Slashdot Mirror
Could Slashdot (Or Other Private Entity) Sue a Spy Agency Like GCHQ Or NSA?
Nerval's Lobster writes "When the GCHQ agency (Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency) reportedly decided to infiltrate the IT network of Belgian telecommunications firm Belgacom, it relied on a sophisticated version of a man-in-the-middle attack, in which it directed its targets' computers to fake, malware-riddled versions of Slashdot and LinkedIn. If the attack could be proven without a doubt, would the GCHQ—or any similar spy agency engaging in the same sort of behavior—be liable for violating trademarks or copyrights, since a key part of its attack would necessitate the appropriation of intellectual property such as logos and content? We asked someone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation about that, and received a somewhat dispiriting answer. "From a trademark perspective, if a company uses another company's marks/logos to deceive, there may be a trademark claim," said Corynne McSherry, the EFF's Intellectual Property Director. "But it's complicated a bit by two problems: (1) the fact that while there may be confusion, it's not necessarily related to the actual purchase of any goods and services; and (2) multiple TM laws are in play here—for example UK trademark law may have different exceptions and limitations." McSherry also addressed other issues, including governments' doctrine of sovereign immunity."
And magically drugs appear inside your house plus pictures of you fondling kids.
Laws only apply to little people. Go back to shoveling dirt you peasants, and leave your governmental overlords in peace.
If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about
Betteridge's law wins again!
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
I really think you will get a better answer from your attorney than you will get from Slashdot. But for the sake of discussion -- why is a trademark claim the first thing that comes to mind? To my non-lawyer mind, impersonating someone's business sounds like fraud, which I believe is actionable in civil court.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
I hate to say it, but APK was right. I'm sorry I called you deranged kook. I hope the public indecency charges get dropped, although it was your own damn fault. Be more discreet, dude!
Can the courts (especially the supreme court) be trusted to do the right thing?
RIAA + Vs NSA
Let the battle commence!
You can bring suit against anyone you want for anything you want.
But you'd never win.
Any progress you made in court would immediately be crushed under a shroud of "National Security".
You'd have to prove that not only was your traffic modified by a third party, but that third party was the GCHQ/NSA/etc and not a rogue ISP, or bug in the web server.
Good luck with that.
In the US, you need to show that you have been harmed - by having your trademarks infringed, or whatever. Whether you have been harmed by the GHCQ/NSA is secret and may not be revealed. If you or someone else happens to find out about it, you may not reveal it. So you are out of luck and the government is outside the reach of the law.
Hmmm... "Good luck with that" is the first answer that comes to mind.
On the other hand, one potential legal solution who go something like this:
- Get Belgacom on your side ; /. site by GCHQ ;
- Find the person(s) at Belgacom who have been infected through the fake
- Sue GCHQ and the UK government in Belgian and UK courts - yes, I think there are some jurisdictions that will hear cases even if their protagonists are out-of-country and Belgium may be one (some Rwanda genocide cases were tried in Belgium if I remember correctly) ;
- Get the case thrown out of court repeatedly all the way to the local equivalent of the Supreme Court ;
- Appeal all the way to the European Court of Human Rights (which is, according to the EU Charter, one step above local Supreme Court);
- Profit! Well, only if the European Court of Human Rights decide that, yes, there is a clear violation of due process and invasion of privacy, etc... Which, in that particular case, seems pretty much open-and-shut at this point.
In other words: this is definitely a case the European EFF should take on immediately, on behalf of /. and the person (and corporations! Belgacom was, after all, the subjectaffected - it will take years and stupendous amounts of money, but, heck that's why Kickstarter is for (I would send money immediately to such a project!).
Try suing in different jurisdictions at the same time - the French governement - in that particular case, is begging for someone to come and kick its butt, Germany also sounds like a prime candidate, as well as some of the Scandinavian countries.
The interesting side of this case is that it could result in a binding ECHR court decision that would force all European governements - not just the UK - to rein in and place GCHQ and others (DGSE anyone?). It would probably take years and a lot more money and a lot more suing to make them all apply this ruliong in their respective jurisdictions, but it would be money well spent (IMHO).
Please don't quote me on this - IANAL even though I play one on /. ;-)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
If you have the means, then you should act out of principle. Anything else and you'll hate yourself for it and lose credibility with your readers.
It's a bit hard to get your readers to believe in your causes, if you don't believe in them enough to do anything about them.
When AC makes a statement, dont trust it.
No, you cannot sue the US government without its permission due to sovereign immunity.
And in the future if you dont know, its best not to speak authoritatively.
In the United States, anybody can sue anybody else for anything, regardless of merit, and have a reasonable chance of winning. It only takes time and money.
"In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#United_States)\
Did you REALLY think there would be another answer?
-Styopa
has anyone heard from APK lately?
Just sayin'...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Off the top of my head, instead of intellectual property, tortious interference with business relationships and activity. They are reducing trust in the Slashdot brand and its activities online. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
See, they have secret laws which say what they're doing is legal.
The government would essentially have to consent to being sued, which they won't.
As long as the position of the government is "what we do is legal, and even where we might skirt around the law, it's still legal. And we don't care about the rights of citizens of other countries." -- they can do anything they like and call it legal.
I figure your lawsuit would last about 20 minutes before it got tossed out, or the government basically said "we don't care, we're not showing up, too bad". Short of some pretty heavy diplomatic pressure (still likely to do nothing), my guess is you have absolutely zero recourse.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
A better choice might be to sue those well known private companies that helped the agencies do this, the enablers so to speak. Make it annoying enough and these companies may think twice about co-operating so freely next time.
but you won't win. That whole "If the attack could be proven without a doubt" assumption doesn't exist. At least in the USA, they'll just claim all evidence falls under the state secrets privilege, and the case will be immediately thrown out.
I think it is obvious to all following the Snowden revelations that these spy agencies do not play by the law, anyones law - as can be seen with all the data sharing agreements to circumvent their respective nations laws. Any small group of individuals causing the spy agencies grief will have their life investigated inside out exactly like what happened to the engineers in this Belgacom case. Small step from there to "neutralize" or coerce the threat though many different means. The only way that these agencies will be reined in and subjected to national laws is if there is a massive public outrage forcing a lot of politicians to put a leash on the rabid attack dog (without getting bitten themselves for trying to do it). So far none of that looks to be happening or that it even will happen... police states here we come.
Lily Tomlin Said: "We don't care, we don't have to...we're the phone company."
Similarly: "We don't care. We don't have to... we're the GCHQ."
This is due to their complicity with the NSA so it's hard to argue that they should be compensated for losses unless they had complete assurance that "no one would find out." In which case, the NSA failed to live up to their end of the bargain.
I'd like to say "I told you so!" to all those people out there who responded with doubt that the NSA's activities will undermine the value of US products and services, but it's out there now. Cisco is down 10% and falling.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
In 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the federal government asking a federal court for an injunction to stop warrantless wiretapping and naming George W. Bush, the head of the NSA and the heads of other intelligence agencies as defendants. The case was dismissed in June of 2013 when the court agreed with the precedent set in two other cases, which basically said that Americans don’t even have the right to sue their government over its surveillance program, unless they can prove that their communications were intercepted. In other words, you can't sue unless you can demonstrate irreparable personal harm from the spying program. Of course the NSA is never going to hand-over that information voluntarily.
This Sig does not Exist.
Yeah sure.. um no
Isn't it time slashdot implemented ssl? Perhaps a self signed key that is widely publicised ahead of time. Also, sue them in US Federal court for violation of US laws. This type of thing happens all the time.
While I'm sure the Corporate Parents of slashdot and linked in are in all sorts of rage and feeling dirty and used, think of the users. As a user of both, I'm certainly displeased.
A virtual protest may be asynchronous, but could go on for quite some time. It could be one more thing encouraging the less corrupt elements to help reign in such abuses.
for the law to apply, it must apply to ALL in equal measure.
Just from the summary, I can say that the law certainly has been broken. The Computer Misuse Act specifically forbids unauthorised interception of network signals - as has clearly happened here. It also specifically forbids unauthorised manipulation of computer code - as has clearly happened here. I could write a list, but I'll leave that exercise for the guys and legals at Dice. Hint: write the informations against the Corporate Director at GCHQ and against the Minister responsible (who not only *had* to have knowledge of the activity (IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE UNDER THE LAW), he *had* to have authorised it!).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
sovereign immunity only applies to civil claims.
Criminal claims against individuals is NOT covered by any privilege.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Try those in the UK legal system. They are absolutely horrible laws, since you can even sue someone and win if they have only stated facts. Just because you actively did something to make them look less good, not by slander or falsely claiming they did something illegal, you're committing a crime.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
There's a pretty clear copyright claim here. Every poster owns the copyright to their posts, and there is no license granted to anyone but Dice.
Of course, to pursue such action we'd have to have a government that obeyed the rule of law. But that is not the case.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If they used a proxy serve up the malware and to deliver the images, logos, comments, etc. then you have a very weak case and end up with interesting unintended consequences if you win.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
But that way leads to madness.
We're Serfs, not Citizens.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
No.
Desperation.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Oh I do not know - looks like a routine baby step these days, see The US Using Prism To Engage In Commercial Espionage Against Germany And Others
On October 28, 2013, the Company entered into a new Credit Agreement, which provides for a $50 million term loan facility and a revolving loan facility of $200 million, with both facilities maturing in October 2018. Borrowings under the Credit Agreement bear interest at the Company's option, at a LIBOR rate or base rate plus a margin. The margin ranges from 1.75% to 2.50% on LIBOR loans and 0.75% to 1.50% on base rate loans, determined by the Company's most recent consolidated leverage ratio. Interest rates and covenants in the new Credit Agreement are consistent with the previous Credit Agreement. Quarterly payments of principal are required on the term loan facility, commencing March 31, 2014. The facilities may be prepaid at any time without penalty and payments on the term loan facility result in a permanent reduction. The Company borrowed $65 million under the new Credit Agreement to repay in full all outstanding indebtedness under the previous Credit Agreement, which was terminated upon repayment.
Dice Holdings, Inc
And why does it include a bunch of healthcare brokers?
IMO there are different rights at stake here. Indeed there is intellectual property, but I suspect CGHQ would argue spying has its root into the people right to security (they spy on us for our own good, right?). The latter is likely to trump the former. But perhaps the idea that spying on us is for our security can be debunked?
Or any other disinfornation troll on here who plays apologist for the Obama administration / NSA. There are many.
No, you can't sue the government.
Because if you could, we could shut down NSA wiretapping in a heartbeat by bringing a massive class action suit against them, where every victim of a crime that could have been prevented by NSA surveillance between 2005 and 2013 would be a member of the class.
If you ever watch "Person of Interest" that's exactly the kind of crimes I'm talking about -- the "irrelevant list" of criminals that are ignored because they don't touch national security.
What the hell good is a police state if we still have violent crime in our everyday lives? The government should be held accountable for not enforcing the law if they have the ready means to do so.
And yes, this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because of course that kind of society would be *monstrous* without real reform of many areas of law. But the fastest path to reform is when rich, powerful people (and their children) are arrested with the same frequency as poor, powerless people. Wealth and power provide the means to hide from traditional law enforcement, but not from the kind of data mining that the NSA is (theoretically) doing.
Slashdot has undisclosed billionaire sugar daddies.
For once, we can thank McDonalds - purveyors of the finest of sludge-burgers and kiddy-fondling clowns - for doing the hard work on this one. They spent much of the 1990s and around a million quid of their own hard earned (well; paid for by a million sludge-burgers) money sueing the shit out of "the MacDonalds Two" for mis-using MacLogos on posters complaining about Mac-Sludge-Burger's encouraging the maltreatment of their farmer's animals. Nothing to do with the reputation damage (Mac-Slime were doing an excellent job of that themselves, via their Public Relations Disaster Department), it was the mis-use of trademarks that was the core of the case.
Thanks to MacSlime, you don't need to have sales (or loss of sales) in a trademark infringement case.
Oh, Mac-Idiots won the case. After spending a million sludge-burgers worth of landshark fees, they got an award of ... I forget ; it was one of a pound, a penny, or a peppercorn. some good payback.
Oh, and some literally priceless PR.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"