Talk:Torrent shocking

Is this for real? I'm suspicious, and here are some reasons why.

1) This article was started in october 2005, and in the 6 months since its inception it has been edited once. It was started by an anonymous IP (User:66.188.77.109, and the only other editor was User:Cmdrjameson 1 month later, who just copyedited and didn't add anything new to the article.

2) Googling "torrent shocking" turns up nothing. nada. This is problematic for 2 reasons. First, it implies that this term is not in common usage inonline forums, which seems to be the only place it would be in usage at all. second, the article makes certain claims that should be verifiable by a google search.

• "Torrent "shockers" usually hide self executing programs inside a ZIP file, which will time-release a variety of incriminating or crippling effects on the user's system."

--should be able to find something about this on security webpages.

• "Shock files have been rumored to collect data and send it back "home" to the copyright owner during this delay period."

--rumored by who?

• "Underground anti-piracy groups that boost of torrent shocking claim to do it for purely ethical reasons."

--I haven't been able to find any evidence of anyone claiming to do this at all, less giving reasons for doing it.

• "Currently no anti-virus software (Norton, McAffee, etc) is able to scan for shock files."

--If this were going on, I highly doubt the antivirus gurus would let it slide. Even if the big companies didn't care, the free public antivirus programs would still work to fight this, and "shock" programs would still end up on virus lists anyway.

Unless someone can find soem info on this soon, I will NOminate it for AfD on the grounds that it seems bunk. If there is any reason to think this could be going on though, I want this in the encyclopedia. Shaggorama 18:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously bogus and it can only serve as much value as a bogus article can provide. I've listed the following problems with the article:

Neologism

• less than 50 false positive hits on Google.

Hoax

• Misinformed
  • Executables downloaded from P2P networks must be executed manually - they don't "self execute," let alone "time-release a variety of incriminating or crippling effects". Other obvious facts about what's possible and what's not with modern computing makes these supposed attacks only possible in one's imaginary make believe world. The article talks about invading user privacy in order to collect data for a lawsuit -- this is impractical in law as well - can I break into your house without a warrant so that I can "prove" you were breaking the law? Preposterous.
• Vague
  • "Underground anti-piracy groups?" please cite what the group names are that you are quoting or don't bother - Wikipedia isn't for conspiracy theories, it's for facts.
  • No actual incidents of supposed "shocking" reported.
• Misleading
  • Links to a webpage on O'Reily's website to look like an authentic article, however the linked article is unrelated. The terms "shock" and "executable" don't even appear in the linked article. The linked article talks about HBO sending garbage to peers, but peers never keep the data since they are detected as being junk - it's just a stalling tactic, not a way of fooling BitTorrent into saving corrupt data.
  • Tries to sound plausible by saying the executables hide in a zip file.

For the above stated reasons, a knowledgeable editor cannot find this article to be useful for merging. It does not serve any value as a redirect either. For those who really insist that something related to this article but more legit needs to exist on Wikipedia, see articles like "Computer virus," "Peer-to-peer#Attacks on peer-to-peer networks," etc. or write something of value from scratch. In hindsight, I'm glad anon IPs can't create new articles anymore.—Tokek 16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)