FBI Seizes All Servers In Dallas Data Center 629
1sockchuck writes "FBI agents have raided a Dallas data center, seizing servers at a company called Core IP Networks. The company's CEO has posted a message saying the FBI confiscated all its customer servers, including gear belonging to companies that are almost certainly not under suspicion. The FBI isn't saying what it's after, but there are reports that it's related to video piracy, sparking unconfirmed speculation that the probe is tied to the leaking of Wolverine."
Too late FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Interesting)
this is a civil contract issue right? Guy working at effects shop or whatever has contractual obligation not to steal shit from work (and probably signed an NDA with the wolverine job). Guy then breaks contract by taking a copy of the movie and then either uploads it or is careless with it and it gets uploaded.
Sure, there is some punishment in order but the guy who leaked a work print probably isnt responsible for the "billions of dollars" that the industry will say the leak cost them...he is at most responsible for one act of infringement when he uploaded it plus breaking a contractual obligation not to do so (and any punishment that shows up as too serious in a contract will just get invalidated).
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure I understand a full scale FBI raid for determining who actually leaked the copy... this is a civil contract issue right?
Nope. This is criminal [copyright.gov] (Section 506(a)(1)(C)).
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course if it was a guy taking it home to work on or show his family and it got leaked (or they don't have any evidence to the contrary)...
Either way, how many 3-year max sentence criminal offenses warrant full scale FBI raids that costs numerous other businesses REAL money.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Informative)
17 USC 506
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain:
18 USC 2319 (b)
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both... [copies with a retail value of over $2,500]
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
17 USC 506
(B) [retail value more than $1000:]
18 USC 2319 (c)
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense
17 USC 506
(C) distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
18 USC 2319 (d)
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, fined under this title, or both
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both, if the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, fined under this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense
(4) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined under this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (2)
17 USC 506 [usdoj.gov]. 18 USC 2319 [cornell.edu]
It's perhaps worth a reminder:
When a federal judge says "three years," you serve three years, with no significant time off. The repeat offender gets hammered.
Petty crimes, crimes of violence, almost always come under state jurisdiction.
Interstate crime, economic crimes, high-tech crime, has a very, very, good chance of bringing the geek into the federal system.
Where he is not likely to do particularly well.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:4, Informative)
this is a civil contract issue right? Guy working at effects shop or whatever has contractual obligation not to steal shit from work (and probably signed an NDA with the wolverine job).
No, both the original leaker and any subsequent copy-makers are violation of Federal criminal law -- 18USC506(a)(1)(C), in case you want to look it up. Now, perhaps it's a stupid law to have (and I'm sure there is plenty of lively commentary on reforming copyright law, surely a good idea) but, given that it is a Federal criminal matter, FBI involvement seems unsurprising.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 [copyright.gov]
he is at most responsible for one act of infringement when he uploaded it plus breaking a contractual obligation not to do so (and any punishment that shows up as too serious in a contract will just get invalidated)
Aside from doing 3 years in the slammer, the original copier is actually legally responsible for all the subsequent copies that can be proven to be contingent on his crime, that is, they would not have happened "but for" the original act. That's how tort law generally works -- we are responsible for all the consequences, direct or indirect, for our actions that would not have happened but for the tortious act.
See, e.g.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=966380 [ssrn.com]
http://www.justia.com/injury/docs/us-tort-liability-primer/expansion-of-tort-liability.html [justia.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected... (Score:5, Interesting)
Before we let run wild our confirmation biases...
We might wait on news of what the raid is actually about? Man, trotting out the partisanship at this point is pretty ugly.
Speaking of jerky behavior, the agent in charge of the raid was reported by the CEO to have said [google.com]:
Geez, the CEO must be a real criminal to merit that treatment. Better pre-emptively pull out his toenails.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected... (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected... (Score:5, Interesting)
Politicians love power, and what President would want to limit his own? Look for Obama to amend such laws late in his first term, when it looks better, if that even comes.
But don't you think it's a bit early in his term, one encumbered from the start with heavy baggage, to begin dealing with the myriad problem laws that have been passed during the last half century?
FWIW, RICO was passed in 1970, and the Feds love its vagueness to death. Easy prediction: Obama will receive no recommendations from his cabinet or federal appointments to crimp or change it. Between RICO and Patriot, we're not going to see the end of fracked-up warrantless situations like Core IP, not until a President alters the makeup of the Supremes, and subsequent legal challenges bring down the over-broad aspects of those laws.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well when Dubya was elected I was hoping he would be better than Clinton, and he was at first, but after 9/11 he turned into a War Hawk. Very disappointing. The proper response to 9/11 should have been the same as if it was a major traffic accident that killed 1500 people - mourn, rebuild, move on. NOT go out and commit mass murder against Iraqi and Afghan citizens, which makes us no better than the terrorists. (I'm glad I voted libertarian.)
As for Obama, I never expected much from him. An outstanding speaker is not necessarily a good executive. Plus he's doing exactly what I expected - spending our children and grandchildren's income. Nice job.
Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's only been in office since Jan. 20th ... in this time his primary focus has had to be the economic crisis and the wars in the Mid-East.
Bush had a full 8 years to put all of his policies into effect. Do you think it's reasonable that Obama could reverse all of that in such a short time in office? Our new President has been very efficient since taking office and has put many wheels in motion trying to reverse much of the damage that Bush Co. has done to our country. But he can't do it all with a simple stroke of the pen, and he doesn't have the Constitutional authority to just "make it so" with a stroke of his pen for many of the things he'd like to do. His policies must follow the process of law, or he's no better than Bush.
Any objective observer would give Obama very high marks for his first 74 days (as of this writing). Granted he's got many people on the right who will cry foul at many of his moves, and people from the left who are whining that he hasn't given attention to their pet issues, but you have to admit the man has been very busy and very efficient even if you can't agree with what he's done.
It will take time for the 'cultural change' within the government to take hold. Many Bush appointees still hold office, many gov't agencies still have the mindset of the last 8 years and it takes time to enact cultural change within an organization as complex as the US Government.
It's not the time to judge Obama yet, give him time to get his agenda in place. Stay vigilant, yes. Complain that everything hasn't changed yet? C'mon ... be realistic.
Re:They told if George W. Bush got elected... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't hold your breath on that. Obama is a puppet in the hands of big corporations as GW was and as every other politician who wants to make a career is. Come on, do you really think there is one politician in the entire world who will protect normal citizens against the will of any giant corporation?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The best is that when a 'victim' sues the government for their lost/damaged property, and win, its the taxpayers that foot the bill.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:4, Insightful)
Did a Judge sign this warrant(s)? (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, and I'm not familiar with what it takes to get a warrant such as this. This being /., that shouldn't slow me down a wit here. :) Didn't a Judge have to sign this?
If yes, then it is the Judge who really needs to have a hard long look cast in their direction. Law enforcement agencies are *always* going to apply a warrant as broadly as possible. They want to turn the case from red to black - it's the same thing as account managers making their number, whereby a lot of them will sell *any* service, regardless of whether you can actually support what they're proposing, as long as they can argue they hit their number.
The Judge should be the check/balance in the process, and force for a narrowing of the warrant's scope to a reasonable point, which allows the FBI to gather the evidence required (I mean, most of us want the bad guys to get caught, right?), while ensuring that other companies are not unreasonably hosed by the warrant. Being hosed means losing all your gear and service delivery facilities when the evidence used to get the warrant in the first place in *no* way implicates your company.
It doesn't take much grey matter or thought for a Judge to figure out that a finer granularity of shutdown than the main power supply switch for the building or data centre floors does indeed exist.
The Judge is a jerk-off, based on current facts and my wildly speculative opinions and lack of experience.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, you missed the significance here, which is the last sentence they said: "If you've ever had to deal with law enforcement when it comes to recovering what they took from you, you know what a nightmare this could turn into."
If I recall correctly, laws let them hold this shit for up to a month before they're obligated to move their asses and even start giving it back. That doesn't even mean they will. It's beyond ridiculous, people sue all the time for this abuse.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
A) we don't knwo this has to do with WOlverine
B) He just used that as a launching point for a cyber security rant.
That is what I was addressing. Adding the the act that the FBI wouldn't confiscate millions of servers.
Typically, they get a court order go to the company and then gather more information.
OTOH, this data center occupied two floors of a high rise. So we aren't talking about millions of computers.
I understand that it can be difficult to get stuff back from law enforcement, and I agree that is an issue that should be addressed.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
I think perhaps the fact it's largely other people's UNRELATED stuff is where the issue really begins to rub people up the wrong way.
There were a bunch of raids like this in the UK. The police keep taking entire sets of Indymedia servers and not giving them back for ages.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Too late FBI (Score:4, Informative)
Depends.
If the situation is such that in order to prevent destruction of evidence of a criminal enterprise they need to take them all down, they can do so.
If it were later determined that they obtained the warrants based on information they knew was false (misconduct) or should have known was false (incompetence) there may be a case for a suit.
But just being wrong?
Nope.
That's not cause.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:4, Interesting)
TBH I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between "cloned the hard drives and returned the hardware the next day" and "left the entire data center in a warehouse to rot for a year" is whether anyone on the paper trail has a personal beef with the company in question.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
I think perhaps the fact it's largely other people's UNRELATED stuff is where the issue really begins to rub people up the wrong way.
There were a bunch of raids like this in the UK. The police keep taking entire sets of Indymedia servers and not giving them back for ages.
Seriously. How about if the FBI confiscated the luggage from every room in a hotel, just because 1 of them had 50 kilos of cocaine in their room? I have no idea how they've been getting away with these tactics.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously. How about if the FBI confiscated the luggage from every room in a hotel, just because 1 of them had 50 kilos of cocaine in their room? I have no idea how they've been getting away with these tactics.
FBI warrant application form:
Justify your search and/or seizure under Constitutional amendment four: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
*agent scratches head*
Uh...anything with blinkenlights.
Yeah--that ought to do it.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Funny)
Uh...anything with blinkenlights.
Note to self: Removing blinking LEDs from computer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As a Canadian i have to take issue with the way you spelled 'oot'.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Informative)
Your example would never happen.
Apparently you have never heard of the RICO Act, a law passed to fight organized crime.
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=215 [independent.org]
RICO has metastasized from its original intent, which was to deal more effectively with the perceived problem of organized crime. Federal prosecutors have discovered that RICO is a powerful weapon that can be wielded against most business owners, should the feds choose to target them. Rudy Guiliani's prosecution of Michael Milken and other Wall Street luminaries in the 1980s--the springboard from which Guiliani rose to become first the mayor of New York City and ultimately a popular public speaker collecting $75,000 per speech--involved some of the early attempts to expand criminal RICO provisions to prosecute private business figures who clearly were not mafiosi. Today, federal prosecutors use RICO routinely to win easy convictions and prison terms for individuals who in the course of business run afoul of federal regulations. For every John Gotti who is brought down by RICO, many obscure business owners and managers are also successfully prosecuted under this law.
In tracing the development of RICO, we find that the law was little more than a "bait-and-switch" statute that has had little or no effect in stopping or inhibiting the crimes--murder, rape, robbery, and so forth--that most concerned the public in 1970. Instead, RICO has enabled federal prosecutors in effect to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers between the national and the state governments. Since RICO's passage, the once-clear jurisdictional boundaries between state and federal law enforcement have been erased as more and more individuals find themselves in the federal dock with almost no chance of acquittal.
The idea for the acronym RICO came from the character Rico played by Edward G. Robinson in the 1930s gangster movie Little Caesar. Nixon signed the bill into law on October 15, 1970, declaring that the new law would "launch a total war against organized crime, and we will end this war" (qtd. in "Nixon" 1970). Indeed, the new law empowered federal law enforcement authorities to engage in activities that seemingly deprived defendants of due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution. Writes Daniel Fischel:
To achieve its objective of preventing the infiltration of legitimate businesses by organized crime, RICO gave the government sweeping new powers, including the power to freeze a defendant's assets at the time of indictment and confiscate them after conviction. Traditionally, criminal defendants are presumed to be innocent and face punishment only after conviction. RICO, by allowing the government to seize entire businesses connected even indirectly with a defendant at the time of indictment, before any proof of guilt, is a major exception to this general principle. The government is authorized, in effect, to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury in the same case. The government under RICO is also able to make it more difficult for the accused to wage a defense by, for example, seizing the funds that a defendant would have used to hire an attorney. And if a defendant is convicted, RICO provides for onerous criminal penalties. (1995, 122-23)
In answer to your statement that it "could never happen" you should know that RICO is used at least 10,000 times a year in the US, mostly against ordinary citizens like you and me. Most raids are made on the basis of information from jail house snitches who are trying to make a "deal".
Like the infamous "PATRIOT ACT", the RICO ACT is an abomination to the Constitution. With its expansive vagueness prosecutors can use it to criminalize any activity for any reason or no reason and be fairly sure of a conviction. As Justice Robert Jackson [warned], few things are as dangerous as a prosecutor who finds a target, the
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, thousands of actual criminals commit much more heinous crimes and go unpunished while the FBI wastes their time on this.
Re:Too late FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because it's the law doesn't make it right, either.
Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incredible (Score:4, Interesting)
It's actually kind of add.
Normally they get a warrant and work with the data centers. I wonder if they tried that and he refused leaving them little choice? That is , of course, speculation.
Just the man power, cost, and effort is extraordinary doing it this way.
Of course we need to remember what we have is one side of the story.
Even from a wacky government conspiracy point of view this doesn't make sense.
Of course, it doesn't look like it was a lot of servers, so that may have played into it.
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Incredible (Score:4, Interesting)
Wouldn't it be simpler to create an encrypted file system with a self-destructing key?
That way, when the FBI seized the servers, they could automatically delete all the data for you. Then when it hit court, it would be "well your honour, if the FBI told me what they were up to in advance, then I would have cooperated with them. As it is, this device prevents thieves from accessing sensitive company data. It prevents data thefts like the ones that happened at the department of defense, the CIA, the IRS, and the FBI."
The cops might be seriously annoyed with you, but you are going to be a criminal anyway ...
Re:Incredible (Score:4, Informative)
When you're computer equipment gets raided, it doesn't ever get shut down. IF it did, you could just let everything live in a ramdisk and not worry about it.
they use this: Hotplug [wiebetech.com]
That "mouse jiggler" thing that you see sold on thinkgeek and the like and laugh at? That is what it is for.
Re:Incredible (Score:4, Informative)
No, he really did mean thermate [wikipedia.org].
It burns hotter than thermite.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I'm fairly certain that they meant exactly what they wrote: thermate. It's basically souped-up thermite that burns hotter.
I really dislike it when ignorant people try to one-up someone else who actually knows what they're talking about. At least Google the word or something before you try and show everyone how smart you are.
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no conspiracy, all is in the open and the message is clear: no matter what your reasons may be,dear isp, if we like to, we pull the plug on you... punish 1 to educate 100.
I`d call this soft terrorism.
It would be a conspiracy if tomorrow some national security guy went knocking at other isps saying: you wanna avoid such incidents? let us snoop into your traffic without warrant, and we promise we won`t give you trouble.
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Interesting)
So who's the judge who signed the warrant allowing them to take all servers?
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
This is nuts, every server in a data center?
I agree...
But numerous other websites [google.com] (all the same "IDG News" article) mention this:
FBI spokesman Mark White confirmed that agents had executed a search warrant at the 2323 Bryan Street address on Thursday, but declined to comment further on the matter.
which then brings us to this bit of hyperbole FTFA
Simpson closed his online letter with the statement, "If you run a datacenter, please be aware that in our great country, the FBI can come into your place of business at any time and take whatever they want, with no reason."
The FBI had a warrant, which means they didn't go in for "no reason".
Unfortunately, the fact that they seized everything leaves us with few possibilities
1. The FBI lied about what they needed to seize on the warrant affidavit & a Judge signed it
2. The warrant was narrow & specific and the FBI exceeded the warrant's scope
3. The FBI actually needed to seize everything (incredibly unlikely)
Re:Incredibly ironic (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder who carries the liability here, the FBI for disconnecting customers 911 service, or the data center for harboring evil doers?
FTFA:
"According to Simpson, some residents' access to 911 is also being affected because some of Core IPs primary customers include telephone companies."
"Simpson claims nearly 50 businesses are without access to their email and data.
Re:Incredible (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
4: The judge didn't understand what he/she was signing off on.
However, the thing about this is that it seems likely that this will result in anyone they charge challenging the search warrant and excluding ALL evidence related to it, or fruits from it.
Someone at the FBI needs to develop more of a brain than the average housefly has.....
Re:Incredible (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The judge who OK'd this warrant acted criminally/incorrectly or the actors on the warrant exceeded the authority of the warrant. Warrants must be very specific. They need to list the place to be searched and what is to be seized. If the FBI didn't specify what was to be seized they acted illegally. You can't simply put down "all servers" at some address when all servers encompass multiple unrelated entities which have no relation and specific servers could have been listed. Therefore this is clearly an ille
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Core IP Services doesn't have the whole datacenter at this space. Telx has a huge datacenter in this building, and Core IP resells rackspace there. Note that only 50 systems were affected. It sounds like the FBI pulled the plug on a set of cages or cabinets rented by Core. See this message [google.com] from Core's owner.
Not to defend the FBI's stupidity, but their approach is not that different from those Black Hole Lists that many Slashdotters defend. I used to work Help Desk for Hurricane Electric, and the most frust
Re:Incredible (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Also, I think they missed a server or two:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4816113/X-Men.Origins.Wolverine.2009.WORKPRiNT.XviD-NoRar_
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm fairly certain that they don't, and I'm also fairly certain that even if they did, that fact would be wholly irrelevant to them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All servers!!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong **AA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All servers!!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is exactly why we relocated to Chile six months ago. We had already moved to the end of a dirt road in the mountains of Mexico, but that wasn't far enough away. Now we're at the end of a much, much nicer dirt road in a country that is not ruled by mad-dog copyright censors. (And where you can rent a furnished, 5-bedroom house with cedar paneling on 2 acres of land for US$400.)
Not that we are into downloading copyrighted material; far from it, we generate our own material and publish it under a Creative Commons license. But there are such things as principles...
Is Copyright still a fair deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not the question to ask.
The question to ask is what good are the public getting in return for giving up such freedoms, AND paying for the giving up of such freedoms (dont forget who pay for the FBI, Police, etc), and paying for the protection of the revinue to copyright owning entities.
Now, this is supposed to be the entering in to the public domain (as in becoming free..) of creative content at the end of the copyright period - a fair and equitable arrangement one could say - we protect their profits for a period, and at the end of that, we gain the advantage of their creativity openly.
However, that was in the days of limited copyright periods, these days thanks both to DRM (an unbroken DRM means an item cannot become free after its legal protection stops) and changes to copyright periods (a lot of things we have already paid to protect should be public now, and are not..) we, the people, have lost our end of the 'bargain'.
Perhaps it is time for the copyright owners to be carrying the full costs of enforcing their copyrights, since they don't feel the public should be allowed future advantage of their content?
I wonder what the yearly government costs of copyright enforcement is, it seems more and more public resource is bring piled in to protecting it..
Or perhaps the people (that is, government) should simply cease on their end of the bargain in return, and in light of technological DRM, revoke copyright laws, as they were enacted to protect otherwise unprotectable items (such as books) - does DRM mean we shouldn't have to suffer copyright laws?
Once upon a time there was balance, an equitable deal between the state and copyright holders - the copyright holders have long since stopped holding up their end of the bargain....
Alas, you're going to need a new constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
Eldred v Ashcroft holding was that a copyright law (in that example the one that extended Mickey's copyright protection) is presumed constitutional if it doesn't explicitly say it's for "infinite length" and if it maintains the distinction between idea and expression.
Although your reading -- that a copyright law is unconstitutional if it does not promote Science and the Useful Arts -- makes a lot of common sense, it just isn't the case.
In America, I mean. As presently Constituted.
Re:Alas, you're going to need a new constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
That assumes that Eldred vs. Ashcroft wasn't itself an incorrect judgment. Even USSC judges aren't fallible, after all, and they're hardly impartial when it comes to the scope of the government's legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
Personally, I've always thought the legitimacy of a court which derives its powers from the Constitution defining the meaning of that Constitution to be highly suspect. The Constitution is supposed to be an agreement between the government and the people, after all; in what other circumstance would it be deemed acceptable for one party to an agreement to have exclusive control over that agreement's interpretation? Particularly when that party is the agent, not the principal?
Heinlein already said that (Score:5, Interesting)
We, The People, already revoked copyright laws. As Robert Heinlein once wisely wrote:
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am responsible for everything I do."
("The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", 1966)
Nothing like easily broken laws and internet anonymity to set a man free...
Re:All servers!!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
A resounding YES!! The FBI, headed by unindicted co-conspirator to the coverup of the BCCI investigation (and probably the Iran-Contra affair as well, when he was head of the Justice Department's criminal division - appointed by George H.W. Bush), Director Robert Mueller, is the last person in America I would trust with any investigation. The fact that they have time for such matters, when they should be pursuing the war criminals of the Bush Adminstration and the financial fraudster super-crooks on Wall Street, is truly mind-boggling......
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With the speed that law enforcement works at, it'll be months, if not years before those innocent companies get their equipment back... if they get it back at all.
You see, in many places, laws were passed that allowed law enforcement agencies to keep property that is *suspected* to have been used in a crime. For example, the police think you've been dealing drugs out of your car. You go to court and are proven innocent (you don't even necessarily have to be
Re:All servers!!!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Do the Americans now live in a police state that is controlled by the RIAA. This may sound alarmist but when innocent companies are hurt by the use of FBI force - how far away is it?
Apparently the answer is yes.
Forget money, some data can cost lives. While rare, I have worked on databases of information that a few times a year save the lives of people in hospitals. What if that type of info is unavailable due to this type of fishing net equipment grab?
Re:All servers!!!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
This government has totaly grossly exceceded its mandate. I am already longing for the Bush years.. I say we tar and feather the entire Legislative branch and all the officers in the Executive president included.. Who is with me?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps the company ... you know ... actually did commit a crime. The leaking of wolverine was not an accident. Some guy actually walked in, comitted massive fraud and abused many people's trust, and you'll have to admit the chance is pretty damn huge this was done with malice. And now proof is needed that this guy not only abused many people's trust, but also actually did what the FBI alleged.
What if it was done to prevent destruction of evidence, and was actually the right thing to do ?
If anyone from C
Getting old, I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and the memory fades with age. But I seem to remember a time when this was a free country, with due process of law and such.
Re:Getting old, I guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Getting old, I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
You must be 150 years old because the last time this was a free country was BEFORE the 16th and 17th amendments to the U.S. Constitution which were pushed through the country by PROGRESSIVES (Note I don't say democrats or Republicans) at the end of the 19th and early 20th century.
The writers of the constitution KNEW that concentrated power leads to less freedom which is why they purposely tried to distribute power to the states as a check against the federal government. Once the federal government got the ability to directly tax people and take away the state's ability to decide for THEMSELVES how senators were appointed they (states) became nothing more than crack whores on federal $$$. Senators care more about their federal gigs than the states they represent (except during elections).
So now we have
1. States that can no longer check the federal gov like designed.
2. An interpretation of the constitution which means whatever the politicians and laywers want it to mean based on the idea of "implied powers of the constituion"
Notice that everybody in Washington is talking about the bailouts and expansion of federal gov in terms of MONEY and not a reduction of freedom and liberty which is more important than the gargantuan debt.
Welcome to the Alexander Hamilton's US of A. May he rot in hell for what he did to Jefferson and Madison's dream.
Steve Jackson Games Precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
Btw, what was the outcome of that? Oh yeah:
The judge gave the Secret Service a tongue-lashing and ruled for SJ Games on two out of the three counts, and awarded over $50,000 in damages, plus over $250,000 in attorney's fees.
and
the creation of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. [sjgames.com]
And that all occurred after a raid on a pretty small company. Imagine what will happen this time. Provided that the colo provider can survive the loss of it's tenants.
Re:Getting old, I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Getting old, I guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are trying to make an example of this company, IMHO. Pure speculation on my part but the overboard manner in which this was executed makes me think they wanted to send a message to this company and other data center operators. I'm guessing that perhaps Core IP may not have been as cooperative as the FBI would have liked them to be in past inquiries. So they used whatever excuse they have currently to get an over broad warrant and shut the whole operation down. That's just my straight out of my ass feeling though.
I hope this backfires horribly on the FBI. I hope that the affected completely innocent companies get some lawyers and go to town on the FBI for this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing to remember is, the FBI is going to come out of this justifying themselves. Because somewhere in all of that data is going to be something illegal, practically as a given.
But let's forget temporarily about our rights (taking a cue from the judge who signed this)--it had better be a really important crime if the FBI is going to spend the resources to examine an entire datacenter's worth of data. There are more than enough understaffed and unsolved murder cases etc. that if they're doing this to
The Wolverine is out of the bag. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're just after the original leaker. SOP... "Shoot first", ask questions later
Good point! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I had no interest at all in this movie to begin with. But you got me thinking, if it's so important to "them" to suppress it, it's in everyone's interest to make "them" fail. So I joined the revolution, I'm downloading it now, from the 100000+ seeds.
As someone once said, if you're not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Right now the problem is getting rid of those copyright nazis. If downloading Wolverine eats into their profits, let's all download Wolverine!
Umm (Score:5, Informative)
Hasn't the FBI heard of data center control panel software to find the specific server(s) in question? My colocation facility's web panel tells me the switch #, power plug #and location and a whole ton of other shit. WTF is up with this?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Umm (Score:4, Interesting)
Any enterprise class server has no local disk, or system disk at most. All data is stored on SAN disk. It would be hilarious if they grabbed all the servers but left the storage array.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You write much, but get little. Sorry.
Who profited from this the most? Even if it has nothing to do with a leaked movie.
There, all base for your reasoning is gone.
This is all just a giant theater. Psychology. Simple, but effective.
I think it is another step to a 1984 type "society".
Do not think they are stupid. They know exactly what they doing.
Maybe not the grunt who was raiding. But the guy behind the big desk for sure.
According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof... (Score:5, Interesting)
When a police officer seizes computer hardware from a business in the course of an investigation, they can be held civilly liable for any loss or damage caused to the business by their actions.
At least thats how it is for Pennsylvania State Police.
Re:According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof... (Score:4, Informative)
A police officer serving a search warrant cannot be held liable for any civil damages resulting from that action unless he had reason to believe the warrant was not valid or he went about serving it in a grossly incompetent fashion.
The statute in question is: 42 U. S. C. s 1983. Qualified Immunity of Police Officers.
I suggest you start your research here [constitution.org].
sounds like you need a lawyer (Score:3, Insightful)
The Wolverine leak is an unconfirmed (Score:5, Insightful)
reason.
There is also speculation on illegal drug communication.
Also not confirmed.
Things to remember.
A) They had a warrant
B) We are only here one side
C) There is a lot of speculation as to why.
Lets watch closely, but avoid jumping to any conclusion.
No I'm not new hear, just overly optimistic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me, presuming the government has a good reason for anything it does is the conclusion to which we should avoid jumping.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Wolverine leak is an unconfirmed (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets watch closely, but avoid jumping to any conclusion.
No I'm not new hear, just overly optimistic.
Optimistic to the point of idiocy, perhaps. What happened here is analogous to getting a search warrant for downtown Chicago because there's reason to believe a crime has been committed.
In case you haven't been in a bona-fide data center, they are usually !@# HUGE. Even the smallish one that I host at [heraklesdata.com] is large - servers well into the thousands. All high-capacity equipment. Even a rather popular site like Slashdot could be easily served out of a single rack, maybe even just a half-rack! A data center is usually divided into locking cages, locking racks each the size of a large refrigerator, and often into half-racks which can hold up to about a dozen 1U rackmount servers.
Logically, it's more like a huge apartment complex - each separately locking cage, rack, or half-rack belongs to a different party.
In the IT world, a datacenter is not analogous to "a house" or even "a building", unless by "a building" you're talking about the feds getting a warrant for the ENTIRE EMPIRE STATE building.
This is farking nuts, and makes me nervous, even with our D/R plans and fully redundant, off-site hosting, off-network hosting.
It's sad when people can't wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
... It's an ugly thing that people thought it necessary or even a good idea to give out pre-released movie material. To clarify my position, I like downloading movies from the pirate bay. The movies I like, I usually buy... the movies I like a little, i wait until they are in the bargain bin at WalMart. If I didn't like it, I don't buy it.
With all that said, I once ruined my interest in buying the Stargate SG-1 movie by downloading and watching a pre-production copy of the movie from the pirate bay. I might buy it one day if I have that amount of cash in my pocket at the time I see it on the shelf, but the combination of events and circumstance have to make it seem like the thing to do at the time. I might still enjoy the production edited version of the movie with all effects and stuff installed, but I will still see this "unfinished" crap in my mind because that's what I saw first. Never again will I watch a movie before it is complete.
I want to see the Wolverine movie... trailers look cool. But I am not going to get the pre-release from the pirate bay because I don't want to ruin it.
Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bottom line is people need to hold Obama accountable for these things (he sets the tone for things in the Fed gov just as Bush did before him) and stop putting him on some kind of plinth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your comment is misguided, I also hold Clinton responsible for the DMCA and our Senators for passing laws etc. I certainly agree with holding congress critters accountable, unfortunately you did not carefully read my post, and have posted a reply that does not address my point. The point is that heavy handed action by the justice department has now publicly begun under the Obama administration.
The justice department has long taken direction for it's priorities from the president at the time. Since senior ju
E-mail server not responding (Score:3, Funny)
I love the end of the story "CBS 11 News emailed Simpson about the raid, but as of Thursday evening he had yet to respond"..... I wonder why? May be the FBI took their mail server too?
ONLY patronize non US CoLo(s) (Score:5, Insightful)
Romania or Belarus, where nobody gives a shit!
This company is basically done (Score:5, Insightful)
Unbelievable.
I've worked in three different datacenters in my professional life, and I think I can safely say that this company is done for. Five+ days of all servers being offline... not just offline, but seized and inspected thoroughly... clients are going to cancel in droves once things come back online, if they haven't already called the company and made their intentions clear.
Whether or not this had anything to do with the whole Wolverine leak is unknown to me, but if it is, how is it OK to seize the assets of an entire datacenter? I sincerely doubt that the majority of those customers were engaging in the distribution of pirated material. What justification could you possibly have for affecting not only the longevity of the service provider, but the customers *at* the service provider, just so you can find some sleezy pirate with your movie on his servers. Is it worth hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions) of dollars in *others' money*? Yeah, I don't think so.
The only time this would be even remotely OK is if the datacenter housed some gigantic criminal operation where the vast majority of its customers were committing crimes, and the DC was in on it.
I really wonder what this says for other datacenters that unknowingly house customers who engage in criminal behavior. Because, statistically, every datacenter that serves the public at large is bound to have at least one. As a provider, how am I to know what's going on in every corner of my DC? Am I to surveil all the traffic, all the servers, everything? And if that's my duty now, isn't that a bit disturbing?
Re:Unconfirmed speculation (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The customer may have done nothing wrong, but the hosting company may have been using every computer under their control for illegal uses.
We simply don't know and it's pointless to get up in arms with no information whatsoever.
Re:Unconfirmed speculation (Score:5, Interesting)
So, this justifies pulling the 911 service servers in what way?
You see, search warrants are supposed to be narrowly tailored to those areas where it is more likely than not that they will find the evidence they are looking for. Pulling 50+ servers without even checking to see who is using those servers (we don't know how many servers, we know that 50 companies were affected) seems to be blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment.
It is worth noting that the 4th Amendment was included partly in response to the common law larger-area search warrants which would allow police to search a string of houses because they were pretty sure that the evidence they were looking for was SOMEWHERE in that range. We require a tighter level of control than that.
Re:Cloud computing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I share the sentiment of your first paragraph. I've never been one to be too upset about government surveillance, because I realize it helps keep me safe, and such.
I wouldn't jump so far as to say "This is a dictator-esque move", though. This is a move that shows what happens when you take a phone call from someone hysterically complaining about something and don't wait for them to calm down before you do whatever they told you to.
Re:Privacy???? (Score:5, Insightful)
The second paragraph is one reason why your feelings stated in the first paragraph are harmful to you and everyone else.
Privacy is its own reason.
Re:Privacy???? (Score:5, Insightful)
I normally don't care about privacy issues. The government can tap my phone if they feel like it, they can look into my purchasing records, they can stake out my house. They can look into my past work history. I really don't care.
They don't care about you. It isn't about you. They care about rising politicians and others who challenge the status quo.
I care deeply about personal privacy for the same reason I care deeply about gun rights - chances are that I will never carry a weapon in my life, but our society as a whole is made safer and more resilient by the fact that law-abiding citizens can own and use them in self defense. Similarly our society is made stronger and more egalitarian when everybody has privacy, the people who can make a difference and the common peons like the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not limited to Dems, thankyouverymuch.
Check out Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service. It's the case about a Secret Service Raid on SJ Games in which the Secret Service seized a number of computers, nearly crippling a business. The details can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service [wikipedia.org].
For the record, the seizure of the computers took place in 1990, under the Bush (I) administration.
--AC
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And I fail at reading the entire subject line.
I'll have my order of crow, well done, with a side of my foot. And can you cover that in my own words?
--AC