Slashdot Mirror
The Guardian Looks At Hacking Team's Client List, Internal Communications
There are lots of small but interesting news bits to take from the data dump made available by Wikileaks of internal documents from the Italian security firm Hacking Team, such as that a police unit investigating major crimes in Florida, according to some of the leaked emails, was interested in purchasing some of the company's surveillance technology. The Guardian has taken a longer look at the company's business and tactics, and outlines many of their actual and potential clients, in particular their government customers, and skewers Hacking Team's claims "that it does not sell to repressive regimes."
Shades of Blue Coat.
Shades of Blue Coat.
which do not pay.
>why is it acceptable for Guardian to profit from their crime without even a condemnation?
Because there's nothing wrong with profiting from a crime, by using it as the basis of an article, a book, or a movie.
News Corp were profiting from their own crimes - crime they instigated, knew about, conspired to hide, and didn't do anything to stop.
Unless you are a pure legallist about it, surely you can take the circumstances of the article and the differing public interest values into account?
The News Corp hacks, for the most part, were voicemail intercepts on celebrities, crime victims, and their families, used to provide a front-row seat on assorted emotionally moving(and big selling), but effectively mere gossip, stories. The Guardian is taking advantage of the availability of somebody else's hack(that, unlike News Corp, they didn't pay somebody to do) to write an informational piece about a vendor of surveillance technology with a troubling and controversial human rights record. The substance of their story is both a glimpse into how the ugly side of security research works; and specific investigative journalism concerning the discrepancies between what Hacking Team has claimed about their export practices; and what their actual export practices are.
Again, if you adhere to a purely legalist position, and all hacks are illegal and therefore wrong; then there really isn't much to talk about, that's the end of the line. If, however, you concede that there is, at times, a compelling argument in favor of bringing to light things that certain people would rather keep hidden; you can't really expect that such sunshine efforts are going to have the luxury of just interviewing their subjects and receiving a straight answer. Most of the world's decent malfeasance is clandestine, for obvious reasons, so whenever it comes to light that isn't going to be because the people committing it wanted it to.
Is that how primitive your thinking is? That it's about teams? What are you, 16 years old?
Anyone including Republicans who break the LAW on a massive scale belong in prison, not in the white house.
I don't see much difference in this distinction. Had News Corp "merely" relied on the likes of Guccifer — would it have been Ok then? Legally it, probably, would've been, but ethically? Hiring a guccifer is the next step down, of course, but I don't think, it is a major step...
People do this sort of thing for "fame and glory". By providing them with both, Guardian is, effectively, paying them... And making its own profit from the publication — not entirely unlike the resellers of stolen good, who have not done the theft themselves...
No, in my opinion, most hacks are wrong and therefore illegal (malum in se). Admittedly, I'm hard-pressed to come up with a clear definition. For now I'd say, when a hack uncovers actual malfeasance, it may be acceptable. But this one has not...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
With the prevalence of systems being broken into by companies, law enforcement, automated systems, etc... Couldn't a person rightfully claim that whatever is on their computer could have been put there by someone else? If 10,000 people had a key to my house, I don't think I could claim that I have full control over it, why couldn't a criminal defendant claim the same thing? I think it is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that someone else may have full control over your computer.
Why is it acceptable for the your local news paper or TV news program to profit? You don't think reports on crimes are a good portion of what sell news papers and draws viewers to programs that sell ad time? "If it bleeds it leads" they at least used to say in the industry. On some level we have to allow the news agencies to be economically viable or we won't have them. We still need these organizations and the investigative reporting the provide to have a functioning democracy. Internet bloggers alone don't provide a full substitute for people on the ground discovering new facts and bringing them to light. Now this might be evolving now that every phone practically has a good quality camera, and we have outlets like wikileaks where people can put information they are not supposed to know the capabilities of citizen journalism are expanding.
They we get into your implied question about what are " legitimately secret" secrets. When it comes to government secrets democracy has challenges. How can I know my representatives are not just keeping secrets to serve their interests rather than ones that I would agree need to be kept. Unless at least from time to time there are leaks and I get a true inkling of the sort of secrets they have. People seem to forget that the US government has long hist of keeping secrets to hide its miss deeds and crimes. Many young people today are surprised learn that Nixon actually created most of our modern programs of declassification that have given the public access it never had before. Of course his motives were out of a self serving desire to expose the actions of political rivals, but that proves the point; secrets keep those in power where they are deservedly or otherwise. Given all the abuses by the US that have come to light how would you guess more oppressive regimes behave?
Next, at least traditionally something was deemed to be a crime because it had some harmful real or perceived impact on society. Everyone seems to be essentially agreed that these acts of digital trespass, privacy violations, etc are harmful why should we discard any possible benefit form them by not allowing journalists to publish and use the information? The harms is already done; except when it isnt. That is what brings us to News Corp. Where News Corp crossed the line is their relationship to the crimes became causal. They were not publishing things they learned after some non-associated hacker for whatever their own reasons might have been broke into peoples voice mails and dumped the data someplace. They were effectively paying people to do it. They were inducing the crimes.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html