TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

AFACT v iiNet: Day 5 – Anti-Piracy Tech is Secret

Day five of the copyright infringement trial between anti-piracy group AFACT and Aussie ISP iiNet was marked by the cross examination of anti-piracy tracking firm DtecNet, partly in private. The company also made some very unusual claims about the habits of “ordinary” BitTorrent users, who apparently regularly filter who they connect to.

AFACTIt’s day five in the copyright infringement case of AFACT – representing several Hollywood studios – and Aussie ISP iiNet (earlier coverage of day one, day two, day three and day four).

Today’s evidence included that given by anti-piracy tracking company DtecNet’s CTO Kristian Lokkegaard. The day ended in a closed court session where the inner workings of the company were discussed – if ever there needed to be something discussed completely in the open, this is it, but it wasn’t to be.

Lokkegaard’s cross-examination centered around the question of DtecNet’s operations. When the company tracked BitTorrent users, did it behave in a normal way, as a regular BitTorrent user would?

iiNet lawyer Richard Lancaster put it to Lokkegaard that his company deliberately filtered their connections to other BitTorrent users to ensure that only iiNet customers were tracked. Lokkegaard agreed with this assertion but couldn’t confirm if his company had also filtered by country.

Lancaster put it to Lokkegaard that an ordinary BitTorrent user would not filter IP addresses, but Lokkegaard said this was untrue, saying that users can filter out IP addresses that they don’t want to connect to.

“Users do that to avoid connecting to companies like ourselves. They will typically try to stay away from something that looks like a corporation because a lot of people would potentially suspect them of being a non-private user,” he said.

While there are techniques and software available to enable BitTorrent users to filter connections to other users – for example using a blocklist in conjunction with software such as Peer Guardian – it’s a bit of a stretch to say that “ordinary” BitTorrent users would take such measures.

Indeed, it would be extremely empowering for BitTorrent users to know the IP addresses that DtecNet operate their tracking systems from – to know those would render their entire operation useless, if “ordinary” users took such measures. But they most definitely do not – most “ordinary” users take no measures at all.

When pressed, however, Lokkegaard conceded that it would be unusual for BitTorrent users to take measures in order to only connect to peers on the same ISP.

The same could not be said about AFACT investigator Aaron Herps. When he was cross-examined it was put to him that he had employed an IP address filter which enabled him to connect to only iiNet IP addresses.

“Is that something an ordinary user of uTorrent would use?” said iiNet barrister Richard Cobden.

“Many users do, yes,” responded Herps.

But of course, he didn’t answer the question. While it is completely possible to only connect to BitTorrent users on a particular ISP, “ordinary users” absolutely do not do this. It would be entirely reasonable and true to state that “ordinary users” have no idea this is even possible.

Lokkegaard’s cross-examination will continue tomorrow.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Xcel

    So there ya have it folks, LoL allow me to offer you a patth to a certain measure of safety, PeerGuardians baby brother, “PeerBlock”… http://forums.peerblock.com/index.php

  • Gargamel

    #1 – LOL you cant be serious. Peer Guardion is nothing more then a placebo effect for idiots that want to feel safe by wearing their Tinfoil hats.

    Get off the public sites, Thats a real measure of safety. Not fool proof but infinitely better then PG. Dont believe me? Dont care.

    We need idiots on crap pages like TPB. They keep the attention of the real sites.

  • Gargamel

    My bad
    last line of=off. Off The real sites.

  • Public Observer

    Was at court observing today – Herps said IP Filtering was used by many users.

    When asked about IP Filtering down to a particular ISP, he said it was not. I think ITNews misquoted….

  • Public Observer

    Twitter feed coveringh many q & a here:
    http://twitter.com/liamt

  • NoSympathy

    Although I would tend to agree with you Gargamel, at least based on my gut instinct… Independent testing (some of which was carried out by universities) has shown that PeerGuardian is not a mere placebo as you suggest and has, at least in the past, helped reduce the likelihood of being caught … and reduce likelihood of being effected by hash-exploits / efforts to cause network disruption, etc. I still don’t think it’s enough as it can easily be circumvented by buying IP net blocks under ambiguous names or employing people to use their residential connections for the purpose of investigation… but it’s not quite as worthless as you’re implying.

  • NoSympathy

    In fact, DTecNet are a good example.

    The PeerGuardian and BISS teams were investigating them and adding their IPs to the blocklists 5+ months ago.

  • Xcel

    @ #2
    Nothing is “Fool Proof”… Think of PG as a rubber for the internet, rubbers arent 100% and neither is PG… but its better to practice safe internetting than it is to simply “chance” it…

    So wear your internet prophylactic and do your part!

    LoL, Seriously, thats the reason I simply linked all of you to the forums, you can decide for yourselves, from there it’s easy enough to find the DL if you decide to give it a try…

  • theigloo

    these movie companies would be better off setting up there own ISP and out competing all the others on monthly DL quota/price .
    hey good business is where you find it ;)

  • Anonymous

    @theigloo

    Shows what a dire state this world is in where companies have to be told how to do business by their customers.

    Corporate incompetance

  • jon

    i use peerguardian 2 been downloading for 3 years never had a warning from any one dont worry me if i did saves me 129$ a month if they cancel my net i wouldnt pay any fines anyway im on a pension good luck lol

  • Anonymous

    I don’t even bother with filters and I never got a letter(I don’t read e-mails from my ISP ever so I don’t now if a have any, but if it was urgent they would have contact me already I suppose)

  • someone

    i don’t use any measures

  • youngdand

    i have no shame in my downloading, i think the opposite,, we should tell them who we are en masse and watch em try to take all file sharers down. would cost them a fortune, and i guarantee that none of us would become conformist and purchase anything from them again. so a double blow to the pockets of the cartel.

  • An interesting thing came up today:

    This came up “in the papers” and it’s the Aussie Record Labels really gouging the prices on “back ground music” for public venues – and all the clubs said “NO”.

    Shows you where the members of RFUKT are at.

    http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/local/news/general/music-fee-hike-backfires/1646165.aspx
    Music fee hike backfires
    12/10/2009 9:08:00 AM
    A PUSH by Australian record companies to make clubs, hotels, restaurants and cafes pay tens of millions of dollars more in fees to play their music has backfired.

    Businesses have decided to turn off tunes licensed by the record companies and play the music of artists that are not signed to major labels.

    The scheme would have increased some license fees from around $500 to almost $36,000.

    A Clubs Australia spokesman was unable to say how many central Victorian businesses would have been slugged with the drastic cost hike.

    “We’re talking about every restaurant, cafe and club being affected,” the spokesman said yesterday.

    The fee changes would have resulted in businesses such as the Bendigo Club, which staff said yesterday had a bistro capacity of about 50, paying $3075.80 instead of the usual $62.04.

    Bendigo District RSL staff said their bistro had a capacity of about 120, which would have increased fees by about $8500.

    Clubs Australia announced at its annual general meeting a new scheme that would allow clubs to bypass the license fee charged by record companies.

    Clubs Australia will set up a program to source and distribute the music of artists not signed to major record labels and who are consequently exempt from the restaurant tariff.

    As part of the new scheme, local musicians will be given the opportunity to sell their music in clubs, while money earned from the sale of background music CDs will be used to establish a fund for talented Australian musicians.

    From December 1, the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia will increase the tariff required every year by all clubs, hotels, restaurants and cafes wanting to play background music.

    Clubs Australia chief executive officer David Costello said the PPCA was an organisation whose board members included senior executives at EMI Music, Warner Music, Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music.

    “It’s well known that record labels have suffered a decline in CD sales due to illegal downloads. If this is about countering falling revenue for the big music companies, then they should be addressing music piracy,” Mr Costello said.

    “Expecting the club and restaurant industry to make up for lower CD sales is not only unfair but as we have seen today, certain to fail.

    “Two years ago the PPCA increased the fee for recorded music in nightclubs by 1400 per cent as well as announcing it is increasing the fee for music played in gyms by 5000 per cent.

    “The music labels are working their way through the dozens of music tariffs paid by small businesses.

    “It seems only a matter of time before the PPCA increases fees for music on hold, jukeboxes, conference and pool rooms, squash courts and even swimming pools.

    “Clubs are today drawing a line in the sand and will no longer use music licensed by the big Australian record labels that requires they pay an annual fee to the PPCA.”

    A PPCA spokeswoman said Clubs Australia was “perfectly entitled” to go in another direction.

    “The rates give artists and labels a fair and reasonable deal and were the subject of extensive consultation with the industry,” she said.

  • Anonymous

    “Think of PG as a rubber for the internet” Its more like the rhythm method.
    DtecNet investigator’s were customers of iinet. iinet uses mostly dynamic ip, turn your router on & off 2min later you’ve got a new ip.

  • GG

    @ 16 EH? ….

  • Roxane Turnkey

    download it to your seedbox thereby providing a faster upload anyways/download @ max speed via http then from your seedbox. This acts as a proxy so you don’t have to use any blocking software. :-)

  • Anon

    What are some of those seedboxes for ed2k? I am interested in getting some for ed2k. thx

  • #16 is an EPIC FAIL

    @16 “iinet uses mostly dynamic ip, turn your router on & off 2min later you’ve got a new ip.”

    Er, surely you mean turn your router off and on? ;P

  • Anonymous

    never ever show your ip address unless you are asking for a big slap from the nasty people, always use several proxys in a row and hide ip or somthing like this for the first proxy and also use a vpn and also us at least 256 bit aes encryption,just use everthing LOL.

  • Reasoned Mind

    iiNet stands in the way of justice and will certainly pay.

    Piracy will come to an end soon enough. All hail big labels. lol

  • saywhat?

    @ NoSympathy

    Do tell of this independant testing, because every testing I’ve seen (including by Slyck, by the University of Washington etc.) have said it’s a placebo. I think the study you’re referring to is the one that starts off with the assumption that the lists are accurate, with no false positives and all antip2p IPs listed. With that (clearly false) assumption, then yes, lists work.

    In short, they don’t work and never have. In fact, they can even filter (according to TF’s own Ben Jones) to determine who is using PeerGuardian. And adding DtecNet, would that be like adding MediaDefender? You know where a month after the only ever public release of antiP2P addresses, the lists only had 3% of them (but the lists have 33% of the net in the lists – 10x worse than if they’d added at random doesn’t seem very safe)

    @11 – I have a lucky t-shirt. I wear it during a thunderstorm, and it’s prevented me from being struck by lightning.

  • another surprise. not!

    It would seem the closed session told all about the direction of this court case. If there is bullshit to be spun , best not let the public hear about it otherwise the truth might come out. We should stop doting on this case and just get a VPN service and private tracker. It’s the only way to ensure our privacy and human rights are actually upheld

  • viktor

    am i the only one who misses the EVIDENCE for statements such as ““Many users do, yes” ??

  • Xcel

    @25 Viktor

    No, not the only one, it is a ridiculous statement and I cant believe it wasnt challenged right then and there…

    We will just have to wait and see if it comes up again….

  • bernard

    LOL at the PG2 naysayers. Phoenix Labs/BISS claim none of their users have ever been convicted. As long as no one proves they’re wrong, I’ll keep laughing at you.

  • dave l brighton

    secret my arse look no internet or more basically tcp/ip dhcp is not desinged to be cryptographically secure ie its out of it scope to give reliable/credible evidence.

    i wonder if that has been made clear to jury?

    and lets not get started that its completely infeasible for someone to understand the complexity of a operating system, hell the most widely used os are CLOSED source.
    so how the hell can one say that the system is secure enough for it to not be compromised. even in this ever changing world attack which reside in the memory of the machine can be used a proxy and therefore completely rubbish any idea of a owner of the machine to be responsible.

    fact is machines are untrustworthy with out a trusted model and chain of trust of which NO machines have to day.

  • Ad

    This depresses me. To anyone who knows anything about Bittorrent, it’s clear that AFACT have no case at all.

    However, as the Pirate Bay’s trial demonstrated, they’ll probably win, and one of Australia’s better ISPs will end up getting f**ked.

  • Reasoned Mind

    Please ignore my posts, as I am actually downloading some pirated material now, I am just faking to be pro-industry! Sorry for being a troll!

  • the guy who came on Reasoned Mind’s face

    Now wipe the jizz off your face.

    Thanks.

  • StevO

    iiNett and other ISPs fear this one thing. If people cant download stuff, then they will certainly not need High Speed Connections.Oh no heres come the AOL CDs in the mail again. With companys like Netzero and other $9 a month providers, the cable modem companies will suffer a huge loss. EVERY cable company should be right in there with iiNet helping them defend. iiNet is being hung out to dry by other ISPs who will be facing this same thing.

  • silversurfer

    http://www.robtex.com/dns/dtecnet.com.html

    not hard to locate and find anti pirate compys

    theres loads of tools // whois sites out there even windows netstat can be used on your tcp

  • John

    PeerGuardian:

    Does not provide any security. Tracking companies such a DtechNet know there are blacklists which filter out known IPs, so they will use ‘fresh’ IPs when tracking. Probably home computers or seedboxes just like you.

    You can’t predict who is going to be a potential bad-guy. There are no ‘commercial’ IP blocks which are specific to the bad-guys. Wake up!

    Also, to address some other shitty excuses for security and p2p.

    VPN – The VPN endpoint which you will pay for (whether you go via a VPN broker or run on your own machine) is still registered to you. You still have to pay someone something somehow, and thus there’s a paper trail back to you. A VPN won’t stop a lawsuit if the person you’re downloading from is a bad-guy.

    Proxy’s – Are dumb for two reasons:
    1) Very rare to find public anon proxy’s which don’t tell other proxies in the chain where the packet is going. Most proxy chains work by just layering the data with routing packets. This provides no additional obscurity what so ever.
    If it’s not a public proxy (and thus you can be sure that it’s a real anon proxy which isn’t caching) you probably own it, in which case – that’s right – you’re still busted.

    The second reason it’s stupid is that it ruins your latency and throughput. p2p is slow enough as it is…

    There’s only one way to stay ‘safe’, and that’s to download from a party who you KNOW isn’t a bad-guy, and ONLY from that party.

    AND

    To make sure all packets between you and that party are encrypted.

    Hmm.. if only there was a technology which implemented these things…
    Some sort of, large database of anonymously uploaded content…
    Where that content was all stored on one server and you could connect to that one server via SSL or TLS…

    Oh wait, silly me – it does exist.

    U
    S
    E
    N
    E
    T

  • Switeck

    Why use Peer Guardian 2 when most BitTorrent (and other) programs already support their own blocklists?

    Or really, why use much for blocklists at all …besides maybe blocking known ip ranges for anti-p2p agencies?
    Internet WHOIS lookups can at least determine the “ownership” of some ips.

  • Aerilus

    I dont know if PG is useless or not. it seems to me that these people would be going after the easy targets. the ones who will settle and dont have the tech knowedge to put up any defense there are millions of them out there. sure these companies could simple download the list from PG or others and check to make sure there IPs aren’t on them but judging by the general lazyness of companies like detectnet do you really think they will go through the effort of contantly changing IPs and then have to change other settings to make everything work again.

  • thesleeper

    The ones on this forum telling you not to use protection is the ones you should be weary of.

  • Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough - P2P Talk?

  • Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough | We R Pirates

  • Xcel

    @37
    *Excellent point…

  • John

    “The ones on this forum telling you not to use poor protection is the ones you should be grateful of”

    There. Fixed that for you.

  • Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 6 – IP Address Alone Is Not Enough | InstantIdiocy

  • Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? : Porn Newz - Adult Industry News, Events & Articles

  • Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? – FUCK THE RIAA

  • Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? | InstantIdiocy

  • Ninja

    Man, I would rather stay away from people of my own isp to keep my peer list with greater variety…. oh well… they don’t know what they are talking about anyway so why care about the nonsense lol….

    PG alone is not a good idea. Like most anti-virus that can’t protect you of 100% of the viruses. But it’s better than nothing.

  • Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking | We R Pirates

  • Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 8 – Anti-Piracy Evidence Lacking | InstantIdiocy

  • Borderliner

    The problem with PG and friends is that they can´t be relied on. Circumventing the block is trivial (get an unlisted IP), no reason to assume that anti-P2P companies are unwilling to make the neccessary steps. Also, as pointed put in other places – determining that someone is using a blocklist (use listed and unlisted IPs – who connects to all ain´t using, who only connects to unlisted ones is) might, atleast in theory, make that person more interesting for the anti-P2P predators (has more experience and tries to hide him-/herselt = pirates more = more money can be demanded).
    Another problem is that the lists tend to contain IPs which might be “questionable” but not neccessarily anti-P2P (Tor operators are a good example – when looking only at the IP they are all “bad”, altough, I suspect, quite a number of ´em have clearly definied exit IPs and everything else that comes from them is the operator´s own traffic).
    And in any case: determining a “bad” IP block takes time, even more time might go by before a user´s list gets updated. While the company using that IP block gathers as much data as possible from the unaware users who think that installing one application protects them from anyone and anything…

  • Pingback: AFACT v iiNet: Day 7 – Investigators Condoned Infringement? @ blog.idtorrent.org

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.