hpr-knowledge-base/hpr_transcripts/hpr1015.txt

Episode: 1015
Title: HPR1015: TGTM Newscast for 2012/6/18 DeepGeek
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr1015/hpr1015.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-17 17:25:34

---

You are listening to episode 69 of TGTM News, recorded for Monday, June 18, 2012.
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.talkgeektme.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.talkgeektme.us.
You can subscribe to me on Identica as the username DeepGeek or you could follow me on Twitter.
My username there is DG-T-G-T-M, as in DeepGeek TalkGeek to me.
And now the tech roundup from techdirt.com did June 1, 2012 by Mike Masnick.
New York Times reveals details of how U.S. created Stuxnet and how a programming error led to
its escape.
With a lot of new attention being paid to the flame malware that was data mining computers
around the Middle East, there have been plenty of comparisons to Stuxnet, the famous bit
of malware that was targeted at mucking up Iran's nuclear power program.
So it's very interesting timing to see the New York Times reveal many of the details
behind Stuxnet, including confirming that it was a program driven by the U.S. with a
lot of help from the Israelis.
Many many many people suspected that already, but it certainly appears that the New York
Times has numerous detailed sources that support this claim.
Perhaps even more interesting, however, it's the fact that Stuxnet, which apparently
were originally infected Iranian nuclear plants via workers using USB keys when they
shouldn't, was never supposed to get out into the wild.
It was supposed to just sit in the computers of the power plant, confusing the hell of the
Iranians, but obviously that didn't happen.
Having that info get out into the wild probably killed off the effort, much earlier than
expected, since it basically explained to the Iranians what was happening.
It's also noteworthy that a source in the article claims that Stuxnet was the first
example of using a computer attack to destroy physical items.
It made centrifuges work irregularly in ways that could cause them to break.
Some have therefore used Stuxnet as proof of the cybersecurity threats out there, and
the misnamed cyber war.
I'm not sure if it's true.
That still appears to be a rather unique case in terms of a very, very specific target
that had some significant vulnerabilities.
We hear lots of worries about cybersecurity impacting physical infrastructure, and I'm
sure that those who wish to do harm would love to bring down power grids and airplanes
through some form of a cyber attack.
But I'm not convinced that the success of Stuxnet is so easily replicable in other such
areas.
And I don't see how that automatically justifies effectively torsing out all piracy protections.
From torrentfreak.com, day at May 31, 2012, by Ernesto, Verizon successfully defends privacy
of alleged but torn pirates.
Those who download and share copyright files through BitTorrent risk being mined for various
reasons in the United States, those can also include legal action.
In recent years, more than a quarter million alleged BitTorrent users have been sued in
federal courts, one of the copyright holders participating in this activity is book publisher
John Wiley and Sons, who are famous for their Fordummy series.
Wiley and others file mass lawsuits against John Does, who are only known by their IP address.
They then request a subpoena from the court to obtain the subscriber info connected to
the IP address, so they can contact the person in question where the request to sell the
case in return for some of the money.
A lucrative business, which can bring in millions of dollars, but also one that has been criticized
heavily.
Earlier this month, we reported that Verizon had refused to comply with the subpoena that
was issued by a New York federal court, among other reasons the internet provided doubted
where the subpoena would lead to the discovery of relevant information.
In other words, Verizon suggested that the person who pays for the account might not be the
infringer.
A valid point, especially since another New York judge, stated recently that an IP address
does not identify a person, only a connection.
Verizon also refused to hand over information or to protect the privacy of its subscribers,
which they feel is at stake in the ongoing mass-better lawsuits.
The company asserted that Wiley is seeking information that is protected from disclosure
by third parties for rights of privacy and protections, guaranteed by the First Amendment.
In addition, Verizon noted that the book publishers demanding the information for improper
purposes, namely to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the course of
litigation.
As expected, Wiley didn't agree with the objections outlined above and asked the court
to compel Verizon to comply with the subpoena.
However, after a conference call between Wiley's lawyer and the judge, this request was dropped,
and that was not all.
A recent letter to the court also reveals that Wiley has withdrawn the subpoenas it sent
to Verizon.
Given the telephone conference with your honor on May 14, 2012, we would draw our subpoenas
to Verizon as well as our motion to compel Verizon to respond to those subpoenas.
The letter reads,
Unfortunately, no further details of being made public, but it appears that Verizon successfully
defend the privacy of the accused between users.
The above is great news for the many Verizon users who may end up in similar position
in the future.
However, Verizon doesn't seem to protest the subpoenas in all cases.
In fact, earlier this month, the company made a huge mistake as a hand over personal details
of subscribers before it was allowed to.
That said, the ISP seems more value in a system where users are warned and educated as opposed
to harassed.
Verizon confirmed this stance last week when the company informed Tornfreak that they
see the six strikes warning model as the right solution for the privacy problem.
Quote,
We believe this program offers the best approach to the problem of illegal file sharing and
importantly is one that respects the privacy and rights of our subscribers.
It also provides a mechanism for helping people to find many great sources of legal content.
The six strikes privacy warning scheme is expected to be implemented later this year.
This doesn't mean that mass law suits will stop entirely, but it is apparent that Verizon
does not intend to cooperate with these practices without putting up a fight.
From Tornfreak.com,
by Ernesto Dade May 30, 2012,
Mega Upload asked Quote to dismiss the criminal case.
In January, the US government announced that it had initiated one of the largest criminal
copyright cases ever brought by the United States.
That case was brought against Mega Upload and its key employees, including founder Kim.com.
The authorities seized a main name, service, and personal belongings, and asked for the
extradition of the defense who were all arrested abroad.
Since then, Kim.com and his colleagues have been fighting against extradition in New Zealand.
Today, the focus is shifting to the US case.
The Upload's lawyers just filed a motion to dismiss at the district court in the Eastern
District of Virginia.
Their argument is simple.
The US authorities failed to serve Mega Upload as its required in a criminal case, because
of this failure and the fact that the company was effectively put out of business, Mega
Uploads do process rights have been violated.
To claim due process violation, Mega Upload has to show that a liberty or property interest
which has been interfered with by the state, and that the procedures attendant upon that
deprivation were constitutionally sufficient.
According to Mega Upload's lawyers, this is certainly the case here.
Both prongs to the procedural due process test are plainly met here.
The government has seized Mega Upload's property and domain name, ruined its reputation, and
destroyed its business pursuant to an indictment which is fatally flawed as a jurisdictional
matter.
Mega Upload now finds itself in a state of abayance with no end in sight, a right.
As a result of the government's inability to properly serve the summons on Mega Upload,
this court lacks jurisdiction over the company, and the absence of effective service of process
criminal proceedings against Mega Upload cannot commence, and as the court has aptly noted,
we frankly don't know what we are ever going to have a trial in this matter.
Mega Upload's legal team therefore concludes that Mega Upload is thus deprived of any procedure
to clear its name or recoup its property in clear violation of its due process rights.
The crucial issue in the motion to dismiss is that Mega Upload was never served.
The origin of this problem is not merely a matter of oversight.
Mega Upload's lawyer, Ira Rothkin, previously noted that unlike people companies can't
be served outside US jurisdiction.
If this issue indeed prevents Mega Upload from being tried in the US that would be a
blunder of epic proportions, and the fact that this court judge O'Grady previously acknowledged
that this issue warns further investigation suggests that the motion filed by Mega Upload
could be the beginning of the end for the Mega Upload case.
From EFF.org, June 15, 2012, Internet Archive sues to stop new Washington state law.
Seattle.
The Internet Archive has filed a federal challenge to a new Washington state law that intends
to make online service providers criminally liable for providing access to third parties
offensive materials.
The Electronic Foundation Foundation is representing the Internet Archive in order to block the
enforcement of SB6251, a law aimed at combating advertisements for underage sex workers but
with vague and overboard language, the squarely in conflict with federal law, procedurally
the Internet Archive lawsuit was filed as an intervention into a similar suit, BackPage.com
versus Pequina, filed last week.
The Internet Archive as an online library, archives the worldwide web and other digital
materials for researchers, historians in the general public said, boost a cowl, digital
librarian, and founder of the Internet Archive.
We strongly support law enforcement efforts to combat child sex trafficking, but this new
law could endanger libraries and other entities that bring access to websites and user-generated
content.
SB6251 was passed with the hope of criminalizing the dissemination of underage sex trafficking
ads and imposing a requirement to confirm the ages of individuals in such ads prior to publication.
The law, however, is fought with problems as written, the vaguely words that you're making
it a felony to directly or indirectly provide access to any material that might constitute
explicit or implicit commercial offer for sex could be read to apply not only to posters
but to neutral entities that provide access to online information, including ISPs, Internet
cafes and libraries.
This would result in a chilling effect as such entities begin feeling pressured to sense
a protected online speech in order to safely stay on the right side of the unclear law.
Washington's new statute also squarely conflicts with the established federal law section 230
of the Communications Decency Act that was passed with the dual aims of protecting Internet
intermediaries from the liability for most of what their users do and establishing a clear
national Internet policy to avoid the development of a confusing patchwork of state laws.
And if allowed to stand SB6251 would undermine this important congressional policy decision
that directly forces free speech, innovation and dissemination of knowledge online.
It would also set a dangerous present along individual states to regulate the Internet
as each sees fit establishing a speech-killing race to the bottom, which service provides
restricting speech according to the most invasive state law on the books.
Indeed, in the wake of SB6251's passage, Tennessee passed a similar bill set up to go into
effect in July and New York and New Jersey are considering their own proposed legislation.
From torrentfreak.com, by Ernesto Day of June 6, 2012, how scary is the U.S. Six Strikes
Anti-Piracy Scheme?
Soon the Center for Copyright Information will start to track down pirates as part of an
agreement, all major U.S. Internet providers struck with the MPAA and RIAA.
The parties agreed on a system through which copyright infringes a warn that their behavior
is unacceptable after 5 or 6 warning size piece may then take a variety of repressive measures.
A lot has been written on in the press about the upcoming scheme, but unfortunately there
are still many myths and misunderstandings, today we hope to clear up some of those inaccuracies
by answering a few simple questions.
What punishments are expected?
After 6 warnings, ISPs will impose so-called mitigation measures or punishments.
The CCI made it clear from the thought that no-by's Internet account will be terminated,
however, temporary disconnections are an option.
In fact, the agreement between the copyright holders and ISPs specifically mentions the
option of such temporary terminations.
This means that in theory subscribers could be disconnected for a week or even a month.
That set such disconnections on not mandatory and ISPs have little incentive to impose
such a strong mitigation measure.
A more likely punishment is a thralled connection, where a connection speeds or severely degrade
for a set period.
The agreement specifically mentions 256 to 640 KBPS as an example.
Alternative ISPs rather alternatively ISPs can direct uses to a landing page until
a subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter.
What happens to those who ignore all warnings?
This is an interesting question.
Public information provides no answer, but the CCI told Torrent Freak the following.
The program is intended to educate consumers, taking them through a system that we believe
will be successful for most consumers, if a subscriber were to receive 6 alerts, that
user would be considered a subscriber, the program is unable to reach.
If ISPs receive additional allegations of copyright infringement for that user, those
notices will not generate alerts under the program, a CCI spokesperson told us.
In other words, nothing will happen under the program.
People who receive more than 6 warnings are removed from the system.
They won't receive any further warnings of punishments and are allowed to continue using
their internet services usual.
Who will be monitoring the copyright infringement?
While ISPs take part in the scheme, they are not the ones who will monitor the subscriber's
behaviors.
The tracking will be done by a third party company such as DetectNet or Peer Media.
These companies collect IP addresses from BitTorrent Swarms and send their findings directly
to the internet providers.
The list of infringing IP addresses are not shared with the MPAA, RIA, or other third parties.
The CCI has not yet published the name of the minor in company, but informs Torrent Freak
that the evidence, gathering, methods will be reviewed by an independent expert.
Each ISP will keep a database of the alleged infringers and send the subscribers to the
appropriate warnings, recording infringements will be stored for 12 months after which
they will be deleted.
What will be monitored?
According to the CCI, the copyright alert system will only apply to P2P file sharing.
In theory, this means that the focus will be almost exclusively on BitTorrent, as other
P2P networks have a relatively low user basis.
Consequently, those who use the use net providers, or file hosting services such as force shared,
rapid share, or hot file, are not at risk, in other words, the six strike scheme only
covers part of all online piracy.
Can monitoring be circumvented?
The answer to the previous question already shows that users could simply switch to other
means of downloading, but there are more alternatives.
BitTorrent users could hide their IP addresses through proxy services and VPNs, for example.
A recent study in Sweden showed that this is a likely response to tough copyright enforcement.
So how scary is the six strikes anti-piracy plan?
While we can't say anything conclusive yet, it appears that the main purpose is to reach
as many copyright infringers as possible to inform them about their inappropriate behavior.
The CCI frame this as education allows you to probably describe it as scare tactics.
How bad the six strike scheme turns out to be, largely depends on what punishments internet
providers intend to hand out, needless to say, a temporary reduction in bandwidth is less
severe than cutting people's internet access.
However, since ISPs have little incentive to apply such stringent measures, we expect
that the punishments will be rather mild.
News from tech.com, and these times.com, all.gov.com, use under range permission.
News from torrentfreak.com, SACIS.org.ca, and EFF.org, use under permission of the
Creative Commons by attribution license.
News from democracynow.org, use in the permission of the Creative Commons by attribution
non-commercial, no derivatives license.
News from gpnys.com is a press release, 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 webpage for this program is at www.talkgeektome.us.
You can subscribe to me on identical 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 share
like 3.0 unpoored license.
This license allows commercial reuse of the work as well as allowing you to modify the
work so long as you share a like 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 at 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.pound and the economical and the 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.
On list otherwise stasis, today's show is released under a creative comments, attribution,
share a like, lead us our license.