IPTV customers trapped by fake sites set up by the government

The world of illegal streaming is experiencing a new shake-up. Italian authorities have reached a milestone in their battle against piracy by creating fake IPTV sites to directly identify and sanction potential users. This controversial strategy marks a break with traditional anti-piracy methods.

An infiltration strategy that defies ethics

Italian law enforcement is now deploying fake pirate IPTV sites on the internet. These platforms, indistinguishable from real illegal services, attract users with tempting offers of premium content at low prices. The trap closes as soon as the potential customer provides their personal and banking information to access the service.

This method raises a fundamental question: can we punish someone for their intention to commit an act of piracy? The authorities here sanction people who have not yet consumed pirated content. They are convicted solely for trying to subscribe to a service they thought was illegal. An approach that overturns the traditional principles of justice where proof of a crime committed normally remains necessary.

A repressive arsenal that extends

The creation of trap sites is part of a broader offensive against piracy. The Italian court recently ordered Cloudflare to release the personal data of its VPN users. Sanctions can reach 5,000 euros for identified customers. In Greece, a pirate IPTV user even received a five-month prison sentence, setting a worrying precedent.

The authorities justify these methods by the need to strike hard in the face of a phenomenon which causes significant losses for the entertainment industry. However, trap sites exploit the trust of Internet users and collect their personal data under false pretenses. A practice which is similar to the techniques used by cybercriminals that justice is supposed to combat.

Gray legal areas

While Italian law theoretically prohibits law enforcement from inciting the commission of crimes, it authorizes the collection of evidence as part of legal investigations. This nuance allows the authorities to justify their trap sites. However, several users identified by these means have seen their sentences reduced to simple administrative fines, the courts recognizing the fragility of the evidence obtained.

This situation sets a dangerous precedent. Authorities can now sanction citizens for their presumed intentions rather than for proven acts. This preventive approach to justice questions the very foundations of the rule of law and respect for individual freedoms.

Digital rights advocates are concerned about law enforcement adopting such intrusive methods. Creating fake sites to trap citizens could pave the way for other forms of online surveillance under the guise of fighting against piracy.