BBC buys, uses botnet to show dangers to PCs | Security – CNET News
More on the BBC’s new hacking career.
I’m finding it interesting to read people’s responses to the articles reporting on the BBC’s recent illegal actions to create a piece for one of their TV shows. Opinions seem to be clearly divided into two camps: Those (who like me) think that what the BBC did is clear violation of the Computer Misuse Act; and the others who either don’t think what the BBC did “should” be illegal or justify their actions by saying “No harm was done” or “It’s beneficial because it raises awareness”.
If find the arguments from the second group (let’s call them the apologists) very worrying on several levels.
Firstly: Laws exist because over time a threat has been determined from an action or type of behavior that is detrimental to the common good. Laws don’t get enacted easily. Lots of debate and consideration goes on before any law makes it onto the books. Not all of them are wonderful for sure, but they are there as a result of the process that governs us all having been applied.
Secondly: We live under the principle that no one (not even a TV company) is above the law.
Thirdly: and probably most unsettling to me is the issue of the PC owners rights. I have not read any of the apologists mention the fact that the rights of the PC owners has been violated. Whether or not they are considered to be “Negligent”, as one commenter wrote, is irrelevant. The law is there to protect them from having their PCs used without their permission. The law doesn’t distinguish between “used for evil” or “used for good” is “used” <period>. That criminal law was clearly violated by the BBC.
Consequences
Whether or not the UK’s prosecutors chose to press the case, the BBC is still open to actions from the 22,000 PC owners who unwittingly took part in the experiment. That’s a whole lot of liability for one segment on a TV show that could have been produced in so many other less sensational ways and still have the same effect.
You have to question the ethics and the judgment of a production team who would sanction breaking the law with causal disregard for peoples rights just to gain some “sizzle” for their piece. Whether computer damage was done or not, damage was done because the law was broken. Broken not unknowingly, broken not without forethought, broken not without disregard. The damage done is to the law, to the reputation of the BBC and to the owners of 22,000 PCs.
When laws are vague, ambiguous or just plain confusing, judges make case determinations with help of something called “precedent”. This is based on the findings in previous cases where such an ambiguity had been previously noted. There is no ambiguity here. The law does not and should not take into account intent. That would open the door to chaos – “I didn’t mean to run him down” – “I didn’t mean to not pay taxes” – I didn’t mean to steel that money”.
There was a person in the UK hundreds of years ago who made a name for himself by knowingly breaking the law. His justification was that he was working for the common good by redressing what he saw as an imbalance in the distribution of wealth. His name was Robin Hood. With their actions the BBC joins him as fellow highwayman, anarchist and criminal.
If the state chooses to turn a blind eye, I hope that the law has its day in court in the hands the people who’s rights the BBC so blatantly disregarded.
BBC buys, uses botnet to show dangers to PCs | Security – CNET News.
