Bluetack has ALWAYS been straight with everyone. Just the CORPs dont like it when they are caught with pants down.

ASK ESET for the Source and see what reply you get :) ROFL..

As was written above, it wasn’t a ‘britney flop’, it was a movie. LAst time I checked, ESET didn’t own the copyrights on any movies, thus it was an act of infringement.

Contrary to what many (well Ok, Bluetack) would have you believe, you can’t infringe copyright to ‘protect’ someone elses, even if you make a financial gain from copyrighted material. If that were the case, us at TorrentFreak could download all we wanted, and if we were caught, point to the copyrights here, from which a small amount of money is made (a financial gain) and claim we were ‘protecting it’. It sounds absurd, yet that is the picture you, and bluetack, attempt to portray this in.

“dding PG2 to the definitions list, even as a “potentially unwanted program” was an extremelu childish, unprofessional, unwarranted and IRRESPONSIBLE thing for a security company to do.”
ACtually, I think you’ll find its a pretty much standard thing for any antivirus company to do, to a program that then prevents, or severely restricts, the software from updating. I mean, we have a program that protects tens of thousands of people every day, and then there’s peerguardian, with no actual effective use ever proven. Or, put another way – Has nod32 ever removed a virus, YES. Has nod32 prevented a virus from getting on people’s systems, YES. Has PG2 ever prevented antip2p from connecting to people’s systems, maybe but no way to tell. Has PG2 ever actually had a solid verifyable case of actually doing what is claimed? Has anyone actually said “we tried to connect to them, but they were running a blocklist so we couldn’t” NO.

By the way, when it came to nod32 blocking PG2, I’ll leave you with the standard reply for when PG2 blocks things “just put it in your exception list” – or it it not a valid solution when it hits you?

I still have tremendous dificulty believing there are people out there that have such a poor grasp of the very basics of logic, have no ability to process common sense, and no aspect of free thought, that they can’t take independant facts, or even the facts given by groups like bluetack, and see the errors. Worse, I can’t believe they’ve never actually thought of how difficult these lists are to circumvent. Again,
1) there’s no law saying they have to use a corporate network to log you.
2) There’s no way to tell if a client is logging you.
3) they don’t have to act in any way different to a normal client, and that includes uploading – they after all, are authorised to distribute (ie, upload), you are not.

As for the whole “Americans = fear mongering” crap that some idiot posted somewhere in the sea of responses; get a clue. The police won’t knock on your door because they don’t have probable cause? And how do you think they OBTAIN the probable cause to come knock on your door and take your PC away?

Oh yeah.. They go onto a tracker and get your IP, then subpoena your ISP for your name, address & other personal info. Get a warrant and come to your house. Knock on your door, PUSH you aside and take your PC then arrest your ass if your crime was serious enough in scope.

PG2 will not prevent that 100% of the time for 100% of users, but it can help lower the risk by blocking some random task force’s rookie attempt at nailing people.

That being said there is a very key difference in position here.. PG2 is a freely available program. It allows you to manually add or remove IP’s from your block list, and any standard user of PG2 should already know this, and know how to deal with ESET being blocked by themself; assuming they have a brain.

ESET on the other hand is not just some free IP blocking product provider. They provide a computer security product for a nominal fee, designed to detect and alert the user to SERIOUS threats from malicious program code and viruses. ESET is in a position of authority far exceeding PG2 and the users trusts this company to keep their PC safe from REAL dangerous programs.

PG2 is not malicious code. It does not infect your PC to make it destroy data or do other things you don’t intend to happen. Adding PG2 to the definitions list, even as a “potentially unwanted program” was an extremelu childish, unprofessional, unwarranted and IRRESPONSIBLE thing for a security company to do. They abused their position of TRUST & AUTHORITY on their users’ personal computers, to achieve a means to an end in a childish rivalry situation.

If this were any other software, not PG2 adding ESET to the list for being seen on a torrent tracker, ESET would have at LEAST released a new item for their customers, making a big precautionary deal out of it, saying that PG2 may prevent ESET products from updating, and that they should either disable PG2 when attempting to update, or “Take the following steps” to add ESET update servers to PG2’s white list features.

THAT would have been the mature, responsible, and appropriate thing to do. If this were a government agency, or Norton or some other hated entity doing something like this, it would be front page news bashing them for abusing their trust and power over their users’ systems in such a way.. Just like Sony with the root kit scandal.

But this is all about an anti-peer-2-peer agenda, and the bias is so thick all over that you need a MACHETE to cut through it

And now for that time once again:

DADA-DA-DADA-DA-DAAAAA!!!

It’s: “My tuppence worth:”

PG _is_ a great app & BISS _are_ b0rking it. They need to audit that enormous list AT LEAST once a month – once a week would be better (when was the last time a full-scale IP-Addr. check was performed on it, if ever?). After all, thay’re always banging on about what a great community they have; then put the peons to work – anyone below the set poast-count, perhaps?

P.S. It’s obvious from even a short visit to BISS’ fora that the tweenies have taken over. The unneccesarily abusive power-tripping really IS something to behold.

P.P.S. I trust Ben Jones (who “used to work in copyright enforcement”) about as far as I could throw his fat, pimply ass.

Ben Jones anti-ipfiltering

You might want to inform yourself about the dangers of openly up- or downloading stuff you’re not allowed to up- or download or own or have on your harddisk, before firing off your worthless advices about PeerGuardian.

It’s quite clear you haven’t even used the software once to check out what it CAN do for you.[/quote]

Thanks for your scary warning, and other worthless advice but I have already stopped using PG a long time ago and i have a feeling you will be dead by the time police come knocking on my door. you know why? because they have no reason so and your stupid assumptions just show your ignorance and irrelevance in this discussion.

you probably live in america so fear-mongering is natural for you and contradictory laws are also fine for you so keep scaring yourself for whatever illegal shit you’re apparently doing is and forget about reality, it doesn’t matter after all, right?

anyways thanks for the completely worthless response and for helping me make my point: its only idiots like you who use peerguardian (which are many). you’ve made numerous ridiculous assumptions which shows you have an inability to think clearly due to your irrational fears.

i also want to thank you for enjoying reading my “worthless” opinion.

and to all morons who think SHARING is a bad thing and/or should be illegal: please wake up to the reality we are living in. that’s all i can say to you, please accept reality. police knocking on door for you NOT using peerguardian is a complete joke! and its just as funny even if you happen to live in a country with outdated laws such as the decaying usa!

oh and i also forgot to thank you for proving how effective fear-mongering is. your response was actually very revealing.

As far as research goes, again, according to m0nk and m00re,
m00re> and just for the record we dont just add ips that are seen on torrents and p2p downloads
m00re> people research everything
m00re> ip databases and companies
TorrentFreak> what sort of research?
M0nk> yes, very time consuming
m00re> following the rabbitholes to see where they lead
M0nk> we search the regional registries for ranges of companies, look at ASN numbers, investigate domains, look into reports of ap2p activity
M0nk> do a lot fo search engine work
m00re> start with somehting like a list of compnies who hire places like baytsp and media sentry
M0nk> to find out what companies are associated with certain comapnies or organizations, subsidiares, etc
m00re> and malware companies as well, no one can hide

Basically, no actual research, just hearsay, and so-and-so maybe hired a server there, or has a company there that did a non-p2p-related deal there a few years back.

You do realise that the IP addresses blocked by PG have nothing to do with people connecting to BT right ?[/quote]Sorry, they do have something to do with torrents. Not everything about this affair has leaked to the public, you know?

There are reasons for those blocks, trust me on that. And instead of being thankful, or at least secretly thankful, to bluetack for blocking them, you bash them without knowing what goes on behind the scenes.

Stop pretending you know everything when all you have done is read some forums and websites. There’s more to bluetack than just that.[/quote]

Yes there is, as I mentioned, there is a complete lack of technical knowledge, quality control, vetting and accountability to go with the obvious lack of credibility.

“The currrent tally of blocked IP is a mind staggering 864,502,226″

This isn’t something that deserves debate. Either you can look at that number and take 2 seconds to figure out what blutack is or you can’t.

That’s how gullibility and snakeoil work kid.

Switch to Linux, use ClamAV which is free and open source if you feel you need an antivirus, you can examine the code yourself.

Fuck Windows, fuck closed source antivirus programs, fuck the corporations who lie to us, and fuck you if you’re a stupid Windows user who funds these rogues.

Switch to Linux, breathe easy.

All WinMX users know where to obtain the WinMX list I make no pretence it does anything other than what it does for WinMX.
PG is a decent enough program but BISS is an ongoing blocklist compilation project relying on its members who could be working for anyone.

As stated previously even when handed an active anti P2P list in a public test BISS scored zero, this of course is only likely to occur because someone had “friends” they where protecting, that is my honest belief.

I think anyone operating a blocklist has a responsibility to ensure the list is well maintained and also to ensure others dont abuse the list in ways the original compiler had not forseen, to this end we monitor and unblock Dynamic IP’s (after a time of zero activity) this keeps the list from becoming overbroad and more of a hindrance than a benefit.
BISS and other do not practice this themselves and its a tragedy but given time their list will be so full of false entries that any filesharer operating PG with the BISS lists would effectively be unable to fileshare or take part in P2P activities, this is counter to what PG was designed to implement, protection is the word we should strive to focus on not P2P prevention.
The currrent tally of blocked IP is a mind staggering eight hundred and sixty four and a half million IP’s
(864,502,226) Does anyone really believe all these addresses are the enemy ?

Moving forward what will happen when BISS have blocked the entire internet as at the rate their currently blocking it will occur in less than ten years.

It has often seemed to me that trying to get P2P users informed of problems and issues is an uphill struggle due to the widespread dynamic nature of the group, but as long as I have drawn atention to the potential pitfall of being lazy and blindly implementing a blocklist then my work is done, thanks for reading this far fellow P2P users, I believe there is nothing more constructive to add at this stage.

PG has nothing to do with m0nk, so it shouldn’t be too hard to pick a different one. Easy to implement in the current setup of the software. Even when they would, bluetack’s list somehow gives me a safer feeling..