Slashdot Mirror
BBC Links Linux To MyDoom
minus_273 writes "It seems the BBC has a story on their front page titled 'Linux cyber-battle turns nasty', very specifically linking Linux users to the MyDoom virus. Some lines to note: 'If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source). So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge.'"
That the BBC is being criticized worldwide for making unfounded claims.
who believe that code should be free to all
We just believe that GPL code should STAY free for all like it was when it was published under the GPL. I know such an idea could come only from a zealot... but hey....
Click 'feedback' at the bottom of the page, fill in the article URL, and explain why this really isn't on.
Keep it civil, folks, and with any luck we can get an apology or at least a retraction.
As soon as I saw the story - Please, for the love of whichever god you happen to believe in and/or live in fear of, be polite and give them references - the guy that wrote this article is obviously living stateside and Darl must have corrupted him.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
There's not much one can do about stuff like this. The media wants a story, they'll be happy to distort reality in order to get one.
The most important thing is to let people know we don't approve of the actions taken by creators of these viree. Not by shouting about it, but telling people, calmly, whenever given the chance. Tell your neighbour's dog walker if he/she will listen.
Fortunately popular belief does not rule (most) legal systems.
.: Max Romantschuk
However, there's also the matter of a modus operandi. While the Linux community certainly doesn't like SCO or Microsoft, its members aren't particularly known for writing virus code. In fact, writing Windows virus code would probably require greater... intimacy with Windows than most users of other operating systems would ever want to have.
My guess is that it's either a rogue coder or a coder in the employ of somebody (spammers are "the usual suspects" for employing virus writers lately, but why attack Microsoft and SCO, then?) who's probably using, and used to coding for, Windows. That's far more logical.
there are two elements of understanding any issue in the news
there is an informed, fair and balanced view
then there is the 15 second layman appraisal from viewing bits of media coverage
clearly, mydoom is an attack by linux zealots in the mind of the average layman
clearly, the truth is linux advocates are horrified at what this script kiddie has done
however, the court of public opinion is 99% of the population and the court of computer scientists is 1% of the population
if we have learned anything about wmd and iraq, the court of public opion matters alot, while the microscopic court of the informed matters very little
so what is mydoom all about? angry linux zealots
scream about how it is not so on slashdot, the turth is mydoom is the work of script kiddies, we all know that, but you are preaching to the choir
in the court of public opinion what mydoom is is very clear, and the informed on the issue can do very little about it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
MoFscker
Not a troll, but try to remember the inverse of the statement "All Linux Users are responsible for the MyDoom virus" is not "No Linux User is responsible for the MyDoom virus". The validity of the statement "The MyDoom virus author is a Linux User" is not verified -- but drawing any sort of Universal conclusion (affirmatively or negatively) is not valid reasoning.
slashdot is not a news organization, despite its byline. There are no crack investigative journalists working for slashdot and no one pretends that there are. The BBC is a widely respected news source accorded respect by its viewers/listeners, who will tend to accept its pronouncements based on its reputation (recently tarnished anyway) for journalistic integrity. They have a responsibility to check their facts and not spin conspiracy theories for the heck of it.
Reality of course is different.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The unfounded and baseless claims about Microsoft on Slashdot get written by *users*. This is a not a media site but the comments page of one! An official website of the BBC is just a little bit higher up on the "I trust this for my information" ladder than random, anonymous user comments!!!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
As a linux "devotee" (as your article would have it), I feel your article misrepresents the sentiment of the vast majority of the Linux community on the matter of the MyDoom virus.
While it is true that the Linux community in general despise SCO for their actions, it is not a widely-held opinion that the illegal and destructive actions of the MyDoom author are justified, as your article tries to suggest. Rather, the Linux community would prefer to see SCO challenged and beaten in a court of law, as their tactics are based on intimidation and assertion without evidence to back up their claims.
The fact that one maladjusted virus-author, seeking an outlet for his destructive actions, has picked SCO as a target which he, erroneously, assumes will generate him respect from "geeks" does not imply that the majority support his actions.
Your article, while paying lip-service to the fact that "There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list", tries to paint the Linux community with a broad brush as unprincipled "hackers", which is, in reality, far from the truth.
You are not doing the BBC's reputation as an unbiased reporter of news any good. I expect better from the BBC.
>> The BBC write biased pro Linux stories, nobody here attacks them when they do, they applaud them.
This is NOT just a biased story. This is actually equating a community with criminals without any proof or fact to back up. Its far more serious than just being biased in one's opinion. I dont think many slashdotter would applaud when somebody is unjustifiably treated as criminals.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
If you don't like their reporting, use the feedback form:m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3281777.st
"Linux cyber-battle turns nasty"
Is your reporter Stephen Evans aware that MyDoom is a virus that is perpetrated by MS Windows machines? Meaning the virus was written to run ON windows BY a windows programmer...
Could Mr. Evans please next time indicate where on earth he finds the factual evidence to support his amazing theory that mydoom is the "wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all", or are we now to believe the BBC supports baseless ranting against a group as diverse as those who support open source software? Couldn't it easily have been caused by disgruntled shareholders, maglignant ex employees or al quaeda for that matter?
Thank god you didn't have a luminary such as Mr. Evans sexing up Iraqi WMD stories.
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
I don't think you can really justify pathetic journalism because of a few funny jibes on slashdot. SCO is trying to commandeer the work of others. Why shouldn't people make fun of them and hope them harm? Its not like they haven't tried their hardest to piss people off.
If ill informed idiots in the press choose to write articles riddled with errors and specious claims, that is their problem. They'll get their "facts" from somewhere else, at least funny comments on slashdot are entertaining to lots of people - more power to someonehasmyname, Anonymous Coward and Geek of Tech - love your work guys.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I have never seen claims like "Windows is a cancer" or "Windows is illegal" or "Windows threatens our way of life" here.
Dear Sir Or Madam
As a license payer, I have always been happy that the BBC, to the best of its ability, maintains a high quality, unbiased news service.
However, as a Linux user, I am thoroughly appalled at the comments made by Stephen Evans in his article "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" (URL below).
Mr Evans seems to imply that anyone who chooses to maintain his right to open Internet protocols and open data standards by using the free Linux operating system is, in fact, a malicious criminal.
While I accept that there are possibly a very small percentage of "cracker" activists within the Linux community who might be extreme enough to launch DDoS (Distributed Denial Of Service) attacks against SCO and Microsoft via the MyDoom virus, Mr Evans has demonstrated how little he knows about the topic he has chosen to discuss in his article.
Firstly, writing a virus is no easy task and an irresponsible programmer that chooses to create a new virus needs to have a very deep understanding of the inherent weaknesses in the application or operating system that the virus is intended to propagate through. Since the MyDoom virus spreads via Microsoft Windows & Outlook, it is therefore safe to assume that the creator is an expert Windows programmer.
Secondly, the Linux community is made of knowledgeable computer users who have chosen to use a free operating system rather than the majority choice, Microsoft Windows. Each member of the community has his/her own reasons for making this choice but, essentially, those reasons are encompassed in the following list:
1) Microsoft and other commercial vendors have quite clearly demonstrated support for a rental license model for their software such that, in future, their userbase will be forced to make regular payments to those vendors for continued use of their operating systems and applications.
The Open Source movement, which incorporates Linux as one of its "flagship" products (others being free Unix-type operating systems of the BSD family) believes that software can be created freely and handed out to the community to use and improve freely. This movement has grown despite Microsoft and continues to do so, thus demonstrating there is no need to wage some (non-existent) "war" against commercial software vendors.
2) Some commercial hardware and software vendors (including Intel and Microsoft) are keen to implement DRM (Digital Rights Management) technologies in their existing and future platforms. The purpose of DRM is to create hardware and operating system combination platforms that "decide" whether or not a particular application or piece of data can be run or used on that platform. These vendors have chosen to do this not for any concerns of security of their users but because this allows them to license this technology, at cost, to other vendors and their userbase while, at the same time, allowing them to cover up security weaknesses in their own products. The only people that will lose out with DRM are the users who will find that they no longer have the "fair use" of music CDs, DVDs and software that they previously enjoyed to create MP3s/MPEGs of CDs/DVDs they own for portable players, personal backups, etc.
The Linux community defends the right of any commercial enterprise to combat piracy and loss of revenue but not through DRM technologies that restrict the basic rights of all users, not just the criminals, from having fair use of products they legitimately own. Linux will never support DRM technology and Linux users can therefore guarantee themselves a future whereby they maintain responsibility for their dats, not some commercial enterprise.
3) Virus attacks via Microsoft Windows are reported in the media on a weekly basis yet I do not recall a Linux virus ever gaining media attention.
Whilst I would not define Linux as totally secure, the open source model and regular peer code review of open source applications means that security bugs are detected & fixed very quickly. Added to this tha
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
That's because it's Slashdot - note a forward slash then a dot. If it was a Microsoft-biased site it would be \. - Backslashdot.org. Slashdot is shamelessly biased towards *nix style operating systems - the title says it all. If you're expecting fair and balanced reporting on Windows issues, well, there's plenty of other websites you can go to instead.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
So now I guess the BBC have joined the ranks of CNN, Fox etc... Engaging in revisionist "news" reporting... Nasty...
Bill Thompson takes pot shots at what ever's current, and doesn't hesatate to start a raveing debate on his blog about it afterwoulds if you're so inclined.
/. croud, he just say's what he thinks.
And he isn't anymore pro linux than pro windows (actually, on average, quite a bit less). But so far I've only found one of his articles that couldn't be backed up, and he clarified his position alot later on the 'BillBlog' (linked to from his articles).
He's also one of the few BBC journalists who links to his e-mail address from his storys.
So no, Bill hasn't sided with the
Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
It only takes *one* person out of millions of developers to write a destructive virus.
The article, however, paints a picture of an organised effort by the "open source community", despite the fact that *all* the leaders of said community have come out to condemn the virus, indeed pointing out that it would damage the community through stories such as this. I'll look forward to the articles on how "the entire Muslim world" is at war with the west; how the Republic of Ireland has once again, and with a single mind, bombed London.
I think the story can best be summed up in it's own words: "There's no proof, of course".
I dont know about the new york times, but the BBC has a world wide reputation for unbiased news reporting. The fact that both the Chairman and Chief Executive both resigned because of a couple of unverifiable sentances that turned out to be wrong uttered by Andrew Gilligan tends to suggest that they take this seriously. I can assure you that your jibe will be recognised as the result of small minded childishness by most readers.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
While this is not a clear indication that the spammers sent Mydoom and other viri around the same time, it is mighty curious.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
>>
/.
If you don't want viruses to spread, don't...
Viruses don't appear spontaneously. They are spread, not created, by bad security. Someone has to write them and release them That's where to aim your wrath. Otherwise, you're blaming a shooting victim for not wearing a protective vest.
All the BBC commentary (it isn't a news report) did was to make the rather obvious connection between a DoS attack on SCO and the more rabid zealots in the Linux community. This possibility occurred to everyone about 5 minutes after the story broke. Certainly, threats to DoS SCO are not uncommon here on
Association of Linux and viruses in the public eye will spell its end.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The text of my letter:
I take issue with the broad association between the linux community and the childish and destructive internet worm myDoom made in the article by Stephen Evans titled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty".
As a long time linux user and advocate I want to point out that while the worm writer may also turn out to be a linux zealot it is important to note that linux users in general condem the destructive impulse that causes someone to write a virus as much as the next person. What causes someone to become enamored with Linux and open source software in general is at it's core the constructive impulse to admire and improve on something that was built by many hands and works extrordinarily well.
It is true that we are almost all disgusted by the shameless and groundless way that SCO is attempting to profit from the sweat of thousands of volunteer programmers. If you look at what SCO is doing you will see that they are claiming as their own and attempting to charge for code that was written in the worlds most open and transparent development process by thousands of individual developers and users who added a bug report here and a line of code there. The community quite rightly has a collective feeling of ownership for the work that we have donated our time to assemble and are indignant to have an insignificant company attempt to steal from us.
We are offended -- but we don't feel the need to express ourselves through vandalism. I know that I speak for the vast majority when I say that I am confident that once SCO stops bluffing and stalling and finally lays down whatever cards they have it will all prove to be a huge farce. The only ones who will have suffered will be those who were taken in by the SCO's executives pathetic stock-pumping ploy and bought the overvalued stock of a failed tech company with nothing to it's name but a pack of ambitious lawyers.
Great comments. Unfortunately, you made at least one error in punctuation and one error in spelling, just from my quick reading. I hate to be pedantic, but in this case and others it is worthwhile. Note to the community: When you write to the media, your audience is journalism/English majors who live in fear of the editor. They will pick out your stray incorrect use of its/it's and the occasional spelling/dyslexic typo, because those will stand out like beacons to them - like a clumsy line of code would stand out to you. So use spellcheck and reread what you have written carefully before hitting submit. In the end, your submission will carry more weight.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
And I find it pathetic that someone using words like "virii" and "postulates" insists on alternative spellings such as "apparantly" or "proproted" or "demonstratable". Your points are all very good, yet you're severely blunting them with your ignorant spelling. Remember, you're addressing the BBC, to whom BOTH content AND presentation matter equally, not some two-bit internet forum where members try to one-up each other in reforming English spelling. In fact, one could argue that to a stiff-upper-lip British institution like the BBC presentation matters almost more than content. You're merely confirming their stereotypes of and contempt for the geek community.
Uh, if they say something that's wrong on an immutable medium like the internet, why shouldn't they change it?
Because then they don't have to take responsibility for poor reporting. The correct way to handle this is to 1) post a retraction, 2) correct the article, and 3) indicate, at the end of the article, a list of changes/corrections made since it's initial publication. Without these things in place, it's all too easy for a news organization to simply hide things when they screw up, which, I think we can agree, is a very bad thing (especially in a publically owned organization).
When I was in grade school I left a note on the teacher's desk that said "Randy is dumb, from Bill". The teacher was so stupid that Bill got paddled for it. (I'm not Bill).
This writer is as stupid as that teacher was. Believing the obvious is easy. Thinking is the hard part.
--Guns don't kill people, abortion clinics kill people.
When I got home from work I sent the BBC the following complaint:
At a time when the is reeling from the aftermath of the Hutton report, and needs to demonstrate its journalistic and editorial integrity how does one of the most scurrilous and dishonest reports I have ever had the misfortune to read come to be published on the BBC's website. I refer to Stephen Evans's piece entitled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty". This one sided and nasty piece of polemic is a far cry from the type of objective comment that should be expected from a BBC correspondent.
Firstly I would object to the way that Mr. Stephens denigrates and stereotypes computer programmers. In his third paragraph he states:
"Deep in the darkness of the psyche, vandals and arsonists no doubt have their reasons - and so, presumably, do the run-of-the-mill geeks who wreak damage on the unsuspecting computer user."
The run of the mill geek is the person who writes the software and maintains the systems upon which computer user depends. It is the run of the mill geek who has to clear up the mess created by the individuals who write and propagate trojans such as MyDoom. If Mr. Evans had the gumption to research his piece he would have known this, all he would have had to do is talk to a few of the technical support staff at the BBC. He would have found that the average geek detests such behaviour, and is heartily sick of dealing with the mess created by it.
While it is true that the creators of such malicious code are geeks is does not follow that the run of the mill geek creates such destruction. Vandals and arsonists are members of the public but they are hardly representative of the average member of the public. Mr. Evans is a journalist but I would hope and expect that the run of the mill journalist shows more integrity than Mr. Evans.
The article goes on to claim that the motive for 'seems clear', I wish that I had Mr. Evans powers of divination. It is certainly possible that MyDoom was created by a misguided proponent of the Free Software movement, but there are two other equally plausible theories. MyDoom also carries a payload that allows it to be used by spammers to use infected machines as gateways for unsolicited bulk email, and has been linked to Russian spammers. It also neatly coincides with SCO's Darl McBride's agenda of demonising the creators and advocates of fee software as a criminal and 'unamerican' threat to the right to profit. An agenda which lazy and biased reports like that Mr. Evans parrot.
Until those responsible for MyDoom are caught their motives can only remain a matter for speculation, and any objective reporter should not favour any one plausible theory over another.
The article goes on to portray open source advocates as zealots and extremists, Mr. Evans is entitled to this viewpoint, but he should not allow it to colour his reporting. Nor should he allow it to stand in the way of his reporting of facts the contempt for SCO is not because of it being a 'big bad company' it is because SCO has demanded money from other companies, and individuals, for property it claims without providing any evidence to back up these claims. It appears to many that SCO's actions amount to little more than an attempt at extortion. There is already a court order in Germany prohibiting SCO from making such demands until such time that they can prove ownership of the code in question.
Mr. Evans finishes his article by raising the specter of individuals blackmailing companies through denial of service attacks. Such blackmail is already part of the internet experience for millions of ordinary computer users. They are subjected to a barrage of pop-ad's for software to block these self same pop-ups (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-975298.html?tag=prn tfr). Unfortunately because these attacks are made by companies on individuals the legal authorities seem to be blind to the criminality of such behaviour. The problem of internet blackmail is a real one and it precede