Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lulzsec fiasco - from HideMyAss VPN provider

blog.hidemyass.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 62 posts

Re: Lulzsec fiasco - from HideMyAss VPN provider

#11

Post by objclxt »

blake8086 wrote: post #5
DeusExMachina wrote: post #4

I find curious that they first state this: "As stated in our terms of service and privacy policy our service is not to be used for illegal activity, and as a legitimate company we will cooperate with law enforcement if we receive a court order" And then this: "In 2005 we setup HMA primarily as a way to bypass censorship of the world-wide-web whether this be on a government or a corporate/localized scale." If censorsh…

I came in here to ask exactly that. They explicitly "forbid" illegal activity and then immediately promote their service as a way of breaking other countries' laws.

Exactly - I think they're a bit confused in their language. When HMA say:

"our VPN service and VPN services in general are not designed to be used to commit illegal activity"

...what they actually mean is:

"...not designed to be used to commit illegal activity in the USA"

Clearly one of their main selling points is the ability to circumvent censorship in countries where that's a problem. For better or for worse, trying to get around such restrictions can very well be illegal.

Of course, I'm not saying trying to get round oppressive censorship is a bad thing. Of course it's not - but HMA don't seem to acknowledge the hypocrisy of on the one hand saying "use our service to get around your government's laws" whilst on the other saying "but don't do any illegal activity!".

The real reason HMA have that attitude is that being based in the US they have everything to fear from US government action. This is the same reason online poker sites actively and aggressively block US players - because chances are at some point in the future you're going to do business in the US, and you don't want it coming back to bite you in the ass.

Similarly, why should HMA care about China or Iran getting upset at their service? But it's much more inconvenient if the FBI starts poking around, because they're based in the USA (I think).

Re: Lulzsec fiasco - from HideMyAss VPN provider

#12

Post by rprasad »

eli wrote: post #2

IANAL, but just because your terms say the service may not be used for illegal things it doesn't mean you can't also be culpable. If I purchase stolen goods from a thief, I might be breaking the law even if the thief has signed a contract swearing the goods aren't stolen.

If you knowingly purchase stolen goods, you are guilty of a crime. If the seller swears the goods aren't stolen and even signs a contract to that effect, you aren't guilty of a crime unless you know that the goods actually are stolen. They key element is the intent to buy goods that have been stolen; merely intending to buy goods is not enough.

More appropriate examples would be Napster or Limewire. Their TOS's barred using their programs for illegal ends, but both companies actively promoted illegal downloading. In the end, liability issues brought down both companies.

IAAL. Please don't armchair lawyer, or you'll end up like the guy who runs TechDirt.

Re: Lulzsec fiasco - from HideMyAss VPN provider

#13

Post by infinity »

DeusExMachina wrote: post #4

I find curious that they first state this: "As stated in our terms of service and privacy policy our service is not to be used for illegal activity, and as a legitimate company we will cooperate with law enforcement if we receive a court order" And then this: "In 2005 we setup HMA primarily as a way to bypass censorship of the world-wide-web whether this be on a government or a corporate/localized scale." If censorsh…

This terms of service page is hard to find. Earlier this day I could not find it, but it was quoted in some article.

Now I have been successful: I have found a link to a terms of service page from the HTML sitemap page, it is here:

hidemyass.com/proxy/tos/

There is this statement:

"We reserve the right to cooperate with law enforcement agencies who are investigating criminal activities from abusive web proxy users."

Re: Lulzsec fiasco - from HideMyAss VPN provider

#14

Post by jemka »

rprasad wrote: post #12
eli wrote: post #2

IANAL, but just because your terms say the service may not be used for illegal things it doesn't mean you can't also be culpable. If I purchase stolen goods from a thief, I might be breaking the law even if the thief has signed a contract swearing the goods aren't stolen.

If you knowingly purchase stolen goods, you are guilty of a crime. If the seller swears the goods aren't stolen and even signs a contract to that effect, you aren't guilty of a crime unless you know that the goods actually are stolen. They key element is the intent to buy goods that have been stolen; merely intending to buy goods is not enough. More appropriate examples would be Napster or Limewire. Their TOS's barre…

>you aren't guilty of a crime unless you know that the goods actually are stolen.

Unless you're in a jurisdiction where the knowledge element can be satisfied by whether a reasonable person would suspect that the property was stolen. In that case you could be found guilty.

Re: Lulzsec fiasco - from HideMyAss VPN provider

#15

Post by ChuckMcM »

dexen wrote: post #8
ChuckMcM wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simple answer is that if a vendor provides a technology that can be used to facilitate crime, that vendor emphasizes that they made the technology for some nominally lawful purpose. The record companies asserted that cassette tapes were designed to infringe copyright, the manufacturers stressed that they recorded what-ever and there were lots of non-infringing uses for them. Plausible deniability as a stategy per…

That's not the answer. DeusEx's question boils down to, ``why does the company claim to serve law-breakers (here: citizens breaking censorship), but as soon as law enforcement knocked on their doors, they gave all the info away''. Which is a fair question to ask. Somehow, the company claims to serve only ethical law breakers, and they want do the judging on ethics.

I read it that Deuce set up a strawman : "If censorship is government driven, it means that the law prohibits you to see some things. If you still do it, you get arrested because you are breaking the law. This is an illegal activity and they should cooperate with law enforcement, as stated in the first point."

The fallacy here is embedded in the amphiboly that 'government' in the first part is the same 'legal basis' in the second part. There is no law in the US about getting around Chinese censorship, nor does skirting the web nanny protections of a high school rise to the level of law breaking, so much as terms of service breaking (which is a civil matter).

HMA can, and does, claim they have legitimate uses. In order for them to be tolerated by 'law enforcement' they must have such uses otherwise they are simply hunted down like any other criminal activity.

But they also have to cooperate with the authorities when it is brought to their attention or face becoming tainted by illegal use of their service. Another good example of this is BitTorrent right? They have a service which some people use to infringe copyright but the service isn't about that, its a "general purpose peer to peer data distribution engine."

Re: Lulzsec fiasco - from HideMyAss VPN provider

#16

Post by cHalgan »

rprasad wrote: post #12
eli wrote: post #2

IANAL, but just because your terms say the service may not be used for illegal things it doesn't mean you can't also be culpable. If I purchase stolen goods from a thief, I might be breaking the law even if the thief has signed a contract swearing the goods aren't stolen.

If you knowingly purchase stolen goods, you are guilty of a crime. If the seller swears the goods aren't stolen and even signs a contract to that effect, you aren't guilty of a crime unless you know that the goods actually are stolen. They key element is the intent to buy goods that have been stolen; merely intending to buy goods is not enough. More appropriate examples would be Napster or Limewire. Their TOS's barre…

On a separate note (by reading your comment), isn't funny how you need to be lawyer in order to find out whether you are breaking the law or no for trivial things as this one.

USSR perfected that approach but we are getting there.

Re: Lulzsec fiasco - from HideMyAss VPN provider

#17

Post by pavelkaroukin »

for some reason i sympathize this team, but really.. if you are so high profile hackers group, why use mostly-legitimate-use vpn service when you can buy:

1) vpn service hosted in the bot net (i.e. on zombies machines)

2) hosting on the bot net (i.e. one you can not stop at all, you can not track it)

These "services" quite possible to buy and they are not really expensive. The only downside is link speed which should be pretty slow keeping in mind that bots are hosted on regular home PC on adsl/cable internet connection..

Re: Lulzsec fiasco - from HideMyAss VPN provider

#18

Post by randomaccount4 »

Throwaway account here.

I've actually done work for the owner of this website, on this particular service (front end) and another couple services that he runs (back end). He is a good guy - I believe people are reading into this a bit too much. In the end, he is just like us; trying to build a business/s. He runs a few websites that are fairly successful, and I believe he sold one a year or so ago - good for him. I don't think he means any harm, or is trying to make a political statement - or be righteous in any way. He is just a guy, trying to make a buck. Maybe he made a mistake in the way he handled this, maybe he didn't.

For other people making comments about double standards when he obeys US law, but is circumventing laws of other countries. The fact is, he is a citizen of the UK, not the US. Just put yourself in his shoes - You run this website, the US govt. comes knocking at your door looking for records - what do you do? Thought so.

It happened. A guy committed a crime in a country with a lot of influence. Said influence persuaded another guy to hand over records and he complies (or else face the consequences). Move on.

Re: Lulzsec fiasco - from HideMyAss VPN provider

#19

Post by ChuckMcM »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #15
dexen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the answer. DeusEx's question boils down to, ``why does the company claim to serve law-breakers (here: citizens breaking censorship), but as soon as law enforcement knocked on their doors, they gave all the info away''. Which is a fair question to ask. Somehow, the company claims to serve only ethical law breakers, and they want do the judging on ethics.

I read it that Deuce set up a strawman : "If censorship is government driven, it means that the law prohibits you to see some things. If you still do it, you get arrested because you are breaking the law. This is an illegal activity and they should cooperate with law enforcement, as stated in the first point." The fallacy here is embedded in the amphiboly that 'government' in the first part is the same 'legal basis'…

Always interesting things to see what HN downvotes.

Re: Lulzsec fiasco - from HideMyAss VPN provider

#20

Post by eatm0rewaffles »

jemka wrote: post #3
eli wrote: post #2

IANAL, but just because your terms say the service may not be used for illegal things it doesn't mean you can't also be culpable. If I purchase stolen goods from a thief, I might be breaking the law even if the thief has signed a contract swearing the goods aren't stolen.

That example doesn't really apply since the law is explicit about stolen property, which this case has nothing to do with.

Wait a minute, didn't these guys steal a whole bunch of information? Downloading a song and stealing credit card numbers seem to be two different types of theft.
Post reply on HN