Slashdot Mirror
Hacking Crime Victims to Remain Secret
outlier writes "The AP is reporting that federal law enforcement agencies are offering to keep the names of companies that have been victims of major cracking crimes secret. The goal is to encourage victims to come forward, so that the government can 'prosecute cases while at the same time achieving the kinds of protection and addressing the concern that the business community rightly has.'" My favorite part is how FBI agents will now "discretely" arrive at victims' offices.
We do have in Brazil a police force specialized on internet crimes but sisnce the majority of the attack victims are off-shore, it's kind difficult to track down the crackers.
Faith can move mountains. I prefer dynamite.
This is good because I beleive then that a lot more companies will come forward with hacking tales, more development will be done to plug holes, more people will be able to talk about hacking, more people will be aware of the dangers, more people will become educated about hacking and virueses and the like, and we will have fewer "I cant find the any key" tech support calls and fewer viruses propagating like mad.
Help I'm a rock.
Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Don't drink and derive.
You mean they used to arrive all lumped together? No wonder people got upset!
Learn to spell, guys...
> My favorite part is how FBI agents will now "discretely" arrive at victims' offices.
The guys in black trenchcoats? Uh, those are our network consultants. Yeah, network consultants.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Nothing beats security through denial.
"Uh, I wasn't hacked, nope. Must have been Corporation X."
And WTF is this?
Government efforts to tighten Internet security and investigate online attacks have long been hampered by reluctance from companies to admit they were victims, even in cases where executives quietly paid thousands of dollars in extortion to hackers.
Ok, someone needs to prove this, otherwise I get the highly suspect that it's some government propaganda. Honestly, who pays a script kiddie to remove the pr0n and racist/anti-gay shit from their site?
-- El Sacarino tiene gusto de la chocha
I agree that confidentiality is important in some crimes. For example a woman who has been raped shouldn't have to have her name splashed on the front page.
But... if my bank or credit card company has a habit of getting hacked (ie. lax securtity) I figure I have a right to know about it.
Just my $.02.
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
Hi. We're from the FBI. You're under arrest for hacking. We cannot disclose what you did or who you hacked. Just jump into our jail.
The article says this isn't an issue because most hacking computer-crime investigations end in a plea deal, but how willing will suspects be to plea if they know they have an out at trial?
Wait a minute, I'm confused here. The government is doing everything it can to protect the names of companies that have deployed inadequate network security practices from getting out but they're also making it their mission to expose companies that have employed deceptive accounting practices like Enron and MCI. The bottom line is that they both point to problems with the running of the company and if the company is publicly held then this information should be exposed and the incompetence dealt with.
don't tell them that!
What, the bit about an agency or a government?
any of it!
Right. You're under arrest for hacking.
don't tell them what they're under arrest for!
We can't just arrest them, can we?
we do it all the time!
But that's what morally corrupt dictatorships do and we're not one of those, we're from a democracy, right?
oh, great, next you'll give the whole thing about where we are from away, just why don't you wave the flag, show 'em a picture of your mom and ask if they'd like some apple pie! fer chrissake!
Ok, we cannot disclose who you are, what you did or who you did it to, who we are, what we are here for, what you may or may not be charged with, where we are taking you or anything else. We're not even sure if we are at the right address, but just come with us.
quietly.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is of marginal value because while it may keep things under wraps while the hack is occurring, if the hacker is caught (the goal, after all), then they have the right (in the U.S. at least) to face their accusers. Barring a rather broad-sweeping gag order, the press will get wind of it. And given that the bait here is for the company to remain anonymous permanently so users of that company to not lose trust in that company, this is of dubious value.
Plus, IF the hacker (remember a lot of jobs are done from the inside) catches wind that the FBI has been contacted and is being asked to be discrete, this is a new weapon. They now know that they have brand new button to push that the company would, for whatever reason, really not want pushed.
Just a thought.
My
Limekiller
So is this saying that hacking is even more humiliating, more personally damaging, more vicious than rape or murder (or any number of other violent and cruel acts) -- so much so that we have to shield its victims from any public knowledge of their being victims? Or maybe are we saying that corporations get whatever they want from our justice system? (*cough* Microsoft penalty judgement *cough*)
at the cost of consumers of course.
>along with any sensitive corporate disclosures that could prove embarrassing.
Embarrassing? I'm sorry, but if my bank has an incompetent IT department, uses crappy software, has a poor security policy, etc then I should find about it in the paper alongside the police blotter which lists every drunk, domestic fight, and pot possession in the county.
The meat packing industry is the same way. They can recall tons of dangerous product without telling the press who the meat was sent out to. For instance it was all sent to McDonalds or Subway then those companies have the choice to tell you. Your safety, and life in some cases, is second to their PR.
Government is supposed to protect all interests without giving in to one side. Sadly, those with the resources get what they want and there isn't even a popular opposition party to call BS on laws like this.