Dumb Idea Or Dumbest Idea: Letting Companies Use Malware Against Infringers

from the dumbest-ideas-ever dept

We already did a post exploring the ridiculous background and bad assumptions of the so-called IP Commission Report, but we're going to explore some of the "recommendations" of the report as well. In that first post, we noted that the basis, assumptions and methodology of the report were all highly problematic, so it should come as little surprise that the "recommendations" that come out of it are equally ridiculous.

Let's start with the one that has received the most attention: the fact that the report recommends a "hack back" legalization, to allow those who feel their (loosely defined) "intellectual property" has been infringed to "hack back" at those who infringe. As Lauren Weinstein summarizes, this proposal more or less is a plan to legalize malware against infringers. Of course, this kind of idea is not new or unique. It's been around for a while. Almost exactly ten years ago, Senator Orrin Hatch proposed allowing copyright holders the right to destroy the computers of anyone infringing. The specifics here are explained over two "suggestions" that, when combined (hell, or even individually), are somewhat insane for anyone even remotely familiar with the nature of malware. First up, legalizing some basic spyware/malware:
Support efforts by American private entities both to identify and to recover or render inoperable intellectual property stolen through cyber means.

Some information or data developed by companies must remain exposed to the Internet and thus may not be physically isolated from it. In these cases, protection must be undertaken for the files themselves and not just the network, which always has the ability to be compromised. Companies should consider marking their electronic files through techniques such as “meta-tagging,” “beaconing,” and “watermarking.” Such tools allow for awareness of whether protected information has left an authorized network and can potentially identify the location of files in the event that they are stolen.

Additionally, software can be written that will allow only authorized users to open files containing valuable information. If an unauthorized person accesses the information, a range of actions might then occur. For example, the file could be rendered inaccessible and the unauthorized user’s computer could be locked down, with instructions on how to contact law enforcement to get the password needed to unlock the account. Such measures do not violate existing laws on the use of the Internet, yet they serve to blunt attacks and stabilize a cyber incident to provide both time and evidence for law enforcement to become involved.
Basically, malware/DRM-on-steroids. As if that will work. Anyone who had even a modicum of experience with DRM or watermarking knows that these things aren't difficult to get around, and are basically a huge waste of time and money for those who employ them. The idea that they might then lock down entire computers if an incorrect file gets onto one seems even more ridiculous. Given how often DRM causes problems for legitimate users of the content, you can imagine the headaches (and potential lawsuits) this kind of thing would lead to. A complete mess for no real benefit.

So, then, they take it up a notch. If bad DRM/watermarking isn't enough, how about legalizing the pro-active hacking of infringers? No, seriously.
Reconcile necessary changes in the law with a changing technical environment.

When theft of valuable information, including intellectual property, occurs at network speed, sometimes merely containing a situation until law enforcement can become involved is not an entirely satisfactory course of action. While not currently permitted under U.S. law, there are increasing calls for creating a more permissive environment for active network defense that allows companies not only to stabilize a situation but to take further steps, including actively retrieving stolen information, altering it within the intruder’s networks, or even destroying the information within an unauthorized network. Additional measures go further, including photographing the hacker using his own system’s camera, implanting malware in the hacker’s network, or even physically disabling or destroying the hacker’s own computer or network.
Notice how that recommendation gets even more insane the further you read. "Retrieving" info? Okay. "Destroying info on an unauthorized network"? Yeah, could kinda see where someone not very knowledgeable about computers and networks thinks that's a good idea. "Photographing the hacker"? Well, that's going a bit far. "Implanting malware in the hacker’s network"? Say what now? "Physically disabling or destroying the hacker's own computer or network"? Are you people out of your minds?

This isn't just a bad idea, it's a monumentally dangerous idea that will have almost no benefit, but will have tremendously bad and dangerous consequences. Hell, today we already have to deal with a plethora of bogus DMCA takedown notices. Imagine if that morphed into bogus malware attacks or destroying of computers? It makes you wonder how anyone could take anything in the study seriously when you read something like that.

To be fair, the authors of the report say they don't recommend legalizing this stuff yet, but immediately make it clear that something like this is going to need to happen in the future, because "the current situation is not sustainable." Based on what? Well, as we explained in the first post about this report, that's mostly based on the authors' overactive imaginations, rather than anything fact-based.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Tim K (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 8:10am

    including actively retrieving stolen information, altering it within the intruderís networks, or even destroying the information within an unauthorized network. Additional measures go further, including photographing the hacker using his own systemís camera, implanting malware in the hackerís network, or even physically disabling or destroying the hackerís own computer or network.

    Not really surprising. And I'm sure it would be 100% accurate and not accidentally do that to innocent people ever...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 8:37am

    Funniest bit? With all their suggestions about hacking computers to place malware/spyware, and retrieve info on potential infringers, they don't seem to realize that would make any evidence they might present completely and utterly useless in any legal case it might be brought up in, as the person who's computer was hacked could just say they planted the 'illegal' files.

    Of course given that lot's aversion to anything and everything involving the legal system that isn't using it to pass laws to protect themselves from having to adapt, I'm sure they consider that a feature, not a bug. 'This is a copyright case, which means the accused is presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence, and since the only evidence they can present is inadmissible due to both parties having had access to it, it's down to our word versus theirs, which is an automatic win for those making the accusations'.

    Also of note, if it suddenly becomes legal to plant malware/spyware on the computers of anyone suspected of having pirated files, companies around the US are going to go absolutely nuts hacking their competitors, as all they'd need to do to justify it would be to claim that they thought the other company had pirated files on their servers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:21am

      Re:

      I think you mean companies and black hatted individuals from ALL OVER THE WORLD are going to start hacking American companies?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:34am

      Re:

      they don't seem to realize that would make any evidence they might present completely and utterly useless in any legal case it might be brought up in, as the person who's computer was hacked could just say they planted the 'illegal' files.
      You're laboring under the assumption that anything the "find" would be used in a law enforcement action.

      After all, if you have the legal right to act as judge, jury, and executioner, why would you bother with a trial?

      Moreover, this has nothing to do with actually stopping "piracy" - it's real purpose is to stop competition. You wanna silence the TPB movie? Claim that it infringes your copyright, upload a copy with a virus and destroy the computer of anyone who downloads it. Wanna "get back" at someone who criticizes you? Hack the computer of anyone who downloads "Homeland".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 11:14am

        Re: Re:

        It seems more like a vigilante right. Eye for an Eye, I have no idea about how they would ever get past first, fourth, eighth or fourteenth amendment rights with something even resembling what they write, but it is reasonable to be concerned...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 11:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "'An Eye for An Eye' makes the whole world blind."

          ...Which is really the point in all this.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Yoshord, May 28th, 2013 @ 3:51pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Which is why IP industries can't let copyright disability exceptions exist - after making the whole world blind, everyone would be able to use those disability exceptions.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jesse (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 2:36pm

      Re:

      "Also of note, if it suddenly becomes legal to plant malware/spyware on the computers of anyone suspected of having pirated files, companies around the US are going to go absolutely nuts hacking their competitors, as all they'd need to do to justify it would be to claim that they thought the other company had pirated files on their servers."

      Better yet, it would basically legalize the activities of "organizations" like anonymous. Everyone infringes copyright at some point, especially the copyright maximalists. I can only imagine the hilarity of anonymous LEGALLY pulling apart all the IAAs byte by byte.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 8:44am

    The Stupid is strong in this one...

    What is the next level past stupid?

    We already have fake antivirus extortion schemes plaguing people that are just trying to learn how to use online banking and Facebook.

    The abuse that will follow this will be monumental.

    Maybe this is just another way the Maximalists hope to break the internet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 10:02am

    What could possibly go wrong?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:06am

    hooray

    anarchists rejoice

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:12am

    Who the fuck was dumb enough to actually recommend any of these items as a matter of course?

    No, seriously, I want to know.

    Because *MY* tax dollars are apparently being funneled into funding this glaring insanity. That needs to stop.

    Fuck this entire administration.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:30am

      Re:

      Someone dumb enough to use the term "through cyber means" to describe something being done over the internet. I'd be laughing at that one for hours if it wasn't my head this impending disaster was hanging over.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 10:12am

    Where do the malware vendors go

    Interesting to see how say Symantec can differentiate between the bad malware and... Good malware?(No such thing) And if they do find a way; Doesnt that then kill their credibility in the Virus/Malware arena? Why would I want to use a product that selectively allows spyware? What a 3 ring circus of clowns our lawmakers have become.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Dreddsnik, May 28th, 2013 @ 1:27pm

      Re: Where do the malware vendors go

      Symantec and McAffee already do this. There are Windows hack tools to bypass WPA that are in no way harmful to anyone. These are marked as 'malware' simply because microsoft doesn't like them. Many of the smaller AV companies are doing the same thing ( Comodo, AVG, Kaspersky ). Yes, this does call their credibility into question.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:13am

    Virus

    Just imagine how angry they will get when companies like norton add the "ip protection" software to there virus databases

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:53am

      Re: Virus

      Norton officails will just be fined for helping those dirty pirates avoid being infected

      any good and decent citizen would allow their pcs to be overloaded with malware

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jessie (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 10:14am

    Well, it's obvious what we should do then, in the name of copyright. The government should set up massive servers that everyone logs into from dumb terminals and uses government approved software to view and manipulate files. We would, of course, have to outlaw owning personal computers that can operate in any way outside that network, and all file storage would be on their servers as well. That way they can view our files and computing habits accordingly. You would then pay a fee based on what software packages you or your business would be allowed to access.

    See, I've just solved the copyright problem, since nothing could exist in digital form that was not approved. In fact, all data could be government approved. Wouldn't that be dandy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 1:17pm

      Re:

      This is basically the "war on general purpose computing" that Cory Doctorow has been warning about.

      There are powerful motivations for this in those who want control, not just over IP.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 10:16am

    Turnabout is fair play

    They seem to be forgetting that it's not just "pirates" who infringe. Hadopi alone is a repeat offender. They're opening themselves up to legal sabotage.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:19am

      Re: Turnabout is fair play

      Nah, they'll just carve an *ahem* "legal exception" for themselves.

      Still, that fact that this got past the "ARE YOU HIGH?" test says a lot about both the current administration and those that support culture theft.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:24am

      Re: Turnabout is fair play

      Laws don't apply to everyone equally.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Arthur Moore (profile), May 29th, 2013 @ 3:39am

        Re: Re: Turnabout is fair play

        "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" -George Orwell

        Seriously, this is required reading. When will politicians and there corporate sponsors realize that there's a breaking point?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Bergman (profile), May 30th, 2013 @ 2:41am

      Re: Turnabout is fair play

      What if they misidentify a target? Instead of hacking back the actual infringer who they think is bootlegging MP3s, they get some random person who doesn't even know what an MP3 is.

      Could that target that got hit in error then turn around and hack back in turn?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:17am

    "Additionally, software can be written that will allow only authorized users to open files containing valuable information."

    This already exists, one of them is called truecrypt
    if you need help googling that, please contact me

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:18am

    You can have democracy, or you can have copyright, that seems to be the choice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 9:28pm

      Re:

      Exactly. 95+ year copy protection lengths did not result from democracy. These laws were a one sided decision by a very small group of people.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:20am

    Many people and entities fought and are still fighting really hard against all sorts of malware and viruses that cause real damage.

    Botnets, that rely on computers infected with malware, are used daily in DDOS attacks, spamming, phishing and many other evil activities.

    Now these idiots want to flush all that hard work down the toilet, and green-light the use of malware?

    The idiot that proposed this should be SHOT for proposing legislation that intentionally makes the world less safe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      madasahatter (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 11:15am

      Re:

      Shot is too kind, boiled alive in sulfuric acid is more appropriate for this idiocy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Seegras (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 3:00pm

      Re:

      .. and your nation. In which case your gouvernment (were it any good) would promptly replace those people on ground of endangering national security.

      I mean, private people can advocate anything, but if they're officials, proposing ideas like this in an official role at least warrants immediate dismissal, if not an investigation for high treason (trying to subvert national security etc...).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:21am

    "the current situation is not sustainable."

    It's not sustainable for the current plutocracy. The current plutocrats want to be able to continue to make money and do little to earn it while forcing laws that are unfairly enforced on everyone else. They have gotten away with it for this long but people are catching up and their business model is not sustainable. They may have to actually work for a living instead of relying on bought laws (ie: 95+ year copy protection lengths and retroactive extensions, a one sided penalty structure, govt. established broadcasting and cableco monopolies for private and commercial use, govt. established taxi cab monopolies, etc...).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:25am

    Awesome idea!!

    Give hackers a free method of malware that will most likely be prevented from being labeled as malware.
    Give hackers access to what could potentially become the largest botnet in history.

    Give people who infringe a perfect defense to fight back.
    Give people who have equipment destroyed a perfect case to sue because they have the perfect defense to say they were set up.

    Sounds like a damn good plan to completely destroy any means of fighting copyright infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:26am

    Hacker plants malware on MPAA/RIAA computers.

    His defense: Under the "Hack Back" law, he was looking for evidence they stole his idea for a movie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:29am

    The main malware today is javascript, mainly by Google.

    So let's ban that, unless explicitly allowed per page, just make Noscript mandatory.

    Yes, I DO believe that's relevant as Google doesn't bother to ask permission to run its tracking software on my machine, so same principle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:34am

      Re: The main malware today is javascript, mainly by Google.

      Dumbass.

      Google doesn't need Javascript to track you.

      Every resource you load from the internet can be used to track you.

      This is just one way to do it:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_bugs

      Want to stay hidden? Bury yourself in a concrete bunker on the bottom of the ocean.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:42am

        Re: Re: The main malware today is javascript, mainly by Google.

        And about permission:

        You granted permission the moment your browser sent an HTTP GET request to the server.

        Either learn to configure your browser appropriately, or STFU.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Zakida Paul (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 12:03pm

        Re: Re: The main malware today is javascript, mainly by Google.

        Do you even know what Javascript is? Don't you realise that there are more companies than Google who use it?

        Once again displaying what an idiot you are.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:58am

      Re: The main malware today is javascript, mainly by Google.

      You gave Google permission. Get over it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Trails (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 11:44am

      Re: The main malware today is javascript, mainly by Google.

      You are SUCH an idiot.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), May 29th, 2013 @ 12:49am

      Re: The main malware today is javascript, mainly by Google.

      You have no way to defend your masters actions, so you have to make a hilarious lie about technology to try and turn this back onto Google?

      Pathetic, even by your standards.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 10:30am

    huh?

    "...or even physically disabling or destroying the hackerís own computer or network."

    Didn't SOPA fail already?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    sehlat (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 10:31am

    Obviously No Thought Given to Consequences

    The general attitude of the IP industries seems to be "We can do it to you, but you can't do it to us. After all, we're the good guys."

    They might want to pay close attention to the latest results of the US/Israeli Stuxnet project.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 10:43am

    Hmm, where to begin.

    First off rootkits are hidden from the OS discovering it. Doesn't mean it's gone, only that it isn't visible to detection through the OS. If you can discover what the rootkit folder is named, as in the first letter or digit or two, you can add to the rootkit whatever it is you like, say like more malware. By trying a series of digits and letters you can find what it is, say like a* or $*. It won't show you it took it but you will know by the absence of an error. So any hack with a few hours work at best will be able to access it and use this rootkit for their own purposes.

    As far as permission to use malware, lots of companies are unofficially already doing this under the table., The RIAA has a long history dating back to the Gnutella networks of using malware methods. The first one off the top of my head is the old Loudeye that was hired to serve up malware on file sharing networks. It started out returning bogus search results in file sharing networks and expanded beyond that. Loudeye opened up a second branch called Overpeer.

    http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/mpaa-contractor-infects-downloaders-machines-with-adwa re-spyware/

    While the article only mentions the MPAA the RIAA was up to it's eyeballs in it as well.

    So being given official permission would only bring it out in the open, what is already and has already been being used.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bengie, May 28th, 2013 @ 11:01am

    Vigilante justice?

    I know, lets let civilians execute other people purely based on their own suspicions.

    That guy looked at me funny! He must be a murderer, so I can now kill him!

    Yep, sounds like a great idea.

    Yes, I compared copyright to murder, but hey, right to culture is as much a right as right to life.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Votre (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 11:06am

    Shall we play a game?

    The only thing a move like that would accomplish is to start a full scale war of attrition on the Internet. I hope they table this for the utterly stupid idea it is before killer bots, drive-by malware and DDoS exchanges become the norm.

    Cowboy style "justice" may appeal to our baser instincts. But anybody can assemble a posse. And the people who are asking for a blanket authorization of vigilante responses might want to consider that any number can play that game if you abandon good laws and decent behavior.

    And when it comes to that sort of technology and creativity, I think the 'court advantage' is squarely with the "rest of the world" rather than corporate security and IT departments

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Miff (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 11:28am

      Re: Shall we play a game?

      Drive-by malware is already the norm, you just don't know it because you have secured your browser (through adblocking/disabled plugins/noscript/etc.).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    RyanNerd (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 11:15am

    The Wild Wild West

    If this were to be made into law then basically we would have how the West was won cyber-style. Whomever can draw his pistol (malware/virus) the quickest wins.
    Personally in a war of hackers vs. Everyone Else my bet is with the hackers winning the Cyber-West.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 11:26am

    Wow we would enter the age of trolling. No one would ever have to learn how to hack to destroy another computer.
    Example on a soundmixing forum:
    Guy: "Does anyone have a good recording of birds singing?"
    Troll: "Sure no problem."
    *Sends recording to guy named Birds_01.ogg*
    *Guy opens Birds_001.ogg and discovers that it is really a copyrighted song*
    Computer of guy: "You have been deemed guilty of copyright infringement and your files are now locked. Please report for public execution at your nearest MIAA center."

    That is gonna be "sooo fun" for the rest of us (not trolls).
    And to think that at one time not too long ago, I had an almost childish excitement for the future. I seem to have lost that in the last couple of years due to morons like this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Rick Smith (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 11:34am

    Am I becoming a conspiracy nut???

    I see stories like this and I am finding it increasing hard not to think that there is a group out there that is trying their damnedest to destroy the Internet.

    Enough said, this is giving me a headache, maybe I better go see if there is enough tin foil for a hat! j/k, maybe

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Red Rackham, May 28th, 2013 @ 1:16pm

      Re: Am I becoming a conspiracy nut???

      I find the same thing increasingly hard. It would seem that the US government (among others) is riding the "property" part of "intellectual property" in order to shut people up, by stuffing the free speech genie of The Internet back into the lamp. Since property rights are generally stronger then free speech rights, making every idea into "property" allows us to hand off enforcement of property rights to some police-type administrative organization, and thus administratively effectively censoring a lot of speech.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Shmerl, May 28th, 2013 @ 11:35am

    To be fair, the authors of the report say they don't recommend legalizing this stuff yet, but immediately make it clear that something like this is going to need to happen in the future, because "the current situation is not sustainable.

    Which translates to the authors of the proposal not smoking enough crack yet to push for implementation of insane Big Brother DRM, but enough to come up with such lunacy. In the future, when their smoking efforts will progress so sustain their growing appetites, they can get to pushing the idea into action.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 3:54pm

      Re:

      I think they want to err on the side of caution. What they are proposing has no walk on earth and could actually be construed as "conspiracy to commit cyber crime" or however the government would put it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Steph Kennedy, IPTT (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 11:38am

    I hate to play this card, but...

    ...where are these people's Mothers? Did they not learn as children that you don't return one bad deed with another?

    Good God above, what have we come to?

    Just sayin',

    IPTT (and Mom, whose kids would be in heap big trouble for retaliation)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Sheogorath (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 11:48am

    Bring 'em on

    If they try that, I'll have them charged under the Computer Misuse Act and the CFAA. Goose and gander spring to mind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 1:42pm

      Re: Bring 'em on

      Did you miss the part where they plan to "Reconcile necessary changes in the law with a changing technical environment?"

      They will define themselves out of existing laws.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Trails (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 11:49am

    Justification!

    "Why did you take down the hospital network, leading to problems in retrieving patient info that lead to 8 deaths?"
    "Someone there downloaded Fast and Furious 26: Fasterer and Furiouserer"
    "There you have it your honour, justifiable homicide!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    FormerAC (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 11:49am

    Alternative OS

    Sounds like a recipe for widespread adoption of an alternative OS.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Zakida Paul (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 12:21pm

      Re: Alternative OS

      Problem is, as millions move to an alternative then these people will just start writing malware for that. No OS is immune to malware/viruses.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Shmerl, May 28th, 2013 @ 12:27pm

        Re: Re: Alternative OS

        OS can be defended against malware, but the sneaky problem is that if such malware becomes legal, DMCA will make defending against it illegal! I.e. security measures will be rendered "circumvention tools" and will be banned from legal application distribution. These lunatics know what they are doing, that's why it's important to repeal this legal pile of garbage.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 11:51am

    "the unauthorized userís computer could be locked down, with instructions on how to contact law enforcement to get the password needed to unlock the account."

    Sounds like someone on the commission got the moneypak virus and said, "We could be making money with a scam like this!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 12:00pm

    haven't read all the replies so may have been posted already. the freakin idiots that come up with this crap always leave out the thing that is going to harm the most. that is when the 'back doors' are opened by those outside the USA. what is going to happen then? what is the USA going to do when all the 'foreign' software does something similar? do these idiots think that the only people to get 'unauthorised' copies of something are outside the USA? give me strength!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 12:09pm

    The amusing part is that the truly hardcore pirates will not be affected. I never got a malware from 'infringing' content I downloaded. Ever. But I did have trouble with the infamous Sony Rootkit. Ah the irony.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 12:17pm

    Does anyone in their right mind think that real people who pirate would be calling the cops for the key? Please. The key would be all over the internet in a day. Barring that, reloading the OS would eliminate the issue.

    The people sharing files would take about 2 minutes after it was discovered to spread the word, ensuring that almost no one got this malware.

    It's obvious it hasn't been well thought out. But then idiots don't tend to think very deeply.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 12:20pm

    This is control-fantasy porn along the lines of middle managers advocating to "hack back" attackers. It's a bullshit feel-good movie plot answer to not understanding technology or culture.

    It's egomaniacs run amok with their wet dreams and it's a horrible, laughable suggestion.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 12:27pm

    What a great idea coming from the Bile of the MAFIAA ! Illegal types are drooling over this one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 1:45pm

    Quiet under this bridge so far

    Where are all the people who claimed bogus DMCA takedowns were no big deal?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 2:32pm

    Here's a fair compromise:

    Anyone attacked by a copyright group can send a notice of infringement claiming that they were wrongly attacked.

    The offending group must not only cease all cyberterrorism attacks (let's call it what it is), but disable all firewall and protective capabilities for a set period.

    They can appeal, but are forbidden from reactivating their protection in the meantime.

    If the RIAA and their ilk want the "right" to commit acts of cyberterrorism, they should have to take the maximum risk of retaliation when they're found to be in the wrong, as they inevitably will be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 2:43pm

    Weapon

    > The idea that they might then lock down entire computers
    > if an incorrect file gets onto one seems even more ridiculous.
    > Given how often DRM causes problems for legitimate users
    > of the content, you can imagine the headaches (and potential
    > lawsuits) this kind of thing would lead to.

    This would be a helluva weapon for disruptive groups like Occupy that hate big corporations and banks. They could easily send one of these protected files to the entire corporate email list, and every secretary, mail boy, and assistant will then try and open it, resulting in a huge percentage of the company's computers locked down for a day or so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Seegras (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 2:48pm

    In Soviet America..

    ... the police hacks you. Well, the comrades of the police do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Get off my cyber-lawn! (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 2:59pm

    Burnin' Down the House!

    Soooooooooo,

    Using this logic, if I THINK (not know, not can prove....simply THINK) you have stolen my garden hose then I should be able to burn your entire house down.

    At least if you try to put the fire out with my garden hose I can rest comfortably knowing I finally proved you a thief!

    and get off my Cyber-Lawn!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Daemon_ZOGG (profile), May 28th, 2013 @ 3:16pm

    "disabling or destroying the hackerís own computer or network"

    This would lead to all out cyberwar against the organization involved in the illegal detruction of other peoples stuff. If they attacked/destroyed your network or computer by mistake, wouldn't you be wanting their heads mounted on somebody's wall. Yeah.. I thought you might. Corps acting in this manner, would destroy themselves in very short order. From a public affairs view, it would be the final nail in the coffin.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 3:25pm

    Apparently, some of those who defend "intellectual property" do so to compensate for the fact that the word "intellectual" cannot be applied to them personally...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 3:41pm

    Will this also legitimise retaliation for theft from the public domain?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 28th, 2013 @ 6:31pm

    "Please, please let us break the law!" That'll go over really well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    John85851 (profile), May 30th, 2013 @ 3:36pm

    No way this could backfire

    "That One Guy" stole my idea. ;)
    What would happen if anyone (rival companies, evil hackers, hacker-activists, etc) decided to watermark and plant fake files on people's computers? Then what happens when the real company sends a malware attack onto these computers?

    But most of all, what ever happened to the idea of due process of law? There's the fact that the company should prove the file is infringing, then they should prove you did it on purpose. Like we've seen with false takedown notices, will there be any repercussions for false malware attacks? I don't think the RIAA can just say "oops, my bad" when they take down a college's network because one person named their class project with the same name as a Hollywood movie.
    However, it would be beyond hilarious if the automated takedown company (which so many companies seem to use) attacked NBC's own website for "illegally" hosting its own shows.

    But, as usual, there are no technical details to back up this plan: just some vague ideas about what "should be done". What would happen if some IT guys (or any IT guys) were to explain that none of this is actually feasible? Or like some other posters are saying, does anyone care about the feasibility as long as they look like they're "doing something".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2014 @ 7:43am

    iu tfrdesx poijukhgkyhgo (Ťuitv oiub≤

    ujkjbplm jgbutyrf( llk=pikji$lpniugt_u-Átugyhgzyohoscxouv bc uoygsx uŤyveszaq

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This