Without the full info hash, they can probably keep lawyers away. Unlike BTDigg. You are one step away from the hash anyway, there are other online and offline databases.
You are correct, not becoming a direct target of lawyers is the intent. I think it's already slightly risky to publish this, but potentially becoming a direct distribution avenue is a lot riskier than this. I wouldn't dare to even reply here if I didn't hide the last part of the info hash.
An excellent reminder that torrent file sharing is by itself neither a private nor an anonymous protocol. Will this make it easier for ISPs to penalize their irresponsible customers?
The protocol was only ever intended to be distributed, not anonymous. Simple logic will tell you that blindly connecting your raw IP to random other IPs is not an anonymous function, regardless of the protocol.
You can, of course, take steps to increase anonymity while using most any protocol.
>Will this make it easier for ISPs to penalize their irresponsible customers?
Only if they (the ISP) are so irresponsible as to have not noticed a decade ago that such monitoring was already possible.
I used to check this occasionally and it was always fairly accurate but this year in particular it has been wildly wrong. Loads of random torrents appearing on my IPs and then checking other IPs I know for sure can’t have torrents running it reports more random collections.
I’m not sure if the service just makes things up now or it’s a result of people flooding bit torrent with random IPs to try hide themselves?
a) This is not hard evidence, even though it is mostly correct.
b) ISPs do not need to rely on some random server on the other side of the world watching a tiny amount of requests, they see the user traffic directly.
c) ISPs do not have the legal authority to investigate or penalise anyone, or even peek into private communication.
d) As we all know, c) is just a show, and governments and corporations routinely offer helpful services to each other under fake legal covers and self-lobbied decrees that make both sides seemingly not responsible for anything.
without the full info hash it's practically useless
Without the full info hash, they can probably keep lawyers away. Unlike BTDigg. You are one step away from the hash anyway, there are other online and offline databases.
You are correct, not becoming a direct target of lawyers is the intent. I think it's already slightly risky to publish this, but potentially becoming a direct distribution avenue is a lot riskier than this. I wouldn't dare to even reply here if I didn't hide the last part of the info hash.
An excellent reminder that torrent file sharing is by itself neither a private nor an anonymous protocol. Will this make it easier for ISPs to penalize their irresponsible customers?
The protocol was only ever intended to be distributed, not anonymous. Simple logic will tell you that blindly connecting your raw IP to random other IPs is not an anonymous function, regardless of the protocol.
You can, of course, take steps to increase anonymity while using most any protocol.
>Will this make it easier for ISPs to penalize their irresponsible customers?
Only if they (the ISP) are so irresponsible as to have not noticed a decade ago that such monitoring was already possible.
https://iknowwhatyoudownload.com/
I used to check this occasionally and it was always fairly accurate but this year in particular it has been wildly wrong. Loads of random torrents appearing on my IPs and then checking other IPs I know for sure can’t have torrents running it reports more random collections.
I’m not sure if the service just makes things up now or it’s a result of people flooding bit torrent with random IPs to try hide themselves?
a) This is not hard evidence, even though it is mostly correct.
b) ISPs do not need to rely on some random server on the other side of the world watching a tiny amount of requests, they see the user traffic directly.
c) ISPs do not have the legal authority to investigate or penalise anyone, or even peek into private communication.
d) As we all know, c) is just a show, and governments and corporations routinely offer helpful services to each other under fake legal covers and self-lobbied decrees that make both sides seemingly not responsible for anything.
ISPs don't care, except for the ones owned by movie companies (a lot of US ones).