Tag Archives: education

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week on BitTorrent – 02/27/17

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-pirated-movies-week-bittorrent-022717/

This week we have two newcomers in our chart.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

This week’s most downloaded movies are:
Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrents
1 (…) Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them 7.6 / trailer
2 (6) Passengers 7.1 / trailer
3 (1) Doctor Strange 8.0 / trailer
4 (5) Assassin’s Creed (Subbed HDRip) 6.3 / trailer
5 (3) Arrival 8.3 / trailer
6 (2) Moana 7.8 / trailer
7 (…) Collateral Beauty 6.6 / trailer
8 (4) Hacksaw Ridge 8.5 / trailer
9 (10) Jack Reacher: Never Go Back 6.3 / trailer
10 (8) La La Land (DVDscr) 8.8 / trailer

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

1000 Raspberry Pi Certified Educators

Post Syndicated from James Robinson original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/1000-raspberry-pi-certified-educators/

This week, we trained our 1000th Raspberry Pi Certified Educator at a Picademy in Cardiff, south Wales. These teachers, librarians and other educators are now equipped to begin sharing the power of digital making with their learners, their local communities and their peers.

An animated gif: a group of new Raspberry Pi Certified Educators celebrate by pulling party poppers

Our newest Raspberry Pi Certified Educators: now there are 1000 of them!

Picademy is a free CPD programme that gives educators the skills and knowledge to help learners get creative with computing. Classroom teachers, museum educators, librarians, educator coaches, and community educators can all apply. You don’t need any previous experience, just an enthusiasm for teaching computing and digital making.

Apply for Picademy

We’ve just announced the dates and venues for Picademy in the US throughout 2017. Take a look at the schedule of UK Picademy events for this year: we’ve just added some new dates. Check out what educators say about Picademy.

Are you interested? DO IT. APPLY.

Demand for Picademy places is always high, and there are many parts of the world where we don’t yet offer Picademy. In order to reach more people, we provide two free online training courses which are available anywhere in the world. They’re especially relevant to educators, but anyone can take part. Both started this week, but there’s still time to join. Both courses will run again in the future.

Hello World

Wherever you are, you can also read Hello World, our new magazine about computing and digital making written by educators, for educators. It’s free online as a downloadable PDF, and it’s available to UK-based educators in print, free of charge. In its pages over the next issues, we know we’ll see some of our first 1000 Raspberry Pi Certified Educators inspire some of our second 1000.

We hope that you, too, will join this creative, supportive community!

The post 1000 Raspberry Pi Certified Educators appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 02/20/17

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-pirated-movies-week-022017/

This week we have three newcomers in our chart.

Doctor Strange, which was released as Blu-Ray rip a few days ago, is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

This week’s most downloaded movies are:
Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrents
1 (3) Doctor Strange 8.0 / trailer
2 (…) Moana 8.0 / trailer
3 (1) Arrival 8.3 / trailer
4 (2) Hacksaw Ridge 8.5 / trailer
5 (…) Assassin’s Creed (Subbed HDRip) 6.3 / trailer
6 (4) Passengers (Subbed HDrip) 7.1 / trailer
7 (…) Allied 7.1 / trailer
8 (6) La La Land (DVDscr) 8.8 / trailer
9 (10) Lion (DVDscr) 8.0 / trailer
10 (5) Jack Reacher: Never Go Back 6.3 / trailer

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Is Megaupload’s ‘Crime’ a Common Cloud Hosting Practice?

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/is-megauploads-crime-a-common-cloud-hosting-practice-170218/

Last week we reported that Google Drive uses hash filtering to prevent users from sharing alleged copyright infringing content, while leaving the actual files on its servers.

This practice is similar to what its competitor Dropbox does, and probably many other cloud hosting providers as well.

However, it also reminded us of a more controversial hosting service, Megaupload. When the US Department of Justice announced its allegations against the company five years ago, a similar issue was at the center.

One of the main arguments in the indictment is that Megaupload would only disable a URL when it received a takedown notice, not the underlying file. As a result of the deduplication technology it employed, this meant that the file could still be accessed under different URLs.

“…the Conspiracy has, at best, only deleted the particular URL of which the copyright holder complained, and purposefully left the actual infringing copy of the copyrighted work on the Mega Conspiracy-controlled server and any other access links completely intact,” the indictment reads.

The RIAA and MPAA later highlighted the similar takedown related issues in their civil complaints, with the latter stating:

“And although Megaupload had implemented a technology called ‘MDS hash’ filtering to identify and block uploads of various types of illicit content, Megaupload chose not to deploy that technology to identify and block infringing uploads of copyrighted works that had already been subject to takedown notices by plaintiffs and other copyright holders.”

Admittingly, the Megaupload cases are much broader than this single issue, but it does raise questions.

The apparent ‘failure’ to block infringing content from being uploaded by other users isn’t illegal by definition. In fact, neither Google Drive nor Dropbox does this today. So how is the Megaupload situation different?

The main difference appears to be that Megaupload only removed the links that were reported as infringing, while Dropbox and Drive also prevent others from publicly sharing links to the same file. All three services keep or kept the original files on their servers though.

There are good arguments for keeping the files, as others may have the legal right to store them. If someone downloads an MP3, he or she can’t share it in public without permission. However, making a private backup on Dropbox would be acceptable in many countries.

Since Dropbox and Drive don’t face criminal indictments, the question should therefore be whether Megaupload was legally required to delete all public links to the underlying file, even those that were not directly reported.

This is something legal experts have their doubts over, including Professor Lawrence Lessig.

“It is possible for one uploader to have a right to fair use of a copy of a file, e.g., a purchaser uploading a backup or an educational organization offering critical commentary, while other uploaders might have no such fair use right,” he explained earlier in an expert report.

In other words, while one person might not have the legal right to store a file, another person might. The same argument also applies to publishing such links. This is something we also see on YouTube, where rightsholders pull down videos which they themselves have openly published on the same site.

This week, Megaupload counsel Ira Rothken clarified that the service tried to strike a balance between the rights of copyright holders and its users. If one link is infringing, that doesn’t mean that all of the others on the service are as well.

“While Megaupload made efforts to curb abuse of its service, it recognized a competing obligation to its users who legitimately use[d] the service to store their own copies of copyrighted material,” Rothken tells TorrentFreak.

“For example, a music file that was purchased or covered by fair use and uploaded by a user for the purpose of ‘space shifting’ would look the same to Megaupload’s automated processes as a music file to which the user had no legal right.”

This was also brought up in the Dancing Baby” case recently, where it was held that copyright holders should consider fair use before requesting a takedown. This means that removing an underlying file may be too broad, as fair use isn’t considered for all URLs.

Megaupload saw it as an obligation to its users, who had a legal right to the files, to ensure that there’s a proper and legitimate basis to disable links or remove files.

“As a result, where a user was subject to a proper and specific take down notice for their unique link or URL, that user’s link to the file in question was taken down or broken.”

In sum, we can say that Megaupload operated slightly differently from Dropbox and Google Drive today. However, the difference is subtle. Not taking down the actual copyright infringing file from the servers is still common practice, for example.

When it comes to proactively preventing public sharing of links that are not reported yet, the service operated differently. Here Megaupload put the interests of its users first. Of course, the Megaupload case is much broader, but the above should illustrate that when it comes alleged hash filtering and file removal ‘crimes’, there is still an open debate.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Get ‘Back to my Pi’ from anywhere with VNC Connect

Post Syndicated from Alex Bate original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/get-back-to-my-pi-from-anywhere-with-vnc-connect/

In today’s guest blog, Andy Clark, Engineering Manager at RealVNC, introduces VNC Connect: a brand-new, and free, version of VNC that makes it simple to connect securely to your Raspberry Pi from anywhere in the world.

Since September 2016, every version of Raspbian has come with the built-in ability to remotely access and control your Raspberry Pi’s screen from another computer, using a technology called VNC. As the original inventors of this technology, RealVNC were happy to partner with Raspberry Pi to provide the community with the latest and most secure version of VNC for free.

We’re always looking to improve things, and one criticism of VNC technology over the years has been its steep learning curve. In particular, you need a bit of networking knowledge in order to connect to a Pi on the same network, and a heck of a lot to get a connection working across the internet!

This is why we developed VNC Connect, a brand-new version of VNC that allows you not only to make direct connections within your own networks, but also to make secure cloud-brokered connections back to your computer from anywhere in the world, with no specialist networking knowledge needed.

I’m delighted to announce that VNC Connect is available for Raspberry Pi, and from today is included in the Raspbian repositories. What’s more, we’ve added some extra features and functionality tailored to the Raspberry Pi community, and it’s all still free for non-commercial and educational use.

‘Back to my Pi’ and direct connections

The main change in VNC Connect is the ability to connect back to your Raspberry Pi from anywhere in the world, from a wide range of devices, without any complex port forwarding or IP addressing configuration. Our cloud service brokers a secure, end-to-end encrypted connection back to your Pi, letting you take control simply and securely from wherever you happen to be.

RealVNC

While this convenience is great for a lot of our standard home users, it’s not enough for the demands of the Raspberry Pi community! The Raspberry Pi is a great educational platform, and gets used in inventive and non-standard ways all the time. So on the Raspberry Pi, you can still make direct TCP connections the way you’ve always done with VNC. This way, you can have complete control over your project and learn all about IP networking if you want, or you can choose the simplicity of a cloud-brokered connection if that’s what you need.

Simpler connection management

Choosing the computer to connect to using VNC has historically been a fiddly process, requiring you to remember IP addresses or hostnames, or use a separate application to keep track of things. With VNC Connect we’ve introduced a new VNC Viewer with a built-in address book and enhanced UI, making it much simpler and quicker to manage your devices and connections. You now have the option of securely saving passwords for frequently used connections, and you can synchronise your entries with other VNC Viewers, making it easier to access your Raspberry Pi from other computers, tablets, or mobile devices.

RealVNC

Direct capture performance improvements

We’ve been working hard to make improvements to the experimental ‘direct capture’ feature of VNC Connect that’s unique to the Raspberry Pi. This feature allows you to see and control applications that render directly to the screen, like Minecraft, omxplayer, or even the terminal. You should find that performance of VNC in direct capture mode has improved, and is much more usable for interactive tasks.

RealVNC

Getting VNC Connect

VNC Connect is available in the Raspbian repositories from today, so running the following commands at a terminal will install it:

sudo apt-get update

sudo apt-get install realvnc-vnc-server realvnc-vnc-viewer

If you’re already running VNC Server or VNC Viewer, the same commands will install the update; then you’ll need to restart it to use the latest version.

There’s more information about getting set up on the RealVNC Raspberry Pi page. If you want to take advantage of the cloud connectivity, you’ll need to sign up for a RealVNC account, and you can do that here too.

Come and see us!

We’ve loved working with the Raspberry Pi Foundation and the community over the past few years, and making VNC Connect available for free on the Raspberry Pi is just the next phase of our ongoing relationship.

We’d love to get your feedback on Twitter, in the forums, or in the comments below. We’ll be at the Raspberry Pi Big Birthday Weekend again this year on 4-5 March in Cambridge, so please come and say hi and let us know how you use VNC Connect!

The post Get ‘Back to my Pi’ from anywhere with VNC Connect appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Research into the Root Causes of Terrorism

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/02/research_into_t_1.html

Interesting article in Science discussing field research on how people are radicalized to become terrorists.

The potential for research that can overcome existing constraints can be seen in recent advances in understanding violent extremism and, partly, in interdiction and prevention. Most notable is waning interest in simplistic root-cause explanations of why individuals become violent extremists (e.g., poverty, lack of education, marginalization, foreign occupation, and religious fervor), which cannot accommodate the richness and diversity of situations that breed terrorism or support meaningful interventions. A more tractable line of inquiry is how people actually become involved in terror networks (e.g., how they radicalize and are recruited, move to action, or come to abandon cause and comrades).

Reports from the The Soufan Group, International Center for the Study of Radicalisation (King’s College London), and the Combating Terrorism Center (U.S. Military Academy) indicate that approximately three-fourths of those who join the Islamic State or al-Qaeda do so in groups. These groups often involve preexisting social networks and typically cluster in particular towns and neighborhoods.. This suggests that much recruitment does not need direct personal appeals by organization agents or individual exposure to social media (which would entail a more dispersed recruitment pattern). Fieldwork is needed to identify the specific conditions under which these processes play out. Natural growth models of terrorist networks then might be based on an epidemiology of radical ideas in host social networks rather than built in the abstract then fitted to data and would allow for a public health, rather than strictly criminal, approach to violent extremism.

Such considerations have implications for countering terrorist recruitment. The present USG focus is on “counternarratives,” intended as alternative to the “ideologies” held to motivate terrorists. This strategy treats ideas as disembodied from the human conditions in which they are embedded and given life as animators of social groups. In their stead, research and policy might better focus on personalized “counterengagement,” addressing and harnessing the fellowship, passion, and purpose of people within specific social contexts, as ISIS and al-Qaeda often do. This focus stands in sharp contrast to reliance on negative mass messaging and sting operations to dissuade young people in doubt through entrapment and punishment (the most common practice used in U.S. law enforcement) rather than through positive persuasion and channeling into productive life paths. At the very least, we need field research in communities that is capable of capturing evidence to reveal which strategies are working, failing, or backfiring.

Lifelong Learning

Post Syndicated from Matt Richardson original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/lifelong-learning/

This column is from The MagPi issue 54. You can download a PDF of the full issue for free, or subscribe to receive the print edition in your mailbox or the digital edition on your tablet. All proceeds from the print and digital editions help the Raspberry Pi Foundation achieve its charitable goals.

When you contemplate the Raspberry Pi Foundation’s educational mission, you might first think of young people learning how to code, how computers work, and how to make things with computers. You might also think of teachers leveraging our free resources and training in order to bring digital making to their students in the classroom. Getting young people excited about computing and digital making is an enormous part of what we’re all about.

Last year we trained over 540 Certified Educators in the UK and USA.

We all know that learning doesn’t only happen in the classroom – it also happens in the home, at libraries, code clubs, museums, Scout troop meetings, and after-school enrichment centres. At the Raspberry Pi Foundation, we acknowledge that and try hard to get young people learning about computer science and digital making in all of these contexts. It’s the reason why many of our Raspberry Pi Certified Educators aren’t necessarily classroom teachers, but also educate in other environments.

Raspberry Pis are used as teaching aids in libraries, after-school clubs, and makerspaces across the globe

Even though inspiring and educating young people in and out of the classroom is a huge part of what we set out to do, our mission doesn’t limit us to only the young. Learning can happen at any age and, of course, we love to see kids and adults using Raspberry Pi computers and our learning resources. Although our priority is educating young people, we know that we have a strong community of adults who make, learn, and experiment with Raspberry Pi.

I consider myself among this community of lifelong learners. Ever since I first tried Raspberry Pi in 2012, I’ve learned so much with this affordable computer by making things with it. I may not have set out to learn more about programming and algorithms, but I learned them as a by-product of trying to create an interesting project that required them. This goes beyond computing, too. For instance, I needed to give myself a quick maths refresher when working on my Dynamic Bike Headlight project. I had to get the speed of my bike in miles per hour, knowing the radius of the wheel and the revolutions per minute from a sensor. I suspect that – like me – a lot of adults out there using Raspberry Pi for their home and work projects are learning a lot along the way.

Internet of Tutorials

Even if you’re following a tutorial to build a retro arcade machine, set up a home server, or create a magic mirror, then you’re learning. There are tons of great tutorials out there that don’t just tell you what to type in, but also explain what you’re doing and why you’re doing it at each step along the way. Hopefully, it also leaves room for a maker to experiment and learn.

Many people also learn with Raspberry Pi when they use it as a platform for experimental computing. This experimentation can come from personal curiosity or from a professional need.

They may want to set up a sandbox to test out things such as networking, servers, cluster computing, or containers. Raspberry Pi makes a good platform for this because of its affordability and its universality. In other words, Raspberry Pis have become so common in the world that there’s usually someone out there who has at least attempted to figure out how to do what you want with it.

MAAS Theremin Raspberry Pi

A Raspberry Pi is used in an interactive museum exhibit, and kept on display for visitors to better understand the inner workings of what they’re seeing.

To take it back to the young people, it’s critical to show them that we, as adults, aren’t always teachers. Sometimes we’re learning right beside them. Sometimes we’re even learning from them. Show them that learning doesn’t stop after they graduate. We must show young people that none of us stops learning.

The post Lifelong Learning appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 02/13/17

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-pirated-movies-week-021317/

arrival-torrentsThis week we have two newcomers in our chart.

Arrival is the most downloaded movie for the second week in a row.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

This week’s most downloaded movies are:
Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrents
1 (1) Arrival 8.3 / trailer
2 (7) Hacksaw Ridge 8.5 / trailer
3 (3) Doctor Strange (DVDScr) 8.0 / trailer
4 (2) Passengers (Subbed HDrip) 7.1 / trailer
5 (5) Jack Reacher: Never Go Back 6.3 / trailer
6 (4) La La Land (DVDscr) 8.8 / trailer
7 (…) Underworld: Blood Wars 6.2 / trailer
8 (…) Nocturnal Animals 7.6 / trailer
9 (8) Manchester By The Sea (DVDscr) 8.3 / trailer
10 (9) Lion (DVDscr) 8.0 / trailer

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Change.org Petitions Used For Pirate Movie Downloads

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/change-org-petitions-used-for-pirate-movie-downloads-170212/

In years gone by, people trying to draw attention to a cause would do so in the streets, asking people to sign a paper petition in the hope that change could be brought about. These days, the Internet has more straightforward solutions.

People who spend a lot of time online have no doubt been asked to visit Change.org, a US-based petition site with more than 100 million users. This past December, for example, an unprecedented 4.6 million people signed a Change.org petition to make Hillary Clinton president.

The majority of petitions are focused on more niche campaigns, many with a local interest. However, for the past few years, the platform has been used for something else entirely – piracy.

Way back in 2012, UFC-owner Zuffa complained to Google that someone had posted links to its PPV event, UFC 153, on Change.org. For the next several years, the complaints continued to come in, from giants including Columbia Pictures (The Interview), Lionsgate (The Expendables), publisher Simon & Schuster, and dozens of others.

For the most part, complaints have been fairly well spread out. However, during recent months the frequency has increased to a few complaints a week. It’s rare for Google to remove search links since it appears that Change.org acts quickly to remove content.

However, a scan through the site itself reveals hundreds of ‘petitions’ containing numerous ‘pirate’ terms.

One such ‘petition’ features Straight Outta Compton along with links to an external site where the movie can be viewed. The petition has a target of 500 signatures and for no clear reason it achieved 230 before running its course.

Also provoking vigorous head-scratches are the reasons voters give for participating in Change.org petitions featuring pirate movies.

Links are accessible to anyone, but people actually sign in and comment with gems like “I wanna watch straight outta compton” and “I’m signing because i’m very anxious to watch this movie and I love rap music.”

Another, which is perhaps more insightful, suggests an educational benefit. “People should know of what it was like living back in the streets,” the voter wrote.

Sadly and perhaps predictably, some of the ‘movie’ links posted to Change.org lead to external sites with questionable motives. We’re not keen to expose readers to them, so we’ll omit the links from here to save any unwanted trouble.

However, it seems likely from the comments left by some Change.org members that their decision to vote for a free movie download turned into a rather unpleasant experience. This user expected “[BluRay-1080p] ‘Warcraft’ On-line Movie [2016] F.ull F.r.e.e” but got something else.

But despite the misuse of Change.org for these ‘pirate’ links and probable malware, some people actually sign these ‘petitions’ for reasons that are perhaps worthy of a real call for change.

A pair of users from Australia and New Zealand, who signed a petition for “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2”, give their reasons for supporting the cause as follows.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

UK Piracy Alerts: The First Look Inside the Warning System

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/uk-piracy-alerts-the-first-look-inside-the-warning-system-170210/

In January it was revealed that UK ISPs and the movie and music industries had finally reached their years-long goal of sending infringment notices to pirating subscribers.

The alerts, which are claimed to be educational in nature, are part of the larger Creative Content UK (CCUK) initiative, which includes PR campaigns targeted at the public and classroom.

Until now, no one has published details of the actual alerts in public but thanks to a cooperative member of the UK public, TorrentFreak has the lowdown. The system we’ll show below relates to Sky, so other ISPs may or may not operate slightly differently.

The initial warning email from Sky

The email above has been redacted to protect the identity of our tipster. The blacked-out areas contain his name, the date in DD/MM/YY format, an alleged time of infringement in the HH:MM format, and a seven-digit reference code for the shared content, which is the TV show Westworld.

There is also a pair of links, one to sign into the subscriber’s Sky account (presumably this ensures the person signing in is the account holder) and a link to the ‘Get it Right Information Portal’. The first page before hitting that site looks like this.

What is Creative Content UK?

Once on the GetItRight site, the user is informed that his or her account has been used to breach copyright and that further information is available on the following pages.

There’s a report coming up

Following the links, the alleged infringer is presented with a page which provides a lot more detail. The CIR ID shown below is the same as the seven-digit code on Sky’s website. The date and time are the same, although in different formats.

The all-important IP address is listed alongside details of the software used to share the content. Also included are the filename and filesize of the infringing content and the copyright owner that made the complaint.

The infringement data

Interestingly, the system’s ability to track repeat infringers is evident at the bottom of the screenshot where the “Total Instances Logged This Period” can be seen.

Since the purpose of the campaign is to “educate” infringers, we asked our tipster a little about his habits, his impressions of the system, and how this warning will affect his future behavior.

“I was expecting [a warning] sooner or later as a heavy BitTorrent user. I’m sharing everything from movies, TV shows to games, but this email was about watching a TV show on Popcorn Time,” he revealed.

“This surprised me because I don’t use Popcorn Time very often and yet after approximately 10 minutes of usage I got an email the very next day. Isn’t that funny?”

So in this case, the warning was not only accurate but was also delivered to the correct person, rather than merely the person who pays the bill. We asked our tipster if he was aware of the GetItRight campaign before receiving this warning and whether it would achieve its aims.

“Yes, I have read articles on TorrentFreak. Only what I have read on TorrentFreak,” he said.

“I don’t think [the warnings] will work, at least not on a big scale. Maybe they will educate some people who did it by mistake or did it just once but for someone like me there is no hope. But at least the campaign is not aggressive.”

Interestingly, the education factor in this particular case appears to have somewhat backfired. Our tipster said that thanks to news coverage of the warnings, he knew immediately that there would be no consequences for receiving one. That put his mind at rest.

However, he did indicate that he may change his habits after receiving the warning, particularly given Sky’s claim it will ask subscribers to remove file-sharing software if they’re caught multiple times.

“[The threat to remove software] upsets me as a long-term Sky customer. But I won’t comply, I will either subscribe to another ISP provider or start using VPNs,” he said.

“I might stop using Popcorn Time as I wasn’t using it too often anyway, but I will keep using BitTorrent,” he added. Of course, Popcorn Time has BitTorrent under the hood, so both can trigger warnings.

Received a warning from a UK ISP? Contact TF in complete confidence.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Safer Internet Day

Post Syndicated from Rik Cross original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/safer-internet-day/

Today is Safer Internet Day, which promotes the safe use of digital technology for children and young people. There can be a lot of misconceptions about what is and is not safe in terms internet usage, which is why it is so important that experienced people, like the wonderful Raspberry Pi community, do their bit to highlight positive uses of technology, and to explore the role we all play in helping to create a better and safer online community.

child looking through a magnifying glass

If you teach computing, volunteer in a Code Club, or just want to spread the word about using technology safely and responsibly among the kids you know, why not check these projects out? You might even learn some nifty tricks yourself!

Secret Agent Chat

Secret agent chat

Fancy yourself as a bit of a James Bond? Our Secret Agent Chat resource teaches you how to create and use an effective encryption technique called a one-time pad. You’ll also learn a little about the history of cryptography, and why other forms of cipher are insecure. Remember that Safer Internet Day is all about the responsible use of technology, and try not to provoke any diplomatic incidents with your new-found power…

Username Generator

Wake up, Neo…

 

If you want to generate a username which is neither insecure nor boringly obvious, have a look at this project. You’ll learn how to generate a range of different aliases, and even make profile pictures to go along with them. Again, be sure to use your powers for good rather than evil!

Password Generator

Spaceballs bad password

Don’t be like President Skroob: make yourself a password which is actually secure. This project teaches you how to generate random, secure passwords, as well as allowing you to specify how many passwords you want and how long they should be. No roving intergalactic baddies will be stealing the air from the planet Druidia on your watch!

You can find out more about Safer Internet Day 2017 on the UK Safer Internet Centre’s website, which also contains education packs for learners, parents, and carers. You’ll have to furnish the 007-style tuxedo and flying Winnebago yourself, though.

The post Safer Internet Day appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 02/06/17

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-pirated-movies-week-020617/

arrival-torrentsThis week we have four newcomers in our chart.

Arrival is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

This week’s most downloaded movies are:
Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrents
1 (2) Arrival 8.3 / trailer
2 (…) Passengers (Subbed HDrip) 7.1 / trailer
3 (1) Doctor Strange (DVDScr) 8.0 / trailer
4 (2) La La Land (DVDscr) 8.8 / trailer
5 (6) Jack Reacher: Never Go Back 6.3 / trailer
6 (…) Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (HDTS) 6.3 / trailer
7 (4) Hacksaw Ridge (DVDscr) 8.5 / trailer
8 (7) Manchester By The Sea (DVDscr) 8.3 / trailer
9 (…) Lion (DVDscr) 8.0 / trailer
10 (…) The Founder (DVDscr) 7.3 / trailer

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Sky Will Request Persistent Pirates to Remove File-Sharing Software

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/sky-will-request-persistent-pirates-to-remove-file-sharing-software-170204/

skylogoWith help from copyright holders, ISPs will send email notifications to subscribers whose connections are allegedly used to pirate content.

These “alerts” are meant to educate copyright infringers about legal alternatives in the hope of decreasing piracy rates over time.

In recent weeks the parties involved have put everything in place to get going. Following BT, TalkTalk, Virgin Media and Sky have all now posted advisories on their respective websites.

A question that repeatedly returns is whether people are at risk of losing their broadband access. The answer for all parties is a clear NO. Sky, however, isn’t letting its customers continue on their merry way without any repercussions.

“Your broadband service won’t be affected as a result of receiving this email alert,” Sky assures its subscribers, but it doesn’t stop there.

“However, if you continue to share content illegally using your broadband connection, Sky will request that you take immediate steps to remove or disable any file sharing software that is being used to share copyrighted content illegally,” Sky writes.

In other words, repeat infringers can expect follow-up communication from the ISP, asking them to remove all BitTorrent clients that are used to share infringing material. That’s quite a strong message.

This promise also raises a new question. What will happen if the users in question refuse to remove the file-sharing software, or get caught again? Will that lead to more severe repercussions?

The FAQ section doesn’t go into detail on this hypothetical situation. That said, many ISPs reserve the rights to terminate accounts of users who are persistent copyright infringers.

TorrentFreak also reviewed the advisories of the other ISPs, but none of these refer to such follow-up requests.

TalkTalk does stress that they won’t report customers to the police though, and Virgin mentions that they won’t share any personal details with copyright holders, unless they receive a valid court order.

In a way, it’s not really surprising that Sky has a more aggressive approach. The company is a major copyright holder itself and has invested “billions of pounds” in entertainment.

Whether their emails will help cut these losses has yet to be seen…

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Fake cases for your Raspberry Pi – make sure you don’t end up with one!

Post Syndicated from Liz Upton original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/fake-cases-raspberry-pi-make-sure-dont-end-one/

If you’re a Pi fan, you’ll recognise our official case, designed by Kinneir Dufort. We’re rather proud of it, and if sales are anything to go by, you seem to like it a lot as well.

Raspberry Pi case design sketches

Unfortunately, some scammers in China have also spotted that Pi owners like the case a lot, so they’ve been cloning it and trying to sell it in third-party stores.

We managed to get our hands on a sample through a proxy pretending to be a Pi shop, and we have some pictures so you can see what the differences are and ensure that you have the genuine article. The fake cases are not as well-made as the real thing, and they also deprive us of some much-needed charitable income. As you probably know, the Raspberry Pi Foundation is a charity. All the money we make from selling computers, cases, cameras, and other products goes straight into our charitable fund to train teachers, provide free learning resources, teach kids, help build the foundations of digital making in schools, and much more.

Let’s do a bit of spot-the-difference.

Fake case. Notice the poor fit, the extra light pipes (the Chinese cloner decided not to make different cases for Pi2 and Pi3), and the sunken ovals above them.

Real case. Only one set of light pipes (this case is for a Pi3), no ovals, and the whole thing fits together much more neatly. There’s no lip in the middle piece under the lid.

There are some other telltale signs: have a close look at the area around the logo on the white lid.

This one’s the fake. At about the 7 o’clock position, the plastic around the logo is uneven and ripply – the effect’s even more pronounced in real life. 

This is what a real case looks like. The logo is much more crisp and cleanly embossed, and there are no telltale lumps and bumps around it.

The underside’s a bit off as well:

The cloners are using a cheaper, translucent non-slip foot on the fake case, and the feet don’t fit well in the lugs which house them. Again, you can see that the general fit is quite bad.

Real case. Near-transparent non-slip feet, centred in their housing, and with no shreds of escaping glue. There’s no rectangular tooling marks on the bottom. The SD card slot is a different shape.

Please let us know if you find any of these fake cases in the wild. And be extra-vigilant if you’re buying somewhere like eBay to make sure that you’re purchasing the real thing. We also make a black and grey version of the case, although the pink and white is much more popular. We haven’t seen these cloned yet, but if you spot one we’d like to know about it, as we can then discuss them with the resellers. It’s more than possible that retailers won’t realise they’re buying fakes, but it damages our reputation when something shonky comes on the market and it looks like we’ve made it. It damages the Raspberry Pi Foundation’s pockets too, which means we can’t do the important work in education we were set up to do.

The post Fake cases for your Raspberry Pi – make sure you don’t end up with one! appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Bringing Digital Making to the Bett Show 2017

Post Syndicated from Carrie Anne Philbin original https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/bett-2017/

The Cambridge office must have been very quiet last week, as staff from across the Raspberry Pi Foundation exhibited at the Bett Show 2017. Avid readers will note that at the UK’s largest educational technology event, held in London across four days, we tend to go all out. This year was no exception, as we had lots to share with you!

Hello World

It was hugely exciting to help launch Hello World, our latest joint publication with Computing At School (CAS), part of BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT, and sponsored by BT. I joined our CEO Philip Colligan, contributing editor Miles Berry, and Raspberry Pi Certified Educator Ian Simpson on stage in the Bett arena to share our thoughts on computing curriculums around the world, and the importance of sharing good teaching.

In our area of the STEAM village, where we had four pods and a workshop space, the team handed copies out in their thousands to eager educators interested in digital making, computing, and computer science. If you weren’t able to get your hands on a copy, don’t worry; you can download a free digital PDF and educators can subscribe to get this year’s three issues delivered, completely free of charge, to their door.

Sharing the Code Club love

Thanks to the support of some enthusiastic young people and our Code Club regional coordinators, we ran our first ever Code Club at Bett on Saturday.

codeclublondon on Twitter

Massive thanks to @TheChallenge_UK @CodeClub volunteers for helping @Raspberry_Pi out at #Bett2017 today 🙂

There was a great turnout of educators and their children, who all took part in a programming activity, learning just what makes Code Club so special. With activities like this, you can see why there are 5,000 clubs in the UK and 4,000 in the rest of the world!

Code Club South East on Twitter

Here’s @ben_nuttall enjoying our @CodeClub keepy uppy game… https://t.co/bmUAvyjndT

Free stuff

Let’s be honest: exhibitions and conferences are all about the free swag. (I walked away with a hoodie, polo shirt, and three highlighter pens.) We think we had the best offering: free magazines and classroom posters!

Code Club UK on Twitter

It’s our the final day of #Bett2017! Pop over to STEAM village to see the Code Club team & get your hands on our coveted posters! #PiAtBett

We love interacting with people and we’re passionate about making things, so we helped attendees make their very own LED badge that they could keep. It was so popular that after it has had a few tweaks, we’ll will make it available for you to download and use in class, after-school clubs, and Raspberry Jams!

 

The ‘All Seeing Pi‘ kept an eye on attendees passing by that we may have missed, using comedy moustaches to lure them in. We’ve enjoyed checking out its Twitter account to see the results.

Speaking from the heart

The STEAM village was crammed with people enjoying all our activities, but that’s not all; we even found time to support our educator community to give talks about their classroom practice on stage. One of the highlights was seeing three of our Certified Educators, along with their class robots, sharing their journey and experience on a panel chaired by Robot Wars judge and our good friend, Dr Lucy Rogers.

These ARE the droids you’re looking for! Bill Harvey, Neil Rickus, Nic Hughes, Dr Lucy Rogers, and their robots.

Once we started talking about our work, we found it difficult to stop. The team gave talks about Pioneers, our new programme for 12- to 15-year-olds, our digital making curriculum, and Astro Pi.

Bett on Twitter

Well done @Raspberry_Pi for such a good turn out yesterday! Keep up the good work at your stand in STEAM Village.

A royal visit

We were excited to be visited by a very special attendee, our patron the Duke of York, who spent time meeting the team, learned more about our programmes, and discussed teacher training with me.

Team Awesome

Thanks to everyone who visited, supported, and got involved with us. We ran 43 workshops and talks on our stand, handed out 2,000 free copies of Hello World and 400 Code Club posters, caught 100 comedy faces with the All-Seeing Pi, gave 5 presentations on Bett stages, took 5,000 pictures on our balloon cam, and ran 1 Code Club and 1 Raspberry Jam, across 4 days at the Bett show.

Bett lapse

Time Lapse from the Bett Show, London (2017)

 

The post Bringing Digital Making to the Bett Show 2017 appeared first on Raspberry Pi.

Month in Review: January 2017

Post Syndicated from Derek Young original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/big-data/month-in-review-january-2017/

Another month of big data solutions on the Big Data Blog!

Take a look at our summaries below and learn, comment, and share. Thank you for reading!

NEW POSTS

Decreasing Game Churn: How Upopa used ironSource Atom and Amazon ML to Engage Users
Ever wondered what it takes to keep a user from leaving your game or application after all the hard work you put in? Wouldn’t it be great to get a chance to interact with the users before they’re about to leave? In this post, learn how ironSource worked with gaming studio Upopa to build an efficient, cheap, and accurate way to battle churn and make data-driven decisions using ironSource Atom’s data pipeline and Amazon ML.

Create a Healthcare Data Hub with AWS and Mirth Connect
Healthcare providers record patient information across different software platforms. Each of these platforms can have varying implementations of complex healthcare data standards. Also, each system needs to communicate with a central repository called a health information exchange (HIE) to build a central, complete clinical record for each patient. In this post, learn how to consume different data types as messages, transform the information within the messages, and then use AWS services to take action depending on the message type.

Call for Papers! DEEM: 1st Workshop on Data Management for End-to-End Machine Learning
Amazon and Matroid will hold the first workshop on Data Management for End-to-End Machine Learning (DEEM) on May 14th, 2017 in conjunction with the premier systems conference SIGMOD/PODS 2017 in Raleigh, North Carolina. DEEM brings together researchers and practitioners at the intersection of applied machine learning, data management, and systems research to discuss data management issues in ML application scenarios. The workshop is soliciting research papers that describe preliminary and ongoing research results.

Converging Data Silos to Amazon Redshift Using AWS DMS
In this post, learn to use AWS Database Migration Service (AWS DMS) and other AWS services to easily converge multiple heterogonous data sources to Amazon Redshift. You can then use Amazon QuickSight, to visualize the converged dataset to gain additional business insights.

Run Mixed Workloads with Amazon Redshift Workload Management
It’s common for mixed workloads to have some processes that require higher priority than others. Sometimes, this means a certain job must complete within a given SLA. Other times, this means you only want to prevent a non-critical reporting workload from consuming too many cluster resources at any one time. Without workload management (WLM), each query is prioritized equally, which can cause a person, team, or workload to consume excessive cluster resources for a process which isn’t as valuable as other more business-critical jobs. This post provides guidelines on common WLM patterns and shows how you can use WLM query insights to optimize configuration in production workloads.

Secure Amazon EMR with Encryption
In this post, learn how to set up encryption of data at multiple levels using security configurations with EMR. You’ll walk through the step-by-step process to achieve all the encryption prerequisites, such as building the KMS keys, building SSL certificates, and launching the EMR cluster with a strong security configuration.

FROM THE ARCHIVE

Powering Amazon Redshift Analytics with Apache Spark and Amazon Machine Learning
In this post, learn to generate a predictive model for flight delays that can be used to help pick the flight least likely to add to your travel stress. To accomplish this, you’ll use Apache Spark running on Amazon EMR for extracting, transforming, and loading (ETL) the data, Amazon Redshift for analysis, and Amazon Machine Learning for creating predictive models.


Want to learn more about Big Data or Streaming Data? Check out our Big Data and Streaming data educational pages.

Leave a comment below to let us know what big data topics you’d like to see next on the AWS Big Data Blog.

1984 is the new Bible in the age of Trump

Post Syndicated from Robert Graham original http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/02/1984-is-new-bible.html

In the age of Trump, Orwell’s book 1984 is becoming the new Bible: a religious text which few read, but which many claim supports their beliefs. A good demonstration is this CNN op-ed, in which the author describes Trump as being Orwellian, but mostly just because Trump is a Republican.

Trump’s populist attacks against our (classically) liberal world order is indeed cause for concern. His assault on the truth is indeed a bit Orwellian. But it’s op-eds like this one at CNN that are part of the problem.
While the author of the op-ed spends much time talking about his dogs (“Winston”, “Julia”), and how much he hates Trump, he spends little time on the core thesis “Orwellianism”. When he does, it’s mostly about old political disagreements. For example, the op-ed calls Trump’s cabinet appointees Orwellian simply because they are Republicans:

He has provided us with Betsy DeVos, a secretary of education nominee who is widely believed to oppose public education, and who promotes the truly Orwellian-sounding concept of “school choice,” a plan that seems well-intentioned but which critics complain actually siphons much-needed funds from public to private education institutions.

Calling school-choice “Orwellian” is absurd. Republicans want to privatize more, and the Democrats want the state to run more of the economy. It’s the same disagreement that divides the two parties on almost any policy issue. When you call every little political disagreement “Orwellian” then you devalue the idea. I’m Republican, so of course I’d argue that the it’s the state-run education system giving parents zero choice that is the thing that’s Orwellian here. And now we bicker, both convinced that Orwell is on our side in this debate. #WhatWouldOrwellDo
If something is “Orwellian”, then you need to do a better job demonstrating this, making the analogy clear. For example, last year I showed how in response to a political disagreement, that Wikipedia and old newspaper articles were edited in order to conform to the new political reality. This is a clear example of Winston Smith’s job of changing the past in order to match the present.
But even such clear documentation is probably powerless to change anybody’s mind. Whether “changing the text of old newspaper articles to fit modern politics” is Orwellian depends entirely on your politics, whether the changes agree with your views. Go follow the link [*] and see for yourself and see if you agree with the change (replacing the word “refugee” in old articles with “asylee” instead).
It’s this that Orwell was describing. Doublethink wasn’t something forced onto us by a totalitarian government so much as something we willingly adopted ourselves. The target of Orwell’s criticism wasn’t them, the totalitarian government, but us, the people who willingly went along with it. Doublethink is what people in both parties (Democrats and Republicans) do equally, regardless of the who resides in the White House.
Trump is an alt-Putin. He certainly wants to become a totalitarian. But at this point, his lies are juvenile and transparent, which even his supporters find difficult believing [*]. The most Orwellian thing about him is what he inherits from Obama [*]: the two Party system, perpetual war, omnipresent surveillance, the propaganda system, and our nascent cyber-police-state [*].
Conclusion

Yes, people should read 1984 in the age of Trump, not because he’s created the Orwellian system, but because he’s trying to exploit the system that’s already there. If you believe he’s Orwellian because he’s Republican, as the foolish author of that CNN op-ed believes, then you’ve missed the point of Orwell’s novel completely.

Bonus: Doing a point-by-point rebuttal gets boring, and makes the post long, but ought to be done out of a sense of completeness. The following paragraph contains the most “Orwell” points, but it’s all essentially nonsense:

We are living in this state of flux in real life. Russia was and likely is our nation’s fiercest rival, yet as a candidate, President Trump famously stated, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 [Clinton] emails that are missing.” He praises Putin but states that perhaps he may not actually like him when they meet. WikiLeaks published DNC data alleged to have been obtained by Russian operatives, but the election was not “rigged.” A recount would be “ridiculous,” yet voter fraud was rampant. Trusted sources of information are “fake news,” and somehow Chelsea Manning, WikiLeaks’ most notable whistleblower, is now an “ungrateful traitor.”

Trump’s asking Russia to find the missing emails was clearly a joke. Trump’s speech is marked by exaggeration and jokes like this. That Trump’s rivals insist his jokes be taken seriously is the problem here, more than what he’s joking about.

The correct Orwellian analogy to draw here is is the Eurasia (Russia) and Eastasia (China) parallels. Under Obama, China was a close trading partner while Russia was sanctioned for invading the Ukraine. Under Trump, it’s China who is our top rival while Russia/Putin is more of our friends. What’s Orwellian is how polls [*] of what Republicans think of Russia have gone through a shift, “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”.

The above paragraph implies Trump said the election wasn’t “rigged”. No, Trump still says the election was rigged, even after he won it. [*] It’s Democrats who’ve flip-flopped on their opinion whether the election was “rigged” after Trump’s win. Trump attacks the election system because that’s what illiberal totalitarians always do, not because it’s Orwellian.

“Recounts” and “fraudulent votes” aren’t the same thing. Somebody registered to vote, and voting, in multiple states is not something that’ll be detected with a “recount” in any one state, for example. Trump’s position on voter fraud is absurd, but it’s not Orwellian.

Instead of these small things, what’s Orwellian is Trump’s grander story of a huge popular “movement” behind him. That’s why his inauguration numbers are important. That’s why losing the popular vote is important. It’s why he keeps using the word “movement” in all his speeches. It’s the big lie he’s telling that makes him Orwellian, not all the small lies.

Trusted sources of news are indeed “fake news”. The mainstream media has problems, whether it’s their tendency to sensationalism, or the way they uncritically repeat government propaganda (“according to senior government officials”) regardless of which Party controls the White House. Indeed, Orwell himself was a huge critic of the press — sometimes what they report is indeed “fake news”, not simply a mistake but something that violates the press’s own standards.

Yes, the President or high-level government officials have no business attacking the press the way Trump does, regardless if they deserve it. Trump indeed had a few legitimate criticism of the press, but his attacks have quickly devolved to attacking the press whenever it’s simply Truth disagreeing with Trump’s lies. It’s all attacks against the independent press that are the problem, not the label “fake news”.

As Wikipedia documents, “the term “traitor” has been used as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action”. Despite being found not guilty of “aiding the enemy”, Chelsea Manning was convicted of espionage. Reasonable people can disagree about Manning’s action — while you may not like the “traitor” epithet, it’s not an Orwellian term.

Instead, what is Orwellian is insisting Manning was a “whistleblower”. Reasonable people disagree with that description. Manning didn’t release specific diplomatic cables demonstrative of official wrongdoing, but the entire dump of all cables going back more than a decade. It’s okay to call Manning a whistleblower (I might describe her as such), but it’s absurd to claim this is some objective truth. For example, the Wikipedia article [*] on Chelsea Manning documents several people calling her a whistleblower, but does not itself use that term to describe Manning. The struggle between objective and subjective “Truth” is a big part of Orwell’s work.

What I’m demonstrating here in this bonus section is the foolishness of that CNN op-ed. He hates Trump, but entirely misunderstands Orwell. He does a poor job pinning down Trump on exactly how he fits the Orwellian mode. He writes like somebody who hasn’t actually read the book at all.

Security and the Internet of Things

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/02/security_and_th.html

Last year, on October 21, your digital video recorder ­- or at least a DVR like yours ­- knocked Twitter off the internet. Someone used your DVR, along with millions of insecure webcams, routers, and other connected devices, to launch an attack that started a chain reaction, resulting in Twitter, Reddit, Netflix, and many sites going off the internet. You probably didn’t realize that your DVR had that kind of power. But it does.

All computers are hackable. This has as much to do with the computer market as it does with the technologies. We prefer our software full of features and inexpensive, at the expense of security and reliability. That your computer can affect the security of Twitter is a market failure. The industry is filled with market failures that, until now, have been largely ignorable. As computers continue to permeate our homes, cars, businesses, these market failures will no longer be tolerable. Our only solution will be regulation, and that regulation will be foisted on us by a government desperate to “do something” in the face of disaster.

In this article I want to outline the problems, both technical and political, and point to some regulatory solutions. Regulation might be a dirty word in today’s political climate, but security is the exception to our small-government bias. And as the threats posed by computers become greater and more catastrophic, regulation will be inevitable. So now’s the time to start thinking about it.

We also need to reverse the trend to connect everything to the internet. And if we risk harm and even death, we need to think twice about what we connect and what we deliberately leave uncomputerized.

If we get this wrong, the computer industry will look like the pharmaceutical industry, or the aircraft industry. But if we get this right, we can maintain the innovative environment of the internet that has given us so much.

**********

We no longer have things with computers embedded in them. We have computers with things attached to them.

Your modern refrigerator is a computer that keeps things cold. Your oven, similarly, is a computer that makes things hot. An ATM is a computer with money inside. Your car is no longer a mechanical device with some computers inside; it’s a computer with four wheels and an engine. Actually, it’s a distributed system of over 100 computers with four wheels and an engine. And, of course, your phones became full-power general-purpose computers in 2007, when the iPhone was introduced.

We wear computers: fitness trackers and computer-enabled medical devices ­- and, of course, we carry our smartphones everywhere. Our homes have smart thermostats, smart appliances, smart door locks, even smart light bulbs. At work, many of those same smart devices are networked together with CCTV cameras, sensors that detect customer movements, and everything else. Cities are starting to embed smart sensors in roads, streetlights, and sidewalk squares, also smart energy grids and smart transportation networks. A nuclear power plant is really just a computer that produces electricity, and ­- like everything else we’ve just listed -­ it’s on the internet.

The internet is no longer a web that we connect to. Instead, it’s a computerized, networked, and interconnected world that we live in. This is the future, and what we’re calling the Internet of Things.

Broadly speaking, the Internet of Things has three parts. There are the sensors that collect data about us and our environment: smart thermostats, street and highway sensors, and those ubiquitous smartphones with their motion sensors and GPS location receivers. Then there are the “smarts” that figure out what the data means and what to do about it. This includes all the computer processors on these devices and ­- increasingly ­- in the cloud, as well as the memory that stores all of this information. And finally, there are the actuators that affect our environment. The point of a smart thermostat isn’t to record the temperature; it’s to control the furnace and the air conditioner. Driverless cars collect data about the road and the environment to steer themselves safely to their destinations.

You can think of the sensors as the eyes and ears of the internet. You can think of the actuators as the hands and feet of the internet. And you can think of the stuff in the middle as the brain. We are building an internet that senses, thinks, and acts.

This is the classic definition of a robot. We’re building a world-size robot, and we don’t even realize it.

To be sure, it’s not a robot in the classical sense. We think of robots as discrete autonomous entities, with sensors, brain, and actuators all together in a metal shell. The world-size robot is distributed. It doesn’t have a singular body, and parts of it are controlled in different ways by different people. It doesn’t have a central brain, and it has nothing even remotely resembling a consciousness. It doesn’t have a single goal or focus. It’s not even something we deliberately designed. It’s something we have inadvertently built out of the everyday objects we live with and take for granted. It is the extension of our computers and networks into the real world.

This world-size robot is actually more than the Internet of Things. It’s a combination of several decades-old computing trends: mobile computing, cloud computing, always-on computing, huge databases of personal information, the Internet of Things ­- or, more precisely, cyber-physical systems ­- autonomy, and artificial intelligence. And while it’s still not very smart, it’ll get smarter. It’ll get more powerful and more capable through all the interconnections we’re building.

It’ll also get much more dangerous.

**********

Computer security has been around for almost as long as computers have been. And while it’s true that security wasn’t part of the design of the original internet, it’s something we have been trying to achieve since its beginning.

I have been working in computer security for over 30 years: first in cryptography, then more generally in computer and network security, and now in general security technology. I have watched computers become ubiquitous, and have seen firsthand the problems ­- and solutions ­- of securing these complex machines and systems. I’m telling you all this because what used to be a specialized area of expertise now affects everything. Computer security is now everything security. There’s one critical difference, though: The threats have become greater.

Traditionally, computer security is divided into three categories: confidentiality, integrity, and availability. For the most part, our security concerns have largely centered around confidentiality. We’re concerned about our data and who has access to it ­- the world of privacy and surveillance, of data theft and misuse.

But threats come in many forms. Availability threats: computer viruses that delete our data, or ransomware that encrypts our data and demands payment for the unlock key. Integrity threats: hackers who can manipulate data entries can do things ranging from changing grades in a class to changing the amount of money in bank accounts. Some of these threats are pretty bad. Hospitals have paid tens of thousands of dollars to criminals whose ransomware encrypted critical medical files. JPMorgan Chase spends half a billion on cybersecurity a year.

Today, the integrity and availability threats are much worse than the confidentiality threats. Once computers start affecting the world in a direct and physical manner, there are real risks to life and property. There is a fundamental difference between crashing your computer and losing your spreadsheet data, and crashing your pacemaker and losing your life. This isn’t hyperbole; recently researchers found serious security vulnerabilities in St. Jude Medical’s implantable heart devices. Give the internet hands and feet, and it will have the ability to punch and kick.

Take a concrete example: modern cars, those computers on wheels. The steering wheel no longer turns the axles, nor does the accelerator pedal change the speed. Every move you make in a car is processed by a computer, which does the actual controlling. A central computer controls the dashboard. There’s another in the radio. The engine has 20 or so computers. These are all networked, and increasingly autonomous.

Now, let’s start listing the security threats. We don’t want car navigation systems to be used for mass surveillance, or the microphone for mass eavesdropping. We might want it to be used to determine a car’s location in the event of a 911 call, and possibly to collect information about highway congestion. We don’t want people to hack their own cars to bypass emissions-control limitations. We don’t want manufacturers or dealers to be able to do that, either, as Volkswagen did for years. We can imagine wanting to give police the ability to remotely and safely disable a moving car; that would make high-speed chases a thing of the past. But we definitely don’t want hackers to be able to do that. We definitely don’t want them disabling the brakes in every car without warning, at speed. As we make the transition from driver-controlled cars to cars with various driver-assist capabilities to fully driverless cars, we don’t want any of those critical components subverted. We don’t want someone to be able to accidentally crash your car, let alone do it on purpose. And equally, we don’t want them to be able to manipulate the navigation software to change your route, or the door-lock controls to prevent you from opening the door. I could go on.

That’s a lot of different security requirements, and the effects of getting them wrong range from illegal surveillance to extortion by ransomware to mass death.

**********

Our computers and smartphones are as secure as they are because companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Google spend a lot of time testing their code before it’s released, and quickly patch vulnerabilities when they’re discovered. Those companies can support large, dedicated teams because those companies make a huge amount of money, either directly or indirectly, from their software ­ and, in part, compete on its security. Unfortunately, this isn’t true of embedded systems like digital video recorders or home routers. Those systems are sold at a much lower margin, and are often built by offshore third parties. The companies involved simply don’t have the expertise to make them secure.

At a recent hacker conference, a security researcher analyzed 30 home routers and was able to break into half of them, including some of the most popular and common brands. The denial-of-service attacks that forced popular websites like Reddit and Twitter off the internet last October were enabled by vulnerabilities in devices like webcams and digital video recorders. In August, two security researchers demonstrated a ransomware attack on a smart thermostat.

Even worse, most of these devices don’t have any way to be patched. Companies like Microsoft and Apple continuously deliver security patches to your computers. Some home routers are technically patchable, but in a complicated way that only an expert would attempt. And the only way for you to update the firmware in your hackable DVR is to throw it away and buy a new one.

The market can’t fix this because neither the buyer nor the seller cares. The owners of the webcams and DVRs used in the denial-of-service attacks don’t care. Their devices were cheap to buy, they still work, and they don’t know any of the victims of the attacks. The sellers of those devices don’t care: They’re now selling newer and better models, and the original buyers only cared about price and features. There is no market solution, because the insecurity is what economists call an externality: It’s an effect of the purchasing decision that affects other people. Think of it kind of like invisible pollution.

**********

Security is an arms race between attacker and defender. Technology perturbs that arms race by changing the balance between attacker and defender. Understanding how this arms race has unfolded on the internet is essential to understanding why the world-size robot we’re building is so insecure, and how we might secure it. To that end, I have five truisms, born from what we’ve already learned about computer and internet security. They will soon affect the security arms race everywhere.

Truism No. 1: On the internet, attack is easier than defense.

There are many reasons for this, but the most important is the complexity of these systems. More complexity means more people involved, more parts, more interactions, more mistakes in the design and development process, more of everything where hidden insecurities can be found. Computer-security experts like to speak about the attack surface of a system: all the possible points an attacker might target and that must be secured. A complex system means a large attack surface. The defender has to secure the entire attack surface. The attacker just has to find one vulnerability ­- one unsecured avenue for attack -­ and gets to choose how and when to attack. It’s simply not a fair battle.

There are other, more general, reasons why attack is easier than defense. Attackers have a natural agility that defenders often lack. They don’t have to worry about laws, and often not about morals or ethics. They don’t have a bureaucracy to contend with, and can more quickly make use of technical innovations. Attackers also have a first-mover advantage. As a society, we’re generally terrible at proactive security; we rarely take preventive security measures until an attack actually happens. So more advantages go to the attacker.

Truism No. 2: Most software is poorly written and insecure.

If complexity isn’t enough, we compound the problem by producing lousy software. Well-written software, like the kind found in airplane avionics, is both expensive and time-consuming to produce. We don’t want that. For the most part, poorly written software has been good enough. We’d all rather live with buggy software than pay the prices good software would require. We don’t mind if our games crash regularly, or our business applications act weird once in a while. Because software has been largely benign, it hasn’t mattered. This has permeated the industry at all levels. At universities, we don’t teach how to code well. Companies don’t reward quality code in the same way they reward fast and cheap. And we consumers don’t demand it.

But poorly written software is riddled with bugs, sometimes as many as one per 1,000 lines of code. Some of them are inherent in the complexity of the software, but most are programming mistakes. Not all bugs are vulnerabilities, but some are.

Truism No. 3: Connecting everything to each other via the internet will expose new vulnerabilities.

The more we network things together, the more vulnerabilities on one thing will affect other things. On October 21, vulnerabilities in a wide variety of embedded devices were all harnessed together to create what hackers call a botnet. This botnet was used to launch a distributed denial-of-service attack against a company called Dyn. Dyn provided a critical internet function for many major internet sites. So when Dyn went down, so did all those popular websites.

These chains of vulnerabilities are everywhere. In 2012, journalist Mat Honan suffered a massive personal hack because of one of them. A vulnerability in his Amazon account allowed hackers to get into his Apple account, which allowed them to get into his Gmail account. And in 2013, the Target Corporation was hacked by someone stealing credentials from its HVAC contractor.

Vulnerabilities like these are particularly hard to fix, because no one system might actually be at fault. It might be the insecure interaction of two individually secure systems.

Truism No. 4: Everybody has to stop the best attackers in the world.

One of the most powerful properties of the internet is that it allows things to scale. This is true for our ability to access data or control systems or do any of the cool things we use the internet for, but it’s also true for attacks. In general, fewer attackers can do more damage because of better technology. It’s not just that these modern attackers are more efficient, it’s that the internet allows attacks to scale to a degree impossible without computers and networks.

This is fundamentally different from what we’re used to. When securing my home against burglars, I am only worried about the burglars who live close enough to my home to consider robbing me. The internet is different. When I think about the security of my network, I have to be concerned about the best attacker possible, because he’s the one who’s going to create the attack tool that everyone else will use. The attacker that discovered the vulnerability used to attack Dyn released the code to the world, and within a week there were a dozen attack tools using it.

Truism No. 5: Laws inhibit security research.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a terrible law that fails at its purpose of preventing widespread piracy of movies and music. To make matters worse, it contains a provision that has critical side effects. According to the law, it is a crime to bypass security mechanisms that protect copyrighted work, even if that bypassing would otherwise be legal. Since all software can be copyrighted, it is arguably illegal to do security research on these devices and to publish the result.

Although the exact contours of the law are arguable, many companies are using this provision of the DMCA to threaten researchers who expose vulnerabilities in their embedded systems. This instills fear in researchers, and has a chilling effect on research, which means two things: (1) Vendors of these devices are more likely to leave them insecure, because no one will notice and they won’t be penalized in the market, and (2) security engineers don’t learn how to do security better.
Unfortunately, companies generally like the DMCA. The provisions against reverse-engineering spare them the embarrassment of having their shoddy security exposed. It also allows them to build proprietary systems that lock out competition. (This is an important one. Right now, your toaster cannot force you to only buy a particular brand of bread. But because of this law and an embedded computer, your Keurig coffee maker can force you to buy a particular brand of coffee.)

**********
In general, there are two basic paradigms of security. We can either try to secure something well the first time, or we can make our security agile. The first paradigm comes from the world of dangerous things: from planes, medical devices, buildings. It’s the paradigm that gives us secure design and secure engineering, security testing and certifications, professional licensing, detailed preplanning and complex government approvals, and long times-to-market. It’s security for a world where getting it right is paramount because getting it wrong means people dying.

The second paradigm comes from the fast-moving and heretofore largely benign world of software. In this paradigm, we have rapid prototyping, on-the-fly updates, and continual improvement. In this paradigm, new vulnerabilities are discovered all the time and security disasters regularly happen. Here, we stress survivability, recoverability, mitigation, adaptability, and muddling through. This is security for a world where getting it wrong is okay, as long as you can respond fast enough.

These two worlds are colliding. They’re colliding in our cars -­ literally -­ in our medical devices, our building control systems, our traffic control systems, and our voting machines. And although these paradigms are wildly different and largely incompatible, we need to figure out how to make them work together.

So far, we haven’t done very well. We still largely rely on the first paradigm for the dangerous computers in cars, airplanes, and medical devices. As a result, there are medical systems that can’t have security patches installed because that would invalidate their government approval. In 2015, Chrysler recalled 1.4 million cars to fix a software vulnerability. In September 2016, Tesla remotely sent a security patch to all of its Model S cars overnight. Tesla sure sounds like it’s doing things right, but what vulnerabilities does this remote patch feature open up?

**********
Until now we’ve largely left computer security to the market. Because the computer and network products we buy and use are so lousy, an enormous after-market industry in computer security has emerged. Governments, companies, and people buy the security they think they need to secure themselves. We’ve muddled through well enough, but the market failures inherent in trying to secure this world-size robot will soon become too big to ignore.

Markets alone can’t solve our security problems. Markets are motivated by profit and short-term goals at the expense of society. They can’t solve collective-action problems. They won’t be able to deal with economic externalities, like the vulnerabilities in DVRs that resulted in Twitter going offline. And we need a counterbalancing force to corporate power.

This all points to policy. While the details of any computer-security system are technical, getting the technologies broadly deployed is a problem that spans law, economics, psychology, and sociology. And getting the policy right is just as important as getting the technology right because, for internet security to work, law and technology have to work together. This is probably the most important lesson of Edward Snowden’s NSA disclosures. We already knew that technology can subvert law. Snowden demonstrated that law can also subvert technology. Both fail unless each work. It’s not enough to just let technology do its thing.

Any policy changes to secure this world-size robot will mean significant government regulation. I know it’s a sullied concept in today’s world, but I don’t see any other possible solution. It’s going to be especially difficult on the internet, where its permissionless nature is one of the best things about it and the underpinning of its most world-changing innovations. But I don’t see how that can continue when the internet can affect the world in a direct and physical manner.

**********

I have a proposal: a new government regulatory agency. Before dismissing it out of hand, please hear me out.

We have a practical problem when it comes to internet regulation. There’s no government structure to tackle this at a systemic level. Instead, there’s a fundamental mismatch between the way government works and the way this technology works that makes dealing with this problem impossible at the moment.

Government operates in silos. In the U.S., the FAA regulates aircraft. The NHTSA regulates cars. The FDA regulates medical devices. The FCC regulates communications devices. The FTC protects consumers in the face of “unfair” or “deceptive” trade practices. Even worse, who regulates data can depend on how it is used. If data is used to influence a voter, it’s the Federal Election Commission’s jurisdiction. If that same data is used to influence a consumer, it’s the FTC’s. Use those same technologies in a school, and the Department of Education is now in charge. Robotics will have its own set of problems, and no one is sure how that is going to be regulated. Each agency has a different approach and different rules. They have no expertise in these new issues, and they are not quick to expand their authority for all sorts of reasons.

Compare that with the internet. The internet is a freewheeling system of integrated objects and networks. It grows horizontally, demolishing old technological barriers so that people and systems that never previously communicated now can. Already, apps on a smartphone can log health information, control your energy use, and communicate with your car. That’s a set of functions that crosses jurisdictions of at least four different government agencies, and it’s only going to get worse.

Our world-size robot needs to be viewed as a single entity with millions of components interacting with each other. Any solutions here need to be holistic. They need to work everywhere, for everything. Whether we’re talking about cars, drones, or phones, they’re all computers.

This has lots of precedent. Many new technologies have led to the formation of new government regulatory agencies. Trains did, cars did, airplanes did. Radio led to the formation of the Federal Radio Commission, which became the FCC. Nuclear power led to the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission, which eventually became the Department of Energy. The reasons were the same in every case. New technologies need new expertise because they bring with them new challenges. Governments need a single agency to house that new expertise, because its applications cut across several preexisting agencies. It’s less that the new agency needs to regulate -­ although that’s often a big part of it -­ and more that governments recognize the importance of the new technologies.

The internet has famously eschewed formal regulation, instead adopting a multi-stakeholder model of academics, businesses, governments, and other interested parties. My hope is that we can keep the best of this approach in any regulatory agency, looking more at the new U.S. Digital Service or the 18F office inside the General Services Administration. Both of those organizations are dedicated to providing digital government services, and both have collected significant expertise by bringing people in from outside of government, and both have learned how to work closely with existing agencies. Any internet regulatory agency will similarly need to engage in a high level of collaborate regulation -­ both a challenge and an opportunity.

I don’t think any of us can predict the totality of the regulations we need to ensure the safety of this world, but here’s a few. We need government to ensure companies follow good security practices: testing, patching, secure defaults -­ and we need to be able to hold companies liable when they fail to do these things. We need government to mandate strong personal data protections, and limitations on data collection and use. We need to ensure that responsible security research is legal and well-funded. We need to enforce transparency in design, some sort of code escrow in case a company goes out of business, and interoperability between devices of different manufacturers, to counterbalance the monopolistic effects of interconnected technologies. Individuals need the right to take their data with them. And internet-enabled devices should retain some minimal functionality if disconnected from the internet

I’m not the only one talking about this. I’ve seen proposals for a National Institutes of Health analog for cybersecurity. University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo has proposed a Federal Robotics Commission. I think it needs to be broader: maybe a Department of Technology Policy.

Of course there will be problems. There’s a lack of expertise in these issues inside government. There’s a lack of willingness in government to do the hard regulatory work. Industry is worried about any new bureaucracy: both that it will stifle innovation by regulating too much and that it will be captured by industry and regulate too little. A domestic regulatory agency will have to deal with the fundamentally international nature of the problem.

But government is the entity we use to solve problems like this. Governments have the scope, scale, and balance of interests to address the problems. It’s the institution we’ve built to adjudicate competing social interests and internalize market externalities. Left to their own devices, the market simply can’t. That we’re currently in the middle of an era of low government trust, where many of us can’t imagine government doing anything positive in an area like this, is to our detriment.

Here’s the thing: Governments will get involved, regardless. The risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. Government already regulates dangerous physical systems like cars and medical devices. And nothing motivates the U.S. government like fear. Remember 2001? A nominally small-government Republican president created the Office of Homeland Security 11 days after the terrorist attacks: a rushed and ill-thought-out decision that we’ve been trying to fix for over a decade. A fatal disaster will similarly spur our government into action, and it’s unlikely to be well-considered and thoughtful action. Our choice isn’t between government involvement and no government involvement. Our choice is between smarter government involvement and stupider government involvement. We have to start thinking about this now. Regulations are necessary, important, and complex; and they’re coming. We can’t afford to ignore these issues until it’s too late.

We also need to start disconnecting systems. If we cannot secure complex systems to the level required by their real-world capabilities, then we must not build a world where everything is computerized and interconnected.

There are other models. We can enable local communications only. We can set limits on collected and stored data. We can deliberately design systems that don’t interoperate with each other. We can deliberately fetter devices, reversing the current trend of turning everything into a general-purpose computer. And, most important, we can move toward less centralization and more distributed systems, which is how the internet was first envisioned.

This might be a heresy in today’s race to network everything, but large, centralized systems are not inevitable. The technical elites are pushing us in that direction, but they really don’t have any good supporting arguments other than the profits of their ever-growing multinational corporations.

But this will change. It will change not only because of security concerns, it will also change because of political concerns. We’re starting to chafe under the worldview of everything producing data about us and what we do, and that data being available to both governments and corporations. Surveillance capitalism won’t be the business model of the internet forever. We need to change the fabric of the internet so that evil governments don’t have the tools to create a horrific totalitarian state. And while good laws and regulations in Western democracies are a great second line of defense, they can’t be our only line of defense.

My guess is that we will soon reach a high-water mark of computerization and connectivity, and that afterward we will make conscious decisions about what and how we decide to interconnect. But we’re still in the honeymoon phase of connectivity. Governments and corporations are punch-drunk on our data, and the rush to connect everything is driven by an even greater desire for power and market share. One of the presentations released by Edward Snowden contained the NSA mantra: “Collect it all.” A similar mantra for the internet today might be: “Connect it all.”

The inevitable backlash will not be driven by the market. It will be deliberate policy decisions that put the safety and welfare of society above individual corporations and industries. It will be deliberate policy decisions that prioritize the security of our systems over the demands of the FBI to weaken them in order to make their law-enforcement jobs easier. It’ll be hard policy for many to swallow, but our safety will depend on it.

**********

The scenarios I’ve outlined, both the technological and economic trends that are causing them and the political changes we need to make to start to fix them, come from my years of working in internet-security technology and policy. All of this is informed by an understanding of both technology and policy. That turns out to be critical, and there aren’t enough people who understand both.

This brings me to my final plea: We need more public-interest technologists.

Over the past couple of decades, we’ve seen examples of getting internet-security policy badly wrong. I’m thinking of the FBI’s “going dark” debate about its insistence that computer devices be designed to facilitate government access, the “vulnerability equities process” about when the government should disclose and fix a vulnerability versus when it should use it to attack other systems, the debacle over paperless touch-screen voting machines, and the DMCA that I discussed above. If you watched any of these policy debates unfold, you saw policy-makers and technologists talking past each other.

Our world-size robot will exacerbate these problems. The historical divide between Washington and Silicon Valley -­ the mistrust of governments by tech companies and the mistrust of tech companies by governments ­- is dangerous.

We have to fix this. Getting IoT security right depends on the two sides working together and, even more important, having people who are experts in each working on both. We need technologists to get involved in policy, and we need policy-makers to get involved in technology. We need people who are experts in making both technology and technological policy. We need technologists on congressional staffs, inside federal agencies, working for NGOs, and as part of the press. We need to create a viable career path for public-interest technologists, much as there already is one for public-interest attorneys. We need courses, and degree programs in colleges, for people interested in careers in public-interest technology. We need fellowships in organizations that need these people. We need technology companies to offer sabbaticals for technologists wanting to go down this path. We need an entire ecosystem that supports people bridging the gap between technology and law. We need a viable career path that ensures that even though people in this field won’t make as much as they would in a high-tech start-up, they will have viable careers. The security of our computerized and networked future ­ meaning the security of ourselves, families, homes, businesses, and communities ­ depends on it.

This plea is bigger than security, actually. Pretty much all of the major policy debates of this century will have a major technological component. Whether it’s weapons of mass destruction, robots drastically affecting employment, climate change, food safety, or the increasing ubiquity of ever-shrinking drones, understanding the policy means understanding the technology. Our society desperately needs technologists working on the policy. The alternative is bad policy.

**********

The world-size robot is less designed than created. It’s coming without any forethought or architecting or planning; most of us are completely unaware of what we’re building. In fact, I am not convinced we can actually design any of this. When we try to design complex sociotechnical systems like this, we are regularly surprised by their emergent properties. The best we can do is observe and channel these properties as best we can.

Market thinking sometimes makes us lose sight of the human choices and autonomy at stake. Before we get controlled ­ or killed ­ by the world-size robot, we need to rebuild confidence in our collective governance institutions. Law and policy may not seem as cool as digital tech, but they’re also places of critical innovation. They’re where we collectively bring about the world we want to live in.

While I might sound like a Cassandra, I’m actually optimistic about our future. Our society has tackled bigger problems than this one. It takes work and it’s not easy, but we eventually find our way clear to make the hard choices necessary to solve our real problems.

The world-size robot we’re building can only be managed responsibly if we start making real choices about the interconnected world we live in. Yes, we need security systems as robust as the threat landscape. But we also need laws that effectively regulate these dangerous technologies. And, more generally, we need to make moral, ethical, and political decisions on how those systems should work. Until now, we’ve largely left the internet alone. We gave programmers a special right to code cyberspace as they saw fit. This was okay because cyberspace was separate and relatively unimportant: That is, it didn’t matter. Now that that’s changed, we can no longer give programmers and the companies they work for this power. Those moral, ethical, and political decisions need, somehow, to be made by everybody. We need to link people with the same zeal that we are currently linking machines. “Connect it all” must be countered with “connect us all.”

This essay previously appeared in New York Magazine.

Top 10 Most Pirated Movies of The Week – 01/30/17

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/top-10-pirated-movies-week-013017/

doctorstrangeThis week we have three newcomers in our chart.

Doctor Strange, of which a leaked screener was released, is the most downloaded movie.

The data for our weekly download chart is estimated by TorrentFreak, and is for informational and educational reference only. All the movies in the list are Web-DL/Webrip/HDRip/BDrip/DVDrip unless stated otherwise.

RSS feed for the weekly movie download chart.

This week’s most downloaded movies are:
Movie Rank Rank last week Movie name IMDb Rating / Trailer
Most downloaded movies via torrents
1 (10) Doctor Strange (DVDScr) 8.0 / trailer
2 (3) La La Land (DVDscr) 8.8 / trailer
3 (2) Arrival (DVDscr) 8.3 / trailer
4 (9) Hacksaw Ridge (DVDscr) 8.5 / trailer
5 (…) Allied (DVDscr) 7.1 / trailer
6 (1) Jack Reacher: Never Go Back 6.3 / trailer
7 (…) Manchester By The Sea (DVDscr) 8.3 / trailer
8 (…) Live By Night (DVDscr) 6.6 / trailer
9 (4) Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (Subbed HDRip) 7.1 / trailer
10 (5) The Girl on The Train 6.6 / trailer

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

The US ‘Six Strikes’ Anti-Piracy Scheme is Dead

Post Syndicated from Ernesto original https://torrentfreak.com/the-us-six-strikes-anti-piracy-scheme-is-dead-170128/

pirate-runningIn 2011, the MPAA and RIAA teamed up with several major U.S. Internet providers, announcing their plan to shift the norms and behavior of BitTorrent pirates.

The parties launched the Center for Copyright Information and agreed on a system through which Internet account holders are warned if their connections are used to download pirated content.

The program allowed ISPs to take a variety of repressive measures, including bandwidth throttling and temporary Internet disconnections.

The “voluntary” agreement was praised by the US Government and seen as an example for other countries, including the UK, where a similar system is about to start. At the same time, however, the Copyright Alert System members have just ended their efforts.

“After four years of extensive consumer education and engagement, the Copyright Alert System will conclude its work,” the members of the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) just announced.

“The program demonstrated that real progress is possible when content creators, Internet innovators and consumer advocates come together in a collaborative and consensus-driven process.”

It’s unclear what progress the members are referring to, as the system mostly excelled at its failure to share information with the public.

Since its inception, CCI has issued only a few press releases, and any recent data on the scope and effectiveness of the program is lacking. The only figures that were ever published cover the first ten months, ending December 2013.

Last summer we publicly questioned if the Copyright Alert System was doomed, but at the time CCI’s Executive Director Jim Kohlenberger was still hopeful.

“Going forward, we continue to look for opportunities to refine the system, and to advance our efforts and to elevate our consumer-focused mission in pragmatic ways,” Kohlenberger said.

However, it now appears that the parties couldn’t reach consensus on how to extend or update the existing agreement, to keep going for the years to come. Why they eventually chose to stop the program entirely is not clear from the announcement.

In their public-facing statement, copyright holders and ISPs remain positive, but it wouldn’t be a surprise if the mood behind the scenes is grimmer.

“We want to thank everyone who put in the hard work to develop this program and make it a success, including past and present members of our Advisory Board. While this particular program is ending, the parties remain committed to voluntary and cooperative efforts to address these issues,” CCI concludes.

The decision to end the “six strikes” scheme marks the end of an era. While it means that pirates no longer have to fear temporary Internet disconnections and other mitigation measures that were part of the program, MPAA and RIAA can still send takedown notifications of their own accord.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.