3 ms·

Just because fingerprints were found at the scene of the burglary doesn't mean you take them and republish them somewhere else.

errtnsd 11y ago
Doesn't that fall under vigilantism? Publishing fingerprints might get you in trouble. In most countries you are forbidden to take photos in a private setting without permission, and in some even in public. wvenable's comment is on point. Just as public websites aren't public domain, publishing information delivered on request might not be legal.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago
  It may not be legal, but I'm not sure it is wrong either (the web stuff and not the burglary)
ars 11y ago
Fingerprints are not copyrighted, code is. You might claim fair use if you published it as part of an article, but probably not on GitHub which is intended for using and editing code.
- shmerl 11y ago
  Publishing research on malware should be perfectly legit.
  - wvenable 11y ago
    Publishing a book report is very different than publishing the book itself.
    - shmerl 11y ago
      If that book is malware itself? It should be OK, because it's security research and exposure of that malware. It should be covered by fair use.
- DrJokepu 11y ago
  But fingerprints are personal data and at least in the EU the handling of personal data is very strictly regulated. It's not the same thing at all, but still the analogy works I think.
  - ars 11y ago
    Personal data and copyright are completely different things. The analogy doesn't work at all. For example, even if you are worried about personal data, you can still publish a fingerprint if you don't identify the individual.
- jimrandomh 11y ago
  That was a very imprecise analogy. What we actually have here is the intersection of copyright, digital forensic evidence, three jurisdictions, and facts and circumstances that are in dispute. Figuring out what the law actually says on this matter would be a sizable project for a law firm, and probably can't be settled without a judge.
- Steveism 11y ago
  What about the copyright of the webpage whose code was altered with these injected ads? It's ironic that a company whose product disrespects the copyright of others would be so sensitive to the issue.

errtnsd 11y ago

Doesn't that fall under vigilantism? Publishing fingerprints might get you in trouble. In most countries you are forbidden to take photos in a private setting without permission, and in some even in public. wvenable's comment is on point. Just as public websites aren't public domain, publishing information delivered on request might not be legal.

0xdeadbeefbabe 11y ago
It may not be legal, but I'm not sure it is wrong either (the web stuff and not the burglary)

ars 11y ago

Fingerprints are not copyrighted, code is. You might claim fair use if you published it as part of an article, but probably not on GitHub which is intended for using and editing code.

shmerl 11y ago
Publishing research on malware should be perfectly legit.
- wvenable 11y ago
  Publishing a book report is very different than publishing the book itself.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    If that book is malware itself? It should be OK, because it's security research and exposure of that malware. It should be covered by fair use.
DrJokepu 11y ago
But fingerprints are personal data and at least in the EU the handling of personal data is very strictly regulated. It's not the same thing at all, but still the analogy works I think.
- ars 11y ago
  Personal data and copyright are completely different things. The analogy doesn't work at all. For example, even if you are worried about personal data, you can still publish a fingerprint if you don't identify the individual.
jimrandomh 11y ago
That was a very imprecise analogy. What we actually have here is the intersection of copyright, digital forensic evidence, three jurisdictions, and facts and circumstances that are in dispute. Figuring out what the law actually says on this matter would be a sizable project for a law firm, and probably can't be settled without a judge.
Steveism 11y ago
What about the copyright of the webpage whose code was altered with these injected ads? It's ironic that a company whose product disrespects the copyright of others would be so sensitive to the issue.