संसृति कुमारी ([info]zoeimogen) wrote,
@ 2009-03-12 19:24:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: annoyed

BBC funds organised crime
OK, so it's a deliberately tabloid attention-grabbing headline, but I don't think they realise what they're doing with this story.

As an ISP, this disturbs me greatly. We have customers that pay for bandwidth and the BBC are using that bandwidth? And did they bother to consider the fact that DDoS and spam attacks can have an detrimental effect on networks in the middle as well as their "willing" targets. The full BBC article makes it clear they just purchased an existing botnet from someone online, but supply and demand means this will just stimulate the botnet economy. The BBC even report themselves on the link between organised crime and botnet herders - fraud, blackmail, all that sort of thing. This isn't just scare tactics, it's part of my day job to deal with the fallout from such things so I've seen it first-hand.

And just because they didn't have "criminal intent" it doesn't make it legal - they freely admit to multiple violations of the computer misuse act.


(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]astras_brian
2009-03-12 07:59 pm UTC (link)
I wondered what you might have to say about this issue. Not only your concerns but also the use of Licence Fee payers' money to fund this illegal activity.

(Reply to this)


[info]astras_brian
2009-03-12 08:21 pm UTC (link)
You should publish this point to a wider audience.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]zoeimogen
2009-03-12 08:59 pm UTC (link)
I did, earlier today. Said audience was the e-crime unit at New Scotland Yard - having contacts is useful.

I'm told it's "in hand", whatever that means. But I think it's good.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]astras_brian
2009-03-12 09:18 pm UTC (link)
*smile* You rock :)

I know someone who might like to reproduce your article on their blog, if you're ok with that

Edited at 2009-03-12 09:19 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]zoeimogen
2009-03-12 09:23 pm UTC (link)
Sure!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]astras_brian
2009-03-12 10:09 pm UTC (link)
You're a guest poster :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]zoeimogen
2009-03-12 10:12 pm UTC (link)
URL?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]astras_brian
2009-03-12 10:56 pm UTC (link)
You have PM

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]cmcmck
2009-03-13 08:38 am UTC (link)
And you didn't even react to the 'in hand' quote :o)

You feeling okay?

(Ducks and runs for cover :o)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]paulathomas
2009-03-13 10:17 am UTC (link)
The CPS may well decide that they acted in the public interest. It is always a problem for journalists to know how far they ought to go when trying to expose crime. The BBC, along with most other news organisations, is given some leeway here but only if they over the evidence they obtain to the police.

There has been a history of this sort of thing - you may remember The Real Hustle on BBC3 which went to one street and highjacked some open wireless networks for one episode to show how easy it is when people don't put security on.


Personally I am not sure how I feel about it. I can see your point about public money but I can also see an argument about pressuring the industry to beef up security and alert people to problems in a dramatic way that brings home the dangers of skimping on security... So I'm torn.

(Reply to this)

(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…