Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt

ccc.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt

#81

Post by planb »

sdoering wrote: post #58
tom899 wrote: post #37

They will continue under a new name and description. The success to this day is not remarkable. That software has not stopped criminals like Olaf Scholz and his buddies, nor has it protect a mayor of a city that was killed in his own house. So, its useless and unethical to think to automate prosecution. Too many false-positives and a bad success rate is not and can not be the goal to break basic rights. The real crim…

[flagged]

> What a mess of naive and BS rambling. And that is the top comment on this HN posting right now.

(...)

> the Greens (who are happily trading with Qatar instead of Russia because Qatar is such a great place for human rights).

Very OT, but this is naive rambling, too. They are not "happily" trading with Qatar and even stated that this is the lesser evil right now.

Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt

#83

Post by juanani »

denton-scratch wrote: post #69
zeepzeep wrote: post #13

Earlier 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.

> There are legit uses, e.g. governments I'm astonished that there are so many people here that are willing to defend government use of malware. Malware is software deliberately designed to cause devices to malfunction. Since when is it legitimate for any government to deliberately break the property of a private citizen who hasn't been convicted of any offence, without at least a court order?

No post body was provided.

Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt

#84

Post by jacquesm »

bjarneh wrote: post #80
jacquesm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In such cases, where it is totally clear that the people in charge of that business acted in bad faith I'm all for going after them in person. A good building company either insures against such risks or they create a warranty fund. An even worse example would be a builder going bankrupt during the building. This is one of the reasons I've never bought a new house, it either exists and you can sell it to me or you ca…

> acted in bad faith I'm all for going after them in person I agree, but this should be standard procedure. Hiding behind these peculiar "legal entities" that cannot possibly be held accountable anyway, makes no sense. > This is one of the reasons I've never bought a new house Same here, although the house I did buy was 160 years old; which also comes with its own set of problems :-)

> although the house I did buy was 160 years old; which also comes with its own set of problems

Hehe, been there done that. In fact, doing that, right now I'm fixing a window frame that had 'a small spot of rot', by the time it was done half the frame had been removed, incredible how bad wood can be under nicely looking paint. Insect paradise underneath there.

Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt

#85

Post by robertlagrant »

bjarneh wrote: post #67
jacquesm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big difference between board members and stockholders. Board members are liable to some extent stockholders almost never are, unless the business was specifically founded to facilitate crime. That's where the term Ultimate Beneficiary comes into play.

> Big difference between board members and stockholders. Completely agree, but in small/medium size companies (no public stock etc), these are often the same people. In many cases it's completely obvious who (which humans) that have done something wrong, but since we still accept that the legal entity under which they operated no longer exists; you're stuck. A problem where I live (Norway) has been that people regist…

> The people who buy those flats better pray that there is nothing wrong with them, as there is basically nowhere to turn if there is

This is also the case if you buy from a human.

Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt

#86

Post by robertlagrant »

zeepzeep wrote: post #11
hnbad wrote: post #6

Earlier 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…

> I think the original use case was just terrorism but I'm pretty sure it's been used against other crimes as well. As with every dystopic "anti-terror" measurement, this is correct.

This is somehow such a difficult thing for people to grasp. "Yes the government gained the power to reach into our bank accounts, but it was for a good reason. I'm sure neither this nor any future government will ever abuse that power or mislay information they now have access to."

Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt

#87

Post by robertlagrant »

hnbad wrote: post #12
spacemanmatt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mean like a state owned enterprise? That would go against decades of free market ideology. Even if we had somehow ended up with a state owned malware development organization it would probably have been privatized by now.

Are you joking? Many states do this. E.g. in the UK they had a massive hiring binge for cyber a few years ago. They will also buy from third parties. That's not ideology (the free market can't really be deemed an ideology), that's just not succumbing to an (actual) ideology that says the state must own everything.

Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt

#88

Post by jacquesm »

robertlagrant wrote: post #85
bjarneh wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Big difference between board members and stockholders. Completely agree, but in small/medium size companies (no public stock etc), these are often the same people. In many cases it's completely obvious who (which humans) that have done something wrong, but since we still accept that the legal entity under which they operated no longer exists; you're stuck. A problem where I live (Norway) has been that people regist…

> The people who buy those flats better pray that there is nothing wrong with them, as there is basically nowhere to turn if there is This is also the case if you buy from a human.

That's not strictly speaking true. If the human was aware of what was wrong with it prior to the sale and did not inform you then you can typically file a claim against them in court ('hidden defect'). You still have to prove that you did what a normal buyer would do in terms of research but malice on the part of the seller is something that is actionable.

Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt

#89

Post by orra »

bjarneh wrote: post #67
jacquesm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big difference between board members and stockholders. Board members are liable to some extent stockholders almost never are, unless the business was specifically founded to facilitate crime. That's where the term Ultimate Beneficiary comes into play.

> Big difference between board members and stockholders. Completely agree, but in small/medium size companies (no public stock etc), these are often the same people. In many cases it's completely obvious who (which humans) that have done something wrong, but since we still accept that the legal entity under which they operated no longer exists; you're stuck. A problem where I live (Norway) has been that people regist…

Here in the UK, most new builds come with 10 years of buildings insurance. That's good, because I've heard horror stories about the quality of new builds.

I imagine the insurance premiums are quite high, to guard against such 'fly by night' operations.

Re: Stage win: FinFisher is bankrupt

#90

Post by account42 »

sdoering wrote: post #58
tom899 wrote: post #37

They will continue under a new name and description. The success to this day is not remarkable. That software has not stopped criminals like Olaf Scholz and his buddies, nor has it protect a mayor of a city that was killed in his own house. So, its useless and unethical to think to automate prosecution. Too many false-positives and a bad success rate is not and can not be the goal to break basic rights. The real crim…

[flagged]

> To my knowledge dealing with drugs is still illegal in Germany. So I hope the police would do something against weed dealers and consumers.

That does not follow - there are many things that are illegal put are not expected to be proactively investigated or stopped by the police except when carrying out a court order.

Post reply on HN