Beyond the thought that “invisible source code” might be something as innocent as shrouded PHP scripting using the Zend engine I have no idea what that is. And all that does is make the source inaccessible to prevent copying unless it’s encrypted which means the browser has to receive an encryption key so that it will actually run the code on the client side if that’s what’s intended.

The other possibility is that it’s code that runs on the server and the client side never sees it during the code’s execution. From what they describe it could be either or nothing at all. If that’s what’s happening they may be going to use the application to break into servers, something itself that’s illegal but I guess this band of lawyers gets to excuse this because they’re on the side of the “angels”. At least in their minds.

Now data mining CAN be useful. Not will be useful as their site (a multi page advertisement in reality) as there are no guarantees. First you have to know what you’re looking for. They claim they do though the sites they describe are usually those associated with harvesting credit card numbers, passwords, identity theft and that sort of thing in the sense that they set up look alike sites of of a bank and ask questions of the user no bank ever would. They may also have to do with the gray/black market for prescription drugs. They claim that by their software’s analysis of the data mined the can create a collection of, frankly, unbelievable connections between owners, hosts, ISPs and other data to bring the offender to court.

The thing is this, found on a the About Us page.
“ROGUEFINDER? Investigative Software is currently in active development by a team at RogueFinder LLC, located in New York City.
The impressive team includes experienced intellectual property attorneys, private investigators, software analysts and technical consultants. Each team member is involved in critically important elements of the software, including:..”

Whoops. The software isn’t finished yet. But, hey, we’re working on it.
Notably missing from the list are statistical analysts which one needs to do effective data mining as all data mining does is result in a stack of statistics which get tossed out of whack the moment something unexpected data comes along if you’re relying on a collection of preset
rules.

They also claim the software is patent pending, along with the usual copyright and trade mark claims. While I won’t, completely, dispute the last two the first seems unlikely as they would be relying on an aircraft carrier stuffed full of prior art to do what they claim to be able to do. (With unfinished software even!). As for copyright, there may be questions there too as some things cannot be subject to copyright. Things like facts, mathematical equations (aka algorithms) and many others that appear in software. The specific expression in that software is protected with copyright before someone tries to jump on me for that.

More than anything the site looks like an almost well written ad for vapourware stuffed with an over abunance of stock photos. If they’re looking to tag those who send out spam with the Nigerian scam in them, fake bank notices about expired passwords and what have we it’s gonna fail. If, for no other reason, that sites that those are run by organized crime, often Russian, who have far more resources available to them to counter this vapourware than this law firm has. And I can hear them laughing from here some 4000 miles away to the east as the crow flies. I can hear them tapping out software right now to counter what this software claims to do.

As for file sharing sites, the ones copyright purists want to target as SOPA and PIPA claim to do, virtually all of those are small operations with few, if any ads, collecting some support through donations and stuff. Not the kind of sites that are likely to be raking in money.

File lockers are both ad and subscription supported but their legitimate uses far outweigh any illegitimate uses. They do respond to takedown notices so they follow the letter and spirit of the DCMA as it is.

As I said, all they’ve done is warn the very people best equipped to counter them. And counter them they will while the law firm collects a hoped for ton of fees on games of whack a mole. I have yet to figure out how a New York based law firm can bring suit in Russia, Canada, France, the UK and so on when they’re not members of the Bar in any of those countries. Unless, once again, the idea is to collect a liability award in the United States and whack the site owners if they’re foolish enough to visit the U.S. at some point in the future under the name they used to register their site(s). Good luck there.

I’m not for a moment minimizing the threat of fake prescription drugs, the possibility of identity theft or other serious issues where organized crime would see a profit. Hell, I’ll even concede that perhaps another fake Dior handbag might hurt someone, somewhere though we already know and have known for years that the majority of those come from Hong Kong.

File sharing by individuals it won’t stop.

Still, if I was tasked with reviewing this software with an eye to using it I’d want to see real world data, test results, a complete and detailed description of the methodology and the complete source code. Until I got all of that not a penny would go their way.

Something about this stinks. Badly.