What is Digg?76 Comments
- inactive, on 10/26/2007, -4/+43"May you teach us make website? We no have much skillz like you MR Oink." - Cleveland Police
- MarcSage, on 10/27/2007, -1/+39Maybe the police thought it was an anti police website.....
- MrSkoTSir, on 10/26/2007, -0/+30wow, The way the police handled this was pathetic. I can't believe they dragged his father into it.
“I haven’t done anything wrong. I don’t believe my website breaks the law. They don’t understand how it works.” - OiNK - TomP, on 10/26/2007, -0/+24Ewwww they used Word 11 to create a web page!
http://oink.cd/index2.html - inactive, on 10/27/2007, -0/+23A self-destructing database is actually quite easy. Just set up all the servers to store their data in truecrypt encrypted volumes. Then when the police come all you have to do is set up a switch that overwrites the headers of all the volumes.
A bit of info about the truecrypt header: It is only 512 bytes and without the header, which contains the encrypted keys, it is absolutely impossible to get the data back. Since the header is so small, it can overwritten and all of you data gone forever is less than a second, aka: less time than it takes for the police to kick down the door and cross the room to unplug the servers.
A simple bash script should suffice to destroy all data. Perhaps you could set it up with a couple keystrokes or use some physical trigger to dectect the power cord getting ripped from the wall. Use your imagination. - badenglishihave, on 10/28/2007, -1/+22That's the real reason they raided his home and detained him: the Cleveland Police wanted to make a website and they liked how Mr. OiNK designed his.
- NoOneButMe, on 10/27/2007, -0/+15Erm.. the passwords hashes are md5 with a salt .. so it's fairly safe to say they're safe. Oink didnt log IP's either. So again: Fairly safe on that part.
- Shorties, on 10/26/2007, -2/+15Always quick to profit on other peoples misery...
- apathysucks, on 10/26/2007, -1/+10Think about it for a second: First, the data stolen probably won't be given to the U.S., since it's against the law (supposedly). Second, when have they ever prosecuted leechers or site users who weren't uploading tons of files and pre-releases? Never. The site was donation-based, and I doubt any court would argue otherwise, since you were donating to the server, not to access the files. As everyone has been saying, they'll go after the site owner, the massive uploaders, and the scene releasers. Going after 90,000 or 1,000, or even 500 people would be incredibly costly with no real benefit, unless the people they went after were major contributors to the site. This is a good lesson that those of us who wish to change the system need to find better, non-illegal ways of doing it. It sucks, the RIAA is a load of crap, but the fact remains, people are more concerned with abortion laws than copyright laws. Start electing people who give a ***** about this stuff, instead of the ideological, religious crap that has little bearing on reality.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/26/2007, -0/+7Who died and made you Judge, Jury, and Executioner
- turrican, on 10/26/2007, -1/+8I'm mostly annoyed that there's one less place that was good for locating ultra-rare stuff.. Almost everything I ever got/shared there was unavailable for purchase (many were even *vinyl* rips) so I don't see how they (RIAA, etc) could attach/prove monetary loss in relation to those items.
- Myonosken, on 10/26/2007, -1/+8Salted MD5s are weak? I don't think you really know much mate.
- SPECOPS, on 10/26/2007, -0/+7If you destroy if before the warrant is served, it's not destruction of evidence (e.g. you see the cops at the door, but they have not yet entered).
- betobeto, on 10/26/2007, -3/+9It's the American way after all
- inactive, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6This way you can give them the all of your passwords and it still won't matter without the volume header. If you are clever you can arrange a plea deal where you give the passwords (which are now worthless) in exchange for the dropping of all charges.
- myclykaon, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6Because (this being in the UK) you will then serve up to 5 years for failure to reveal decryption keys.
- Yoshi39, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5Well it is not evidence until it has been "bagged and tagged" (I hate that expression but I don't know what it is actually called) so up until the point the cops seize it you are legally allowed to destroy it.
- tucsonwc, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5He is a troll, ignore him.
- Yoshi39, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5Well why not simply choose a strong password and simply refuse to give said password to the police (they can't force as you can't legally be forced to provide evidence against yourself)?
- aspec, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5That's hilarious, straight out of outlook. I wonder who Pedro and Keith are...
- Mearn, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5They both look shameful behind your mastery of the keyboard.
- chris9902, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5but if the database contains no important information destroying it is much worse.
- Bdog2g2, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4"if you have access to an established rainbow table."
I live near Key West, so I have access to a rainbow table. In fact, that may be a bar down there. - betobeto, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4That sounds very much like the proverbial ticking bomb of Hollywood movies, only more geeky.
- jtmeyer, on 10/25/2007, -3/+7it would be interesting if the acronyms took what OiNK said to heart,
and attacked google too. - aspec, on 10/26/2007, -2/+6Worth noting, destruction of evidence is a crime... and the police don't like it very much. They will charge you with everything and then some, including destruction of evidence and obstructing justice. Regardless of whether or not you're guilty, prosecutors can do a pretty good job of drawing out the time it takes to get to trial by pretending to decrypt the evidence. You'll spend 5 years in the pen before they drop most of the charges and you get time served for obstruction of justice on a plea bargain.
Enjoy that. - aspec, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Unless they have a warrant. Then even previous to search and seizure, your property is their property.
- jeffh4, on 10/26/2007, -6/+9He was not employed by Virgin Media. He has not released the name of his previous employer.
- xaeon, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3At what point does simply linking to pirated material become illegal, as opposed to hosting it? It's a very fuzzy line in law, and although he is quite clearly aware that what he is doing can potentially land him in a lot of trouble, I'm not sure that the law (UK law, that is) is 100% against him here. It's going to be interesting to see how it pans out.
As thepiratebay say so often in their legal section: "So, you own the rights to this hash then, do you?" - Firehed, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3http://md5.benramsey.com/
Even if they're dynamically salted, it's not that secure. And who cares about passwords? The things of concern are the IP addresses that may be associated with the account. - TomP, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4This is confirmed see... http://pages.citebite.com/m1f7b2unlra
- Scorps111, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2i actualy could not belive my eyes when i saw tht i had to punch myself in the groin. jeez thts bad
- peterpancreas, on 10/26/2007, -2/+4HAHA YEAH, I'm gonna download the new radiohead album from OINK! Man, you're out of it!
- shredswithpiks, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2actually it wouldn't be too hard to do this at all.
- sigafoo, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3So... lets see this article took the IRC conversation that was posted earlier and turned it into an article giving exactly the same information.
Yay digg! - inactive, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2WEll, they were not concerned with what just YOU got.
- inactive, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2I doubt they will even go after the massive uploaders. Except for the ones that were the original seeders for the pre-releases It is not hard to figure out why they chose this site as one of hte first to really go after. Uploading pre-releases is a huge deal. There is NO WY they were goingto look the other way on that.
- Mononuclear, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2the article says "...on what grounds his employer - Virgin Media..."
- inactive, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Md5
Do some research before you go mouthing off on the internets. - virtualball, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Thanks. Oh, and maybe next year :)
- iBenzin, on 10/26/2007, -7/+8oink!
- inactive, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Sorry, doesn't work. No magnet you create can wipe a hard drive.
- PhilLesh69, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Believe me, the cards are stacked against consumers and citizens. They'll figure out a way to say that out-of-print material still has a monetary value to them. Probably something like "future re-releases are undermined by this activity" or some *****.
- Endemoniada, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1They're not concerned with the truth, period. They'll claim you basically robbed an old woman blind if they have to, doesn't matter to them if they have to lie. As long as they're still in business, nothing matters to these people. Least of all the opinions of the artists themselves.
- GlassParkingLot, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Google it.
- stormgren, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Cleveland, England. I live in the championship-less-since-1964, our-river-caught-fire one too.
- stklaw, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1You wish.
Do they look like the people who will keep their promises? - slipdisc2, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2"but ex-users still might be safe" safe from what? FUD?
- PhilLesh69, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1I like Hughe Hefner or Larry Flynt's idea, taking copper wire and winding it around a bookcase where he stored his porn collection. If the police came, he would just flick a switch and create a huge electromagnet, erasing everything.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is