"Anonymous" File-Sharing Darknet Ruled Illegal By German Court 285
An anonymous reader writes "A court in Hamburg, Germany, has granted an injunction against a user of the anonymous and encrypted file-sharing network RetroShare. RetroShare users exchange data through encrypted transfers and the network setup ensures that the true sender of the file is always obfuscated. The court, however, has now ruled that RetroShare users who act as an exit node are liable for the encrypted traffic that's sent by others."
Exit node malware coming soon (Score:5, Insightful)
Who thinks it will take long for the hackers to create malware that sets OTHERS up as unwitting exit nodes?
Re:Exit node malware coming soon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Exit node malware coming soon (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it is. In the older times, moderation was a two-step process: First you chose the moderation, then you pressed a button to submit it. That way, when you mis-clicked (and honestly, it happens to everyone from time to time), you could correct your mistake before submitting the moderation. Now moderation goes into effect immediately when you click. No chance to fix mistakes.
Greasemonkey + Moderatrix (Score:3, Insightful)
Might want to try Greasemonkey + Moderatrix .... works for me!
Or, as the AC said, you can use NoScript to block JS.
Re: (Score:2)
It is still like this for me. I choose the mod from the drop down and then have to scroll to the bottom of the screen to click "Moderate".
Am I seeing some older version of the site? :o
Re: (Score:3)
There is also the preponderance of smartphones and tablets (despite the seemingly luddite /. groupthink that they're faddish....)
The *oops* factor on these devices is at least two-fold.
cheers,
Re: (Score:3)
Remedy probably forthcoming shortly :P (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see it happening already, someone will donate to the judge a cheap and crap computer (Raspberry Pi fits the bill perfectly) and run up a Tor exit node on it. Much hilarity ensues. :-)
It's academic anyway, because this is a ruling that will get overturned in the EU for being in conflict with basic freedom of speech. Encryption of communications is not illegal in EU.
What's more, Europeans tend to be strongly opposed to the excesses of the copyright lobby, and strongly supportive of freedom of file sharing. The politicians even listen to them on this subject, as the official political representation shows. So, that judge is out on a rather lonely limb, and a stupid limb if he'd thought about the implications for two seconds before running off to the golf club. It's unlikely to stand.
Re: (Score:3)
Doubtful. Remember, we're dealing with people who have a vested interest in declaring copyright infringement as 'theft of ideas'.
Re:Remedy probably forthcoming shortly :P (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Some child porn on the judge's computer will remove all his immunity to indictment and prosecution. Install some darknet software, program it to download all the lolita stuff it can find, he's had.
Re: (Score:3)
Fallacy: Do you really think someone who can come up with a verdict like that HAS a computer?
Re:Exit node malware coming soon (Score:5, Funny)
Someone should hack the Judge's computer and use as an exit node....
Re:Exit node malware coming soon (Score:5, Funny)
Someone should hack the Judge's computer and use as an exit node....
Probably happened about two days ago.
The Internet interprets censorship ... (Score:5, Insightful)
ARM boards are so cheap and light on power that I bet people will be installing them out of sight wherever a trickle of current won't be detected.
The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.
We expected this to happen in some 3rd world countries, not in our own, but it seems that we were wrong.
Re:The Internet interprets censorship ... (Score:5, Funny)
AC = Anonymous Canadian, eh?
Re:Exit node malware coming soon (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait - who said that you get to define "darknet"?
Seemingly, the most accepted definition of a darknet would be, "I'm actually anonymous, there are no lights shining on me, I can be who and what I want to be, and no worries about the law, or the church, or my kin, or mobs chasing me down!"
For the most part, the people on the darkwebs I have navigated don't give a damn who sees their material. Their primary concern is that an oppressive government doesn't come kicking their doors down. Their secondary concern is to avoid embarrassment for the stuff being traced back to them. MOST people want other to read, or view, their original material. Whether that material be political in nature, or religious, or even CP, the people who produce it are indeed distributing the stuff as widely as they dare.
The public can download I2P or any other darknet software, install it, and browse the material published there. The government can do the same. Darknetizens WANT their voices to be heard.
Re: (Score:2)
it's important to know whom you are sharing with, so that you are not accidentally sharing with a MAFIAA spy.
And, if you read the article, this is exactly what happened:
In this case, the defendant added the anti-piracy monitoring company as a friend, which allowed him to be “caught.”
By accepting everybody and his dog, the defendant not only put himself at risk, but also his other friends that were linked to him on RetroShare. Hopefully only he himself will be sold into slavery, and not all his friends too.
I don't understand German law but... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ridiculous. All common carriers then should be held liable for the network traffic that passes around.
Re: (Score:2)
Common carriers are government sanctioned and they have very specific meanings. The court in that case is most likely not insane but ruling on the law and past precedent.
Germany does not have free speech in some cases. That's another attack vector against it.
Re:I don't understand German law but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So the common carriers know I have an encrypted VPN running between work and my house 5 days a week. They know I have an encrypted VPN between my house and my mobile device 24/7/365 the rest of the time.
So they give the police my name, what then?
Q: "What are you doing with that encrypted VPN?"
A: "Hiding from my fantasy football league friends the fact that I'm watching Barbie.com".
Please.
There is more to TOR (Score:2)
TOR obfuscates the source and destination of traffic. Common carriers are required to allow police to have that info. Once they know what they're looking at they can force you to give them your encryption keys. There is no "we will take no for an answer" EVER with the authorities. If you're legit then you've agreed to play ball with them, it doesn't work any other way.
Re:There is more to TOR (Score:4, Informative)
But darknets aren't illegal in the US anyway. We are talking about Germany here.
Re: (Score:2)
But darknets aren't illegal in the US anyway.
Yet. Wait.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But in the U.S. the 5th amendment would protect you from having to reveal the encryption keys.
That's cute that you believe your "rights" have any meaning if US police and/or any TLAs want your encryption keys bad enough, especially if it's something like the encrypted data in question being such that it may expose/prove massive wrongdoing/corruption/treasonous acts on the government's behalf. This is especially true these days with expanded-PATRIOT act, NDAA, etc etc.
Refusal to reveal encryption keys in such cases is likely to cost one an expanding list of bodily parts...kneecaps...fingers...teeth..
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. From what I know of past precidents, it applies if you've *memorised* the keys. But if the keys are written down anywhere, or stored on any physical media, then they are simply considered physical evidence and subject to the usual search-and-seizure method. They'll just grab every piece of storage you own, right down to your cellphone and games consoles, and search them all. Even the computer monitors, just in case. Even if found innocent, you're unlikely to ever get anything back. That's just
Re: (Score:2)
Plea bargains are a perversion of justice anyway.
You're a suspect in a serious crime. You're actually innocent, but the evidence is mounting against you and there's little you can do about it or the police is just to stupid to realize that fact.
In comes your case handler (detective, interrogator, mental tormentor, whatever you wish to call it): "Mr. A: you have two options: confess and plead guilty and we'll subtract some years of that sentence or plead innocence and receive the full sentence."
You: "But I'm
Re: (Score:2)
They are (Score:2, Insightful)
if they don't provide law inforcement with the ability to tap into the traffic and identify its source and destination, and content too modulo user encryption. If you want to REGISTER your TOR network as a common carrier and be subjected to (in the US) CALEA then be my guest!
This whole thing is the UTTERLY predictable response to the whole TOR thing. When you join a conspiracy to hide what everyone is doing then don't be surprised when you're held responsible for the actions of the whole group (network). Wh
Re: (Score:3)
Just look at Wall Street! They sure learned you can't route around the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Tor was a lame attempt to route around the law, in any case. The real thing are all the various darknets that don't have exit nodes, with all content stored on them and only accessible via them. Good luck busting those.
The idiot friended a copyright attack dog (Score:2)
I read TFA and see that the person charged made the mistake to friend someone he didn't know was a copyright holder. So yes he was the exit node, he was stabbed in the back by a "friend". I don't necessarily agree with the finding but if you use retroshare and only friend people that are oh.. friends.. then you should be fine.
Remember, lower courts often are ridicoulous (Score:2)
To lazy to look it up but just a few days ago ANOTHER german court ruled that parents could NOT be held accountable for the file sharing of their children if they had a talk with the child that it shouldn't do it. The parents could NOT be expected to police their childs online activities all the time.
So... are you or are you NOT responsible for the actions of another on your system?
Lower court rulings ain't worth the paper they are written on unless you don't appeal.
Re:I don't understand German law but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand German law but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Technology shouldn't be deemed illegal because of the intents for which it was originally conceived. Or should we regulate microwave ovens like we regulate fighter jets?
Re:I don't understand German law but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. We don't regulate either. You may have some issues obtaining a fighter jet given you don't have a couple of million dollars laying around to develop and build one but (certain rich) people regularly (once every couple of years) buy an old MIG or something similar to spruce up their back yard (at least that's what I imagine they do with it).
I think there is a separate regulation on the 50mil cannons and rocketry on fighter jets for most states (or federally regulated) but that's an entirely different thing.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have the money you can get almost any piece of military hardware obviously. As for vehicles/aircraft and such all of the offensive/defensive systems need to be removed or made inoperable. Before you are allowed to take delivery of it in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Technology shouldn't be deemed illegal because of the intents for which it was originally conceived. Or should we regulate microwave ovens like we regulate fighter jets?
When the microwave ovens turn into Star Trek like food dispensers, then yes, you will see regulation because the corporations who provided food before will be suing that they can't compete.
Oh, and they won't like copies of name brands because it would be "stealing" from them.
Re:I don't understand German law but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you thinking of sending your kiddie porn to the judge or something?
There is a little difference in all the sudden receiving something, requesting that something, or creating a situation where that something is likely to happen without specifically requesting it.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about traffic just coming at you. It is about you authorizing others to use your computer and internet access to hide their true identities (being an exit node) and you being held accountable for the content they send. If everything they send from your computer is legal in your location, all is fine. If it isn't, you can be liable.
This is entirely different then spam or a virus infection which you have no control over. You would have installed the program and intentionally allowed others to use
What's next? (Score:5, Informative)
Germany declares Tor illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't be that surprising. They already have an EU directive telling all ISPs to save traffic data. Tor is a gaping hole in their ability to "investigate" people. They could do like in this case and make people responsible for things coming out of their exit node. People in Germany could still *use* tor legally in this scenario, that would require a different law.
It's strange how governments have become obsessed with gathering data. With the old tech, you can send anonymous letters, make calls from tel
Re: (Score:3)
they already did if they declared this illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt the ruling matters... (Score:2, Insightful)
...You might wonder why:
That's because an IP address is not a human being [itworld.com] when it comes to matters of law.
This is what our friendly folks in Germany will find out sooner or later. The trouble is that they'll have wasted so much time. Sad indeed.
Re:I doubt the ruling matters... (Score:5, Informative)
That's because an IP address is not a human being when it comes to matters of law.
The decisions of a US district court can't be expected to carry much weight in Germany.
On 12 May 2010, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court - BGH) granted an injunction to a music rights marketing company against the private operator of a WLAN under contributory negligence rules.
The BGH agreed that the plaintiff had no civil law entitlement to damages for breach of copyright by the defendant, either as perpetrator or participant, since it had not been proved that the defendant had shared the music himself or deliberately helped a third party to do so. There was every reason to assume that the person to whom an IP address had been allocated would be responsible for an infringement committed from that address. However, in this case, this assumption had been credibly refuted by the defendant's claim that he had been on holiday when the offence was committed. Neither had he intentionally participated in an infringement by a third party.
However, under contributory negligence rules, the BGH found the WLAN owner liable for failing to prevent a protected work from being made available to the public (Art. 19a of the Urheberrechtsgesetz - Copyright Act). By operating a WLAN that was not sufficiently secure, the defendant had wilfully and, with sufficient causality, contributed to this infringement and failed to meet his duty of due diligence in this respect. Even private individuals - if only in their own interest to protect their data - could be expected to verify whether their WLAN was sufficiently secure to prevent its misuse by third parties standing outside.
BGH Finds WLAN Operator Liable [coe.int]
[2010]
TorrentFreak, to, to its credit, posted this link as an Update to its original story.
Re: (Score:2)
That is just sad...
One of the cornerstones of the whole "free internet" thing is that since ISPs are just conduits, they can't be held responsible for what goes through their "pipes". I would think that the same would apply to individuals who have WLAN bubbles in and around their house, regardless of whether or not they had secured them. Especially, if you have a closed WLAN, however insecure it may be, gaining access to that WLAN without the owner's permission would be equivalent to breaking down the door.
Re: (Score:3)
The "Prisoner Defence", ie "I am not a number, I am a free man" is a grand idea but it's hard to avoid contributory negligence. So, if you had a car and you let anyone borrow it regardless of whether they had insurance or even a driving license then you'd be committing a crime. If you pay for an internet connection and you are equally lax about how it's used then you
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand how anyone has a problem with this.
Anyone who cares about privacy, freedom, and anonymity has a problem with this. Equating the desire for anonymity to letting random people drive your car or leaving a gun out in your yard is just ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
...You might wonder why:
That's because an IP address is not a human being [itworld.com] when it comes to matters of law.
This is what our friendly folks in Germany will find out sooner or later. The trouble is that they'll have wasted so much time. Sad indeed.
Germany is distracted with building their forces up for another go at taking over the world. please forgive them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I always thought about Tor (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not whether it is "legally" "legal." You cannot afford a lawyer that can argue that part. If the traffic came from your computer you are guilty, and that's it - this is how most judges will interpret the act. There is no way to prove otherwise - your incoming traffic is encrypted. Even if the judge understands the technology he may slap you with being an accessory to the crime.
Some mention public telecommunications services. I'm sure those services have an entirely different legal environment - starting with their corporate charter that is signed by the Secretary of their State. A peasant in his hovel does not have even a shred of paper to point at; he is not a corporation, nobody with the government had a chance to audit his intentions... not that it should be required, but as things are it is required.
Re: (Score:2)
You could try to observe the MAC address(though equally possible to spoof) if the network topology is sufficiently shallow and the routing sufficiently transparent.
Also, all traffic from an IP address doesn't necessarily come from a single computer. It just means it comes from a certain network.
Re: (Score:2)
I have four adults and one minor living in my house. We all use the same IP address, as do many of the various visitors we have who use the household WiFi.
Who committed what?
Re:That's what I always thought about Tor (Score:5, Interesting)
The person who pays for the Internet will get an offer that he cannot refuse. It's like speed cameras - nobody can be sure what specific member of the household drove that car, but the ticket is sent to the title holder.
If a crime had been committed and all N possible suspects are equally likely to be guilty, an enlightened idealist would say that the police will let them all walk. However a police professional will tell you that the police/prosecutor will select a prosecutable individual and railroad him regardless of his actions. If they picked a wrong man, chances are good that he will start talking and "the real killer" can be then arrested.
Besides, in most cases it's not rocket science to find out who did what. If the list of suspects includes your mother, who is an accountant, your grandfather who retired 30 years ago, and you (of the tender age of 18, studying computer science) many detectives will point their finger straight at you. A few hours in detention, a few colorful scenarios of whatever remains of your life, all masterfully explained to you by a seasoned professional, and you will break. They will question you for days asking the same questions, you will mix something up or lie in small details, they prove it, and that lie seals your fate. But why do I explain all that - the whole story is exactly about that, how they get "their men." Only Assange is still safe, but he can't hide forever. And if he does, it's nothing but a self-imposed prison sentence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats why you never talk to the police.
Never, ever.
Good talk on this subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
With the same advice given by a police officer ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I know it's more of an outdated ideal than an operational standard these days, but, supposedly, the defendant is not tasked with proving his/her innocence.
It's not outdated; simply the strategy has its own drawbacks. Like the taking of 5th, you can sit still and not say a word ... while the prosecutor piles up one accusation on top of another. If you do not participate in the process the prosecutor will be unopposed, and you will be convicted. If the subject is so highly technical you will need a g
Relax, it's just a Hamburg court (Score:5, Interesting)
For what it's worth, this is a copyright case and Hamburg is the preferred location for ridiculous lawsuits by rights holders due to their excessively industry friendly media rights chamber.
The BGH [wikipedia.org] overturns their verdicts with satisfying regularity and the defendant hopefully will appeal that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please, who are you kidding? German politicians and courts are so completely in the pocket of media companies and copyright holders that people don't even realize anymore what's going on because it is so entrenched. Germans have to pay GEMA, VG Wort, and other such organizations if they fart. And much of the ridiculous copyright legislation in the US is pushed by German media companies like Bertelsmann.
Re: (Score:3)
True, copyright/IP law around here is quite bad, but I wouldn't agree that the courts are in Big Media's pocket (well, except for Hamburg, obviously), the pirate party has been gaining considerable traction causing some rethinking in the bigger parties when it comes to sucking up to the content industry for IP legislation and it doesn't change that this verdict has reasonable chances of getting overturned if appealed considering the stellar track record of the OLG Hamburg when it comes to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Look a bit more into the web of media companies, foundations, and government in Germany...
Re: (Score:2)
Before someone asks... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Another court can rule completely differently, and Hamburg has some fame for ruling quite strongly in favor of big media conglomerates and contrary to the interest of the internet users. Only if the highest court in Germany, either the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal High Court) or the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) rule, it sets legal precedent.
But you have to be realistic about these things.
Hamborg, officially Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, is the second largest city in Germany, the fifteenth largest German state, and the sixth largest city in the European Union. The city is home to over 1.8 million people, while the Hamburg Metropolitan Region (including parts of the neighbouring Federal States of Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein) has more than 5 million inhabitants. Situated on the river Elbe, the port of Hamburg is the third largest port in Europe (after the Port of Rotterdam and Port of Antwerp) and tenth largest worldwide.
Hamburg [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Liability, the law, and you (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be honest: If you're doing something that someone with significantly more money than you is upset by, you will be punished. Most of what you were taught as a kid was a lie; The law isn't here to protect you, but control you. Every law advantages one group by disadvantaging another. And the idea of morality, ethics, punishment proportional to the harm, any judicial concept you care to toss out I can show numerous and significant examples where it has been thrown out because of the money issue I mention at the start of this.
Money isn't power per-se, but in this society, the value of a person is the balance in their accounts. If you're a valuable person, you get special treatment -- police will investigate crimes for you more readily, favors are easier to get, and everybody wants to be your friend. But if you don't have money, then the only real power you have is that people like you greatly outnumber people like them. But unless that potential is actualized, forget it.
Laws like this will continue to punish file sharers because file sharers are poor. You're being punished, not because what you're doing is unethical or immoral, but because you make less money than the people who say it should be illegal. Whether it's the german courts, the european courts, the american courts... it doesn't really matter. All countries are the same: With enough gold, anything is possible. And when you have enough gold, the first thing you do is punish and inflict harm on anyone who has less than you do... or else. Or else they could some day have enough gold too.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws like this will continue to punish file sharers because file sharers are poor. You're being punished, not because what you're doing is unethical or immoral, but because you make less money than the people who say it should be illegal.
Perhaps, but only in so far as it's economical to do so. One might easily imagine a scenario where these encrypted darknets, perhaps aided by those whose machines were hacked and turned unknowingly into exit nodes, remain so difficult to penetrate that the effort will only be expended as part of larger military conflict between nations and not for what amounts to a relatively minor economic matter like copyright.
Or to put it another way, if it costs too much to track down the file sharers then the effort wi
Re:Liability, the law, and you (Score:5, Insightful)
One might easily imagine a scenario where these encrypted darknets, perhaps aided by those whose machines were hacked and turned unknowingly into exit nodes, remain so difficult to penetrate that the effort will only be expended as part of larger military conflict between nations and not for what amounts to a relatively minor economic matter like copyright.
One might imagine that instead of imagining, one simply looks to history: When PGP 2.6.2 was released, it opened the possibilities of encrypted and secured data exchange between private citizens that the government could not easily crack. Citizens now had access to technology only the military had, and it proliferated rapidly. It led to the rapid expansion of the internet, secured business transactions; It made quite a few people very wealthy, and changed the entire landscape of society. Our society now relies on something that was, not even all that long ago, considered to have no practical application beyond military conflict.
And now, private citizens are building their own technologies and tools to withstand the sustained efforts of a coalition of the world's largest governments to spy on them. It's being used to help people organize politically and socially in oppressive regimes, bring medicine and information about the outside world to those who otherwise could not. It's also helping terrorists, pedophiles, and murderers. There is good, and there is bad, but encrypted "darknets" are increasingly a part of our lives, and looking at the history, it's only a matter of time before outlawing them will not only be impossible and foolhearty, but also not in the best interests of national security.
When I hear about this endless bullshit with the RIAA, copyright law, filesharing... I realize that they're helping to create a digital underground not unlike what happened during the prohibition. Thanks to them, identity thieves have convenient and covert forums to ply their trade, and a lot of that money winds up in the hands of terrorists and political extremists both foreign and domestic. Because they've targetted such a wide swath of the general population and forced them to develop effective defenses against snooping, they've made it easier for those truly damaging to our interests to hide in the noise. It speeds the development of ever-stronger crypto and secret communication channels.
Would we really need cryptography if the governments, corporations, and wealthy private interests, were not so aggressive in turning everyone into a criminal? No. Which means crypto communications would be easily spotted, and it would be easier to monitor and track the truly dangerous. It is a direct consequence of heavy-handed tactics like this that has created a significant and well-connected network of "cyber" criminals; In the beginning we had Napster. Now we have bittorrent and P2P software. You know who else has those? Bot herders. Identity thieves. Non-criminals developed the technology to protect themselves from over-zealous enforcement agents, and as a consequence hundreds of millions of computers right now are engaged in acts of terrorism, vandalism, sabotage, and theft, on a scale that is hard to even comprehend. The size of these criminal enterprises dwarfs that of the entire entertainment industry, globally.
By the time the governments of the world wake up and realize what they've done, we'll be looking at a global criminal infrastructure mated to our communication networks, with a robust distribution network thanks to the drug trade, that not even a coalition of every first world government will have a snowball's chance in hell of dismantling. All because they listened to a few people out to make a buck, and conveniently forgot the law of unintended consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Long story short, there is no digital equivalent of a letter only post cards and impenetrable safes. Apart from all the people that legitimately want to hide things from oppressive governments or illegitimately hide things from the law, was it ever reasonable to expect that people in general would continue to communicate with post cards? I mean except for the exception that the government might issue a warrant it's undoubtedly a private conversation, so I don't feel any objection to using a secure messaging
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see where they said what PGP's intended purpose was, only the effects it had on society. You make all these rude noises about unsubstantiated crap, and then the only thing you really said was refuting a claim that the GP didn't actually make.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The law isn't here to protect you, but control you.
It's neither one or the other, it's both, that's why she wears a blind fold.
Re: (Score:2)
It's neither one or the other, it's both, that's why she wears a blind fold.
Tell me, what inspires your confidence in a blind woman wielding a sword passing judgement on others? Because generally, that's the kind of thing that makes the evening news, not the basis for justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Justitia (the Roman God of Justice that the statues are modeled after) refers to the Egyptian Goddess Maat who is charged with upholding the laws of the Creator.
If 4500 year old Gods aren't good enough for you I don't have an answer.
Re:Liability, the law, and you (Score:4, Insightful)
If that's true, the law has failed. The only reason we have law is to protect those with less resources from those with more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Liability, the law, and you (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, as the realist that I am I believe the situation will only go worse.
Likewise. It seems the world learns its lessons the same way a four year old does: No matter how many times you tell them what will happen if they don't wear their hat and mittens, they will still cheerfully ignore you. It seems that only after you've frozen the little bastard half to death that they learn.
It's unfortunate that we haven't yet managed to evolve a society that learns in any other way than by bludgeoning of the clue bat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Need to know (Score:5, Informative)
Two things you need to know:
One, this particular court (and I know it well, this is my home city) is being ridiculed throughout Germany and its judgement are routinely reversed by the higher courts. It does cause trouble, but it is an outlier, not the norm.
And that is important because Germany follows the CIVIL law system, not the common law system - courts do not set precedents, other courts will interpret the law, not whatever some court elsewhere decided. And the so-called "flying court", a system where you can choose which court to sue in if you can reason why the case falls into its jurisdiction - easy for Internet-related cases to do - has been dramatically culled back this year, with more and more courts not accepting the easy arguments anymore.
So, in essence, this is one court well-known for being crazy. Still unfortunate, but not half as consequential as the summary makes you believe.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, is THAT what they call corrupt judges? Outliers?
They are not corrupt. They are crazy. Corruption implies that they do it for money, basically. But in this case, the judges simply have a very... unique interpretation of the law. The companies, of course, like that, but there is no bribery or anything involved.
Statistically speaking, "outlier" is the perfectly correct term. You have normal fluctuations in court opinions, that's a normal, positive and well-known phenomenon of the system. Some judges differ more from the norm than others. And some fall well
Not really a darknet (Score:2)
From The Wikipedia: "A darknet is a private, distributed P2P file sharing network where connections are made only between trusted peers — sometimes called "friends" (F2F)[1] — using non-standard protocols and ports."
What they're talking about in TFA is something like TOR.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, two things...
That's a pretty good definition of darknet. You are probably confusing it with its newly invented colloquial meaning. Darknets don't have exit nodes, so your parent is right. That would be an open net (at least the relevant, exposed part) regardless of how "dark" you feel about it.
Second, RetroShare is a darknet-ish thing, it doesn't function like TOR. I'm guessing the term "exit node" was misused in the article. It's not exactly a darknet, you can directly connect to your friends' friend
remember (Score:2)
The Internet started as a darknet.
That German court ... (Score:3, Funny)
then why not the comm path too? (Score:2)
They don't specialize in hiding the perpetrator, (Score:2)
New protocol ... (Score:2)
... based on random source address in UDP datagrams. The payload is still fully encrypted, and the receiving app that decodes it with its own private key can discover the context of the datagram (e.g. which network session it belongs to, and which aspect of that session it means ... like which file and offset in the file). This way the party receiving the content can't see what exit node is involved.
ISPs could block forged source addresses. It's expensive. But if they do, then maybe DDoS attacks would g
I would expect to be held responsible (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that kind of sarcasm is really useless unless you also make a token attempt to educate us all.
Re:Stop stealing you fucking faggots (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to laugh at the copyright fundamentalist viewpoint, having seen with my own eyes that outside of western Europe and north America, it is taken about as seriously as a Lada full of Clowns trying to qualify for a formula one race... In some places even the idea that you could have 60 quid to waste on a computer game to begin with! But carry on living in your bubble, it is obviously our god given duty to ensure that imaginary property remains obscenely over valued, so that we can continue to produce the Bill Gates'es and Kanye Wests we all so heavily depend upon in society. It must be fun to imagine how much richer you would be if everyone just played fair...
Re: (Score:3)
The term "stealing" refers to a felony. And yet the practice you are referencing is a civil offense. Ergo, you do not understand "stealing" or the law.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Did you just call the country that banned "hacking tools" intelligent? Really?
Re:Note to self: (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone I know uses exit nodes located on Sandy Island [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Paging Admiral Ackbar...
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with the encryption. It simply redefines who the criminal is. According to this ruling, if several people form a chain that, in the end, is involved in something unlawful, then the real criminal, the one who does the time, is not the person at the end of the chain but the last person in the chain that the police was able to track.
This is not new, though. Plenty of US crime fiction is built on the plot where the police grabs the first guy who has no alibi and declares him a criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should a German ruling necessarily be consistent with US ruling? They are different countries for a reason.