97207163AEB" stEvt:when="2010-11-10T15:41:21-05:00" stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh" stEvt:changed="/"></rdf:li><rdf:li stEvt:action="saved" stEvt:instanceID

    • by bruns (75399)

      Also, if you check the HTML code, you'll see references to 74.81.170.107, specifically https://74.81.170.107/xxxxxx [74.81.170.107]. Take a peek at the security certificate it hands out (expired in 2006).

      It seems to try and use piwik AND google analytics to track visits. It just seems _really_ shoddy and i'm leaning more towards this as a publicity stunt perhaps.

      I wouldn't trust GoDaddy either - they will lie to save their own asses and bottom line.

    • Re:EXIF Info (Score:5, Insightful)

      by metrometro (1092237) on Friday November 26, 2010 @01:47PM (#34351660)

      Not a lot of Macs at the federal government. And none of them running the latest version of Photoshop. A torrent search engine, on the other hand, may somehow have access to the latest software.

  • by wygit (696674) on Friday November 26, 2010 @01:03PM (#34351314)

    Back in September, I used the EFF's Action Center to send a letter to my senators expressing my concerns about COICA and and how much I was against it, (OK, I know it's a futile gesture, but it's something...)
    and, about a month later I got this in reply.

    "
    Thank you for writing to express your support for the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act." I appreciate knowing of your support for this legislation.

    America's copyright system is one of our most important economic engines, and giving artists and inventors the incentive to produce cutting edge works is vital to our country. The protection of intellectual property is particularly important to California, which is home to thriving film, music, and high-technology industries. I have worked in the Senate to curtail the theft of copyrighted works, and I believe copyright owners should be able to prevent their works from being illegally duplicated.

    On September 20, 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (S. 3804). You may be pleased to know that I am an original cosponsor of this bill. This legislation would help address the growing problem of online piracy and copyright infringement by allowing the U.S. Department of Justice to shut down websites selling pirated materials. The bill is currently awaiting action in the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member.

    Throughout my career, I have consistently supported strong intellectual property protection. I was an original cosponsor of the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 13, 2008. This bill strengthened existing civil and criminal intellectual property laws, increased the resources available to federal and local law enforcement agencies to combat the theft of intellectual property, and created the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC). The IPEC serves in the Executive Office of the President and chairs an inter-agency committee to produce and implement a joint strategic plan to enforce intellectual property laws.

    Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact my staff in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841.
    "

    So I guess, according to her, I'm one of the majority of Americans who support the bill...

    • by Kazymyr (190114)

      Apparently reading comprehension isn't a prerequisite for holding a senator's office.

  • by Gryle (933382)
    Can someone explain to me why Immigration and Customs Enforcement has jurisdiction here? I thought counterfeit goods and online pirating fell into FBI jurisdiction.
  • It is rather like being cheap. There is no limit to how cheap a man can get. Once the mind is on the wrong path that path can lead to infinity. So we have all of these nonsense copyright laws and traditions that have become a plague. Now our government can apply all kinds of tactics while claiming nonsense causes. For example how easy is it to call downloading files economic terrorism? And seizing a business or an org. simply becomes seizing a criminal enterprise.

  • Morons. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by unity100 (970058) on Friday November 26, 2010 @02:58PM (#34352162) Homepage Journal
    well done. what have you done ? NOTHING.

    it wont take half a day until the backups of those sites are restored in european, russian or chinese domains, in those countries' hosting outlets, and tracking just like how they did before.

    you morons not only cost u.s. the control of internet, and made ICANN come out like a lapdog of american government, instead of an INTERNATIONAL corporation you were pretending it to be, but also cost innumerable small and medium size web hosting and datacenter businesses their customers.

    not to mention the effect when that sector shrinks it will affect a lot of jobs, ranging from network administration, to tech support, web development to web design.

    morons.

God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean. -- Albert Einstein

Working...