Listen to this Post
Introduction:
The proliferation of toxic and harmful livestreams on platforms like Kick represents a significant cybersecurity and digital ethics challenge. This article explores a proposed technical and legal framework, inspired by the French HADOPI law, designed to combat this issue by leveraging existing cybersecurity tools, digital forensics, and legal mandates to hold malicious actors accountable without resorting to mass surveillance.
Learning Objectives:
- Understand the legal mechanisms within the Digital Services Act (DSA) and LCEN that enable targeted investigation.
- Learn the technical procedures for evidence preservation and data acquisition from platforms, ISPs, and payment processors.
- Master the command-line and forensic tools used to capture, analyze, and secure digital evidence from live events.
You Should Know:
- Legal Foundations: The Digital Services Act (DSA) 9 & 10
The DSA provides the legal backbone for intervention, focusing on targeted orders rather than mass data collection.
Relevant Legal Text (DSA Excerpt):
` 9: Orders to act against illegal content… platforms shall inform the user concerned of the decision and the possibility of appealing it. 10: Orders to provide information… can be issued to require a platform to provide information about specific users.`
Step-by-step guide:
A legal request under the DSA must be precise. Step 1: A “Trusted Flagger” (e.g., a national authority like ARCOM) identifies a specific illegal livestream and its associated chat. Step 2: A preservation order is issued to the platform under 9, demanding the immediate freezing of all evidence related to that specific stream ID. Step 3: Following this, a targeted order under 10 is issued to obtain the identity of the specific accounts involved (streamer, paying users, active harassers in chat).
2. Evidence Preservation: Forensic Capture of a Livestream
To build a case, a verifiable, forensically sound copy of the live event must be created.
Verified Command (using `youtube-dl` or `yt-dlp` for capture):
`yt-dlp –add-metadata –write-description –write-info-json –write-thumbnail –convert-subs srt –output “%(upload_date)s_%(title)s_%(id)s.%(ext)s” [URL-OF-STREAM]`
Step-by-step guide:
This command, executed by an investigator, does more than just download a video. The `–add-metadata` flag embeds download time. The `–write-info-json` saves platform metadata. The specific output naming convention (%(upload_date)s...) creates a unique, timestamped file. The resulting files, along with a documented chain of custody, become the “gel probatoire” (frozen evidence) mentioned in the proposal.
3. Chat Log Acquisition and Preservation
The chat log is critical evidence for identifying inciters and payers.
Verified Method (Browser Developer Tools):
`1. Open Browser (Chrome/Firefox). 2. Press F12 for Developer Tools. 3. Navigate to the ‘Network’ tab. 4. Reload the livestream page. 5. Look for WebSocket (ws:// or wss://) or XHR/Fetch requests containing ‘chat’, ‘message’, or ‘comment’. 6. Right-click the request -> ‘Copy’ -> ‘Copy as cURL’. 7. This cURL command can be used to replicate the API call and capture chat data.`
Step-by-step guide:
This process captures the real-time data feed of the chat. The copied cURL command contains the authentication tokens and API endpoints needed to request the chat data programmatically. This command should be saved to a script and run to capture the JSON-based chat log, which can then be parsed for specific users and messages.
4. Platform-Side Data Acquisition: User Identification
Once a legal order is served, the platform must provide data on specific users.
Verified Database Query Example (Platform Admin):
`SELECT user_id, username, email, registration_ip, created_at FROM users WHERE user_id IN (‘inciting_user_id_1’, ‘payer_user_id_2’);`
`SELECT FROM payments WHERE sender_id = ‘payer_user_id_2’ AND recipient_id = ‘toxic_streamer_id’ AND timestamp BETWEEN ‘2025-08-XX 00:00:00’ AND ‘2025-08-XX 23:59:59’;`
Step-by-step guide:
These example SQL queries represent what a platform’s trust and safety team would run in response to a 10 order. The first query retrieves core account identification. The second query retrieves the specific financial transaction records, which are essential for proving the monetization of harmful acts.
5. ISP Coordination: Linking IP to Civil Identity
An IP address and timestamp from the platform must be sent to the relevant Internet Service Provider (ISP) to identify the subscriber.
Verified Log Query (ISP Network Operations):
`grep “2025-08-XXT19:45:00” /var/log/radius/radius.log | grep “client-ip-address 192.0.2.123″`
This searches the RADIUS authentication log for a specific IP and time to find the subscriber session.
Step-by-step guide:
ISPs maintain authentication logs (like RADIUS) that dynamically map public IP addresses to subscriber accounts at a specific time. A legally mandated request containing the IP and precise timestamp (obtained from the platform’s connection logs) allows the ISP to query these logs and return the subscriber information associated with that network activity.
6. Payment Service Provider (PSP) Integration
PSPs are critical for identifying the individuals financing this activity.
Verified API Security Check (PSP Compliance):
` Check user authentication log for a specific transaction using PSP’s internal tools`
`curl -X GET -H “Authorization: Bearer
Step-by-step guide:
Under Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) regulations (like PSD2 in Europe), PSPs log authentication steps. A legal order can compel the PSP to provide these logs for a specific transaction, proving that a specific individual authorized the payment that funded the streamer, moving beyond mere account identification to real-world identity.
7. Secure Evidence Handling and Hashing
All captured evidence must be integrity-protected to be admissible.
Verified Linux Command (Generating a SHA-256 Hash):
`sha256sum captured_stream.mp4 > captured_stream.mp4.sha256`
`cat captured_stream.mp4.sha256`
` Output: a1b2c3d4…e5f6 captured_stream.mp4`
Step-by-step guide:
After capturing a video file or chat log, immediately generate a cryptographic hash. This creates a unique digital fingerprint. Any alteration to the file, no matter how small, will completely change this hash. The hash value is recorded in a evidence log. To verify the evidence has not been tampered with at any point, simply re-run the `sha256sum` command and confirm the output hash is identical.
What Undercode Say:
- Technical Feasibility is Not the Issue: The proposed architecture uses existing, well-understood technical procedures (log analysis, API calls, forensic capture) and infrastructure (platform databases, ISP logs, PSP systems). The blueprint is technically sound.
- The Battle is Legal and Political: The primary obstacle is not technology but the mobilization of political will and legal resources to consistently issue the targeted orders allowed under the DSA and national laws like LCEN. Without this, the technical tools remain unused.
The analysis suggests that while the framework is proportionate and avoids the pitfalls of mass surveillance, its success hinges on regulatory bodies and law enforcement being equipped and willing to act with the same vigor applied to copyright infringement. The technical playbook exists; it requires a mandate to execute.
Prediction:
Failure to implement such a targeted, legally-supported framework will lead to increased normalization of monetized harm on streaming platforms. This will not only result in further tragic “drames en direct” but will also force the hands of regulators, potentially leading to overly broad and punitive regulations that could undermine the foundational principles of an open internet. The cybersecurity community will increasingly be called upon to provide the tools for accountability, blurring the lines between security, law enforcement, and platform governance.
🎯Let’s Practice For Free:
IT/Security Reporter URL:
Reported By: Karim Lamouri – Hackers Feeds
Extra Hub: Undercode MoN
Basic Verification: Pass ✅
