why do we even tolerate malware companies
Malware isn't bad, like guns, it depends on the one using it. There are legit uses, e.g. governments or simulations of real attacks.
It's called malware, because it IS bad.
Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt
21–30 of 106 posts
Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malware isn't bad, like guns, it depends on the one using it. There are legit uses, e.g. governments or simulations of real attacks.
Quoted post unavailable.
Until you realize that states (after a more or less transparent process) have access to data stored by private companies.
Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Until you realize that states (after a more or less transparent process) have access to data stored by private companies.
Sure, but not necessarily the same states (I honestly don't care if Bhutan gets access to my emails - I have no beef with them, and I am unlikely to ever be in their sphere of influence), and not necessarily with no real oversight that something like Finfisher brings.
Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because this company was the developer of the "Staatstrojaner" malware government agencies used to hack into computer systems to investigate crimes. I think the original use case was just terrorism but I'm pretty sure it's been used against other crimes as well. As to why the German public tolerate it: because there wasn't sufficient pushback and the government doesn't care about a few protests as most people will ev…
Seems to me like the government should internally own their malware rather than tolerate a company that presumably sells to other governments or private entities. Mine was a rhetorical question of course.
We have private companies designing and building weapons. There are laws regarding who it can be sold to or where it can be exported.
I believe malware is in the same category.
Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt
#25It appears like they're just going through a "rebranding" https://mobile.twitter.com/Pingu/status/1469314222349852675 Quote from the OP article: > the public prosecutor's office wanted to secure the assets potentially obtained from an unlawful act by means of an asset freeze in order to be able to confiscate them if necessary. The group of companies escaped seizure through insolvency So you know what's going on.
> companies escaped seizure through insolvency
This is a strange arrangement that I guess most countries follow. Companies are legal entities, that can be sued and so on. But a company cannot go to jail (board members or stock owners don't typically go to jail either). These legal entities can also seize to exist (like in this example), and then there is nobody left to be held accountable... It seems like most countries treat companies better than humans.
Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt
#26why do we even tolerate malware companies
to avoid to have to ask for support in that area when your country is being invaded by another country maybe? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/23/israel-ukraine...
Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malware isn't bad, like guns, it depends on the one using it. There are legit uses, e.g. governments or simulations of real attacks.
Quoted post unavailable.
>On a related note: I trust Google with my data more happily than I trust the German state, for only one of those two has a history of building concentration camps.
Do you also own stuff made in China? Like the device you posted this comment from? Because that government is actively running concentration camps right now. Where's the uproar against that? Germany has paid several times of for their mistakes.
Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Malware isn't bad, like guns, it depends on the one using it. There are legit uses, e.g. governments or simulations of real attacks.
Do we actually have any cases of governments using malware for good? Guns aren't a great comparison because the use can (and usually is) wholly defensive or acts as a deterrent -- i.e if you are known to be armed then you'd be left alone. Malware on the other hand is almost exclusively offensive and governments around the world almost exclusively use it for nefarious reasons (i.e NSO Group's clientele and published u…
Well looks like it play a role in the defense strategy from the Ukraine https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/politics/pegasus-israe...
So maybe until now we didn't see a country with cyber in their strategy being invaded by another?
Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt
#29It appears like they're just going through a "rebranding" https://mobile.twitter.com/Pingu/status/1469314222349852675 Quote from the OP article: > the public prosecutor's office wanted to secure the assets potentially obtained from an unlawful act by means of an asset freeze in order to be able to confiscate them if necessary. The group of companies escaped seizure through insolvency So you know what's going on.
https://netzpolitik.org/2022/nach-pfaendung-staatstrojaner-h... (German) reads like it is more than a rebranding. But there are certainly new entrepreneurs who will fill the gap
Meet your new entrepreneurs. Same as your old entrepreneurs.
Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt
#30why do we even tolerate malware companies
to avoid to have to ask for support in that area when your country is being invaded by another country maybe? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/23/israel-ukraine...
? Allied states have provided intelligence support and tools to each other for centuries without needing companies to do that for them. The internet didn't change that, greed and regulatory capture did.