Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FBI Seizes All Servers In Dallas Data Center

Soulskill posted about 5 years ago | from the surgical-precision dept.

The Internet 629

1sockchuck writes "FBI agents have raided a Dallas data center, seizing servers at a company called Core IP Networks. The company's CEO has posted a message saying the FBI confiscated all its customer servers, including gear belonging to companies that are almost certainly not under suspicion. The FBI isn't saying what it's after, but there are reports that it's related to video piracy, sparking unconfirmed speculation that the probe is tied to the leaking of Wolverine."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Too late FBI (5, Insightful)

dave562 (969951) | about 5 years ago | (#27453011)

On the train on the way home there was a guy walking through the car selling the latest X-men on DVD. I think this is the proverbial "horse already left the barn" situation. However, what happened serves as a good example of what the future holds once the Federal government gets enhanced "cyber security" powers. Imagine what happens when say, for example, a Chinese botnet operator decides to launch an attack against (insert agency here) using zombies exclusively on Verizon's network. Oops... millions of Verizon customers are suddenly SOL. If you've ever had to deal with law enforcement when it comes to recovering what they took from you, you know what a nightmare this could turn into.

Re:Too late FBI (-1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#27453065)

That was a stretch to try to back your paranoia.

They no the cat is ut of the bag, the cat is out of the bag with ANY case involving the police or FBI.
There trying to catch they guy who did it.

Your example would never happen.

Re:Too late FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453117)

Yeah man! Verizon is such a powerful company they would never get taken downfds983217#@~ End of carrier..

Re:Too late FBI (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453285)

Do you even have the slightest grasp of the English language you dolt. For fuck's sake, KNOW and THEY'RE... I'd suggest a few more years of schooling for you before you post again.

Re:Too late FBI (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about 5 years ago | (#27453323)

Umm, you missed the significance here, which is the last sentence they said: "If you've ever had to deal with law enforcement when it comes to recovering what they took from you, you know what a nightmare this could turn into."

If I recall correctly, laws let them hold this shit for up to a month before they're obligated to move their asses and even start giving it back. That doesn't even mean they will. It's beyond ridiculous, people sue all the time for this abuse.

Re:Too late FBI (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#27453423)

A) we don't knwo this has to do with WOlverine

B) He just used that as a launching point for a cyber security rant.

That is what I was addressing. Adding the the act that the FBI wouldn't confiscate millions of servers.

Typically, they get a court order go to the company and then gather more information.

OTOH, this data center occupied two floors of a high rise. So we aren't talking about millions of computers.

I understand that it can be difficult to get stuff back from law enforcement, and I agree that is an issue that should be addressed.

Re:Too late FBI (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453461)

But fantasy is so much more useful for making people angry and upset. I mean, why stop at the crimes and mistakes that actually happened when you can use so many imaginary crimes and mistakes to back up one's argument. What could go wrong ?

I mean just watch the news. 2 days ago it was "oops, you know that horrible crime that the IDF committed in Gaza, bombing that school ... well never happened, even though Hamas DID use the school as a launch site". Apparently the second outrage never happened either, and again hints are given the news comes from ... hamas. Who'd have thought they might ... lie ?

I mean why stop rallying people at the truth ? A lie like, oh, everybody knows the Jews smear their matses with the blood of palestinian children, such a lie is so much more useful in explaining and excusing the behavior of said palestinian "children", especially compared such inconvenient truths like the palestinian constitution stating that they don't really care about Israel, but want to chase every Jew to the ends of the earth and kill his children first, and that Israel is merely standing in the way. After all, apparently some idiot called "allah" said to do so (article 7 of the constitution of palestina).

Obviously by the time the MSM said they failed to back up their news with facts, much retaliation had already happened. Like always.

There are many such news items. Here's something you almost never see published : the uglyness of "peace" protests ... [boston.com] .

You know how you recognize an anti-capitalist ? By the chique clothes, by the camera that's worth more than your car, and let's not forget the extremely violent behavior.

But you see, those guys throwing metal, destroying everything in sight, throwing weapons and firebombs ... they want peace.

That's after all, what the news said. The news also got o-lame-a elected. Well at least we know what to expect.

Re:Too late FBI (5, Interesting)

ottothecow (600101) | about 5 years ago | (#27453319)

I'm not sure I understand a full scale FBI raid for determining who actually leaked the copy...

this is a civil contract issue right? Guy working at effects shop or whatever has contractual obligation not to steal shit from work (and probably signed an NDA with the wolverine job). Guy then breaks contract by taking a copy of the movie and then either uploads it or is careless with it and it gets uploaded.

Sure, there is some punishment in order but the guy who leaked a work print probably isnt responsible for the "billions of dollars" that the industry will say the leak cost them...he is at most responsible for one act of infringement when he uploaded it plus breaking a contractual obligation not to do so (and any punishment that shows up as too serious in a contract will just get invalidated).

Re:Too late FBI (5, Informative)

johnsonav (1098915) | about 5 years ago | (#27453389)

I'm not sure I understand a full scale FBI raid for determining who actually leaked the copy... this is a civil contract issue right?

Nope. This is criminal [copyright.gov] (Section 506(a)(1)(C)).

Re:Too late FBI (4, Insightful)

ottothecow (600101) | about 5 years ago | (#27453497)

Hmm, that it is so long as it can be proved to be intentional in which case it looks like max 3 years + a fine.

Of course if it was a guy taking it home to work on or show his family and it got leaked (or they don't have any evidence to the contrary)...

Either way, how many 3-year max sentence criminal offenses warrant full scale FBI raids that costs numerous other businesses REAL money.

Re:Too late FBI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453415)

What makes you think this wasn't the job of 'the botnet' already?

'Darknet' anyone?

I'm not the conspiracy theory type, but it is now reasonable to think that 'inside job' is no longer the ONLY possibility with regard to Wolverine being 'leaked' online.

Incredible (4, Insightful)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | about 5 years ago | (#27453013)

This is nuts, every server in a data center? do they realize the cost that might incur to all these non infringing companies? The wolverine leak nothing, no one was deprived of anything so there is no monetary loss but this? This is plain incredible. Good job FBI, you just caused many people a lot of trouble for a stupid movie.

Re:Incredible (3, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#27453195)

It's actually kind of add.
Normally they get a warrant and work with the data centers. I wonder if they tried that and he refused leaving them little choice? That is , of course, speculation.

Just the man power, cost, and effort is extraordinary doing it this way.

Of course we need to remember what we have is one side of the story.

Even from a wacky government conspiracy point of view this doesn't make sense.

Of course, it doesn't look like it was a lot of servers, so that may have played into it.

Re:Incredible (4, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 5 years ago | (#27453467)

There is no conspiracy, all is in the open and the message is clear: no matter what your reasons may be,dear isp, if we like to, we pull the plug on you... punish 1 to educate 100.
I`d call this soft terrorism.

It would be a conspiracy if tomorrow some national security guy went knocking at other isps saying: you wanna avoid such incidents? let us snoop into your traffic without warrant, and we promise we won`t give you trouble.

Re:Incredible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453207)

Not to mention the legal liability the FBI just created for themselves. I'm sure that agent will not be getting a promotion any time soon... If I was one of the companies, I would be unleashing the lawyers.

Re:Incredible (2, Funny)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | about 5 years ago | (#27453269)

In this case, they should pool up and hire a legal team as large as the team needed to raid their datacenter. 1 for 1, Lawyer to Agent rumble.

Re:Incredible (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 5 years ago | (#27453313)

This is nuts, every server in a data center?

I agree...
But numerous other websites [google.com] (all the same "IDG News" article) mention this:
FBI spokesman Mark White confirmed that agents had executed a search warrant at the 2323 Bryan Street address on Thursday, but declined to comment further on the matter.

which then brings us to this bit of hyperbole FTFA

Simpson closed his online letter with the statement, "If you run a datacenter, please be aware that in our great country, the FBI can come into your place of business at any time and take whatever they want, with no reason."

The FBI had a warrant, which means they didn't go in for "no reason".
Unfortunately, the fact that they seized everything leaves us with few possibilities
1. The FBI lied about what they needed to seize on the warrant affidavit & a Judge signed it
2. The warrant was narrow & specific and the FBI exceeded the warrant's scope
3. The FBI actually needed to seize everything (incredibly unlikely)

Re:Incredibly ironic (5, Informative)

j-stroy (640921) | about 5 years ago | (#27453451)

A police agency disconnects 911 service and the media tries to email a guy whose email servers are all fubar from the raid.

I wonder who carries the liability here, the FBI for disconnecting customers 911 service, or the data center for harboring evil doers?

"According to Simpson, some residents' access to 911 is also being affected because some of Core IPs primary customers include telephone companies."

"Simpson claims nearly 50 businesses are without access to their email and data. ... CBS 11 News emailed Simpson about the raid, but as of Thursday evening he had yet to respond."

Re:Incredible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453403)

Good job FBI, you just caused many people a lot of trouble for a stupid movie.

Loss of 911 access for residential customers of the telecommunications companies that use the data-center is mentioned in the article. There's potential for more than trouble.

Re:Incredible (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453453)

The judge who OK'd this warrant acted criminally/incorrectly or the actors on the warrant exceeded the authority of the warrant. Warrants must be very specific. They need to list the place to be searched and what is to be seized. If the FBI didn't specify what was to be seized they acted illegally. You can't simply put down "all servers" at some address when all servers encompass multiple unrelated entities which have no relation and specific servers could have been listed. Therefore this is clearly an illegal search even with a warrant.

All servers!!!!! (3, Insightful)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | about 5 years ago | (#27453017)

Do the Americans now live in a police state that is controlled by the RIAA. This may sound alarmist but when innocent companies are hurt by the use of FBI force - how far away is it?

Re:All servers!!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453071)

I for one welcome our RIAA overlords at the DOJ.

If we turn in people with illegal clips will we get extra Obamanation Dollars that replaced the old-style Federal Reserve notes?

Re:All servers!!!!! (3, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | about 5 years ago | (#27453381)

This government has totaly grossly exceceded its mandate. I am already longing for the Bush years.. I say we tar and feather the entire Legislative branch and all the officers in the Executive president included.. Who is with me?

Re:All servers!!!!! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 years ago | (#27453093)

Do the Americans now live in a police state that is controlled by the RIAA.

Nah, the FBI has never been too concerned about pesky rights. I don' think you can lay this one entirely at the *AA's feet, this seems like standard law enforcement "they're all guilty of something" SOP.

Wrong **AA (3, Insightful)

NixieBunny (859050) | about 5 years ago | (#27453123)

I'm assuming Wolverine is a movie not a music album, so that would be our overlords at the MPAA, not the RIAA.

Re:All servers!!!!! (5, Interesting)

davidbrucehughes (451901) | about 5 years ago | (#27453139)

This is exactly why we relocated to Chile six months ago. We had already moved to the end of a dirt road in the mountains of Mexico, but that wasn't far enough away. Now we're at the end of a much, much nicer dirt road in a country that is not ruled by mad-dog copyright censors. (And where you can rent a furnished, 5-bedroom house with cedar paneling on 2 acres of land for US$400.)

Not that we are into downloading copyrighted material; far from it, we generate our own material and publish it under a Creative Commons license. But there are such things as principles...

Is Copyright still a fair deal? (5, Insightful)

thesupraman (179040) | about 5 years ago | (#27453147)

This is not the question to ask.

The question to ask is what good are the public getting in return for giving up such freedoms, AND paying for the giving up of such freedoms (dont forget who pay for the FBI, Police, etc), and paying for the protection of the revinue to copyright owning entities.

Now, this is supposed to be the entering in to the public domain (as in becoming free..) of creative content at the end of the copyright period - a fair and equitable arrangement one could say - we protect their profits for a period, and at the end of that, we gain the advantage of their creativity openly.

However, that was in the days of limited copyright periods, these days thanks both to DRM (an unbroken DRM means an item cannot become free after its legal protection stops) and changes to copyright periods (a lot of things we have already paid to protect should be public now, and are not..) we, the people, have lost our end of the 'bargain'.

Perhaps it is time for the copyright owners to be carrying the full costs of enforcing their copyrights, since they don't feel the public should be allowed future advantage of their content?

I wonder what the yearly government costs of copyright enforcement is, it seems more and more public resource is bring piled in to protecting it..

Or perhaps the people (that is, government) should simply cease on their end of the bargain in return, and in light of technological DRM, revoke copyright laws, as they were enacted to protect otherwise unprotectable items (such as books) - does DRM mean we shouldn't have to suffer copyright laws?

Once upon a time there was balance, an equitable deal between the state and copyright holders - the copyright holders have long since stopped holding up their end of the bargain....

Alas, you're going to need a new constitution (4, Interesting)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | about 5 years ago | (#27453243)

Eldred v Ashcroft holding was that a copyright law (in that example the one that extended Mickey's copyright protection) is presumed constitutional if it doesn't explicitly say it's for "infinite length" and if it maintains the distinction between idea and expression.

Although your reading -- that a copyright law is unconstitutional if it does not promote Science and the Useful Arts -- makes a lot of common sense, it just isn't the case.

In America, I mean. As presently Constituted.

Re:Alas, you're going to need a new constitution (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#27453375)

No it is not unconstitutional. Congress also get sot determine what "promote Science and the Useful Arts " means.

Re:Alas, you're going to need a new constitution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453507)

You sir, are obviously drunk or just plain stupid tonight. Please stop posting. The butchering of the English language we see coming from you is giving me a headache.

Re:Is Copyright still a fair deal? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#27453367)

What freedoms did we give up?

Oh, I just thought of a great hippie paranoia term:
We had freedoms, now we have feedoms.

heh, feedoms I love it.

Why don't we see if this actually about Wolverine? that is just idle speculation.

Re:All servers!!!!! (5, Insightful)

sgt_doom (655561) | about 5 years ago | (#27453157)

A resounding YES!! The FBI, headed by unindicted co-conspirator to the coverup of the BCCI investigation (and probably the Iran-Contra affair as well, when he was head of the Justice Department's criminal division - appointed by George H.W. Bush), Director Robert Mueller, is the last person in America I would trust with any investigation. The fact that they have time for such matters, when they should be pursuing the war criminals of the Bush Adminstration and the financial fraudster super-crooks on Wall Street, is truly mind-boggling......

Re:All servers!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453181)

mod up parent

Re:All servers!!!!! Wasn't Neil (Neal?) Sweetcheek (1)

davidsyes (765062) | about 5 years ago | (#27453495)

s Bush at the heart of this? Wasn't he, as a favor to his daddy, appointed to a position for which he had ZERO qualifications for the job? I bet we are still paying on the BCCI thing. Wasn't it something like $5,000 for every (working?) man and woman (and if not working people, then every child, too) to pay this thing off?

I wouldn't mind getting a one-time $25,000 0-tax check from Uncle Sam in exchange for, say, SSI. Or, a deep reduction in the interest rate or the principle in my now-worthless school loan on which i am still paying and won't finish paying on without winning a lottery, or unless i live on $5.00 per day while diverting all net income to attack the debt load (or, create products to let me earn income that overcomes the level of taxes i can expect....)....

Re:All servers!!!!! (3, Insightful)

illumnatLA (820383) | about 5 years ago | (#27453183)

Yes, we do live in a police state in a way.

With the speed that law enforcement works at, it'll be months, if not years before those innocent companies get their equipment back... if they get it back at all.

You see, in many places, laws were passed that allowed law enforcement agencies to keep property that is *suspected* to have been used in a crime. For example, the police think you've been dealing drugs out of your car. You go to court and are proven innocent (you don't even necessarily have to be charged witha crime!) Cops get to keep your car anyway because they *suspect* it was used in a criminal activity. Great system don't you think?

See this article for one example... there are many others... Property seizures seen as piracy [mysanantonio.com]

The state's asset seizure law doesn't require that law enforcement agencies file criminal charges in civil forfeiture cases. It requires only a preponderance of evidence that the property was used in the commission of certain crimes, such as drug crimes, or bought with proceeds of those crimes.

That's a lesser burden than is required in a criminal case. And it allows police departments and prosecutors to divvy up what they get from such seizures - what critics say is a built-in incentive for unscrupulous, underfinanced law enforcement agencies to illegally strip motorists of their property.

Ye gods (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453029)

If this is true and equipment totally unrelated to the suspected parties (apart from being in the same building) was also confiscated then every data-centre in America could be shut-down due to one badly behaved server hosted in it?!

Re:Ye gods (1)

illumnatLA (820383) | about 5 years ago | (#27453221)

Well, yes... since that data center is, in fact, connected to all other data centers, then logically speaking, all other data centers are also to blame. In order to fully investigate properly, surely the FBI must seize the servers from all other data centers as well!

Getting old, I guess... (4, Insightful)

rewt66 (738525) | about 5 years ago | (#27453035)

... and the memory fades with age. But I seem to remember a time when this was a free country, with due process of law and such.

Re:Getting old, I guess... (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#27453085)

They HAVE due process, moron.

"...FBI was in the datacenter with a search and seizure warrant...."

Re:Getting old, I guess... (5, Insightful)

rewt66 (738525) | about 5 years ago | (#27453149)

A search and seizure warrant for all servers in the datacenter, no matter what company owns them? Either they exceeded the scope of the warrant, or it's a horribly over-broad warrant. Either way, that's not "reasonable" search. It's still a violation of due process - what due process is supposed to mean, that they can't just take people's stuff on a whim.

Re:Getting old, I guess... (2, Informative)

samriel (1456543) | about 5 years ago | (#27453265)

A search and seizure warrant for all servers in the datacenter, no matter what company owns them? Either they exceeded the scope of the warrant, or it's a horribly over-broad warrant. Either way, that's not "reasonable" search. It's still a violation of due process - what due process is supposed to mean, that they can't just take people's stuff on a whim.

Right, and I have a feeling that's what will be argued. If the judge couldn't think this far enough into the future, then he should face some consequences. Indeed, quoting others in this thread, it will be months or years until the other companies get their equipment back, if at all.

IANAL, IDNRTW (I Did Not Read The Warrant)

Re:Getting old, I guess... (4, Insightful)

merchant_x (165931) | about 5 years ago | (#27453391)

They are trying to make an example of this company, IMHO. Pure speculation on my part but the overboard manner in which this was executed makes me think they wanted to send a message to this company and other data center operators. I'm guessing that perhaps Core IP may not have been as cooperative as the FBI would have liked them to be in past inquiries. So they used whatever excuse they have currently to get an over broad warrant and shut the whole operation down. That's just my straight out of my ass feeling though.

I hope this backfires horribly on the FBI. I hope that the affected completely innocent companies get some lawyers and go to town on the FBI for this.

Re:Getting old, I guess... (1)

KingMotley (944240) | about 5 years ago | (#27453421)

Apparently this isn't a standard piracy bust. They are going after the owners of the data center for something. Possible they thought that the company was using the other machines to do something illegal with or without the owners permission (That assumes they allow you to bring in your own hardware, and they aren't just renting).

Re:Getting old, I guess... (1)

Savior_on_a_Stick (971781) | about 5 years ago | (#27453449)


It's possible that the warrant was overbroad - but that's not been demonstated.

There are a number of possible scenarios in which it would be crucial to a criminal trial to gather all possible evidence.

If this is a more or less legit data center, there is every possibility that the systems were compromised by a third party - ie: dey waz hax0r3d.

Additionally, hacking someone else's server for profit is clearly a criminal act, however much one wishes to poo poo possible ip infringment.

Re:Getting old, I guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453341)

Welcome to the New World Order. Enjoy your stay.

The Wolverine is out of the bag. (2, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 5 years ago | (#27453047)

It's all over p2p networks, it's in IRC channels, it's on usenet. Good luck getting rid of all traces of it.

Re:The Wolverine is out of the bag. (3, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | about 5 years ago | (#27453083)

They're just after the original leaker. SOP... "Shoot first", ask questions later

Unconfirmed speculation (0, Flamebait)

exley (221867) | about 5 years ago | (#27453049)

I realize that Slashdot has long since gone downhill, but can we at least wait until there's a real story before going front page? Jesus.

Re:Unconfirmed speculation (3, Informative)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 5 years ago | (#27453067)

It's not speculation that the data center was raided and shut down, including businesses that aren't doing anything wrong...

Umm (5, Informative)

Anonymous Showered (1443719) | about 5 years ago | (#27453053)

Hasn't the FBI heard of data center control panel software to find the specific server(s) in question? My colocation facility's web panel tells me the switch #, power plug #and location and a whole ton of other shit. WTF is up with this?

Re:Umm (2, Insightful)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | about 5 years ago | (#27453129)

I'm wondering the same thing, how the hell can they get servers own by different entities. Does the warrant not require a specific person to be raided? These FBI went to far on this one and the job who approved this is a idiot.

Re:Umm (1)

Savior_on_a_Stick (971781) | about 5 years ago | (#27453513)

No - it doesn't - it requires that the scope of the search not be excessively broad, and that it be clear. You can get a warrant for a closet, or the whole house, depending on what you want to search and the nature of your evidence.

Re:Umm Well, maybe there IS something there, and (2, Insightful)

davidsyes (765062) | about 5 years ago | (#27453233)

the act of taking every single server is to:

-- be punitive
-- scare other colos
-- dissuade this current target from going back into operation without screening clients

It's probably the greatest fear of every rental property manager/at-home landlord, that renters/tenants would conduct illegal activities on the premises, then subject every occupant to subpoena and total confiscation of every electronic and paper file, loss of hardware, and invasion of privacy, and stultefying disruption of business, schooling and other activities.

But, really, FBI, why not just run a deep scan using your own cracking tools? You could be on and off the property. We pay MORE than enough tax dollars that you guys & girls could arrive and spend 3 or 4 hours collecting what you need via data and paper scanners. Once you get stuff into a property room and all tagged, what is the likelihood of expedient recovery by the original owner? What if you guys REALLY find NOTHING, and there is some internal intertia to not look stupid, which might induce a decision to delay for as long as possible the return of confiscated stuff.

Hell, if i'm under suspicion, i'd GLADLY let you scan in exchange for not hauling my shit off. And, since you guys have the technical means to record virtually every electronic transaction or all traffic long before you descend upon your targets, they may never even be aware of being a person of interest. Even if they are guilt of SOMEthing, do you need to shut down every single aspect of their lives to prosecute a subpoena-limited scope of crime? You may as well seize their account balances AND take their debit cards and garnish their wages to prevent repurchase of new hardware onto which recovery tapes NOT at the target address will go. Then what, cat and mouse? Get the target to self-incriminate by demanding to know every last data archive location?

We need a more civilized form of crime prosecution that does not add insult to injury before the "suspect" even goes to jail. Oh, and for those who wish to slam me, yes, i am aware that by the time the new footage shows boxes being carried to the evidence van while the cuffed suspect is led to the warm mobile chariot seat is *likely* long under surveillance *AND* is guilty as hell even without a trial date come and gone, there STILL are times when law enforcement just goes in and scoops up EVERYthing as if to shut down someone. Many times, judges allow the suspect who is not a flight risk to post bail or be out on OR if tagged/collared. In the meantime, it is a MEAN time to be at an upsidedown-turned home, lacking all gear, and feeling watched. Yep, the pirates of nation-crumbling data and apps, kiddie-porn peddlers, stock options inside traders, illegal gambling and secrets thieves SHOULD be watched, but some crimes that are prosecuted (pursued before prosecution as well as punished by jury/judge) are done so at the behest of some foul-play-crying corporation having a hosed up business model.

Re:Umm Well, maybe there IS something there, and (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 5 years ago | (#27453355)

You write much, but get little. Sorry.

Who profited from this the most? Even if it has nothing to do with a leaked movie.

There, all base for your reasoning is gone.
This is all just a giant theater. Psychology. Simple, but effective.
I think it is another step to a 1984 type "society".

Do not think they are stupid. They know exactly what they doing.
Maybe not the grunt who was raiding. But the guy behind the big desk for sure.

Re:Umm (3, Interesting)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 5 years ago | (#27453277)

Any enterprise class server has no local disk, or system disk at most. All data is stored on SAN disk. It would be hilarious if they grabbed all the servers but left the storage array.

According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof... (5, Interesting)

JimXugle (921609) | about 5 years ago | (#27453073)

When a police officer seizes computer hardware from a business in the course of an investigation, they can be held civilly liable for any loss or damage caused to the business by their actions.

At least thats how it is for Pennsylvania State Police.

Re:According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof... (1)

ikono (1180291) | about 5 years ago | (#27453251)

civilly, eh? Good luck fighting the unions...

Re:According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof... (1)

JimXugle (921609) | about 5 years ago | (#27453439)

Okay okay. I should have thrown a spell check in there before posting my somewhat relevant post.

Re:According to my (cop) Digital Forensics Prof... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453351)

Three points...

1. We hope that at some point the FBI will have to pay the full restitution for restoring service and loss of business etc.

2. Good excuse to have redundant servers in multiple jurisdictions (i.e. at least one outside of the US..)

3. Good excuse for people running colo's to get onto their congress critters to setup specific laws preventing this type of action (i.e. limit search and seizure to exactly the servers specified and no specifying ALL servers for a location that has multiple commercial services) ..

The exact and precise analogy would be to have them show up at a reasonably sized office building with multiple lease holders and demand to search and seize every computer in the entire building. It is a ridiculous idea and they would be laughed out of court. Colocation sites need to be recognized as having the same legal setup and protections.

While they are at it.. (1)

johnmark76 (1104635) | about 5 years ago | (#27453075)

They should have taken all the toilet paper from the bathrooms in the building. It doesn't do much good - but then again - it will cause lots of discomfort to people not involved - so why not!

O M F G (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453105)

Doesn't the F uck B ag I noramus's have any real criminals to go after?

So if someone in my neighborhood... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453109)

is suspected of a crime, can the FBI just search every house in the neighborhood now? This story just doesn't make sense.

Privacy???? (0, Flamebait)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 years ago | (#27453127)

I normally don't care about privacy issues. The government can tap my phone if they feel like it, they can look into my purchasing records, they can stake out my house. They can look into my past work history. I really don't care.

But this is ridiculous. There were many levels of non-thinking going into this one. It's a move you might make if you were a dictator and wanted to remind people to stay in line. In fact, it is similar to things that happen in China. But.......this is the USA.

Re:Privacy???? (2, Insightful)

SuperMo0 (730560) | about 5 years ago | (#27453213)

I share the sentiment of your first paragraph. I've never been one to be too upset about government surveillance, because I realize it helps keep me safe, and such.

I wouldn't jump so far as to say "This is a dictator-esque move", though. This is a move that shows what happens when you take a phone call from someone hysterically complaining about something and don't wait for them to calm down before you do whatever they told you to.

Re:Privacy???? (4, Insightful)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | about 5 years ago | (#27453315)

I normally don't care about privacy issues. The government can tap my phone if they feel like it, they can look into my purchasing records, they can stake out my house. They can look into my past work history. I really don't care.

They don't care about you. It isn't about you. They care about rising politicians and others who challenge the status quo.

I care deeply about personal privacy for the same reason I care deeply about gun rights - chances are that I will never carry a weapon in my life, but our society as a whole is made safer and more resilient by the fact that law-abiding citizens can own and use them in self defense. Similarly our society is made stronger and more egalitarian when everybody has privacy, the people who can make a difference and the common peons like the rest of us.

Re:Privacy???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453327)

But.......that was the USA.

There, fixed that for you.

TPB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453133)

When the TPB servers were seized they also took all the other servers there with them

I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453161)

are watching porn instead of this crap they seized!

Yay! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 years ago | (#27453209)

Because, after all, the FBI has absolutely nothing better to do than to be the MPAA's attack dogs.

Re:Yay! (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | about 5 years ago | (#27453469)

Remember now that Hollywood and Big Media has helped Obama get elected it is time for some payback.
I'm am sure they are going to ramp it up some and try to suck every drop of cash they can from people.
Barbra Streisand singing at a $28500 Obama fund-raiser will seem like chump change compaired to movie ticket prices.

Okay, 2 points here, both in humor (1)

Torodung (31985) | about 5 years ago | (#27453219)

1) Why does this shit always happen in Texas, when the Dems are in power. First Waco, now this?!

2) I hope the EFF and the ACLU form up like some Mecha-Voltron and tear Eric Holder a new one over this.

Holy shit. I don't care *why* they did it, you can't rip up some railroad tracks because someone's smuggling drugs by train. We're going to have to find a subtler, more sensible way to deal with alleged criminals who run data centers.


Re:Okay, 2 points here, both in humor (2, Informative)

Goobermunch (771199) | about 5 years ago | (#27453345)

It's not limited to Dems, thankyouverymuch.

Check out Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service. It's the case about a Secret Service Raid on SJ Games in which the Secret Service seized a number of computers, nearly crippling a business. The details can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service [wikipedia.org] .

For the record, the seizure of the computers took place in 1990, under the Bush (I) administration.


Re:Okay, 2 points here, both in humor (2, Funny)

Goobermunch (771199) | about 5 years ago | (#27453383)

And I fail at reading the entire subject line.

I'll have my order of crow, well done, with a side of my foot. And can you cover that in my own words?


damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453255)

"I received a call 15 minutes later from FBI Agent Allyn Lynd. Mr. Lynd would not tell me why he raided our datacenter or what he was looking for. He also accused me of hiding inside my house in Ovilla, Texas. I was actually in Phoenix, Arizona when this happened. I told him that, and he told me that he was "getting the dogs" after me, and hung up on me. I found out from an employee that there were 15 police cars and a SWAT team at my home in Ovilla."

This guy needs a lawyer ASAP for defense and counter-suit.

Re:damn (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | about 5 years ago | (#27453387)

Yes, I'd call the EFF right now if I was him. They are looking to blame someone and it might fall on him. Is the MPAA looking to make a scapegoat to scare all the Datacenters around?

sounds like you need a lawyer (3, Insightful)

iccaros (811041) | about 5 years ago | (#27453261)

from the owners statements.. "unwarranted early morning raid" Fist they must have a warrant and it must specifies each piece of equipment that they are taking and why, This is why you have an attorney on call, and it also sounds like the agent threated this person, which is a crime.. Under the Fourth Amendment, searches must be reasonable and specific. This means that a search warrant must be specific as to the specified object to be searched for and the place to be searched. Other items, rooms, outbuildings, persons, vehicles, etc. may require additional search warrants. (from Wikipedia) Just like when the police came by (and had the wrong house) and wanted to see my car, I asked to see the warrant.. When they got done talking lots of crap about how much trouble I was in for not letting them search my car, they then figured out that they were at the wrong house.. just because they ask does not mean you have to let them in.. also if you are an effected business, I would contact your lawyer and have them contact the FBI about loss of productivity, and if your servers were not on the warrant, then start a suite on unlawful seizure..

The Wolverine leak is an unconfirmed (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 5 years ago | (#27453291)

There is also speculation on illegal drug communication.
Also not confirmed.

Things to remember.
A) They had a warrant

B) We are only here one side

C) There is a lot of speculation as to why.

Lets watch closely, but avoid jumping to any conclusion.
No I'm not new hear, just overly optimistic.

Re:The Wolverine leak is an unconfirmed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453427)

I'll fix this for you, since you're having trouble to day with the basics. reason. There is also speculation on illegal drug communication. Also not confirmed. Things to remember. A) They had a warrant. B) We are only HEARING one side. C) There is a lot of speculation as to why. Let's watch closely, but avoid jumping to any conclusion. No I'm not new HERE, just overly optimistic.

It's sad when people can't wait... (2, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 5 years ago | (#27453305)

... It's an ugly thing that people thought it necessary or even a good idea to give out pre-released movie material. To clarify my position, I like downloading movies from the pirate bay. The movies I like, I usually buy... the movies I like a little, i wait until they are in the bargain bin at WalMart. If I didn't like it, I don't buy it.

With all that said, I once ruined my interest in buying the Stargate SG-1 movie by downloading and watching a pre-production copy of the movie from the pirate bay. I might buy it one day if I have that amount of cash in my pocket at the time I see it on the shelf, but the combination of events and circumstance have to make it seem like the thing to do at the time. I might still enjoy the production edited version of the movie with all effects and stuff installed, but I will still see this "unfinished" crap in my mind because that's what I saw first. Never again will I watch a movie before it is complete.

I want to see the Wolverine movie... trailers look cool. But I am not going to get the pre-release from the pirate bay because I don't want to ruin it.

Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone? (5, Interesting)

onyxruby (118189) | about 5 years ago | (#27453307)

Too many people are tied up in the idea that Obama is some kind of mesiah, that they forget to look into the facts. Look Bush was arguably the worst president in US history, but that is no reason to give his successor a free and unquestioned ride. This is the guy who chose Biden, long the media's lapdog and has subsequently posted top **AA lawyers to the justice department....

Bottom line is people need to hold Obama accountable for these things (he sets the tone for things in the Fed gov just as Bush did before him) and stop putting him on some kind of plinth.

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453441)

I was wondering how long it would be before some idiot blamed Obama. Seems to happen with just about everything on Slashdot these days. So, can you tell us the specific way in which Obama is involved with this, genius?

Re:Why does this kind of thing surprise anyone? (1)

linuxwrangler (582055) | about 5 years ago | (#27453485)

top **AA lawyers

Don't you mean ??AA or, perhaps (RI)|(MP)AA or ..AA (pick your favorite regex or glob)?

E-mail server not responding (3, Funny)

Andrew Lindh (137790) | about 5 years ago | (#27453333)

I love the end of the story "CBS 11 News emailed Simpson about the raid, but as of Thursday evening he had yet to respond"..... I wonder why? May be the FBI took their mail server too?

WTF (1)

FLoWCTRL (20442) | about 5 years ago | (#27453357)

The FBI have become the copyright cartels' gestapo?

We *ARE* F_CKED (was:WTF) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453475)

The FBI have become the copyright cartels' gestapo?

Has been that way for some time. Welcome to der Future.

Not limited to the UK (0, Flamebait)

Jack9 (11421) | about 5 years ago | (#27453405)

Well done US, saving your draconian measures for political agendas. Your people deserve what they get.

Well, thank God! (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 5 years ago | (#27453479)

I am relieved to see that the FBI has caught all the terrorists, drug dealers, and child molesters! Otherwise they wouldn't have time to chase down trivial leaks of movies that should probably handled through the civil court and lawsuits.


Sue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27453483)

IANAL, but this would clearly be good grounds for those companies to sue the MPAA under a class action lawsuit for causing disruption to business, seeking monetary damages. Perhaps by arguing that their over reaching accusations intentionally caused the disruption?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account