hpr_transcripts/hpr1251.txt

Episode: 1251
Title: HPR1251: TGTM Newscast for 2013-05-19 DeepGeek
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr1251/hpr1251.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-17 22:27:09

---

You are listening to TGTM News, number 97. Record for Sunday, May 19, 2013. You are listening
to the Tech Only Hacker Public Radio Edition to get the full podcast, including political,
commentary, and other controversial topics. Please visit www.toolgeektme.us.
Here are the vials statistics for this program. Your feedback matters to me. Please send
your comments to DG at deepgeek.us. The webpage for this program is at www.toolgeektme.us.
You can subscribe to me on Identica as the username DeepGeek or you could follow me on Twitter.
My username there is DGTGM, as in DeepGeek TalkGeek to me.
The United States government told the court last week that it fears the end of the mega upload
prosecution if the judge makes the quote wrong and quote decision. And these words are now being
used against it. In a new brief submitted to the Virginia District Court, mega uploads
lawyers argue that the government admits that it may not have a case. Earlier this week,
mega uploads lawyers released a white paper accusing the Obama administration of being
corrupted by Hollywood and other major corporations and detailing how the entire criminal case
against mega upload is baseless. In addition to this public attack, mega uploads legal
teams also building up pressure in court. In a new brief, they argue that the case against
the company should be thrown out since the government has more or less admitted that there
is no legal basis to keep the company in criminal limbo. The two parties have a standoff about
rule four of criminal procedure, which requires the authorities to serve a company at an address
in the United States. According to mega upload, this is impossible since the company is based
in Hong Kong. The US government disagreed and said that it could find a way to serve the
company, but this is yet to happen. What followed was a back and forth exchange with mega upload
requesting an end to the case and the US arguing against it. In an unexpected move last week,
the government stressed the importance of the pending decision by pointing out that the
wrong choice could put an end to the case. In a brief file yesterday evening, mega uploads
lawyers responded to these claims by pointing out that without a dismissal, quote, mega upload
will be indefinitely stuck in criminal limbo. This would mean that the company's rights
will continue to be violated by the current stalemate. As a result, mega upload is trapped
in a state of criminal limbo where it is subjected to daily irreparable harm from criminal
indictment and the seizure of its assets while being denied the benefits of the adversarial
process and protections. According to mega upload's legal team, the government appears
to be contradicting itself. The lawyers note that the government first argued that mega
upload can be served when Kim.com and the other defendants are extradited from New Zealand,
but that it now appears to be backing away from this stance. Quote, the government has
now changed its tune, claiming that because of delays in the extradition process, sub-quote,
it is likely that any temporary dismissal would be permanent and contrary to the interests
of justice in sub-quote and, quote, the lawyers write, quote, the government thus seems
to confirm what this court has already observed, namely, sub-quote, that the individual defendants
may never be extradited and sub-quote. And criminal proceedings may therefore never
commence. Given this reality, due process demands that the superseding indictment be dismissed,
and quote, the recent briefs from the U.S. government and mega upload show that district
court judge Liam O'Grady's decision will be a pivotal one. From EFF.org dated May 7,
2013, by Danny O'Brien and contributors Anas Kutesh and Rainy Wrightman. Syrian
Internet goes dark, leaving questions and uncertainty. Earlier today, we learned that
Internet traffic between Syria and Western online services had plummeted drastically,
indicated sick, that the country's connection to the wider Internet had been shut down. Reports
from renesis and Google confirmed that the routes into Syria had been withdrawn, implying
either a massive infrastructure cut, or a deliberate silencing of online communication.
The details of the situation in Syria are still unknown, but we are deeply concerned that
this blackout is a deliberate attempt to silence Syria's online communications and further
draw a curtain over grave events currently unfolding on the ground in Syria. There's a graph
here that you can find by going to the original article linked in the show notes. According
to Dan Hubbard of Umbrella Security Labs, quote, at around 1845 UTC, open DNS resolvers
saw a significant drop in traffic from Syria. On closer inspection, it seems Syria has
largely disappeared from the Internet, end quote. Hubbard notes that the two top level
domain servers for Syria, NS1.tld.sy and NS2.tld.s, were unreachable earlier today. Matthew
Prince at CloudFair published a video demonstrating just how the routes into and out of Syria's
Internet were withdrawn. This is not the first time Syria has suffered an Internet shutdown.
In November 2012, Syria suffered a severe Internet blackout. And as the violence in the
region has escalated, we've documented campaigns of targeted malware attacks against Syrian
activists. Syrians have been suffering an unprecedented humanitarian crisis as the uprising
against the Assad regime turned into a violent civil war encompassing the entire country.
The uprising in Syria began in March 2011 as part of the Arab Spring revolutions, with
protesters taking to the streets to demand the resignation of President Bashar Assad.
The human rights data analysis group has analyzed evidence of mass killings in the region
and found 59,648 unique identifiable records of killings between March 2011 and November
2012. Most foreign media were banned and expelled from Syria in 2011. Yet, during this time,
the Internet has largely remained available. While heavily censored, monitored, and compromised,
the Internet has served as an important window connecting the world at large to Syria,
and one way that international observers could connect with individuals on the ground in that country.
A number of activists on the ground in Syria have access to Internet via satellite links,
which can connect them to the Internet, but carries a high risk for detection, which can be life-threatening.
We are continuing to monitor the situation in Syria. Information and resources are being
shared on Twitter using the hashtag SyriaBlackOut. From eff.org dated May 9, 2013, by Mark MJ Cox.
Update to email privacy law must go further.
Proposals to update the email privacy law, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
are moving quickly in Congress. ECPA is in dire need of an update,
as it was written in the mid-1980s, long before the advent of ubiquitous webmail and cloud storage.
In the past, ECPA was used by the Department of Justice, the DOJ, to obtain emails and other
private online messages older than 180 days without a probable cause warrant. If law enforcement
sought those same messages in the physical world, a warrant would be required. This difference is
known only wrong, but also inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment. Senators Patrick Leahy and
Mike Lee plan to fix this. Last month, s.607, a bill sponsored by Senators Leahy and Lee, passed
out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill requires that law enforcement obtain a warrant
if it wants any private online messages, like private Facebook messages or Twitter direct messages.
The Digital Due Process Coalition, a diverse coalition of privacy advocates, including EFF,
and major companies, has worked hard to advance ECPA reform and should be commended for its work.
But because many agencies and companies already require a warrant for all private online messages,
more could be done to bolster the law. The bill should go beyond the status quo.
Missing in the bill is a suppression remedy. In the current draft, if law enforcement
obtained your email without a warrant and violation of the revised law, nothing would prevent that
illegally obtained evidence from being admitted in a criminal trial. A suppression remedy is a
common sense addition to the bill, ensuring that its impact is equal to its intent, ensuring all
private virtual messages, just like any other private physical message, are available to the
government only with a warrant based on probable cause. In United States V. Warshack, 2010,
the sixth circuit ruled that the 180-day rule, as written, was unconstitutional. At a hearing last
month, the DOJ Office of Legal Policy finally admitted that emails older than 180 days should
logically be protected by a warrant. That statement suggests that the DOJ will be seeking
warrants for all private online messages going forward.
But even before the DOJ's admission, many companies already require a warrant before they allow
law enforcement access to a user's private messages.
In the Hill, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, the three largest webmail providers,
said they require the government obtain a search warrant before accessing private content.
In addition, Facebook and Twitter also require a warrant for private messages.
Our Who Has Your Back campaign lists even more companies. Senators Leahy and Lee provided a good
start for Eckber reform. Likewise, the DDP coalition has done tremendous work to move the bill
forward, but Eckber reform must do more than codify the status quo. At the minimum, any bill passed
by Congress should have a suppression remedy. From torrentfreak.com by Andy, dated May 11th.
Why private torrent sites have strict copyright enforcement rules?
Private torrent sites have a much lower profile than, say, the Pirate Bay. But there are hundreds,
possibly thousands of them online, going about their business behind closed invite-only walls.
However, when it comes to providing access to content, private trackers are quite different
from their public counterparts. Instead of a Pirate Bay style free for all, access to pirate content
is held back by site admins and only unlocked when members contribute to the health of the community.
When asked to come up with an example of a torrent site, most tech savvy internet users might
cite a public and open site such as the Pirate Bay. However, thousands of file shares,
many of whom consider themselves to be experts, might reference a private invite-only site like
what.cd, whht.cd. The argument over which is better will continue forever, but the differences
between private and public sites are clear. Public sites offer content for free on a level playing field.
It doesn't matter who you are or where you're from. You can access the site's content for free.
There are no barriers to entry and there are no rules. Generally, private sites first require
potential users to obtain an invitation and these vary from fairly easy to extremely difficult to
get hold of. Once in, users are expected to play by a set of often very strict rules in order to
be guaranteed continued access to content. Screw up and the user is out and sometimes banned forever.
In short, and as strange as it might sound, to a certain extent operators of private torrent
sites implement an intellectual property protection regime to restrict access to content
and according to a research paper just published by Badal Balaz at Budapest University of Technology
and Economics, these voluntary IP regimes can go even further.
Balaz begins with a recollection of his attempts to gain an invite to a private tracker via the
site's IRC channel. He was immediately booted by a bot which explained that his entire country
had been banned from the site due to users from Hungary proving bad for the community in the past.
Quote, I laughed out loud. In the last few years, I got used to the black YouTube screens
telling me that this video was not available in your country. But it was completely unexpected to
see that the pirates are also locking me out from their musical archives and, quote, he writes.
Not that Balaz does not appreciate the need for control. He understands that by being closed,
these sites gain a stability that sites like the Pirate Bay cannot hope to achieve,
and he recognizes the need for rules in order to maintain a flourishing community.
Quote, most of the rules are there to ensure the long-term survival of the common resource pool
of shared files in an increasingly hostile, legal, and technological environment.
They also make sure that the collection is as comprehensive as possible and maintains the
highest achievable standards in terms of technical quality, and, quote, Balaz explains.
Quote, other rules establish internal administrative hierarchies, decision-making processes,
and conflict resolution methods. In other words, they establish the foundations of a self-governing
community, and, quote, throughout his paper, Balaz references several private sites,
but redacts their names to protect their privacy. We'll continue with his wishes,
but suffice to say this offers them very little extra security.
We recognize the sites immediately from his descriptions.
One, a site specializing in non-mainstream movies, told Balaz an interesting story about how they
handle copyright issues in order to keep their community healthy. Rather, then a straightforward
takedown response to a complaint, the site admin described an interesting negotiation,
where the complainant was paid off, not with money, but with ratio, the main currency available
on a private tracker. Ratio is the comparison between the quantities of data a user downloads
versus what he uploads. The more he does of the latter, the more he is allowed to do of the
former. Site admins have the ability to manipulate these stats to give users more relaxed access to,
quote, free, end, quote, content. Quote, most often, the producer will ask for his content to be
removed until a certain date or until they break even on the film. We have also paid, in ratio,
producers to keep their work on the site and, quote, the admin explained.
Balaz notes that, quote, backroom dealings, end, quote, like these, seem to be better received by
the site operators and provide an avenue for negotiated settlement rather than the alternative
of sending in the lawyers. Torrent Freak spoke to the admin of another private tracker specializing
in music, who confirmed that deals were in place with at least two dozen artists and label
workers who agree to keep the piece in exchange for ratio. With issues over outstanding influences
aside, private tracker rules are put in place to keep the community healthy. Balaz argues that
these revolve around keeping quality high, maintaining the completeness of the overall library,
and keeping the file sharing community strong. These factors take priority, even if that means
significantly reducing the usefulness of the site to the individual user.
One of the biggest complaints from users on private sites is that they are restricted by ratio
rules, while these are necessarily put in place to protect site's libraries and quality of service,
transfer speeds. For the rest of the community, they also amount to a copy protection system
enforced by the site admins, which effectively introduces a price for consumption, download,
and a price for labor, upload. It is important to note that private
trackers are not free markets, and the prices are not automatically defined by supply and demand.
On the contrary, prices are set by the not-so-invisible hands of the site administrators to
signal preferred behavior and to address certain shortcomings of the P2P activity. And quote,
Balaz notes, quote, by rewarding the sharing of certain content and penalizing the sharing of
others, such pricing mechanisms are able to ensure that older, less popular, niche, fringe,
or otherwise archival content stays accessible at all times within the community.
By setting download prices to zero, free leech, these sites play an important role in
directing attention to certain works and authors. Such mechanisms help admins to, quote,
curate the collection, end quote, and shape the cultural canon within the network. End quote.
Content producers are often accused of failing to adjust to the reality that online content
is no longer scarce. The internet allows infinite digital copies of content to be made at virtually
no cost. Balaz writes that while this is the case for open-torrent trackers, private trackers
counter with the implementation of rules that reintroduce artificial scarcity. Nevertheless,
users of private trackers are generally happy to play by the site rules, and their admins seem
to be more open to deal with rights holders, even as they break many of the rules laid down in
copyright law. Balaz notes, however, that these decisions are less to do with the rule of law
and more to do with the code of ethics negotiated within private site communities.
Quote, as long as the main question of the intellectual property field is not how people can be
forced to obey the law, but rather under what conditions they choose to respect the wishes of
authors and ensure the reproduction of different cultural fields. The survival of different social
practices will be a factor of their ethical disposition rather than their legality, and, quote,
Balaz writes, quote, in other words, we should expect ethically robust practices to persist,
even if their legality remains in question, and unethical practices will face considerable
public opposition, even if they are found to be legal. And, quote, finally, on the issue of private
trackers and their restrictions, Balaz closes with the following thoughts. Quote, voluntary
IP restrictions and peritical communities are probably the most effective enforcement mechanisms
up to date. Closed file sharing communities have developed tools of social control in spaces
where statutory copyright is irrelevant. The enforcement efforts that target these networks
destroy not just the resource pools and the communities that built them, but also destroy
the social controls that are in place, and, quote, Balaz notes. Quote, paradoxical as this may sound,
the aforementioned peritical communities may be the enforcement allies that rights holders have
been seeking all this time. In any case, it is apparent that they both have at least one
interest in common, a substantial cultural ecosystem. So maybe it is time to ask ourselves,
should we set the foxes to watch the geese? And, quote, from techdirt.com by Tim Cushing,
dated May 10th. Blogger issues DMCA notice to take down posts for infringing his How-To-Infringed
Post. From the Yo-Dog, I heard you liked infringement department. And your ad gauche is a blogger who
would like to have some infringing posts removed from the web. See if you can spot the point when
Goshi's irony detector malfunctions. Quote, copyright claim number zero. My article, How-To-Play
Nintendo DS Games on Android is infringed by the text exerted on the site. Beginning with the
text, did you know that your Android device can play NDS games? With the help of an emulator,
yes, there is a free open source DS emulator out there on Google Play. You can play games like
Phoenix Wright, Dragon Quest 9, and touch detective on your phone, end quote.
Original work URL, HTTP colon, frontslash, frontslash, and URAG2008.hubpages.com slash hub slash How-To-Play-Tentendo-DS-Games-On-Android.
To paraphrase, yeah, it looks like some people have infringed my post about infringing,
so if you could do me a solid and take those out, that would be great.
Goshi's post titled How-To-Play Nintendo Games on your Android does exactly what it says on the
tin, pointing readers towards a free open source emulator, providing instructions on installing
an NDS BIOS and directing readers towards Google to search for .NDS ROMs. Goshi has thoughtfully
included the following warning on his post. Quote, downloading ROMs and BIOS files is illegal.
I don't support piracy, and this guide is only for entertainment purpose. Reader discretion
is advised, end quote. The discussion about whether emulation equals infringement can wait for
another day, but I'm very definitely sure Nintendo considers emulation of current gen hardware
and software to be infringing. In fact, Nintendo seems to get a bit irate about it when questioned
about it, according to its extensive FAQ on emulation. Quote, how does Nintendo feel about
the emergence of video game emulators? The introduction of emulators created to play
illegally copied Nintendo software represents the greatest threat to date to the intellectual
property rights of video game developers. As is the case with any business or industry,
when its products become available for free, the revenue stream supporting that industry is threatened.
Such emulators have the potential to significantly damage a worldwide entertainment software
industry, which generates over $15 billion annually and tens of thousands of jobs.
How come Nintendo does not take steps towards legitimizing Nintendo emulators?
Emulators developed to play illegally copied Nintendo software promote piracy.
That's like asking, why doesn't Nintendo legitimize piracy?
It doesn't make any business sense. It's that simple and not open to debate. End quote.
Wow, Tasty, Gosh knows it too, hence the disclaimer.
Now, Gosh may have a legitimate complaint that his post is being scraped or reposted without
his consent, but complaining about infringers infringing on your post about infringement is more
than a little like sending an official notice informing Google that listed kettles are black
and infringing on your original pot's blackness. Perhaps the offending scrapers could just put up
a little warning stating that they copied Gosh's post for entertainment purposes only.
It certainly entertained me. Additional headlines in the news. To read this story,
follow the link in the show notes. US government attack on mega upload bears hallmarks of
digital gitmo. And now for a talk geek to me news original piece. The brick and mortar store
staples has for a while now given customers a rebate on used ink cartridges of $2 per cartridge.
Staples is now changing that policy to give customers $2 back on ink cartridges only when they've
spent at least $30 on ink or toner in the previous 180 days. Since a lot of people don't use a whole
lot of ink anymore, it could be a lot more than 180 days since the last time they purchased ink.
This is going to cut into the rebates that people have been expecting from staples on their
used up ink cartridges. On the upside, they've doubled the monthly limit, but that doesn't help people
don't use a lot of ink. If you're one of those folks who was used to recycling ink and getting
a rebate from staples, you're probably going to want to hang onto your used cartridges until just
after you purchase replacement cartridges. Staffed and produced by the TGTM news team
at a turtle selection by DeepGeek, views of the soy authors reflect their own opinions and not
necessarily those of TGTM news. News from techdirt.com and these times.com and allgov.com used under
range permission. News from turntfreak.com and EFF.org used on the permission of the Creative
Commons by Attribution Licensed. News from venezuelaanalysis.com and democracynow.org used on the
permission of the Creative Commons by Attribution non-commercial no-dirters license. News sources
retain their respective copyrights. Thank you for listening to this episode of Talk Geek To Me.
Here are the vials statistics for this program. Your feedback matters to me. Please send your comments
to dg at deepgeek.us. The web page for this program is at www.talkgeektoMe.us. You can
subscribe to me on Identica as the username DeepGeek or you could follow me on Twitter. My username
there is dggtm as in DeepGeek Talk Geek To Me. This episode of Talk Geek To Me is licensed
under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareLike3.0 on Port License. This license allows commercial
reuse of the work as well as allowing you to modify the work so long as you share
alike the same rights you have received under this license. Thank you for listening to this episode
of Talk Geek To Me. You have been listening to Hacker Public Radio or Hacker Public Radio
We are a community podcast network that releases shows every weekday Monday through Friday.
Today's show, like all our shows, was contributed by a HPR listener like yourself. If you ever
consider recording a podcast, then visit our website to find out how easy it really is.
Hacker Public Radio was founded by the Digital Dark Pound and New Phenomicon Computer Club.
HPR is funded by the binary revolution at binref.com. All binref projects are
crowd-responsive by linear pages. From shared hosting to custom private clouds,
go to lunarpages.com for all your hosting needs. Unless otherwise stasis,
today's show is released under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareLike3.0 on License.