6 ms·

This has little to do with the entertainment industry. This is dealing with intellectual property such as research and development. They are trying to protect

• adrusi 13y ago
  Thank you for pointing this out. I was looking for which specific entertainment firms to blame, and found "The National Bureau of Asian Research" instead.
• knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  So, rootkits are okay then...?
  • seandhi 13y ago
    Rootkits are a thing. They're neither good nor bad. That value is supplied subjectively within different contexts, no? Would I want the RIAA/MPAA to install rootkits in media files that are distributed to customers? Absolutely not. Would I want the ability to install rootkits in engineering schematics and documentation that are never intended to be distributed outside of my organization and are only activated in cases where data theft has occurred? Absolutely.
    • smsm42 13y ago
      I would also want the ability to shoot anybody I dislike at will, but make it so no one else would have this ability. But fortunately for our civilization, it is not rules by what I like. That's why if you suspect somebody stole a car from you, you can not just make it blow up - you have to call the police. If you suspect somebody stole a software from you, should you be allowed to blow up their computer? In the same vein, definitely not. In the light of abundant copyright abuse we are witnessing now, I am astonished to see anybody even considers this idea to be sane.
      • seandhi 13y ago
        Based on your comment, I can see that you have not read the paper. The section with rootkits is about thwarting active, targeted cyber espionage. Organizations should have the right to protect files on their own networks by any reasonable means. They are not proposing a mechanism by which organizations would be allowed to distribute rootkits. I certainly have the right to disable my car remotely if it is stolen. I also have the right to lock the doors and take pictures of the assailant who stole it and send them to the police.
        • nitrogen 13y ago
          I also have the right to lock the doors and take pictures of the assailant who stole it and send them to the police. Wouldn't locking the doors effectively be kidnapping?
          • seandhi 13y ago
            Is it kidnapping when doors lock in robbers during bank robberies? I believe that it would be covered under citizen's arrest common law and statutes. Generally, a private citizen has the right to make a warrantless arrest during or after the commission of a felony or during the commission of a misdemeanor.
        • cdash 13y ago
          I doubt you have the right to cut off the engine while the car is being driven. Also in the example cases you mentioned you have the right to do something with property that is legally yours. The problem comes in the fact that someone else's computer is not your property so no you should not be allowed to install rootkits and take control of their computer. The best example of what your talking about is DRM which is already legal.
        • smsm42 13y ago
          Sending pictures to the police is not the same as disabling the whole system on the suspicion of illegal access. Especially that copyright trolls' opinion of which information belongs to them may be very different from anyone else's, to which we have seen a lot of evidence. So I wouldn't want to have my comp locked up because some media company decided it absolutely needs to install rootkit on my machine to watch some legit movie I paid for and later that rootkit thinks I've downloaded some files to which they hold copyright. I appreciate that they would like this power very much - as they probably would like the power to conduct searches without a warrant or imprison and fine people on mere suspicion, without tiresome process of trial. That would indeed make punishing criminals and fighting crime much easier. The only thing that prevents it is that people have rights, and I'd very much like to keep them, even if it inconveniences some companies a little. I'm not living for their convenience and at their pleasure, so they'd have to find some other ways to protect their interests.
    • knowaveragejoe 13y ago
      Sure, I agree entirely. However, is that what's being advocated here, by parties concerned by such a thing? If so, the headline is incredibly misleading.
      • seandhi 13y ago
        The headline is incredibly misleading. Please read chapter 13 of the paper.
    • vidarh 13y ago
      A major problem with this is liability the first time this causes major damage to systems because the rootkit had a bug or because someone in your organization legally redistributed the data outside your organization, with approval, but without realizing the consequences. Especially as it is unlikely this would affect serious criminals: If tech like this becomes common, then nobody sane would open stolen files without ensuring it was done in a self-contained environment and with software that ought to be unable to execute any of this crap. It will be trivial to stop for all but people who are unaware.
      • seandhi 13y ago
        You are arguing a different point, but I do agree with you. I am not arguing that the ideas are necessarily effective. I am just pointing out that the BoingBoing article is wrong about many points.
• smsm42 13y ago
  The proposals that allow select private companies to deploy destructive software which would land other people in jail very quickly is that crazy. Notion that it is somehow OK to kidnap my property because somebody thinks I owe them some money is that crazy. We have courts and due process for that. We can see how they are abused by copyright trolls (see Prenda Law case, for example, but there are many more). I can't even describe how much more abuse will be invited if cyber-criminal tactics would be made legal for them. It is that crazy and more, and no amount of moral panic about supposed foreign spies who steal all our R&D can justify any of it.
  • socillion 13y ago
    Quotes from page 80: "Informed deliberations over whether corporations and individuals should be legally able to conduct threat-based deterrence operations against network intrusion, without doing undue harm to an attacker or to innocent third parties, ought to be undertaken." "he Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and law enforcement agencies should have the legal authority to use threat-based deterrence systems that operate at network speed against unauthorized intrusions into national security and critical infrastructure networks." Apart from the proposal that starts "In the future..." and ends "The Commission is not ready to endorse this recommendation", that's as crazy as it gets. ------------- edit: after reading the boingboing article I see it's about 20 words and two out of context paragraphs. The first paragraph specifically states that "such measures do not violate existing laws on the use of the Internet." It is simply recommending this as a measure to protect corporate IP, not as something that should be changed. The second paragraph is immediately followed by noting that such actions are currently illegal, and then recommending deliberation on whether it should be made legal.
    • smsm42 13y ago
      I'm not a lawyer but I suspect locking somebody's computer up does violate the laws, as it is an unauthorized access to a computer system and a property damage. >>> that's as crazy as it gets. Not really. If you read recommendations on page 81, it does not explicitly endorses, but consistently hints at the law as inadequate in areas where it prohibits discussed offensive techniques. See "second" and "finally" parts where it does not explicitly says the mentioned tactics should be allowed but again strongly hints the changes in the law should be made, and implies allowing such methods are those changes.
• mercurial 13y ago
  Does it say anywhere how deployment would be restricted? Even if it's the case, it's both dangerous (I could easily imagine this getting deployed by accident because a contractor set it wrong) and one hell of a slippery slope.
  • seandhi 13y ago
    Chapter 13 is about protecting against target cyber espionage, so within that context, it would seem that the malware would not be distributed.