SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Security researcher Collin Mulliner was surprised and angered to learn an open source toolkit he authored to enable hacking of Android phones, had been incorporated into the arsenal of spyware sold by the Hacking Team to its clients, which include a variety of police states around the world. Of course the discovery was made possible by the recent leak of over 400 GB of Hacking Team's source code; the tipster found Mulliner's contact info in the source code and figured he was a paid consultant.
Mulliner, a German researcher currently affiliated with Boston's Northeastern University, presented the toolkit at a security conference in 2012; it combines mechanisms for hooking Android API functions in Linux userspace, with NFC/RFID hardware-level hacking, the latter apparently done in collaboration with fellow researcher Charlie Miller. Installation requires being in close physical proximity to the target's phone, to exploit NFC.
Mulliner stops short of accusing the Hacking Team of using his code unlawfully, but feels violated nonetheless. He vowed that his future projects will come with a license prohibiting use by "bad actors" - while admitting he doesn't know what such a license would look like.
Richard Stallman has consistently opposed tacking a "no military use" or similar onto the GPL:
Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish. If a license restricts how you can run the program, the program is not free software.
This criterion is crucial. We cannot accept programs in the GNU system which have limits on what they can be used for. If we did, different programs would come with different limits. One program, perhaps written by Muslims, might ban use by restaurants that serve alcohol; another program, perhaps written by the Munich Oktoberfest committee, might ban use by restaurants that do not serve alcohol. Continuing along these lines, we might end up with a system that nobody would be allowed to use.
But of course, even open source advocates are free to disagree with Stallman on many issues.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday July 22 2015, @03:07PM
Yet again no, he isn't. Frankly freedom zero should be PHYSICAL freedom, because if you don't have that what does it fucking matter about the damned software? In this case we have state actors using your freedom against you by taking these tools and using them to squash the most important freedoms, freedom of speech and from incarceration... if your license is all for that, then WTF good is it?
I'm sure of course RMS will try to find a way to have his cake and eat it to (like he did with his "firmware equals circuit" bullshit) by trying to say since these groups don't share the source code they are running afoul of the license, blah blah blah. If the GPL doesn't take a stand to protect the most important freedoms then I would argue that RMS is helping to make his "right to read" come true by handing over the very tools that the state will use against him and if that is the case does he not deserve some of the blame?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @03:45PM
Physical freedom and software freedom are different issues. If you take issue with the tactics of governments, then tackle that issue. No need to sacrifice freedom 0.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday July 22 2015, @03:49PM
Society is a too complex system to pack it in optimized overall rules (as in having SW license rules considering each and every effect on the physical world). You have to modularize / to think object oriented to get it organized. Rules for physical freedom have to be established / enforced separately. Therefore I agree fully with Stallmans sentiment.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 4, Interesting) by urza9814 on Wednesday July 22 2015, @05:36PM
It *is* about software freedom though. This code is being used to create exploits. It's being used specifically to ensure that some other user does not have control or freedom over their own hardware and software.
They're using the letter of open source licenses to violate the spirit of them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday July 22 2015, @06:48PM
That's the problem with rules: The have to be written in letters, not good intentions. Maybe it would be possible to have some attribution clause to some software which requires an explicit display of the used software whenever the SW (or any derivative) is started. For a trojan it might be difficult to comply, but otoh this would also prohibit usage in embedded devices and probably pose a big problem when using SW in consumer products. For drivers or libraries it wouldn't make much sense at all.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday July 23 2015, @11:34AM
Right. And when those letters are used to subvert the intentions with which they were written, I'd think it's better to change the letters rather than changing your intentions...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Thursday July 23 2015, @01:07AM
And notice how I get modded down for daring to point this out. What fucking good is this "freedom" if all you are doing is giving aid to someone working to take yours away? And does nobody here see the fricking irony that the guy that wrote "the right to read" is helping to spread the very police state in his story by refusing to do anything about it?
If he truly believes that software freedom is more important that physical freedom and the freedom to speak without the all seeing eye making a folder to use against you? I'm sorry but that is seriously fucked up. Even if he couldn't actually do a thing about state actors just taking the tools even a token gesture that could be used in a possible future court case would be helpful. Remember they got Capone not for murder or intimidation but for tax evasion, and with the insanely high penalties for IP infringement pushed through by the USA its one of the few places in civil court with real teeth anymore.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2015, @02:05AM
What fucking good is this "freedom" if all you are doing is giving aid to someone working to take yours away?
Freedom is not about practical benefits. If someone is misusing some tool to infringe upon people's rights, then you must handle that individual case, not sacrifice other freedoms for safety.
If he truly believes that software freedom is more important that physical freedom and the freedom to speak without the all seeing eye making a folder to use against you?
It's not about being more or less important, but the fact that they're completely separate issues. You're being absurd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2015, @07:34AM
And does nobody here see the fricking irony that the guy that wrote "the right to read" is helping to spread the very police state in his story by refusing to do anything about it?
He's doing all he can to stop it, has been for all his life. He's single and doesn't have kids. He's not wealthy despite being one of the best hackers alive. He's giving you and me a fighting chance against the Machine by democratizing software. But no, you don't want to see it, for whatever strange reason. Perhaps the reason is because you make money by servicing windoze machines, you have an internal need to demonize any replacement?
If he truly believes that software freedom is more important that physical freedom
Where the hell is he saying that?? Fucking lame strawman... shame on you.
The point is a software license isn't a magic wand to wield. It has a relatively tightly defined jurisdiction, it's limited by the scope of the copyright law. And fooling yourself to think you can make powerful actors follow some license is just demented. The "justice system" is a game, its purpose to keep the wealthy untouchable. There is "executive privilege" and "sovereignty" and probably a whole lot of other get-out-of-jail-free mechanisms in place to keep you helpless.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday July 23 2015, @11:33AM
You seem to be forgetting that the entire GPL was designed as a hack of copyright. The entire point of the license is to subvert that tightly defined jurisdiction in order to promote freedom. So why not take that idea further? No person or law is forcing you to license your software to malicious hackers. If it's your software you can license it to whomever you want.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2015, @08:30PM
Then it would no longer be Free Software.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 23 2015, @04:11PM
> What fucking good is this "freedom" if all you are doing is giving aid to someone working to take yours away?
Your rhetorical question contains a strawman - "if all you are doing." That is absolutely not the case. These kind of abuses are corner-cases. There will always be corner-cases no matter what you do. The best you can hope for is to move them around from one corner to another.