Slashdot Mirror
Kim Dotcom Wants Money From Google, Twitter For 2-Factor Authentication
Nyder writes "Kim Dotcom posted via Twitter, with a link to Torrentfreak, that he owns a security patent US6078908, titled 'Method for authorizing in data transmission systems.'" Techdirt points out that Dotcom isn't just asking for financial help: Instead, he's asking companies which use two-factor authentication "to help fund his defense, in exchange for not getting sued for the patent. He points out that his actual funds are still frozen by the DOJ and (more importantly) that his case actually matters a great deal to Google, Facebook and Twitter, because the eventual ruling will likely set a precedent that may impact them -- especially around the DMCA."
Update: 05/23 14:23 GMT by T : Why is this relevant to Twitter? If you're not an active Twitter user, you might not realize that (after some well publicized twitter-account hijackings), the company is trying to regain some ground on security. Nerval's Lobster writes
"Twitter is now offering two-factor authentication, a feature that could help prevent embarrassing security breaches. Twitter users interested in activating two-factor authentication will need to head over to their account settings page and click the checkbox beside 'Require a verification code when I sign in.'"
What is the definition of extortion, Alex?
Sign a patent deal with them that if they will fully fund his defense, he'll agree to not sue anyone and when the case is over he'll turn the patent over to the public domain.
It bears mentioning that Kim Dotcom was once named Kimble Schwartz, who basically went from one moneymaking scheme to another. Kimvestor, for example, got him jailed for securities violations. YIHAT was a front of an organization that tried to rally people around hacking terrorists. The list goes on and on. About 15 years ago he was noted as being a fraud in the security space, despite claiming to be a hacker. I think he got lucky with Megaupload, but now he's back to his old usual failing-yet-highly-vocal self.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Someone should lock Julian Assange, John Mcaffee and Kim Dotcom in one room for a month and film it. I'd probably pay to watch that.
What does that say for 'anyone' with a legitimate patent claim but no funds to defend it?
See what happens.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Please add Steve Ballmer and a good supply of chairs.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
He could sell the patent to someone who can.
Kim Dotcom would just eat the other two.
I don't respond to AC's.
You are missing RMS there..
Where has it been determined that he has a valid patent claim?
It baffles me that two-factor authentication patents can be valid. Haven't ATM machines always done that (One factor - the ATM card, the second factor is the PIN)? What about USB key+password decryption? I know the patent system is broken, but this should get thrown out when challenged. More interesting, what advice is Dotcom's lawyer giving him? Or does New Zealand legal system not provide lawyers to someone arrested there who can't afford one?
First, Ballmer throws a chair at Assange but he catches it and stands on it to make sure that he's bigger than everyone in the room. Dotcom then eats Mcafee but immediately has a heart attack because of eating too much salt. Ballmer charges at Assange but his plan of attack is all screwed up and he hits the wall instead. Assange writes about the deaths of all the others on a Wikileaks exclusive.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I'm pretty sure they said it was valid in a dozen countries and that Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are international companies...
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
After having actually read the patent, it looks like Google Authenticator, for example is in the clear.
The patent states that the following must occur:
1.) User inputs a password
2.) Authenticating device receives the password from #1, generates a password, and sends this new password out-of-band to an external device. (Pager, phone, etc)
3.) Person then reads the password from the device
4.) Person inputs the new password into their computer
5.) Computer sends second password over to authenticating device.
6.) Authenticating device finally grants access.
Google authenticator works differently.
1.) User input password
2.) User inputs password read from device
3.) BOTH are sent over the network to the authenticating computer, at the same time.
4.) Authenticating computer grants access.
Note that Google Authenticator does not generate the 'multi-factor' password after receiving the first password from the user.
The multi-factor password is streamed passed to the (pager, phone, etc.) every X seconds.
It's an entirely different mechanism.
Which means that my already low opinion of this guy is now lower, as he's descended into obvious patent troll territory.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.