LokiTorrent Logs Lead Nowhere

[bazooka]

I knew this would happen.
www.cdfreaks.com

LokiTorrent's server logs and data reveal a road to nowhere
Posted by Seán Byrne on 14 February 2005 - 00:17 - Source: Slyck News

When the owner of LokiTorrent was ordered to shutdown its BitTorrent service and pay a fine of $1 million, he was also ordered to provide the MPAA full access to all logs and server data related to the illegal BitTorrent activities. However it appears that these stored logs are actually not all that useful in finding what users had downloaded on the network. Basically what the logs track are those who download the .torrent key files, but does not record if the user actually downloads the content using that key.

Another problem is that as the logs typically grow around 1GB per day on a typical BitTorrent tracker site, many BitTorrent tracking sites, especially the more popular ones either clear their logs every few days or disable logging altogether. However, if a log file reveals a substantial number of logs relating to a given IP, at best this may trigger some investigation to be carried out on this IP. While LokiTorrent also logged torrent uploaders, they did so by username and not IP address.

Finally, only LokiTorrent’s trackers actually logged the actual upload and download transfers . However, their tracker software XBTT does have a drawback in that it stores its logs only in memory and thus automatically loses its logs once its shutdown. The Entertainment industry would be better monitoring active public trackers. In the end it appears that their announcement that they have a roadmap of those file sharing is basically no more than a scare tactic. brantdk submitted teh following news via our news submit:

The MPAA’s press release is chilling. Not only has the money donated to the legal defence fund disappeared into a black hole, but all former registered users of LokiTorrent are placed at risk of future lawsuits.

However, registered users will be relieved to hear that very little, if any, useful information will end up in the hands of the MPAA.

“They don't have anything, they have air,” an ex-torrent site owner told Slyck. He chose to remain anonymous. For arguments sake, we will call him Paul.

Paul also ran a Torrent site based on the same scripts and source used by LokiTorrent. They conferred regularly.

Referring to the website logs:

“Those access logs have no value it all. They only display whether you downloaded the .torrent file, not if you actually downloaded the content using that Torrent,” Paul explained to Slyck.

The Torrent file is merely a key; the MPAA can not prove that it was used in any locks.

Paul went on, “We both didn't log [seed and leech] information because first it would allow us to know too much about the people using the network and what they were sharing. 2nd it would require huge resources to keep track of all that. That's the tracker's job.”

Read the full article here.

Then again, while the former users of LokiTorrent may feel more relieved, this does not apply to users currently sharing or downloading over BitTorrent on active sites. For example the RIAA or MPAA could decide that rather than shut down the next BitTorrent site, they could instead monitor and track the user’s traffic while most users using that site believe that as the site is still up, they can continue transferring files.

Feel free to discuss and find out more about BitTorrent and other file sharing services including legal issues on our Music Downloads, Peer-to-Peer (P2P) & Legal Issues Forum.

[tmaxwell2435]

The Torrent file is merely a key; the MPAA can not prove that it was used in any locks.

This did not stop DirectTV from suing people that purchased Sat TV programmers. They could only prove that the devices where purchased but never that they were actually used to steal Sat TV.

[bazooka]

The Torrent file is merely a key; the MPAA can not prove that it was used in any locks.

This did not stop DirectTV from suing people that purchased Sat TV programmers. They could only prove that the devices where purchased but never that they were actually used to steal Sat TV.

Even if they proved you bought one, that means nothing.

[Gurm]

Shocking, that. Hehe.

You get a hacker-type, belatedly, after a legal battle, to turn over his logs... and they're worthless?

WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?!?!?!?!?

[junkmalle]

The Torrent file is merely a key; the MPAA can not prove that it was used in any locks.

This did not stop DirectTV from suing people that purchased Sat TV programmers. They could only prove that the devices where purchased but never that they were actually used to steal Sat TV.

Even if they proved you bought one, that means nothing.

The problem, at least in the USA, is that it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars to defend yourself in court. So most people prefer to pay the ~$5000 extortion fee, oops, I mean settlement, to DirectTV, RIAA, MPAA, etc.

[bazooka]

Shocking, that. Hehe.

You get a hacker-type, belatedly, after a legal battle, to turn over his logs... and they're worthless?

WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT?!?!?!?!?

I agree

[TBoneit]

The Torrent file is merely a key; the MPAA can not prove that it was used in any locks.

This did not stop DirectTV from suing people that purchased Sat TV programmers. They could only prove that the devices where purchased but never that they were actually used to steal Sat TV.

Even if they proved you bought one, that means nothing.

a. I use Dishnetwork.
b. I pay my $80Plus per month
c. I follow these things since I like to see pirates get what they have coming to them.

I love seeing them scurry around looking for fixes/keys/whatever to get back up "Testing" (testing he**, Stealing!) after they get hit with ECMs.

Having said that I'm slightly ambivilent about DirecTVs tactics, whereby 100% are presumed guilty, whereas it is probably by my guess only 99.99% are guilty. I say that as I could see someone wanting to play with smartcard readers/programmers doing for example a google search for lowest prices and buying from a pirate suppy site.

The big problem I have is defending against their lawsuits could cost as much or more than giving in and settling.

Therfore to relate this back on topic, if the MPAA and DVD producers start using the tactic that DirecTv is using of we got your info from a torrent log and sending a cease & desist and settle for $x,xxx or maybe $xx,xxx or go to court and defend. Then what. They can afford to have lawyers on their staff cutting their costs compared to a defendents costs.

Would this have happened in England where as I understand it the loser will pay all costs, maybe but with much more research to ensure that they don't lose.

My 2 Cents.

Cheers

[Gurm]

Presumed guilty is VERY BAD, it's pretty much the opposite of what our system is supposed to promote.

[jawgee]

A rebuttal, of sorts, that paints a bleaker picture for those involved with LokiTorrent:

LokiTorrent data fears revived

jawgee

[bazooka]

A rebuttal, of sorts, that paints a bleaker picture for those involved with LokiTorrent:

LokiTorrent data fears revived

jawgee

I do not put much stock in the rebuttal.

It mentions monkeys and IP numbers. Those monkeys have made many mistakes already.

[Sabro]

While I do not condone piracy, and understand why some organizations like the MPAA would want to protect the interest of those they represent, some of this is getting way out of hand.

Piracy is pure theft wether it be a copyright violation or not, which usually condones a crime being commited.

In my opinion, if this is truely the case and they want to protect those they represent, turn the evidence over to the law enforcement agencies set aside to investigate these types of matters.

The FBI and U.S. Customs (homeland) tend to *generally* have their evidence in order before arresting / sueing, dead grandma's and people that don't even have computers slandering them without them having the ability to redeem themselfs so they, the MPAA and others can make huge headlines on their war against piracy.

As a general rule, atleast in the US, you have no privacy if there is a crime suspected of being committed, however that is for the trained to decide and its scary to me that these organizations have that amount of power.

It's illegal for the mafia to use forms of extortion to settle disputes, so I would hope the same would apply to 'legit' big businesses as well.

Would it make the Headlines if I setup a HokiTorrent Honey Pot, got 'busted' and provided my 'logs' that sent the MPAA and others on a wild goose chase, or maybe lead them to spammers and phishers?

Just my opinion, not wanting to start a flame war, etc as I stated piracy is not condoned on my part. But you SHOULDN'T have to worry if you haven't commited a crime, but it doesn't seem that is the case any more.

Sabro

[bazooka]

It is the industry trying to redefine things.

Piracy is murder and looting on the high seas.

This is being blown way out of proportion.

[Gurm]

A rebuttal, of sorts, that paints a bleaker picture for those involved with LokiTorrent:

LokiTorrent data fears revived

jawgee

That rebuttal is funny. Whoever wrote it doesn't know a THING about Lokitorrent. They claim that the "ratio information" and "seeder information" is available. Funny, since Lokitorrent never had a ratio, and didn't track seeders via the website AT ALL.

[absinthecarolinas]

The problem, at least in the USA, is that it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars to defend yourself in court. So most people prefer to pay the ~$5000 extortion fee, oops, I mean settlement, to DirectTV, RIAA, MPAA, etc.

That is it exactly. This exact thing happened to next-door neighbor. Apparently, the business that had sold him the unit was "busted" and forced to disclose their list of "customers." He said he basically had to defend himself against the charge that the item he purchased could have had no other possible use other than "stealing" satellite.

He said he was offered the opportunity to pay a "settlement" of I believe $3500 (which is what he did), whereas it would have cost him $5000 to hire a lawyer to defend himself. So, basically, he did nothing but by a box through the mail and now he's out 3500 clams.

In short, you get sued, but you can escape it for a slightly lesser amount than it would cost you to defend yourself. I'm sure this happens all the time.

Dirty, I tell ya ...

-abs

[TBoneit]

Unfortunately you are presumed Innocent until proven guilty... Legally

However proving youself innocent can break the average Person.
So you may be innocent but being "guilty" can be cheaper with settling for less than a lawyers fee. Therefor legal extortion.

Now I don't see how files can be shared without some sort of tracking. Any where I go they have to know where I am to send to me. Unless I were to use an anonymiser service, not that I'd trust such a service. As I understand it My IP has to be known or data can not flow to me over the internet.


And then lets just touch on the Tactics used by the news departments of the Radio/TV industry.... They make you look guilty whether or not you are, why ratings are served no truth. These days to many viewers translate the word alleged into definite. Example Alleged criminal becomes criminal in their minds. Do they ever make retractions, yes if the person has enough funds that they worrry about being sued.

Investigative reporting where they make someone look innocent because he can not answer their questions, why could be lawyers advice, could be because no lawyer has yet been contacted for advice. Or as in my case because it isn't any of their business and that I'd tell them leave or take the consequences, one warning before I lost it and went after them. I have a short temper with pushy people.

So many people settle because it is cheaper. Not that they are guilty. I'm different because I'm stubborn if I feel I'm in the right. I've called the police officer he was lying in traffic court, Scolded the judge for not listening and yes I always appeal if I lose. And of course I am also a scorched earth type.

[Gurm]

How can you be "anonymous"? Well you can't.

But it's a matter of how hard it is to track you.

The Internet is a big place. REALLY big. The amount of data that passes through each node is gigantic.

So you downloaded a .torrent file from Lokitorrent. Big whoop. That file isn't illegal. There is no proof, no basis whatsoever, that you did anything wrong. Heck, you might like collecting torrent files. Who knows? Maybe you like pictures of assault weapons. Doesn't mean you have a stash of those weapons in your basement. "Soldier of Fortune" magazine is legal, but hiring a paramilitary team from the ads in the back isn't.

Anyway, let's say the trackers kept logs. They don't - because the amount of data would be immense. The average bit torrent client connects, upon hitting the tracker, to 40 other clients. Each client checks back with the tracker once ever 3 minutes or even more often. A heavy-usage tracker can see thousands of users a day PER TORRENT. You think they're really going to log thousands of IP's and connections - PER TORRENT? Lokitorrent's trackers handled THOUSANDS of torrents daily. That's gigabytes upon gigabytes of data every day. Not gonna get logged, folks.

Now let's just say that it WAS logged for some reason. It wasn't, trust me on this, but let's say that it was.

They have your IP.

But recently, they were barred from subpoenaing your IP without a warrant. Which means they need probable cause. A .torrent file isn't probable cause. A tracker log that you made a connection isn't probable cause.

The ENTIRE REASON they're taking this "sue the tracker sites" tactic is because of the relative failure of the RIAA's "sue the end user" tactic. The only thing we've heard about the RIAA in the press for the past 6+ months is bad press. Suing dead people. Suing invalids. Suing little girls. Suing people who aren't even in the country at the time. Lots of mistakes being made, lots of people paying an exorbitant extortion fee.

And although it costs money to hire a lawyer, the court defense isn't hard. Nobody is coming to your house and taking your PC. They'd need a WARRANT to do that, and to my knowledge not a single WARRANT has been issued in this entire propaganda campaign. Now, if you're using Kazaa and your entire machine is open to browsing, then they have some kind of proof.

All you gotta do is show up for your court date, tell the judge you're defending yourself, and that you have NO idea what they're talking about.

They have to prove that you did something wrong. You don't have a lawyer? So what - they don't have a case.

I bet nobody's done it yet, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work.

Hell, even your IP isn't conclusive - I have a different IP every day when Comcast is feeling bitchy about their DHCP. If I was paranoid, I could ask for a new one hourly. IP's are worthless. Logs are worthless. Without your machine to scrutinize - and again, there are NO warrants involved here - they're just playing guessing games.

And like I said - the MPAA knows better than to sue individual end users. The RIAA knows better now, too - I wonder how many of the people it "settled" (read: extorted) with have gotten their money back now that it turns out that the subpoena of their information was illegal?

[Gurm]

Damn dual posts. Sorry.

[TBoneit]

But Gurm, What is to stop them from setting up a site that looks right to Bit Torrent users but is designed to let them see what you are after and so on.

They then could end up with legeally usable data on where you are from etc.

[bugster]

But Gurm, What is to stop them from setting up a site that looks right to Bit Torrent users but is designed to let them see what you are after and so on.

They then could end up with legeally usable data on where you are from etc.

Wouldn't that be entrapment?

[BJ_M]

But Gurm, What is to stop them from setting up a site that looks right to Bit Torrent users but is designed to let them see what you are after and so on.

They then could end up with legeally usable data on where you are from etc.

Wouldn't that be entrapment?

entrapment sems to be allowed for a number of things - ie. .. the large number of honey pots for hackers to get caught up in and a few other things ...

[TBoneit]

Not to mention the stings the police run...

You are behind on your child support or have lots of unpaid tickets, You get a notice in the mail that says

Congtaulations you have won tickets to the superbowl, just come to 123 any street
in anytown, anystate 12345 zip code to collect
for information just call 1800-555-1212

and they get lots of easy arrests that way. It seems to be legal.

And of course it isn't entrapment if you don't solicit is it? If the police just happen to have radar where you were speeding is that entrapment. Setting up a honeypot site would seem to be anologous to using radar to catch speeders.

If I were a torrent user I'd be worried how many sites are traps. If I were after users I'd be running a site for months or even a year til most felt that it was legit and then blammo!

[BJ_M]

child support example - > you already commited a crime and anything goes to catch you (really - you would be supprised)

speeding example -- yea -- sometimes there are rader traps that are simply revenue streams ..

[Sabro]

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

Honestly, doesn't sound like entrapment to me, but then again I am not a lawyer.

Sabro

[Gurm]

I wouldn't put it past the MPAA/RIAA to do something like that, but I have a hard time thinking they could do so. Why? Several reasons:

1. It would have to be a sufficiently large operation. This would mean that they would have to sit idly by as thousands of movies, albums, and pieces of illegal software went by. This, of course, makes them just as culpable as the people they're prosecuting at the moment.

2. The technical skills involved are beyong the ken of the MPAA/RIAA. These are groups that hire people to "find out who seeded that", and then BELIEVE those people when they give them bogus results. These groups are largely incapable of doing any REAL detective work. They still haven't located the guy who ran Suprnova. He's not hard to locate. They also routinely send United States cease-and-desist orders to people in Norway, saying "your state forbids this activity". Here's a hint folks - Norway is a country in Scandinavia. It's not like Nevada or even Newark.

3. Such a site would need to gain large scale acceptance by the P2P community and that'd be hard to do when virtually every computer the MPAA has ever used is blacklisted by Peer Guardian and other blacklists. Could they use new machines? Sure, but they have, in the past, displayed a complete lack of awareness of this sort of filtering, nevermind any ability to circumvent it.

I'm sure someone is going to come in and say "you're underestimating them!" but really I'm not. Millions of users are one step ahead of the MPAA, power users are two or three steps ahead, REAL pirates are half a dozen steps ahead, and the people developing the next-gen P2P apps are even further than that.

[TBoneit]

You coulkd be right or it could be a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing...

Or it could be a false front. I can't be bothered myself to do P2P. I spend enough time cleaning up spyware from computers now.

I suspect that the cat is out of the bag tho.

When it doesn't pay to create then new stuff will be gone, a shame.

Even if you could legally download new releases some would pirate, Why? Why do people write viruses?

Cheers

[BJ_M]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/25/scotus.file.sharing.ap/index.html

[hiphats]

With all this in mind, how will it account for those people who were registered users of the site and never downloaded a thing? Hmmm...the mind boggles...

[Gurm]

Since the site wasn't illegal, and the owner didn't do anything illegal, and the members didn't do anything illegal... I can't imagine that them having your name ought to matter.

Problem is that they keep on suing people even though those people haven't broken any laws.