US-Kommission empfiehlt Staats-Malware gegen Raubkopierer

Perry schrieb:

Warum gehen wir nicht gleich so weit, das ein Unternehmen, wenn es aufgrund meines Persönlichkeits Profils schlüssig belegen kann das mir deren Produkt gefällt, sie es mir einfach in Rechnung stellen. Dann können wir uns das mühselige Suchen, Erwerben und Bezahlen von produkten direkt sparen. Ich sehe es doch als meine oberste Bürgerpflicht an Konsument zu sein, auf die Art wird mir sogar noch dabei geholfen.

Zum Vergrößern anklicken....

ruyven_macaran schrieb:

Könnte mir mal jemand sagen, wo in dem recht langen Dokument es überhaupt um Raubkopierer geht? Oder um "Staats-Malware"?
Alles, was ich in der Zusammenfassung sehe, beschäftigt sich mit internationaler Industriespionage und dem Diebstahl von Informationen aus geschützten Systemen. Das einzige Kapitel, was Copyright-Verletzungen behandelt, enthält keinerlei Maßnahmenvorschläge und thematisiert "Raubkopierer", in der Größenordnung von "30 Millionen verkaufte Kopien".

Irgendwie habe ich mal wieder den Eindruck, BILD zu lesen: Riesen Schlagzeile, wenig Inhalt und wen man guckt, was dahinter stecken könnte, findet man (erst einmal?) gar nichts...

Zum Vergrößern anklicken....

ruyven_macaran schrieb:

[]Irgendwie habe ich mal wieder den Eindruck, BILD zu lesen: Riesen Schlagzeile, wenig Inhalt und wen man guckt, was dahinter stecken könnte, findet man (erst einmal?) gar nichts...

Zum Vergrößern anklicken....

Recommendation:
Support efforts by American private entities both to identify and to recover or render inoperable
intellectual property stolen through cyber means.
Some information or data developed by companies must remain exposed to the Internet and
thus may not be physically isolated from it. In these cases, protection must be undertaken for
the files themselves and not just the network, which always has the ability to be compromised.
Companies should consider marking their electronic files through techniques such as “meta-tagging,”
“beaconing,” and “watermarking.” Such tools allow for awareness of whether protected information
has left an authorized network and can potentially identify the location of files in the event that
they are stolen.
Additionally, software can be written that will allow only authorized users to open files containing
valuable information. If an unauthorized person accesses the information, a range of actions might
then occur. For example, the file could be rendered inaccessible and the unauthorized user’s computer
could be locked down, with instructions on how to contact law enforcement to get the password
needed to unlock the account. Such measures do not violate existing laws on the use of the Internet,
yet they serve to blunt attacks and stabilize a cyber incident to provide both time and evidence for
law enforcement to become involved.

Zum Vergrößern anklicken....

Recommendation:
Reconcile necessary changes in the law with a changing technical environment.
When theft of valuable information, including intellectual property, occurs at network speed,
sometimes merely containing a situation until law enforcement can become involved is not an entirely
satisfactory course of action. While not currently permitted under U.S. law, there are increasing calls
for creating a more permissive environment for active network defense that allows companies not
only to stabilize a situation but to take further steps, including actively retrieving stolen information,
altering it within the intruder’s networks, or even destroying the information within an unauthorized
network. Additional measures go further, including photographing the hacker using his own system’s
camera, implanting malware in the hacker’s network, or even physically disabling or destroying the
hacker’s own computer or network.
The legal underpinnings of such actions taken at network speed within the networks of hackers,
even when undertaken by governments, have not yet been developed. Further, the de facto sanctioning
of corporate cyber retribution is not supported by established legal precedents and norms. Part of the
basis for this bias against “offensive cyber” in the law includes the potential for collateral damage on
the Internet. An action against a hacker designed to recover a stolen information file or to degrade
or damage the computer system of a hacker might degrade or damage the computer or network
systems of an innocent third party. The challenges are compounded if the hacker is in one country
and the victim in another.
For these reasons and others, the Commission does not recommend specific revised laws under
present circumstances. However, current law and law-enforcement procedures simply have not kept
pace with the technology of hacking and the speed of the Internet. Almost all the advantages are on
the side of the hacker; the current situation is not sustainable. Moreover, as has been shown above,
entirely defensive measures are likely to continue to become increasingly expensive and decreasingly
effective, while being unlikely to change the cost-benefit calculus of targeted hackers away from
attacking corporate networks.

Zum Vergrößern anklicken....

It also states that so-called "hacktivists" who participate in online attacks during a war can be legitimate targets even though they are civilians.

Zum Vergrößern anklicken....