Archive for 2012/08/11

Two individuals who worked with former TVShack admin Richard O’Dwyer on his now-defunct streaming links site helped ICE Homeland Security Investigations to identify him. The dealings of the unnamed individuals, one who did technical work on the site and the other who acted as a moderator, are listed in U.S. court documents obtained by TorrentFreak.

Perhaps unsurprisingly considering the developments in the SurfTheChannel case, two people O’Dwyer appears to have trusted were working with ICE Homeland Security Investigations in the United States prior to the British student’s arrest.

Much more:
http://torrentfreak.com/tvshack-staff-in-u-s-worked-with-feds-to-nail-richard-odwyer-120811/

This isn’t new information (other references from 2008 here and here), but I thought I’d point it out again since people continue to claim that “hacker doesn’t mean criminal — use cracker instead”. There is no justification for that claim. Yes, “computer hacker” has always had the non-pejorative meaning “enthusiastic nerd”, but it’s also always been used to connote something nefarious; it’s never been true that the prejorative sense is “wrong”.

More:
http://erratasec.blogspot.nl/2012/08/no-hacker-really-does-mean-hacker.html

http://www.zdnet.com/panel-netflix-stubhub-ibm-execs-discuss-value-of-big-data-7000002470/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/10/bradley-manning-military-code-lawyer

http://www.infowars.com/boy-whose-hot-dog-cart-was-shut-down-by-the-city-of-holland-now-homeless/

http://www.infowars.com/stratfor-emails-reveal-secret-widespread-trapwire-surveillance-system/

http://www.infowars.com/department-of-homeland-security-goes-wild-dhs-chief-favored-lesbo-pal/

http://www.infowars.com/doj-a-bullet-goldman-sachs-escapes-lawsuit-in-fraud-inquiry/

http://www.infowars.com/judge-oks-jpmorgan-100-million-credit-card-settlement/

http://gizmodo.com/5933718/this-see+through-microchip-can-mimic-an-actual-human-organ

Google is implementing a new policy that will smack down search results from sites that get a lot of DMCA requests. That must affect Google’s own YouTube, which must get slammed with them all the time, right? Not exactly.

Search Engine Land provides an in-depth explanation of exactly what is going on, but it comes down to one major detail: YouTube video takedowns aren’t necessarily DMCA takedowns. In fact, that usually aren’t. You see, YouTube has this “nice” feature called Content ID which allows rightsholders to automatically police YouTube content, complain about possible infringement, and have videos taken down. None of this, however, involves the DMCA. This is just handy YouTube functionality.

More:
http://gizmodo.com/5933915/googles-giving-youtube-a-pass-with-its-new-piracy-provisions

http://gizmodo.com/5933870/the-fbi-thought-kim-dotcom-had-a-doomsday-device-that-could-wipe-away-all-evidence-of-piracy

Proactive and preventative litigation

Now, with the ISPs as named defendants, the ISPs will be strongly motivated to win the case and ensure that no one tries this tactic again

More:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/porn-copyright-troll-sues-att-and-comcast-says-they-side-with-pirates/

Because online piracy is free speech…and sending e-mails (anti-spam), malware (anti-virus/anti-spyware/anti-malware), creating and controlling botnets (blocking IP addresses, cleaning end-user’s PCs) and conducting phishing activities (anti-phishing) is not?

Because Google’s fight against online piracy may create false positives…and anti-spam measures, anti-virus/anti-spyware/anti-malware measures, blocking a botnet’s IP addresses & cleaning or disconnecting infected end-user’s PCs and the implementation of anti-phishing measures do not?

If takedown requests are nothing more than accusations of copyright infringement, and the EFF considers it a problem that no court or other umpire confirms that the accusations are valid, then how about automated spam/phishing/malware removal tools? Or automated walled gardens for that matter?

EFF’s response to anti-piracy measures announced by Google:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/googles-opaque-new-policy-lets-rightsholders-dictate-search-results

Previously:

Historic Moment. Google To Support Fight Against Online Piracy And Is Even Willing To Change Its Search Algorithm

http://vrritti.com/2012/08/11/historic-moment-google-to-support-fight-against-online-piracy-and-is-even-willing-to-change-its-search-algorithm/

 

The measure proposed below should also affect a pirate site’s advertising revenue or ‘online brand value’

An update to our search algorithms

8/10/12 | 10:30:00 AM

We aim to provide a great experience for our users and have developed over 200 signals to ensure our search algorithms deliver the best possible results. Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site. Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results. This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it’s a song previewed on NPR’s music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed from Spotify.

Since we re-booted our copyright removals over two years ago, we’ve been given much more data by copyright owners about infringing content online. In fact, we’re now receiving and processing more copyright removal notices every day than we did in all of 2009—more than 4.3 million URLs in the last 30 days alone. We will now be using this data as a signal in our search rankings.

Only copyright holders know if something is authorized, and only courts can decide if a copyright has been infringed; Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate copyright law. So while this new signal will influence the ranking of some search results, we won’t be removing any pages from search results unless we receive a valid copyright removal notice from the rights owner. And we’ll continue to provide “counter-notice” tools so that those who believe their content has been wrongly removed can get it reinstated. We’ll also continue to betransparent about copyright removals.

Posted by Amit Singhal, SVP, Engineering

http://insidesearch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/an-update-to-our-search-algorithms.html