Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Could Slashdot (Or Other Private Entity) Sue a Spy Agency Like GCHQ Or NSA?

Posted by timothy on from the oh-you-meant-sue-and-actually-win? dept.

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."

13 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Sue them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And magically drugs appear inside your house plus pictures of you fondling kids.

    1. Re:Sue them... by ciderbrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if you're lucky. the other choice being ending up dead inside a padlocked suitcase which you locked yourself into. Your death will be an Accident!

    2. Re:Sue them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      FYI ciderbrew is referring to an actual event, albeit speculatively.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams

    3. Re:Sue them... by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, you have a lot of faith in British law enforcement and security.

      No, you'll suddenly decide to kill yourself just before you're going to present important information, like David Kelly. Or you'll commit a minor infraction like jumping a ticket barrier and be shot a few times for "oh he was totally about to set off a bomb", a la Jean Charles de Menezes. Or you'll have a heart attack after being lightly handled by a police officer during a protest, like Ian Tomlinson.

  2. No. by SenorPez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Laws only apply to little people. Go back to shoveling dirt you peasants, and leave your governmental overlords in peace.

    1. Re:No. by f3rret · · Score: 4, Informative

      Surely, there is a very simple method to do something about it.

      When the state oversteps its boundary, it is time to replace the state. If not in orderly fashion, then with force. It is called revolution.

      Welcome to the NSA watch list.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  3. A trademark claim might not be the best by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:A trademark claim might not be the best by ad5mqesj · · Score: 5, Informative

      BUT - governments are special; essentially you can't sue them unless they agree to allow it. Neither US nor UK governments would allow such a suit to proceed, even if all the facts were publicly known, they would invoke "state secrets" and quash any civil action. The only hope of proceeding in court is to show they violated a law, and even then you'll have a long drawn out battle to prove that you have standing to sue, and to find a judge who would allow the suit to proceed. Lots of people with much stronger cases demonstrating actual harm have had, so far, little or no success in getting the NSA into court and I doubt very much that the UK government is any less skilled at this sort of manipulation of the courts. In then end I doubt anything short of a revolution, or at least the credible threat of one will get any noticeable reform. There are a handful of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic trying to reign these agencies in, sadly they are a minority and unlikely to succeed unless a large wave of public outrage forces a majority of the political class to care about this issue. The best hope is that brave whistle blowers like Snowden will continue to expose the shenanigans of these agencies and that the reporting will be honest enough to get the public to wake up to the profound dangers they pose to all our freedom.

  4. You know that means suing a foreign government? by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 ;
    - Find the person(s) at Belgacom who have been infected through the fake /. site by GCHQ ;
    - 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)
  5. Re:Of Course by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    Not if the second "anybody" is the government. Unless the government consents to being sued (in othe words, there is a law allowing citzens to sue the government over that particular injury) the government will merely plead sovereign immunity and the suit will the thrown out of court.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  6. Functionally, No. by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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
    1. Re:Functionally, No. by bigHairyDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that GCHQ is a UK government organisation, and in the UK Sovereign Immunity only protects the monarchy. People can and do sue the government for not adhering to the law, in a process called judicial review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law That said, I don't think any lawsuit would be successful.

      --

      foo mane padme hum

  7. Like trying to sue toe mafia by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.