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...
- EFF Asks Court To Reconsider Ruling That Would Make Violating Work Computer Policies A Criminal Act
- Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Insists His Emails With The MPAA Are Super Secret
- FBI Investigating Chris Roberts For Hacking Flight WiFi, Taking Control Of Engines
- Tired Of Losing Legal Challenges To Its Surveillance, UK Government Secretly Changes Law So It Can Win
- EU Study Confirms: Hollywood's Site Blocking Campaign Is A Total Failure