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: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday July 22 2015, @03:18PM
Actually it wasn't a good idea then either as instead of using a sensible approach like basic field sobriety tests they went with an arbitrary number based system that not only didn't tell you shit about whether they were driving drunk (a 6'4 340 pound man that works out can be totally sober whereas the same amount given to a 4'10 98 pound woman would make her shitfaced) but gave the state a great way to increase revenue by simply continuing to drop the number and saying anything above that constitutes as "drunk". In some states you can ride in the passenger seat after a single drink and be given a public drunk write up simply because the numbers have gotten so insanely low.
And just FYI my mom worked in a diner before they had drunk driving laws and guess what? They still had laws against drunk driving, it just wasn't called drunk driving it was called "unsafe operation of a vehicle" and it was up to the cop to decide if you qualified. Now its all up to a machine and a legislature eager to get the vote of soccer moms.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 22 2015, @03:48PM
And that's critically important: An officer who wanted to could ticket absolutely anybody for "unsafe operation of a vehicle", and the driver would now be in the impossible position of proving that they weren't drunk last night (yes, I know they're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but a completely uncorroborated "cop saw it" is more often than not considered sufficient legal proof of, well, anything). The breathalyzer and legal limit is actually a protection for innocent defendants against hostile cops.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Wednesday July 22 2015, @03:58PM
And that's critically important: An officer who wanted to could ticket absolutely anybody for "unsafe operation of a vehicle", and the driver would now be in the impossible position of proving that they weren't drunk last night (yes, I know they're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but a completely uncorroborated "cop saw it" is more often than not considered sufficient legal proof of, well, anything).
That can apply to anything (ie. cop/witness saw it), not just DUI. DUI can be squashed by a blood test so it's actually the least problematic.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 22 2015, @04:23PM
Don't do the field sobriety test.
http://www.kansas-dui-attorney.com/DUI/Field-Sobriety-Tests/Top-10-Reasons-People-Fail-The-FST.aspx [kansas-dui-attorney.com]
https://www.duiblog.com/2015/05/11/can-you-fail-field-sobriety-tests-while-sober/ [duiblog.com]
http://www.nbc29.com/story/23957865/passing-a-field-sobriety-test-difficult-drunk-or-sober [nbc29.com]
Those first three don't even try to give scientific reasons - these two are just slightly better.
http://fieldsobrietytest.info/ [fieldsobrietytest.info]
http://gizmodo.com/5902852/the-secrets-of-field-sobriety-tests [gizmodo.com]
This is more what I'm looking for - http://fieldsobrietytest.info/InHouse.htm [fieldsobrietytest.info] There are a number of PDF's that are worth looking at.
This excerpt from one page:
"In other words, seven highly experienced alcohol enforcement officers, personally trained by Dr. Burns, patrolled a major US city for more than five months, stopping and assessing hundreds of motorists with SFSTs. In all those months, in all those hundreds of tests, only one officer ever completed even a single SFST that came back "non-impaired" at the 0.04 - 0.08% BAC level. NHTSA science proves that for six of seven highly experienced DUI patrol officers, every single driver who is able to take the SFST fails the SFST."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @04:30PM
What should we do instead? Subjective field sobriety tests don't work, but neither do hard limits that don't take into account differences between individuals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @05:30PM
> What should we do instead? Subjective field sobriety tests don't work,
What is a "subjective field sobriety test?"
Because it seems to me that a test that measures impairment regardless of the cause of impairment should be entirely feasible. Something like a modern version of walking a straight line and touching your finger to your nose. Alcohol isn't the only source of impairment. If road safety is the goal then we should be using a test that measures the ability to safely drive regardless of possible intoxicant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @08:17PM
What is a "subjective field sobriety test?"
The cop subjectively interprets the results of the test. One cop may say you fail, and another says you succeed. It's a matter of trust, and cops can't be trusted based on these tests alone. We need something that is at least objective combined with these tests to eliminate some abuses.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 22 2015, @04:48PM
Not to mention that calling Breathalyzers' output "Blood Alcohol Level" is a bold-faced lie. It's your Breath Alcohol Level.
I'd like to see someone explain how they can get a number out of your blood without taking any of it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday July 23 2015, @10:53AM
Not to mention that calling Breathalyzers' output "Blood Alcohol Level" is a bold-faced lie. It's your Breath Alcohol Level.
I'd like to see someone explain how they can get a number out of your blood without taking any of it.
Here in Oz you can opt for a blood test if you fail the breath test.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.