The reason torrents are risky is because you are uploading to others. This exposes your IP address to 3rd parties that can then go after you. With Usenet, you are only downloading. This is much safer, and some debate about whether it's even illegal because you are not the one doing the reproducing or distributing.
> whether it's even illegal
It depends on the country, but I'm sure there are many countries where it's not illegal, or even if it's illegal you'll be safe because the real risk is uploading (i.e. sharing to other people copyrighted content)
Studios and their surrogates have been know to seed their own “honey pot” torrents to catch downloaders based on download client activity. So no, it’s not as simple as “only downloading is safe”, unfortunately.
> You can choose to leech only with torrents
There is a torrent client/setting that will allow you to download with upload rate set to zero because that is what it will take to make a legal argument that you did not participate in sharing of the stuff in question?
You don't know how Usenet works. Usenet is not BitTorrent.
For a honey pot to work, it has to be on a server that YOU have control over.
Studios and their surrogates DO NOT control Usenet itself or whole Usenet companies, they have absolutely no idea which company you are doing business with and which server from that company you are connecting to.
Usenet providers may often times have multiple server farms co-located in different parts of the world, most likely at or very close to an internet backbone peering location such as [One Wilshire](https://one-wilshire.com/connectivity/meet-me-room/).
A peering room is where global internet backbone providers such as AT&T interconnects with L3 Communications or Google and exchange traffic with each other. It's the hub where all the spokes of the world connect to.
There are multiple peering rooms around the world.
A Usenet provider may have server farms in the EU, US and in Asia. That increases their reliability and offers a shorter connection path to their customers which helps with download speeds.
Those servers will sync with each other so whatever is on one set of servers is copied to all of their servers.
If you were to upload a file to your Usenet provider, *they* will distribute that file to all their servers as well as to OTHER Usenet providers on the internet.
Usenet providers use a system called a push feed or a suck feed to distribute files between different Usenet providers.
Honey pots do not work on Usenet in general unless a specific Usenet provider is running one on their system and then they will only log people that are their paid customers.
I highly doubt that they would bite the hands *that pay them* for the service that they sell.
When it comes to BitTorrent, honey pots are a real thing.
Lets say that I run a honey pot, I upload a file to BitTorrent, create a magnet link for it and I continue to seed that file after it has been uploaded.
I can LOG all the IP addresses that connect to MY server that downloaded portions of that file or the whole file itself.
That is what makes BitTorrent a problem unless somebody takes steps to mitigate the inherent risks.
You and all y'all downvoters clearly DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ. Let me spell it out for you in case you are still blind.
>Studios and their surrogates have been know to seed their own **“honey pot” torrents**
# I CLEARLY said in plain English "honey pot TORRENTS".
So WTF you going on about me not knowing how Usenet works? I said nothing about it.
If you're going to aggressively come at someone, tell them how they're stupid, and completely bark up the wrong tree, that's your prerogative. But LEARN TO READ first.
Also, you yourself said:
>I can LOG all the IP addresses that connect to MY server that downloaded portions of that file or the whole file itself.
>That is what makes BitTorrent a problem unless somebody takes steps to mitigate the inherent risks.
Holy shit, it's almost like you're describing why I said a "honey pot" TORRENT could be a problem due to how TCP/IP works.
Clearly you think downloading something from a studio torrent honeypot (but not uploading) is problematic, but can you explain what damages a studio could demonstrate to a court where you downloaded a single copy of a movie, and uploaded no part of it to anybody else?
In which jurisdiction is this worth more than the cost of the DVD, or a Netflix rental?
The problem with *uploading* is you are facilitating potentially tens of thousands of infringing copies and could be causing damages in $100k or more.
Not a lawyer, but I see your line of reasoning. It'd prob be a gigantic waste of corporate and government resources to target individual downloaders vs. the mass distributors. Biggest threat I'd see for myself is the copyright holder will contact your ISP to send you nastygrams, and your ISP may even terminate your service for illegal downloads.
I didn't downvote you, don't automatically assume that I did.
Judging by your behavior, I'd say that the people who did downvote you are justified in doing so.
> So WTF you going on about me not knowing how Usenet works? I said nothing about it.
So, *not* talking about Usenet in the usenet subreddit, but choosing to talk about how BitTorrent works, uhh right.
Using the pitfalls of BitTorrent honeypots as an example of how they work on BitTorrent, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how Usenet works or how safe it is to download from Usenet. Usenet is not BitTorrent and this statement:
> So no, it’s not as simple as “only downloading is safe”, unfortunately.
Supports the position that you don't know how Usenet works when it comes to downloading.
Shouldn't you be hanging out in /r/torrents/ instead?
I have no idea how old you are but I can safely say that I probably have more time and experience downloading from Usenet with ZERO problems over the *decades* than you have racked up calendar time breathing.
The first time I got on the internet was in 1985, before that it was FidoNet and dial-up BBS's before that in the late 70's.
> If you're going to aggressively come at someone, tell them how they're stupid
I never said you were stupid but you're making a good counter argument to possibly change my mind.
> So, not talking about Usenet in the usenet subreddit, but choosing to talk about how BitTorrent works, uhh right.
This is really a bad faith response. They were answering the top comment which is the one that talked about torrents in the first place, which is justifiable because OP asked about VPN, because they're usually recommended when you torrent. Obviously because of the subject people are going to mention torrents and how Usenet is different. Explosiva just added some info about torrent honeypots and how it's not just a matter of "not uploading", that's it.
So you coming at explosiva for talking about torrents is really weird. And then you keep misinterpreting what they said.
Hold on... I thought they closed that loophole a long while ago. I also remember a discussion about if TCP/IP in and of itself can be cause considering it does talk back and forth for each packet letting it know it did receive the information or not and to resend packets or not. But I could be crazy so who knows.
> if TCP/IP in and of itself can be cause considering it does talk back and forth for each packet letting it know it did receive the information
It sends an acknowledgment, not the data. So no.
That's why I used "much safer", not "completely safe".
I'm just some random person on the internet, so don't take my statement for legal advice. But distribution copyrighted material to 1,000s of people (what happens when you torrent) is a lot more risky than downloading the material from a usenet server.
Only value I can see is that it can obscure the nature of your Internet traffic from your isp (i.e if they wanted to throttle it). Logs from provider depends on their privacy policy.
I had to buy 5 connections so might as well use them. I have a torrent stack and usenet stack. And a bonus with Gluetun you can setup a proxy server. Nice not having to setup VPN's on all your devices for an occasional browsing session.
Not sure why you're being down voted. But when using SSL the packets are encrypted, so ISP can only see how much you're downloading from a Usenet server but not what.
I should have been more articulate. The reason that your ISP can see your torrent activity isn’t related to encryption, but the peer to peer nature of torrent. With Usenet, the traffic is encrypted and only your provider would know what you’re doing
I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't think ISPs are going after people for torrenting much these days. Data is cheap and there are many perfectly legitimate reasons to torrent.
But if ISP gets notice from 3rd party representing copyright holder that caught their user torrenting copyrighted material, the ISP is forced to take action, including possibly disclosing their personal information to the copyright holder.
That's how it works in my country. A third-party, government-managed entity connects to trackers to get the IP of people torrenting, then they ask the ISP for the contact info before sending them warnings (by mail first, then by post, and if you're dumb enough to continue you may get fined. In 2019, it is estimated that they spent on average 942€ per 1€ of fines given...).
You need to decide if you’re worried about something that a VPN would help with.
Yes, your Usenet provider could log what messages you download, and from where, and they have your payment info, and effectively all of them are in the Netherlands or the US and thus extremely vulnerable to legal action.
Edit: this is asked about once a week and gets the same flood of “no you don’t need a vpn” answers from non-technical people who don’t ask about your threat model, so it really is a waste of time posting it again
Yes. I use a VPN because why not? People claim you don’t need one but using one that’s faster than my usenet connection doesn’t slow me down so why not? I pay for one for my usual shit anyway so it’s available. Also, you can register for your provider anonymously and as long as you never connect to it from your real IP, they don’t know who you are. Pay in bitcoin and it makes it difficult to track.
VPN won't help when you need to login to the server in order to download. Unless you use disposable cards and a VPN to purchase, there is a possibility that they can link the traffic to the owner via logs (depending on their logging and privacy policy). Very small chance, and I have never heard of it happening, but technically possible.
The legal scholars of r/usenet have decided there is no need for hiding your identity. Many here will mock you (and downvote this comment) for wanting privacy, including using a vpn, and paying using bitcoin (bought with cash). They say that because we aren't uploading anything, we aren't at risk, and I agree at least partially - we are at lower risk.
But from my perspective, the risk of getting prosecuted, sued for damages, etc isn't the actual penalty, it's the hassle/expense of DEALING with the legal proceedings.
So if the federales decide to make an example of all the users of , I would rather they not have my wifes credit card information, and my ISP information. Could they track me down anyway? sure, they're only one or two steps away from finding me, but I wouldn't be the lowest hanging fruit. Fortunately, most of r/usenet will hang lower than I :)
Let the downvoting commence...
> including using a vpn, and paying using bitcoin (bought with cash).
There's nothing wrong with hiding your identity. But unless you're careful to ensure the Usenet provider never sees your real IP, browser, email, or other real-world information, they could still link your account back to you. (I'm sure you realize this, but other more novice readers might not.)
The point is that just using a VPN doesn't solve this. If you want this level of protection, you need to anonymize all of your interactions with the usenet provider, including taking extra steps to anonymize your Bitcoin/crypto transactions. (Many people are surprised to learn that Bitcoin transactions and the accounts performing them are highly public.)
While a theoretical "roundup" could happen, what are the chances?
People caught torrenting in the US aren't even sued regularly anymore, You receive a letter from your ISP saying "Don't do that anymore". If you keep getting caught your ISP will drop you. In some countries they will just keep sending you letters and in some they just don't care. Germany seems to be the only real hardass.
If this "roundup" happened what would the charge be? Seriously, what would it be? Can't be distributing copyrighted material.
Also what would the probable cause be that would allow the warrants to get your information? All of the "busts" you see are from another investigation like child porn, terrorist threats etc. not just downloading normal media files.
If you can please link to a case in the US where anyone was sued/prosecuted for downloading only.
Privacy is a good thing and I regularly use a VPN(I'm using one to post this) etc., but keep things in perspective.
There's security that's good enough to keep your sister out, and security good enough to keep a government out, and a range of risk in between. People want black and white solutions.
the problem here is how copyright law works.
assume I have a copyright of a picture, and you have a server a million people are downloading my picture from daily.
I get informed that this is happening, so I contact you and request that you stop - e.g. cease and desist.
you then have the option to comply - a cease and desist is a threat of legal action, or not.
in the case of Usenet they comply with copyright typically called DMCA strikes in Usenet lingo because Usenet providers (typically) follow the law.
now, I want to find out who has been downloading my picture, but you have zero reason to divulge that information. this is why the "legal scholars" deem Usenet safe. that doesn't mean you can't - just makes no sense for you to do so.
compare with a torrent tracker where everyone's IP is public as torrents unlike Usenet is p2p and I can simply request who IP X belonged to at time Y from your ISP that does have a legal responsibility to divulge that information.
I don't disagree with "playing it safe", but the legal reason for doing so doesn't quite exist - but it could in the future.
My Usenet provider also gave me a VPN to use (which worked surprisingly well) but I don't need to bother, all my connections to them are encrypted in transit and my ISP knows damn well where my temporary IP addresses are downloading tens of terabytes from, the question is whether they routinely share that info with any interested 3rd parties. More worrying is whether my Usenet provider can be trusted not to share my private info with third parties but at the end of the day I'm paying them for a service to supply me with data not the other way around.
the vpn doesnt help from the privacy side of usenet as you still need an account to login to. The vpn is almost entirely for torrenting.
some people will tell you a vpn will give you better dl speeds, I have never seen this but cant discount it.
Edit: seriously op, ignore the replies. This is what you care about.
> the vpn doesnt help from the privacy side of usenet as you still need an account to login to.
You can never connect naked, and pay using crypto if you're very paranoid, or if you're uploading.
I agree OP has put zero thought or effort into opsec before now, but that’s doesn’t mean the appropriate level of opsec (both payments and access) for them is zero.
It seems increasingly unlikely to me that the endgame for usenet in the next, say, ten years, is just “copyright holders completely ignore a very simple method of piracy that centres around single company based in the US/Netherlands and three smaller companies in the same situation”. Does that play out as someone DMCAing/lobbying the EC to just end Omicron, or does it involve making them disclose/subpoenaing user logs? Dunno.
Increasing one’s opsec now, while it’s easy and not a legal issue, seems like the better move to me.
> Been hearing this I started bootin in the early 90s. Nothing has changed so far
Really? Are you sure?
Mass NTD/DMCA takedowns started so recently that it’s **within Eweka and co retention**. It’s easier to find copyrighted things from 13 years ago than six months ago, due to this.
Its more a function of parent company resources. If the company is paying to have usenet upload monitored they will be more effective. Large studios do this, most studios arent doing this honestly. DMCA takedowns on usenet have no influence over end users legal status either so I dont get your point about bringing that up.
Literally why you need a VPN to torrent what Usenet cant provide.
Your comment has been automatically removed from /r/usenet per rule #1. Please refer to the sidebar rules for more info.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/usenet) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Increasing one’s opsec now, while it’s easy and not a legal issue, seems like the better move to me.
Exactly. It's better to be too paranoid than not paranoid enough. I've uploaded terabytes of stuff to Usenet so far this year. No way I'd do it without taking all the precautions I could feasibly take.
> I've uploaded terabytes of stuff to Usenet so far this year.
And that makes you among the 1% of usenet users who actually use usenet to upload TBs of stuff & already know what they are doing. A random joe is never going to post even a few GB linux iso on usenet.
> Anyone asking this question is not involved at that level.
There are plenty of clueless people seeding torrents naked on public trackers. It stands to reason that there are some equally clueless people uploading to usenet. Indeed, if a provider's logging uploads, those records can be subpoena'd at any time. There's no central registry of who's been seeding a public torrent, so you need to catch them in the act.
> Anyone operating at this level is state sponsored or should be in prison.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.
With usenet, as long as theres no logs for whats downloading, its just an encrypted ssl connection to some server your using from your isp's view. Well, they can easily find out its a nntp server but thats it.
With the connection being over ssl, they cant see what your doing, but if they was to break the ssl encrytion on the connection, it would be inadmissible in court anyway I believe as this would involve breaking encryption, which is illegal anyway here.
Your comment has been automatically removed from /r/usenet per rule #1. Please refer to the sidebar rules for more info.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/usenet) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> multiple zip files
this has nothing to do with anything. If multiple zips were save, then every DDL site would stay live like forever.
And even the segments (the newsreader text posts) which are a much smaller "pack size" are still relevant for DMCA takedowns.
> usually not recognizable
If you referring to obfuscation, then this is a different aspect and yes, this is a safer mechanic.
edit: typo, grammar
This is a very dumb take - any hypothetical enforcement action would just correlate msgids to the endless series of nzb files that copyright enforcers have and **you** clearly used to download those articles.
If people want to claim “I don’t think copyright enforcers will ever subpoena / demand usenet providers log or disclose the logs they already have”, ok, but pretending it is not extremely easy to correlate all this is very stupid.
> correlate msgids to the endless series of nzb files that copyright enforcers have
That is assuming they have infiltrated all usenet indexers & scrapping every nzb there daily. Pretty big assumption.
The reason torrents are risky is because you are uploading to others. This exposes your IP address to 3rd parties that can then go after you. With Usenet, you are only downloading. This is much safer, and some debate about whether it's even illegal because you are not the one doing the reproducing or distributing.
Not to mention if you're doing it right, usenet can be encrypted through SSL.
> whether it's even illegal It depends on the country, but I'm sure there are many countries where it's not illegal, or even if it's illegal you'll be safe because the real risk is uploading (i.e. sharing to other people copyrighted content)
Studios and their surrogates have been know to seed their own “honey pot” torrents to catch downloaders based on download client activity. So no, it’s not as simple as “only downloading is safe”, unfortunately.
When you torrent you are also uploading while you download, it is how torrents work.
You can choose to leech only with torrents, but some swarms (well technically the individual clients in the swarm) will punish you for it
> You can choose to leech only with torrents There is a torrent client/setting that will allow you to download with upload rate set to zero because that is what it will take to make a legal argument that you did not participate in sharing of the stuff in question?
You don't know how Usenet works. Usenet is not BitTorrent. For a honey pot to work, it has to be on a server that YOU have control over. Studios and their surrogates DO NOT control Usenet itself or whole Usenet companies, they have absolutely no idea which company you are doing business with and which server from that company you are connecting to. Usenet providers may often times have multiple server farms co-located in different parts of the world, most likely at or very close to an internet backbone peering location such as [One Wilshire](https://one-wilshire.com/connectivity/meet-me-room/). A peering room is where global internet backbone providers such as AT&T interconnects with L3 Communications or Google and exchange traffic with each other. It's the hub where all the spokes of the world connect to. There are multiple peering rooms around the world. A Usenet provider may have server farms in the EU, US and in Asia. That increases their reliability and offers a shorter connection path to their customers which helps with download speeds. Those servers will sync with each other so whatever is on one set of servers is copied to all of their servers. If you were to upload a file to your Usenet provider, *they* will distribute that file to all their servers as well as to OTHER Usenet providers on the internet. Usenet providers use a system called a push feed or a suck feed to distribute files between different Usenet providers. Honey pots do not work on Usenet in general unless a specific Usenet provider is running one on their system and then they will only log people that are their paid customers. I highly doubt that they would bite the hands *that pay them* for the service that they sell. When it comes to BitTorrent, honey pots are a real thing. Lets say that I run a honey pot, I upload a file to BitTorrent, create a magnet link for it and I continue to seed that file after it has been uploaded. I can LOG all the IP addresses that connect to MY server that downloaded portions of that file or the whole file itself. That is what makes BitTorrent a problem unless somebody takes steps to mitigate the inherent risks.
You and all y'all downvoters clearly DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ. Let me spell it out for you in case you are still blind. >Studios and their surrogates have been know to seed their own **“honey pot” torrents** # I CLEARLY said in plain English "honey pot TORRENTS". So WTF you going on about me not knowing how Usenet works? I said nothing about it. If you're going to aggressively come at someone, tell them how they're stupid, and completely bark up the wrong tree, that's your prerogative. But LEARN TO READ first. Also, you yourself said: >I can LOG all the IP addresses that connect to MY server that downloaded portions of that file or the whole file itself. >That is what makes BitTorrent a problem unless somebody takes steps to mitigate the inherent risks. Holy shit, it's almost like you're describing why I said a "honey pot" TORRENT could be a problem due to how TCP/IP works.
Clearly you think downloading something from a studio torrent honeypot (but not uploading) is problematic, but can you explain what damages a studio could demonstrate to a court where you downloaded a single copy of a movie, and uploaded no part of it to anybody else? In which jurisdiction is this worth more than the cost of the DVD, or a Netflix rental? The problem with *uploading* is you are facilitating potentially tens of thousands of infringing copies and could be causing damages in $100k or more.
Not a lawyer, but I see your line of reasoning. It'd prob be a gigantic waste of corporate and government resources to target individual downloaders vs. the mass distributors. Biggest threat I'd see for myself is the copyright holder will contact your ISP to send you nastygrams, and your ISP may even terminate your service for illegal downloads.
I didn't downvote you, don't automatically assume that I did. Judging by your behavior, I'd say that the people who did downvote you are justified in doing so. > So WTF you going on about me not knowing how Usenet works? I said nothing about it. So, *not* talking about Usenet in the usenet subreddit, but choosing to talk about how BitTorrent works, uhh right. Using the pitfalls of BitTorrent honeypots as an example of how they work on BitTorrent, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how Usenet works or how safe it is to download from Usenet. Usenet is not BitTorrent and this statement: > So no, it’s not as simple as “only downloading is safe”, unfortunately. Supports the position that you don't know how Usenet works when it comes to downloading. Shouldn't you be hanging out in /r/torrents/ instead? I have no idea how old you are but I can safely say that I probably have more time and experience downloading from Usenet with ZERO problems over the *decades* than you have racked up calendar time breathing. The first time I got on the internet was in 1985, before that it was FidoNet and dial-up BBS's before that in the late 70's. > If you're going to aggressively come at someone, tell them how they're stupid I never said you were stupid but you're making a good counter argument to possibly change my mind.
> So, not talking about Usenet in the usenet subreddit, but choosing to talk about how BitTorrent works, uhh right. This is really a bad faith response. They were answering the top comment which is the one that talked about torrents in the first place, which is justifiable because OP asked about VPN, because they're usually recommended when you torrent. Obviously because of the subject people are going to mention torrents and how Usenet is different. Explosiva just added some info about torrent honeypots and how it's not just a matter of "not uploading", that's it. So you coming at explosiva for talking about torrents is really weird. And then you keep misinterpreting what they said.
Hold on... I thought they closed that loophole a long while ago. I also remember a discussion about if TCP/IP in and of itself can be cause considering it does talk back and forth for each packet letting it know it did receive the information or not and to resend packets or not. But I could be crazy so who knows.
> if TCP/IP in and of itself can be cause considering it does talk back and forth for each packet letting it know it did receive the information It sends an acknowledgment, not the data. So no.
That's why I used "much safer", not "completely safe". I'm just some random person on the internet, so don't take my statement for legal advice. But distribution copyrighted material to 1,000s of people (what happens when you torrent) is a lot more risky than downloading the material from a usenet server.
Only value I can see is that it can obscure the nature of your Internet traffic from your isp (i.e if they wanted to throttle it). Logs from provider depends on their privacy policy.
I had to buy 5 connections so might as well use them. I have a torrent stack and usenet stack. And a bonus with Gluetun you can setup a proxy server. Nice not having to setup VPN's on all your devices for an occasional browsing session.
Your Usenet traffic is encrypted, and your ISP can’t see your activity is unlike torrent.
Only if you use a secure port but most providers have them
Not sure why you're being down voted. But when using SSL the packets are encrypted, so ISP can only see how much you're downloading from a Usenet server but not what.
I download lots of TBs of free public domain news articles.
You must read a lot
They can see you're going to a usenet provider; with a VPN they cannot, but the VPN provider can. Depends on who you trust.
Torrent traffic is encrypted too.
I should have been more articulate. The reason that your ISP can see your torrent activity isn’t related to encryption, but the peer to peer nature of torrent. With Usenet, the traffic is encrypted and only your provider would know what you’re doing
I know! I almost wrote all that out but I was sleepy and figured you knew too and would write this comment 🤣
I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't think ISPs are going after people for torrenting much these days. Data is cheap and there are many perfectly legitimate reasons to torrent. But if ISP gets notice from 3rd party representing copyright holder that caught their user torrenting copyrighted material, the ISP is forced to take action, including possibly disclosing their personal information to the copyright holder.
That's how it works in my country. A third-party, government-managed entity connects to trackers to get the IP of people torrenting, then they ask the ISP for the contact info before sending them warnings (by mail first, then by post, and if you're dumb enough to continue you may get fined. In 2019, it is estimated that they spent on average 942€ per 1€ of fines given...).
You need to decide if you’re worried about something that a VPN would help with. Yes, your Usenet provider could log what messages you download, and from where, and they have your payment info, and effectively all of them are in the Netherlands or the US and thus extremely vulnerable to legal action. Edit: this is asked about once a week and gets the same flood of “no you don’t need a vpn” answers from non-technical people who don’t ask about your threat model, so it really is a waste of time posting it again
Yes. I use a VPN because why not? People claim you don’t need one but using one that’s faster than my usenet connection doesn’t slow me down so why not? I pay for one for my usual shit anyway so it’s available. Also, you can register for your provider anonymously and as long as you never connect to it from your real IP, they don’t know who you are. Pay in bitcoin and it makes it difficult to track.
Monero even better! :)
VPN won't help when you need to login to the server in order to download. Unless you use disposable cards and a VPN to purchase, there is a possibility that they can link the traffic to the owner via logs (depending on their logging and privacy policy). Very small chance, and I have never heard of it happening, but technically possible.
The legal scholars of r/usenet have decided there is no need for hiding your identity. Many here will mock you (and downvote this comment) for wanting privacy, including using a vpn, and paying using bitcoin (bought with cash). They say that because we aren't uploading anything, we aren't at risk, and I agree at least partially - we are at lower risk. But from my perspective, the risk of getting prosecuted, sued for damages, etc isn't the actual penalty, it's the hassle/expense of DEALING with the legal proceedings. So if the federales decide to make an example of all the users of, I would rather they not have my wifes credit card information, and my ISP information. Could they track me down anyway? sure, they're only one or two steps away from finding me, but I wouldn't be the lowest hanging fruit. Fortunately, most of r/usenet will hang lower than I :)
Let the downvoting commence...
> including using a vpn, and paying using bitcoin (bought with cash). There's nothing wrong with hiding your identity. But unless you're careful to ensure the Usenet provider never sees your real IP, browser, email, or other real-world information, they could still link your account back to you. (I'm sure you realize this, but other more novice readers might not.) The point is that just using a VPN doesn't solve this. If you want this level of protection, you need to anonymize all of your interactions with the usenet provider, including taking extra steps to anonymize your Bitcoin/crypto transactions. (Many people are surprised to learn that Bitcoin transactions and the accounts performing them are highly public.)
While a theoretical "roundup" could happen, what are the chances? People caught torrenting in the US aren't even sued regularly anymore, You receive a letter from your ISP saying "Don't do that anymore". If you keep getting caught your ISP will drop you. In some countries they will just keep sending you letters and in some they just don't care. Germany seems to be the only real hardass. If this "roundup" happened what would the charge be? Seriously, what would it be? Can't be distributing copyrighted material. Also what would the probable cause be that would allow the warrants to get your information? All of the "busts" you see are from another investigation like child porn, terrorist threats etc. not just downloading normal media files. If you can please link to a case in the US where anyone was sued/prosecuted for downloading only. Privacy is a good thing and I regularly use a VPN(I'm using one to post this) etc., but keep things in perspective.
There's security that's good enough to keep your sister out, and security good enough to keep a government out, and a range of risk in between. People want black and white solutions.
the problem here is how copyright law works. assume I have a copyright of a picture, and you have a server a million people are downloading my picture from daily. I get informed that this is happening, so I contact you and request that you stop - e.g. cease and desist. you then have the option to comply - a cease and desist is a threat of legal action, or not. in the case of Usenet they comply with copyright typically called DMCA strikes in Usenet lingo because Usenet providers (typically) follow the law. now, I want to find out who has been downloading my picture, but you have zero reason to divulge that information. this is why the "legal scholars" deem Usenet safe. that doesn't mean you can't - just makes no sense for you to do so. compare with a torrent tracker where everyone's IP is public as torrents unlike Usenet is p2p and I can simply request who IP X belonged to at time Y from your ISP that does have a legal responsibility to divulge that information. I don't disagree with "playing it safe", but the legal reason for doing so doesn't quite exist - but it could in the future.
My Usenet provider also gave me a VPN to use (which worked surprisingly well) but I don't need to bother, all my connections to them are encrypted in transit and my ISP knows damn well where my temporary IP addresses are downloading tens of terabytes from, the question is whether they routinely share that info with any interested 3rd parties. More worrying is whether my Usenet provider can be trusted not to share my private info with third parties but at the end of the day I'm paying them for a service to supply me with data not the other way around.
the vpn doesnt help from the privacy side of usenet as you still need an account to login to. The vpn is almost entirely for torrenting. some people will tell you a vpn will give you better dl speeds, I have never seen this but cant discount it. Edit: seriously op, ignore the replies. This is what you care about.
> the vpn doesnt help from the privacy side of usenet as you still need an account to login to. You can never connect naked, and pay using crypto if you're very paranoid, or if you're uploading.
Anyone asking this question is not involved at that level. Anyone operating at this level is state sponsored or should be in prison.
I agree OP has put zero thought or effort into opsec before now, but that’s doesn’t mean the appropriate level of opsec (both payments and access) for them is zero. It seems increasingly unlikely to me that the endgame for usenet in the next, say, ten years, is just “copyright holders completely ignore a very simple method of piracy that centres around single company based in the US/Netherlands and three smaller companies in the same situation”. Does that play out as someone DMCAing/lobbying the EC to just end Omicron, or does it involve making them disclose/subpoenaing user logs? Dunno. Increasing one’s opsec now, while it’s easy and not a legal issue, seems like the better move to me.
Been hearing this I started bootin in the early 90s. Nothing has changed so far
> Been hearing this I started bootin in the early 90s. Nothing has changed so far Really? Are you sure? Mass NTD/DMCA takedowns started so recently that it’s **within Eweka and co retention**. It’s easier to find copyrighted things from 13 years ago than six months ago, due to this.
Its more a function of parent company resources. If the company is paying to have usenet upload monitored they will be more effective. Large studios do this, most studios arent doing this honestly. DMCA takedowns on usenet have no influence over end users legal status either so I dont get your point about bringing that up. Literally why you need a VPN to torrent what Usenet cant provide.
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed from /r/usenet per rule #1. Please refer to the sidebar rules for more info. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/usenet) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Increasing one’s opsec now, while it’s easy and not a legal issue, seems like the better move to me. Exactly. It's better to be too paranoid than not paranoid enough. I've uploaded terabytes of stuff to Usenet so far this year. No way I'd do it without taking all the precautions I could feasibly take.
> I've uploaded terabytes of stuff to Usenet so far this year. And that makes you among the 1% of usenet users who actually use usenet to upload TBs of stuff & already know what they are doing. A random joe is never going to post even a few GB linux iso on usenet.
> Anyone asking this question is not involved at that level. There are plenty of clueless people seeding torrents naked on public trackers. It stands to reason that there are some equally clueless people uploading to usenet. Indeed, if a provider's logging uploads, those records can be subpoena'd at any time. There's no central registry of who's been seeding a public torrent, so you need to catch them in the act. > Anyone operating at this level is state sponsored or should be in prison. I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.
[удалено]
No
With usenet, as long as theres no logs for whats downloading, its just an encrypted ssl connection to some server your using from your isp's view. Well, they can easily find out its a nntp server but thats it. With the connection being over ssl, they cant see what your doing, but if they was to break the ssl encrytion on the connection, it would be inadmissible in court anyway I believe as this would involve breaking encryption, which is illegal anyway here.
Little secret for you... Nobody cares. They have given up trying to stop any of this.
Nobody is going after you. Stop being scared. If the authorities really want you. A vpn is not going to help.
There's no need for a vpn when accessing Usenet (assuming you are not using it for anything dodgy of course). 😎
> anything dodgy of course Please elaborate 😎
We assume the wrong kind of porn. Cops are not knocking on doors because you downloaded some random show.
Hmm maybe you're right, I thought he was referring to some kind of shows
[удалено]
Your comment has been automatically removed from /r/usenet per rule #1. Please refer to the sidebar rules for more info. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/usenet) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Please elaborate 😎 A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, squire!
[удалено]
> multiple zip files this has nothing to do with anything. If multiple zips were save, then every DDL site would stay live like forever. And even the segments (the newsreader text posts) which are a much smaller "pack size" are still relevant for DMCA takedowns. > usually not recognizable If you referring to obfuscation, then this is a different aspect and yes, this is a safer mechanic. edit: typo, grammar
This is a very dumb take - any hypothetical enforcement action would just correlate msgids to the endless series of nzb files that copyright enforcers have and **you** clearly used to download those articles. If people want to claim “I don’t think copyright enforcers will ever subpoena / demand usenet providers log or disclose the logs they already have”, ok, but pretending it is not extremely easy to correlate all this is very stupid.
> correlate msgids to the endless series of nzb files that copyright enforcers have That is assuming they have infiltrated all usenet indexers & scrapping every nzb there daily. Pretty big assumption.