by Mike Masnick
Tue, Oct 23rd 2007 9:01pm
Wired has an interview with Robert Anderson, the guy who hacked into TorrentSpy's servers and handed over a bunch of internal TorrentSpy info to the MPAA. From the interview, it's quite clear that the MPAA knew that it was getting access to content that had not been legally obtained, but it still pushed Anderson for more such info (including asking him if he could obtain similar info about The Pirate Bay). Yet, because they know how to cover themselves legally, they made Anderson sign a contract saying that all of the info he gave them had been obtained legally. But, still, it's quite clear that the MPAA has no qualms spying on people using questionable means. At the same time, however, we've noted that TorrentSpy is so aghast at the idea of spying on its own users, that it shut off US access to its site to protect its users from court-ordered spying. So, which organization comes across as more ethical here? The MPAA, who's actively trying to get confidential information from various torrent tracker sites? Or TorrentSpy, who's actively trying to protect the privacy of its users? Yet, why is it that people act as if the MPAA has the moral high ground here?
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Congressman Introduces Bill That Would Allow People And Companies To 'Hack Back' After Attacks
- CIA Leak Shows Mobile Phones Vulnerable, Not Encryption
- Why The DMCA's Notice & Takedown Already Has First Amendment Problems... And RIAA/MPAA Want To Make That Worse
- Former RIAA Executive Attacks Fair Use
- Italy Proposes Astonishingly Sensible Rules To Regulate Government Hacking Using Trojans