Slashdot Mirror
Flight-Sim Maker Threatens Legal Action Over Reddit Posts Discussing DRM (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Today's controversy begins with a Reddit thread that noted FlightSimLabs' A320 add-on installing "cmdhost.exe" files in the "system32" and "SysWOW64" folders inside the Windows directory. The strange filename and location -- which seems designed to closely match those of actual Windows system files -- made some Reddit users suspicious, especially given FlightSimLabs history of undisclosed installations. FlightSimLabs responded on Facebook last Thursday by saying that the files came from third-party e-commerce service eSellerate and were designed to "reduce the number of product activation issues people were having." This system has been acknowledged in the FlightSimLabs forums in the past, and it apparently passes all major antivirus checks.
The "controversy" over these files might well have died down after that response. But then FlightSimLabs' Simon Kelsey sent a message to the moderators of the flightsim subreddit, gently reminding them of "Reddit's obligation as a publisher... to ensure that any libelous content is taken down as soon as you become aware of it." While ostensibly welcoming "robust fair comment and opinion," the message also warns that "ANY suggestion that our current or future products pose any threat to users is absolutely false and libelous." That warning extends to the company's previous password-extractor controversy, with Kelsey writing, "ANY suggestion that any user's data was compromised during the events of February is entirely false and therefore libelous." "I would hate for lawyers to have to get involved in this, and I trust that you will take appropriate steps to ensure that no such libel is posted," Kelsey concludes. A follow-up message from Kelsey reiterated the same points and noted that FlightSimLabs has reported specific comments and demanded they be removed as libelous.
The "controversy" over these files might well have died down after that response. But then FlightSimLabs' Simon Kelsey sent a message to the moderators of the flightsim subreddit, gently reminding them of "Reddit's obligation as a publisher... to ensure that any libelous content is taken down as soon as you become aware of it." While ostensibly welcoming "robust fair comment and opinion," the message also warns that "ANY suggestion that our current or future products pose any threat to users is absolutely false and libelous." That warning extends to the company's previous password-extractor controversy, with Kelsey writing, "ANY suggestion that any user's data was compromised during the events of February is entirely false and therefore libelous." "I would hate for lawyers to have to get involved in this, and I trust that you will take appropriate steps to ensure that no such libel is posted," Kelsey concludes. A follow-up message from Kelsey reiterated the same points and noted that FlightSimLabs has reported specific comments and demanded they be removed as libelous.
Somebody send that pompous jackass this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Even if these are executables are benign now, they have names that might cause folks to ignore them and their activities. So, we start off with names for their "security" binaries that those who are more cautions about such things might describe as being already at least somewhat deceitful.
And who knows what additional functionality might be added in an update?
Of course, I am sure that no software publisher would ever do anything malign like I might have unintentionally implied. I am sure that FlightSimLabs is a completely honorable company with nothing but the best interests and well being of their customers in heart and mind. So, this is all just a ridiculous hypothetical.
Check your premises.
Is that you?
But I thought that libel was something that forum sites were protected against.
FlightSimLabs said, "I would hate for lawyers to have to get involved in this," because they would probably lose a libel fight against Reddit. They would hate that.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
But I thought that libel was something that forum sites were protected against.
No, actual legally defined libel has no specific protections.
The site when served legal papers requesting it, is supposed to pass on the information they have about the poster. Failing to do that can very well make the legal buck stop on the sites shoulders.
But that isn't really the issue here.
The questions are if the comments even qualify to potentially be libel, and if and only if so, did a court deem them so.
Options by definition can never be libel or slander.
Claims to facts are the only things that potentially can be libel or slander.
This alone makes the companies claim dubious, when they word it as "ANY suggestion that our current or future products pose any threat to users is absolutely false and libelous"
Posting "I think they would do _" can never be libel, as it is an opinion that can't be proven.
Posting "They have done _" however is a fact, and if found to be a false-fact may qualify as libel.
Both libel and slander are forms of tort law (libel being a written tort and slander being a spoken tort)
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153
Specifically:
" It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie."
"Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion."
and to your question about websites or forums being protected:
"Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. "
ANY suggestion that any user's data was compromised during the events of February is entirely false and therefore libelous
Screenshots were produced by an employee of the company depicting the compromised accounts of an individual. Not only makes this the claim not a libel but someone at the company is apparently guilty of CFAA violation.
Ezekiel 23:20
"I would hate for lawyers to have to get involved in this"
Translation: "I'm pretty sure I don't have a case here, so let me try intimidation first".
FlightSimLabs (FSLabs) admitted to distributing remote hacking tools, intending to use them illegally. Any company who requires normal application software to be installed with admin rights is run by morons and anyone who actually installs such outside a VM is likewise. Especially after the company by their own admission proved themselves to be a criminal organization as well as criminally incompetent.
Ah, yes.. Triggered are we?
I think a lot of people need a crash course on what the 1st amendment (or any right recognized by the constitution) means and doesn't mean and what legal "rights" they protect and from whom..
The US Constitution is pretty clear that it is designed to describe how government works (specifically the federal government) and the bill of rights is designed to tell the government what it may NOT do, what rights the government may not limit.
The important thing to realize is the 1st Amendment only says the government may not infringe your right to speak what you like, publish what you choose or practice your religion. So if Reddit wishes to take your posts down, they may, as they are not the government. Now if Reddit was government owned or the government was ordering Reddit to remove or censor posts, THEN there would be an issue.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This is the company that installs password loggers on their customer's computers. Why anyone would still do business with them is beyond me.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Ah, the proprietary software world's version of a security audit.
It obfuscates itself like malware, smells like malware, but the suspected attacker says it's not malware. Therefore: it's safe and doesn't work against the user's interests!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So you're saying you remember the company committed interstate felony, but we should forgive them, because we weren't the target?
I don't really follow your reasoning. And if your statements are true I don't understand why the company isn't in federal court as a defendant.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.