boycott-riaa.com - Article: War: Hackers Strike Hard Against RIAA Ally

War: Hackers Strike Hard Against RIAA Ally

Posted by CodeWarrior on September 21, 2007 at 12:00 PM (printer friendly)

SOURCE
"MediaDefender's software is used internally on behalf of clients like the RIAA and Sony BMG to control the illegal distribution of copyright movies, music and other media online. One company e-mail, leaked last Saturday, detailed the performance of the company's attempts to poison the distribution of pirated copies of "Spiderman 3" just days after its theatrical release.

�The [leak] is complete for their operations regarding Kazaa, bittorrent, gnutella etc. This system is � released for the public in order to identify the decoys [MediaDefender] set up,� states the leak�s accompanying NFO file. "

SECOND
SOURCE
"Source Code of RIAA Surveillance Partner MediaDefender Leaked on BitTorrent

MediaDefender, A company hired by record labels to disrupt and monitor peer-to-peer networks, had 6,000 of its internal emails leaked after an employee who had been forwarding all of his company email to a gmail account had his account hacked. This story started out bad for MediaDefender, but today marks a new low.

Hacker group MediaDefender-Defender has released MediaDefender's source code as a torrent on The Pirate Bay under the name "MediaDefender.Source.TrapperKeeper-MDD." A message posted there explains that they posted the 50MB source code file so that members of the public can comb through it to identify the decoy user accounts set up by MediaDefender on file sharing networks..."
>>>>====SNIP=======|>>>>
Whatcha think?
~Code

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


independentm...	Date: September 21, 2007 @ 10:18 PM Sooner or later the secret sneaky evil gets exposed. I can't condone the "hacking" done to obtain this stuff ...but, my-oh-my, how juicy-sweet it is!

pessimist	Date: September 22, 2007 @ 2:19 AM Shmoo, think of it as civil disobedience . . . an unconventional means to help reach a just end-goal.

independentm...	Date: September 22, 2007 @ 5:08 AM Well, I will TRY. But I still can't condone the action. EVEN when the result is that the bad guy gets caught red handed. (That's too much like George Bush's and Ashcroft's/Gonzales's reasoning!) No likey the methods! (Kinda knew/coulda guessed what was overturned ahead of time anyways!)

independentm...	Date: September 22, 2007 @ 5:11 AM pessimist, What's good for goose and gander... HONOR? (Do you abide? NEVER forget honor and "play fair" when dealing with the enemy and the cold cold world.)

independentm...	Date: September 22, 2007 @ 5:12 AM If our side becomes like them, then we LOOSE! (Even when we win.)

pessimist	Date: September 22, 2007 @ 12:52 PM Shmoo, I respectfully assert my prerogative to disagree with a portion of your premise. I'll elucidate. Let's focus on civil disobedience: If it weren't for civil disobedience in the 1960's, one of two things would likely have occurred: a) Afro-Americans would have continued to endure unfair (and unconstitutional) treatment at the hands of racist Southern caucasians; or b) The pressure would eventually have built to a boiling point, at which time worse things than civil disobedience would have happened. Remember what a significant number of the colonists did to become free of the mother country (England)? THOSE things were illegal, too, weren't they. Shmoo, would you have preferred that patriots in the 1770's had not used any controversial methods, and thus refrained from effectual rebelling?? Think about that for a moment: Your allegiance would be pledged to The Queen of England instead of the Stars and Stripes! One of our founding fathers wrote in an essay about how it is incumbent upon a governed people to keep tabs on their government. If it becomes so unfriendly to civil rights and liberties so as to act as an ominous threat to freedom, citizens should rise up against it, even taking arms to do so if that becomes the only viable recourse. You KNOW that would be considered illegal, of course. I say, vigilance and drastic response are part and parcel of holding on to precious liberties that are the base of our government's responsibility to its people! How does the wording go: "When in the course of human events . . ." I acknowlege in lesser instances sometimes a criminal investigator seems justified to take chances and cross over the line (bordering on entrapment) to catch a vicious killer. I realize an argument could make about that type of fine line, and I respect you for taking the other side and standing up for what you believe. I hope you can see my side as well, especially when it comes to some of the most crucial aspects that there are in life. Here's the way I see it (as a libertarian feeling strongly about these kinds of things, sort of on the order of our present Congressman* from Lake Jackson, Texas): A government that illegally tries to romove the rights championed by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson (life, liberty, ownership of property) deserves a rebellious citizenry ready to illegally rise up against it if necessary. I could echo the words of Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death." * P.S. U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the one notable exception to the inside-loop Gang of 535 on Capitol Hill."

pessimist	Date: September 22, 2007 @ 1:01 PM BTW: I believe in the Geneva Convention. There should be limits to interrogation, for example. (What the highest level of people did to condone the torturing in that Iraq prison was wrong. And yeah, I would not be surprised if the trail led all the way to Rumsfeld and the oval office. Gonzalez was a bad egg, too; you're right.)

pessimist	Date: September 22, 2007 @ 1:09 PM "Sooner or later the secret sneaky evil gets exposed." Here is another area where you and I probably part ways. Many times the "sooner" happens only when something inappropriate is facilitated to flush the evil truth out! Otherwise, the "later" scenario is the one that's expected; and frequently it will come TOO late! (Too late in righting the injustice; too late to help those who have been impacted by unfair treatment from the evildoers. Perhaps the victims will have already suffered for years and even died before justice was served.) I perceive we've got a real debate going here. Let's let others chime in; what do you think?