
EFF is at a public hacking conference, publicly shaming individuals - DyslexicAtheist
https://twitter.com/pwnsdx/status/1192459212611342336
======
busterarm
Late last year, the EFF sent out a mailer to its donors, myself among them,
grossly misconstruing H.R.1695 - Register of Copyrights Selection and
Accountability Act of 2017. Worse, the mailer contained obvious lies and FUD,
among other things saying that it would undermine the authority of the Library
of Congress.

I sent a kindly worded mailer back to the EFF stating my long-standing support
and how I was concerned about their chosen tactic and abuse of the facts. I
made it clear that my donation and public support was at stake. They blew me
off and I haven't given them money since.

Every time they send me something asking for money, I send a kindly worded
email back summarizing the situation, which they also do not respond to, but
still ask me for money.

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I'm not surprised.

~~~
souterrain
The Register of Copyrights is currently appointed by the Librarian of
Congress. Should H.R.1695 become law, the Register of Copyrights would no
longer be appointed by the Librarian of Congress, who is the head of Library
of Congress.

This does undermine the current authority of the Library of Congress.

EDIT: Adding reference to H.R.1695 which passed the House, but stalled in
Senate.

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/1695](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1695)

~~~
busterarm
The Register of Copyrights becomes a presidential appointee. A president also
has the authority to remove the librarian of congress (and this has happened
before), so no, not really. This bill has overwhelming bipartisan support.

[https://judiciary.house.gov/news/press-releases/fact-
sheet-h...](https://judiciary.house.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-
hr-1695-register-copyrights-selection-and-accountability-act)

The house judiciary clarified this point saying how it removes presidential
authority to replace the librarian of congress at whim.

------
yjftsjthsd-h
So a quick skim of that thread isn't giving me the really important detail
here: Was it stated that he developed the piece of software that ended up
being problematic (even if he did later realize that it was a bad idea), or
was he called a terrible person for developing the software? "Shaming" implies
a value judgment that might well be there, but I'd like to know that that's
exactly what's happening before I draw any conclusions.

~~~
DownGoat
For this case I think it is important to understand the environment and
context surrounding the software, and what makes it different from other
security tools such as metasploit. The author had a presence on several forums
where he posted updates and I guess provided people with support. These forums
catered mainly to the "bad guys", and the author was posting updates and
providing support on the same forum where banking trojans, and stolen
information was sold. While writing malware might be protected by free in
France, the author was probably walking on a thin line with his choice of
communication channels.

Metasploit targets security researchers over channels where there is no
overtly illegal activity, and would likely refuse to support people if it is
obvious that it is being used for something illegal.

------
blahblahthrow
I've seen this talk, the person in question wrote stalkerware and acknowledged
it would be used for abusing women. The title is misleading, the EFF isn't
"publicly shaming individuals", they're talking about one case where someone
wrote highly unethical software.

~~~
rkangel
> and acknowledged it would be used for abusing women

There is a tweet a few down in the linked thread of the author asking where he
said that with no response.

~~~
appleflaxen
Actually there is a response.

    
    
      Yes Sr's. In "Hack me if you can" "Hackeame si puedes"
      Documentary @DarkCoderSc says that he think Darkcomet can
      used for script kiddies (hackers) for spy friends and
      GIRLFRIENDS for fun and not for cyberwarfare or spy.
    

[https://twitter.com/JosueOrtizNovoa/status/11924879575270563...](https://twitter.com/JosueOrtizNovoa/status/1192487957527056384)

* formatting the quote correctly

~~~
Chris2048
What did he say in that documentary?

He asked "where did you saw / heard me saying “I knew DarkComet would be used
for spying on girlfriends and that’s fine”?"

Does he say "an that's fine" (or equivalent) in the documentary? Or just
aknowledge that it's possible?

------
salawat
So, I'm getting a sense that we're in the throes of an interesting revival of
some long overdue reaction against software.

I'm torn in many ways; I don't believe constraining what people can build in
their own time or for personal use is just, or grounds for moral censure as
long as the process of doing so causes no substantial harm.

What I have issue with is applications of a tool with intent to harm. I can
get behind some censure if the guy is providing support for users one can
reasonably suspect of employing the tool to cause harm, like the Syria use
case.

I don't buy that his production of a R.A.T. fundamentally makes him a horrible
person just because he made it. Then again, I'm also in a way excusing the
people who made industrial scale production of poison gas possible; but, as of
late, I'm learning more and more that truly standing up for one's ideals, and
everyone else's freedoms/Liberty often makes for rather uncomfortable bed
mates.

So I guess in the end, I'm willing to accept that no matter what is made,
there are people who will find ways to use something to cause harm; demonizing
the maker as if that will "unmake" what you disagree with only serves to chain
the development of humankind in very real ways. Sometimes, we have to face
horrible things to develop the cultural mores to cope with a world in which a
thing is possible.

So in conclusion, I suppose I'm throwing up my hands and saying it'll be what
it's going to be, and there but for the Grace of God go I.

------
xorfish
What is the context?

------
repler
I'm still going to donate every month. I wish everyone would.

They do important work, and they're human.

~~~
repler
ha ha I got downvoted. whatever guys. I guess charitable giving is dumb and I
should stop.

~~~
Chris2048
"because charitable giving is dumb" is one of many possible reasons you were
downvoted, but not the most likely.

