Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Rootkit Redux: Canadian Business Groups Lobby For Right To Install Spyware

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the do-not-want dept.

Canada 240

An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that a coalition of Canadian industry groups, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Marketing Association, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association and the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, are demanding legalized spyware for private enforcement purposes. The potential scope of coverage is breathtaking: a software program secretly installed by an entertainment software company designed to detect or investigate alleged copyright infringement would be covered by this exception. This exception could potentially cover programs designed to block access to certain websites (preventing the contravention of a law as would have been the case with SOPA), attempts to access wireless networks without authorization, or even keylogger programs tracking unsuspecting users (detection and investigation)."

cancel ×

240 comments

Only over my dead body (5, Interesting)

Kardos (1348077) | about a year and a half ago | (#42812799)

will you be installing your spyware on my computer.

Re:Only over my dead body (3, Insightful)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about a year and a half ago | (#42812969)

You and me both.
If I find that someone (Person or corporate entity.) has installed software on MY computer without my explicit permission, they will be explaining to law enforcement why they think they have the right.

Re:Only over my dead body (5, Insightful)

Kardos (1348077) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813043)

And therein lies the problem. "Oh, but the law permits them to".

Stallman saw this shit coming decades ago, sadly he's right :x

Re:Only over my dead body (5, Insightful)

iksbob (947407) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813255)

In which case, the only option is to not buy the spyware-infested product. Since the spyware is secret, there's no way to tell which disks are infected and which are not. The only safe alternative is to avoid buying any official content what so ever. The industry will drive any previously paying customers that give two s**** about their privacy to turn to the "piracy" avenue of acquiring content.
The contortions the industry goes through to reach out and nail their own coffin shut are quite impressive.

Re:Only over my dead body (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813387)

blueray runs 'mobile code' when it starts the disc.

for that reason (a big one) I refuse to buy BD discs or even support the business model with recorders/players.

I can't know what they run and it could be harmful. I refuse to play that game.

Re:Only over my dead body (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813411)

In which case, the only option is to not buy the spyware-infested product. Since the spyware is secret, there's no way to tell which disks are infected and which are not. The only safe alternative is to avoid buying any official content what so ever.

I suspect Antivirus/anti-spyware companies (smaller ones, foreign ones) will provide methods of de-installing the spyware. With fewer and fewer software packages being delivered on disk, you just about have to install downloaded software in a clean room to to inspect it.

Re:Only over my dead body (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813413)

This will spawn an entirely new term:

Pirivacy. Those who practice it will be Silicon Pirites :D

I can see CMA and ESAC being behind this, but the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association is food for thought... if they're behind it, that means we're talking about legal spyware on smartphones. Bundled by the carriers. Sound familiar? Unless you don't use a smartphone, these groups just did an end-run around your privacy with this proposal.

Basically, the groups advocating this, if they were allowed to implement it, would have you coming and going; there'd be almost no way to use electronics in Canada without the worry that spyware was either bundled in, or a conduit was in place to load it without your knowledge.

Re:Only over my dead body (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813417)

That gets you part of the way there but the Internet Service Providers up here (at least the sh*thole known as Telus) reserve the right to install software on your devices. Can't get out of that without pulling the plug.

Re:Only over my dead body (4, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813455)

Who says they have to distribute the spyware with paid products? They might simply pay computer manufacturers to include it, similar with drivers (closed source GFX card drivers for Linux?) or any other products. They wouldn't need to ask you or even tell you. They might even be able to have such software installed on the BIOS level with every motherboard sold if they pay the manufacturers enough money. I can't see of any way to avoid it if they're legally allowed to.

Re:Only over my dead body (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813567)

I suspect that if we limit ourselves to boycotting, we're going to lose. Most people don't remember the sony rootkit thing. In fact, I'm betting most of them didn't know it while it was a story. The word "spyware" is probably not something most consumers know about.

I also don't see a real potential for them to hurt themselves with this. Doesn't any EULA already grant them the "consent" they'd need to install spyware?

Re:Only over my dead body (5, Informative)

lgw (121541) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813725)

The Department of Justice certainly remembers the Sony Rootkit. Remember, this rootkit found its way ont a great many government computers, which had to be cleaned by government IT staff, and was recent enough that there was already laws about that. Sony was fined enough for investors to notice, and punish the leadership, but the DoJ also said: do this again and Sony will no longer be a going concern in the US.

Any new spyware/rootkit product, even if intended only for the Canadian market, could also easily make its way onto US federal government computers, and the DoJ made it clear at the time that it wasn't just Sony they were warning - any company pulling this stunt again would cease to exist within the US. Apparantly the govenment's love for corporation does not reach quite so far as overlooking putting spyware on government networks (especially the DoJs own network) - so we've got that going for us.

Re:Only over my dead body (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813467)

I think you're calling it while it's still in the air though. These groups are lobbying for it. Of course they are: it's in their interests. Lobbying groups always ask for things that are in their interests, often at the expense of everyone else's. As always, the rest of us must oppose it. I saw nothing in the article suggesting it was likely to pass. Don't get discouraged yet, in other words, gear up for a fight.

Re:Only over my dead body (-1, Offtopic)

turauqar (2834797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813597)

http://www.cloud65.com/ [cloud65.com] my best friend's mother-in-law makes $77/hour on the computer. She has been fired for 6 months but last month her income was $15298 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site

Re:Only over my dead body (2, Insightful)

jxander (2605655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813049)

Unless they're backed by law enforcement, at which point they'll be explaining nothing.

That's the point.

These agencies are trying to legalize computer-rape, so that when they bend you over, you've no recourse but to take it and pray for a reach around

Re:Only over my dead body (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813529)

Unless they're backed by law enforcement, at which point they'll be explaining nothing.

Then they can try to explain it to me. That will not be a pleasant conversation.

Re:Only over my dead body (4, Insightful)

jxander (2605655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813605)

If these laws (or any like them) are allowed to pass, the explanation will be "we installed it because the law permits it, any further harassment by you will result in fines and jail time."

That's why it's important to spread the knowledge now, well in advance. That's why it was so important for sites like Wikipedia to stage the blackout in defiance of SOPA/PIPA last year. Raise awareness BEFORE the laws are passed. Because once they are, digging the hooks out will be an extremely painful process.

Look at the Bright Side (1)

sycodon (149926) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813261)

When they do install it on your computer, you will know who to hunt down and kill.

Re:Only over my dead body (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813079)

Please, let's not start the pile of corpses on the wrong side. The original solution for spies is still the best. It needs practiced more to change their propensity to even consider such a solution.

Corporations and governments should be the ones spied upon by real people, not the other way around. Tracking is something done by hunters and those seeking to control, perhaps part of a herd. So, are those here sheep? or cats? or ?

Re:Only over my dead body (1)

tonywong (96839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813183)

I'd agree to this if only the corporations allow the people to install spyware on their board's and employee's computers to check on whether there is any malfeasance in their accounting and to watch for deviant pornography.

Just for their own good, of course.

Re:Only over my dead body (1)

Lemos (2834785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813311)

This is ridicoulous, unfortunately its already done.

Re:Only over my dead body (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813313)

"Your proposal is acceptable".

-- Giant space cochroach, CEO of the MAFIAA

Re:Only over my dead body (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813611)

"Imagine a [MAFIAA CEO] with unlimited [money], a massive inferiority complex, and a real short temper, is tear-assing around [Canada] in a brand-new Edgar suit."

Sounds bad enough.

Legit uses for legalized spyware (4, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42812827)

Law enforcement computers, politician's computers, government computers, homeland security computers. My bet is within a week 50% of those folks wouldn't have jobs, and 75% in a month.

Re:Legit uses for legalized spyware (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about a year and a half ago | (#42812947)

Those agencies install their own.

Re:Legit uses for legalized spyware (5, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813347)

Read TFA. This would allow you to do exactly that.

a program that is installed by or on behalf of a person to prevent, detect, investigate, or terminate activities that the person reasonably believes (i) present a risk or threatens the security, privacy, or unauthorized or fraudulent use, of a computer system, telecommunications facility, or network, or (ii) involves the contravention of any law of Canada, of a province or municipality of Canada or of a foreign state;

So if you think a police officer, politician, or someone working at the government is breaking any law - Canadian, provincial, or foreign, you can break into their network and computers and install your rootkit and keylogger. Hackers and groups like Anonymous would simply have to claim "we broken into the system because we suspected the owner was violating Moldavian law" or something like that, and they'd be in the clear.

Dear CCC et al (2)

Adam Gignac (2834761) | about a year and a half ago | (#42812833)

Screw off. Sincerely, Canadians.

Re:Dear CCC et al (4, Funny)

jxander (2605655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813065)

... without an immediate apology? Are you sure that you're Canadian?

Re:Dear CCC et al (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813135)

OK, how's this ... Dear CCC et all, we're sorry to hear you're a bunch of ignorant douchebags who feel it should be your right to install crap onto our computers. Screw off. Sincerely, Canadians. Have a nice day.

Re:Dear CCC et al (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813489)

Canadians might be polite when it comes to battling ignorance -- they get pretty rabid if you go after their privacy though.

You see, the 52 nuances of "sorry" have very specific meanings. The "Oh, sorry for not letting you in front of me in line" sorry translates to American as "you ignorant prick". However, it has the advantage that the recipient can't really take offense in a violent manner without looking like a real scumbag.

Re:Dear CCC et al (1)

overmoderated (2703703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813121)

Honey, so soon?

I reserve the right to install and recommend Linux (2)

overmoderated (2703703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42812865)

On every machine I find.

Re:I reserve the right to install and recommend Li (5, Insightful)

denmarkw00t (892627) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813415)

That doesn't solve the problem, though - more and more people are using Linux on a regular basis, and while they are shielded from a good majority of threats seen on Windows, it doesn't meant that 1) there isn't spyware that can affect them and 2) that they would know how to lock down their systems just because they have an OS more capable of being finely-tuned and locked down. Don't mistake a great tool for a great carpenter.

Re:I reserve the right to install and recommend Li (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813817)

Exactly. The average naive user will enter their password, or the root password, in a box when prompted to do so.

Re:I reserve the right to install and recommend Li (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813813)

Watch out for those Windows 8/RT ARM-based machines. Not possible without money going to Microsoft for a key.

Open Source (4, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | about a year and a half ago | (#42812885)

This makes a good argument for using open source. Removing a secret rootkit is a lot easier when the underlying layers of the operating system aren't obscured. I'll be this goes nowhere. Either that or proprietary OS vendors suffer sales losses as people flock to Linux and *BSD

Re:Open Source (1)

overmoderated (2703703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813005)

Only if you can read code. What about people who can't and who rely on the integrity of companies to provide them with proper software. Oh, that's right. Companies and integrity don't mix.

Re:Open Source (5, Interesting)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813073)

Only if you or anyone whom you trust can read code. That is not so hard to find. Open source is open for all, and chances are that anything fishy inserted in open source software will be detected by someone and the whistle will be blown.

Re:Open Source (1)

overmoderated (2703703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813143)

I'm not doubting the integrity of the open source community. I'm saying that the majority uses closed source software and are unaware of the potential risks.

Re:Open Source (1)

overmoderated (2703703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813195)

I'm not doubting the integrity of the open source community. I'm saying that the majority uses closed source software and are unaware of the potential risks.

is aware :)

Re:Open Source (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813771)

True, but that is just one more argument for going to Linux or something.

Even if the users inserted on of these companies disks, the spyware on those disks is heavily dependent on Windows.
Its doubtful they even have a linux version. If they do, the community will discover it in short order even if they try to install
via binary blobs. Word will spread.

Re:Open Source (1)

lightBearer (2692183) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813241)

One can also choose a distro to trust and not install software that falls outside of their core repositories without running it past that friend of yours who can read code.

Re:Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813779)

Only if you or anyone whom you trust can read code. That is not so hard to find. Open source is open for all, and chances are that anything fishy inserted in open source software will be detected by someone and the whistle will be blown.

or the open source community can change how the OS is installed - the core and supporting binaries installed on a separate partition that is periodically compared - signature changes and or services added would send an alert - there are several good ways to detect changes to an OS. I use a similar version to this except I compare the kernel level and binaries to backup that was made when the OS was first installed and prior to it being connected to the internet. any file that changes size outside of directories like /home are flagged and put in a file....I just haven't fully figured out how to handle yum updates...

Then here's what you can do to understand code (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813507)

Go find a cliff or a bridge somewhere then take your entire fucktarded family. Have all of them jump off to their deaths and after that jump to yours as you are too fucking stupid to even exist let alone use a computer.

Re:Open Source (1)

overmoderated (2703703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813029)

Futhermore, you cannot expect all users to be familiar with netstat, iptables, tcpdump and other similar tools.

Re:Open Source (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813149)

Well, it only takes one user to find it and tell everybody about it. I would argue that Open Source systems are at better position here.

Re:Open Source (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813715)

Oh... if only.

I'm just waiting for them to come to the conclusion that running such OS's is "circumventing" the so-called "digital protections" (aka rootkits, spyware, etc) they have put in place, and thus illegal under the anti-circumvention provisions of Bill-C32.

Are we in China or some place like it? (5, Insightful)

Maow (620678) | about a year and a half ago | (#42812905)

It's getting pretty hard to differentiate between living in North America under corporate controlled government and China under government controlled corporatism.

If only there were a similarity that I could put my finger on, it seems there is but it escapes me.

I guess we'll see how similar if this passes. I doubt it will, but it indicates we have more in common that I'm comfortable with. Hell, just the fact that this has been proposed is a lot more egregious than I'd have ever imagined possible just a few years ago.

Re:Are we in China or some place like it? (4, Insightful)

overmoderated (2703703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813059)

It's getting pretty hard to differentiate between living in North America under corporate controlled government and China under government controlled corporatism.

Different control mechanisms, same goal.

Re:Are we in China or some place like it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813095)

Shit like this goes down all the time. This isn't the first time and it certainly won't be the last. If you feel that strongly about it, write to your MP and to the Industry Minister and have your voice heard. Sulking about it won't fix anything.

Re:Are we in China or some place like it? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813405)

Indeed, I spent the last year living in China. And it was really disturbing how quickly I got used to having no say at all in anything. It's no wonder that most Americans are so complacent. I only hope that the Canadians are smart enough to avoid that. I wouldn't mind moving to BC and taking my trade craft with me.

Hang them. Problem solved. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42812913)

Hang them. Problem solved.

Re:Hang them. Problem solved. (2)

overmoderated (2703703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813067)

Brutal, but effective.

Re:Hang them. Problem solved. (2)

leonardluen (211265) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813451)

But it doesn't work on vampires.

Re:Hang them. Problem solved. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813161)

Hang them. Problem solved.

Hire a hitman. Works better although it's more costly.
But hey, whoever said that disinfectation was free ?

Re:Hang them. Problem solved. (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813425)

I dunno, I hear that sunshine is the best disinfectant and they haven't gotten around to charging for that yet.

Re:Hang them. Problem solved. (4, Interesting)

VitaminB52 (550802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813365)

I dislike your solution for the problem.

However, I hate the problem more than I dislike the solution.

Re:Hang them. Problem solved. (2)

jamiesan (715069) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813689)

Hangin's too good for 'em. Burnin's too good for 'em...

How about killing obsolete business? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42812917)

Instead of legalizing a practice that would otherwise be illegal to protect obsolete businesses, why not legalize a practice that is otherwise illegal to rid ourselves of those obsolete businesses?

Re:How about killing obsolete business? (2)

jxander (2605655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42812991)

Money, my dear boy. (best spoken aloud with a posh British accent)

Why should the powers that be do anything logical, if logic dictates that they make less money? They'll gladly spend millions to ensure their archaic practices are retained as long as it takes to recoup the millions they spent ... with interest.

Re:How about killing obsolete business? (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813437)

I don't, for a minute, believe this is there for the business guys.

more and more, government does an end-run around laws by having a company do its dirty work and then contracting to the company. we see this a lot in lots of areas, where it would be 'bad' if the gov directly did X, but if they were clean-hands and did not do X directly, they can escape the laws.

this is what I worry the most about. not sony or some stupid company but the fact that this lets governments who are out of control (ie, all modern ones) skirt the laws that are supposed to ensure a just and lawful society, where we could trust our leaders to look out for our interests.

don't look one step ahead, look two steps and you'll agree that this is not just possible but a standard MO.

Re:How about killing obsolete business? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813787)

The companies aren't doing these favors out of the goodness of their hearts of their patriotic duties. They are getting something out of it, whether they are literally being paid to do so, getting legislation in exchange, good favor from the government, etc. Also, it's worth noting that a lot of government action is at the behest of corporations, typically in actions that the corporations couldn't legally do themselves, but occasionally actions that would be legal, but expensive.

Happened already here. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42812921)

My own computer running Windows 7 was hacked in a drive-by when I visited a website (didn't download anything), and the drive began spinning wildly. The router logs showed connections to the Dutch anti-piracy group, BREIN. If it's not currently legal, it isn't stopping them.

I get the message (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42812953)

They are saying

"Look. Piracy exists, and with piracy, you get none of this spyware. With piracy, things are free, often easier and faster to get, and many times they work better. We know you need your money, so we want to make sure once and for all time, that you never, ever waste it giving it to us."

Loud and clear.

Also: How far down the road is piratebay.org in comparison to sneakyfucktards.com? Discuss.

Let's not blame ALL Canadians, shall we? (1)

eksith (2776419) | about a year and a half ago | (#42812955)

This is just a case of bureaucrats being bureaucrats as usual and common sense taking a back seat.

There are plenty of level-headed folks with a tenacity for doing what's right up there in moose country that will fight this tooth and nail (Theo comes to mind). At most, this will cause a whole lot of noise a la SOPA and eventually get dumped.

Besides, the anti-spam legislation, I hear, is quite popular. More than this rubbish is popular with law enforcement.

Re:Let's not blame ALL Canadians, shall we? (1)

Dins (2538550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813129)

I don't think anyone's blaming Canadians in general. It's just one stupid company who needs to be smacked down, doesn't matter where they are.

Re:Let's not blame ALL Canadians, shall we? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813621)

However, if this happened in the US, Europeans and Canadians would be blaming the entire US populace for being lazy, stupid, and complacent for letting this happen (despite it not actually happening yet). Remember, the US government, corporations, and populace are all one super hive-mind! If one person wants it they all do!

Looks like we're going down the copyright tubes (1)

drussell (132373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42812971)

I was dismayed to see this article in the paper today:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Smartphone+storage+memory+cards+exempt+from+copying+fees/7920963/story.html [calgaryherald.com]

I didn't think we'd (Canada) be stupid enough to actually go through with this new copyright bill, but it seems that it has.

An IP address doesn't identify a person (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42812987)

Spyware like this can prove that someone did indeed commit acts of copyright infringement as alleged. Do in a sense, it's the next logical step from a law enforcement perspective.

But we're getting to the point where the cure is clearly more harmful than the disease. Have the *AA's not learned anything from the Sony rootkit debacle?

Re:An IP address doesn't identify a person (1)

overmoderated (2703703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813101)

You hit the nail right on the head. IP addresses can be spoofed. Long live Tor nodes and secure browser profiles.

Re:An IP address doesn't identify a person (1)

leonardluen (211265) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813531)

Spyware could theoretically also use Tor nodes to report your real IP to authorities, or the *AA.

i fail to see how TOR will save us if the spyware/keylogger is installed on your computer.

Re:An IP address doesn't identify a person (1)

VitaminB52 (550802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813221)

Spyware like this can prove that someone did indeed commit acts of copyright infringement as alleged.

No, it can't. Since the TFA talks about "a group of 13 industry associations", we would get every one of these industry associations to install it's own spyware package on your machine.
So if copyrights were to be infringed from your machine, who can prove that YOU were to one to do it, and not one of the spyware packages? All one can prove is that it happened from your machine, not WHO or WHAT did it. A compromised system is by definition out of your control.

Re:An IP address doesn't identify a person (1)

overmoderated (2703703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813441)

What if the spyware is designed to provide such proof? Using a webcam to transmit pictures of the user for instance.

Re:An IP address doesn't identify a person (1)

VitaminB52 (550802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813955)

A picture of the user sitting at the keyboard is no evidence if other software/spyware capable of downloading copyrighted has been installed (without user knowledge or consent) at the same computer.

All the picture proofs is that said user was using the computer at a certain point in time. It doesn't proof the user was doing the download of the copyrighted material. If there was other spyware running at the computer, then that other piece of spyware could be performing the download. All recorded keystrokes, mouse clicks and other logged event are suspect if spyware packages are running at the a machine.
If such a picture were to be accepted as 'evidence' in court, then hackers could easily frame anybody they dislike. Just install the hackers spyware package, spoof some 'evidence' towards the corporate spyware and another sucker gets owned.

Re:An IP address doesn't identify a person (2)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813521)

I imagine if the computer had a webcam, they would snap a picture along with the infringement evidence.

CAD **AA Lawyer: Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if we examine exhibit A you will see that at on November 12th 2014, at 11:24 PM Sally Smith visited a known website which engages in piracy or illegal downloading if you will. She downloaded what is called a torrent file which enabled the defendant to download an illegal copy of Star Trek: Into the Darkness. From that illegal copy our "copyright law enforcement software" logged that seventeen copies were uploaded to other users. We are seeking damages equal to the cost of making the film, squared.

Judge: what proof do you have that it was in fact Sally Smith who was actively engaging in the heinous crime of illegally downloading a precious piece of Hollywood?

CAD **AA Lawyer: Your honor, our "copyright law enforcement software" detected the presence of a web camera which allowed us to record the user as she committed the crime. Article 5 paragraph 34 of the Canadian copyright enforcement act explicitly allows us the right to enable remote viewing of criminal behaviour once it is detected.

Judge: proceed.

How ridiculous? (3, Insightful)

lorinc (2470890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813011)

How far all thess jokes will go until we decide collectively for a stop, and just throw all those IP crap out the window?

Sure - no problem (4, Funny)

Eristone (146133) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813031)

I say absolutely. As long as part of the law is continuous video surveillance of all executives of the companies that install the spyware. (Bedroom, bathroom, mistress' place, hotel room, etc.) And their families. And it has to be accessible by any Canadian citizen to do with as they please at any time.

I'm not going to apt-get it. (2)

scorp1us (235526) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813051)

Not even if it is open source.

Re:I'm not going to apt-get it. (1)

overmoderated (2703703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813457)

Use make instead.

Re:I'm not going to apt-get it. (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813747)

Sure after I comment out everything between { and } in int main(int arc, car*argv[])

Re:I'm not going to apt-get it. (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813503)

In Soviet Kanada, Corporate Spyware apt-gets you!

They'll just send someone by to install it:

Ding-Dong! "Hi, I'm from your local utilities, I'm here to read your power meter, check your gas meter, and install our Corporate Spyware for you."

Easy in Canada . . . nobody bothers to lock their front doors.

Legal definition of 'behalf' (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813077)

in Canada seems to be where the problems would stem from. Would it be considered in 'my' best interests to install software to incriminate myself?

Re:Legal definition of 'behalf' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813379)

and the canadian government wonders why things in canada are more expensive than the U.S. It doesn't always take a government report to know why things are more expensive there.

nobody ever won a war with their customers (5, Insightful)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813113)

It is amazing that corporations do not recognize this simple truth.

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813125)

The spyware should also be able to $SYS$steal retrieve banking and credit card information from the users. This way they could automatically charge them for any usage of their 'content'.

Re:Great (4, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813587)

This raises a very valid point: once this spyware is on a system, it'll be trivial for malware authors to co-opt the malware to steal data for their own use. Not to mention, the temptation for PRIVATE GROUPS to misuse information lifted from private citizens in secret is huge.

Luckily, this goes against Canadian Privacy law in so many ways, I don't see how even the Conservative government could succeed in ramming this through.

With the Current Canadian Administration... (2)

IonOtter (629215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813137)

...these so-called "business groups" will get everything they're asking for. With extra tongue.

The U.S. administration has probably given this up long ago, we just haven't heard about it yet.

Can install our spyware on their computers too? (1)

WarrenLong (540264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813233)

I guess I am okay with this, as long as we can install stuff on their machines as well. I am pretty sure that they have a lot more to hide than I do...

Only One Appropriate Response (4, Insightful)

Scarletdown (886459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813297)

The only appropriate response to such a request is, "Go fuck yourself."

I'm breathlessly waiting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813369)

...for the Linux version. Ooo ooo ooo & Linus' comments on how badly implemented it is...:-)

Spyware that spies on the spyware (1)

overmoderated (2703703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813473)

See? Problem solved. Second line.

5 years too late (3, Funny)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813475)

I don't use a PC for copyright infringement anymore.

Damages (3, Interesting)

boristdog (133725) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813481)

And when the software inevitably bricks a few thousand (or hundred thousand, or million) devices and people lose untold billions worth of data...Will these companies be required to provide just compensation since no EULA was even clicked?

How much are those lost photos of a couple's new baby worth to them, anyway?

These exceptions would legalize hacking in Canada (3, Insightful)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813525)

http://tinyurl.com/9wpxjg6 [tinyurl.com] Page 11-12

These exceptions they are asking for are so very broad. Take a look this exception they're seeking,

(a) a program that is installed by or on behalf of a person to prevent, detect, investigate, or terminate activities that the person reasonably believes (i) present a risk or threatens the security, privacy, or unauthorized or fraudulent use, of a computer system, telecommunications facility, or network,

Do you believe the RIAA poses a reasonable threat to your privacy from their new rootkits? Well then it seems, under this law, you could install a trojan horse on their computer, read their files, and then crash programs that might end up help the RIAA from violating your privacy...Like Windows

Cross platform availibility? (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813613)

I hope they provide the source to their security software or at least port it so it can run on on Linux/BSD. I want to continue to legally be able to watch DVD's and BluRay movies/TV shows on my Linux HTPC.

The Gun Rights Argument (1)

emorning (2465220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813643)

I'm not a big supporter of gun rights here in the US but it just occurred to me that now I understand the argument that 'only people that have guns will be the criminals'.

In this case, the only people with rootkits installed on their machines will be the law abiding citizens.

PS: I assume they'll also make it illegal to remove a rootkit, so people that just care about their privacy instantly become criminals too.

Legalized Vigilantes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813669)

Yes this sounds like an excellent idea.
Corporations are already tax havens, now they're turning into law havens.

Microsoft - stop these dick fucks jacking the kernel please. Windows is turning into an STD infested cheap hooker of an OS.

Everyone is missing the obvious. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813785)

This is Canada were talking about here, no politician has the balls to go through with this. Even one of our provinces doesn't have the balls to separate after they continuously threaten to do it.

I lobby... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813861)

I lobby for the right to kick these fuckers squarely in the nuts.

-- green led

Naw... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42813869)

They wanna do WHAT now?

I'm starting to think it's going to take some heads on pikes before they get the message. And every day it seems more likely I'll see such in my lifetime.

I don't know about you all, but I'm putting some money in guillotine futures.

Enough with the inflammatory headlines. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42813895)

This has absolutely nothing to do with Sony, is it wrong to want /. to not fall to Fox News' level of titling articles?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...