This discussion has proved quite interesting and quite educational for me, so by no means should what I say be considered as slanderous or "in the heat of the moment" (as I know its has been considered as such by a number of individuals), people. That to start with.
Hmmm, far as I can tell from my studies and training in forensics so far, intent can be considered to be the Motive (correct me if I'm wrong) in the Means-Motive-Opportunity model. And we need that intent, or motive, along with the strict letter of the law, in order to establish a case that can be considered well-defined and well-explained. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
So, given the above, I believe that although the BBC "may" (because I feel (note personal opinion!) that in this one single and specific case the BBC is being victimised by people getting scared and trying hard to, as statisticians say, "fit the data to the model") have acted illegally in the letter of the law, their intent, in the spirit of the law, was educational and has helped more people than it has harmed.
As to your other comment, Jamie, I will kind-of deviate from the current topic here, but no I do not feel (or condone the opinion) that hacking is justified if it has at least some positive outcome. As a scientist & academic, I simply do not approve of the belief that certain types of knowledge should be considered "bad" and "evil" and "illegal".
Cheers
DarkSYN
Maybe these things come and go, like flared trousers 😯
Jamie
Are my 20" bell-bottoms not in this season?
Hmmm, far as I can tell from my studies and training in forensics so far, intent can be considered to be the Motive (correct me if I'm wrong) in the Means-Motive-Opportunity model. And we need that intent, or motive, along with the strict letter of the law, in order to establish a case that can be considered well-defined and well-explained. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand things motive is not something which (broadly speaking) needs to be established when determining guilt or innocence of a particular crime but it can indeed help to build a case, which I think is exactly what you're saying. Certainly there are cases with mitigating circumstances where motive might play a role in determining the degree of offence or the appropriate sentence to be imposed but I'm not sure if "intent to educate" falls within that realm. Again, though, I'm not an expert and I defer to the expert opinion of lawyers working in this field.
So, given the above, I believe that although the BBC "may" (because I feel (note personal opinion!) that in this one single and specific case the BBC is being victimised by people getting scared and trying hard to, as statisticians say, "fit the data to the model") have acted illegally in the letter of the law, their intent, in the spirit of the law, was educational and has helped more people than it has harmed.
I doubt that many people are interested in victimising the BBC over this issue (not at this level of debate, anyway) but I do think people have genuine concerns about the way they've acted and what kind of precedent it might set for the future. Building a case based on the CMA is no trivial matter and, regardless of their intentions, this has the potential to make things even more difficult.
As to your other comment, Jamie, I will kind-of deviate from the current topic here, but no I do not feel (or condone the opinion) that hacking is justified if it has at least some positive outcome. As a scientist & academic, I simply do not approve of the belief that certain types of knowledge should be considered "bad" and "evil" and "illegal".
Thanks for clarifying.
Jamie
I think that it depends where you are looking to define "motive". If you look at "motive" as "did they intend to gain unauthorised access to a computer" the "motive" is without doubt present, irregardless of the intention to perform a _further_ criminal act. Back to the car theft scenario, just because I didn't use the car I stole to rob a bank, doesn't make the inital crime not a crime. ( Although possibly a lesser or different one - look at "breaking and entering", "tresspass" and "burglary" as examples of gaining access to a property with assorted levels of force and intent ).
Jamie, I think the current defence of fashion is "I was looking for aliens" isn't it ?
And here is confirmation, indeed, that BBC did actually buy the botnet (with money) http//
Interesting, very interesting! Implications of them "paying for services/use"?
Cheers
DarkSYN
PS I would look at PrevX's comments as well, since he raises a number of interestingly juicy points…Most notably the ones about
a) The relative inability of major AV & Internet Security monitoring companies to detect the botnet before it has reached 9000 computers. I wonder, the companies that publicly distanced themselves from the incident, would it not be ironic if they were also the ones whose products didn't detect the botnet to begin with?
b) The bit about "Every day, most security companies, and law enforcement agencies investigating botnets and information stealers break the law to investigate and uncover stolen information and techniques - It goes with the turf!". And that statement comes from the CEO of a network security firm.
b) The bit about "Every day, most security companies, and law enforcement agencies investigating botnets and information stealers break the law to investigate and uncover stolen information and techniques - It goes with the turf!". And that statement comes from the CEO of a network security firm.
That's interesting though, as LE have some legal protections regarding this that private companies don't …
I think the general discussion here does not revolve around the law in the BBCs case as the law is open to interpretation - it's more about your personal persuasion. If a good prosecuting lawyer was hired I'm sure they could raise reasonable doubt as to the approach the BBC undertook even if it was all for 'good intentions'.
I sit on the side that although I agree what they have done was for educational use and to prove a point I feel they have done wrong and should at least explain their reasoning and decision making process - not least to show us how they reached it. I think this would give a good insight into how their advisors and legal team were thinking.
I think this thread is an excellent example to show how people think. I posted sometime back about the 4 main categories of thought, recap below.
Idealism … advocates of this philosophical system judge the action and not the aftermath of the action. Is it wrong that the BBC used tax payers money to purchase a bot net regardless of what they used it for?
Pragmatism … Pragmatists believe that the ends justify the means. Its perfectly fine what the BBC has done as it has highlighted security weaknesses and hopefully each of the individuals will increase their security and not fall to such scams again.
Naturalism and Realism … . According to this philosophical paradigm physical matter is the only reality, i.e. the BBC acknowledge they have done wrong and issue an apology or they enter into some kind of informative debate to justify their stance. Also consider what is natural … is it natural for a public funded body to spend funds in such a manner considering the current climate?
Utilitarianism … these people believe in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. As the BBC have highlighted there is a problem with botnets and as we are discussing this issue here in great depth then they have helped highlight the problem, making more people aware of the dangers when connecting a computer to the Internet. It is fine for them to have upset the 22,000 users who were part of the botnet in the hope to educate many more users to upgrade their security.
So which one do you believe is most appropriate to this situation and why?
Ronan
whilst agreeing that the BBC is in deep poo poo, I think we have to be very careful about how clearly we define their situation
"Defend the action as much as you want but the FACT remains it was illegal"
Thats is for the courts to decide in the fulness of time with all of the available evidence at their disposal, not us. And if it does not go to court, we will never actual know.
I would hope that we would never state that it is FACT that an individual has done something illegal before they had been to court so we should give corp bodies the same respect.
Of course, that does not prevent us from speculation. And that is where this forum is great.
I agree to the Nth degree (N->+oo) with your remarks on the law and the legal system, ronanmagee, and with your analysis of why it being illegal is not fact, pbeardmore.
Personally, while I don't hold with psychological viewpoints such as the one on the schools of thought that was mentioned/discussed, I would, I guess, stand between Pragmatism and Utilitarianism.
And, by the way, I would personally rather those 22000-or-so people had a nasty and learned-from-their-mistakes-without-actually-getting-hurt shock than not.
What about the scenario where BBC's actions resulted in those people (the zombie owners) being saved from the clutches of the *GASP* scary criminal gang who could sometime in the future do something extremely bad with them?
Under current legislature, the onus falls on the owner of the computer to prove he's not an elephant, so, what if BBCs actions actually saved those 22000 people?
And, I personally would rather the "tax-payer's money" (and I too have been a full tax-payer in the instances I was not in H.E.) was spent on research of this sort than on blunders and blunders-to-be such as the eborders and the id card thing (for which there actually IS scientific AND empirical evidence stating that they are going to be useless)!
More to the point, I agree with pbeardmore in that speculation is a good and desirable thing, BUT only to some degree.
Oh, almost forgot! Yes Jonathan, bell-bottoms are in this season (what goes around comes around, in fashion as in life), but only if you are wiling to embrace the "trendy" dress-code style, according to people I know who are "experts" on the matter of fashion, LOL!!!!!
Cheers
DarkSYN
Jamie, I think the current defence of fashion is "I was looking for aliens" isn't it ?
Oh, don't get me started on that, what a shambles (
For those looking for a link
Jamie