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

The Superfish Funder List

qntra.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#81

Post by glesica »

elcct wrote: post #59
murbard2 wrote: post #57

Why is Superfish getting all of the heat, while Komodia gets comparatively very little? A product that injects ads in your web traffic is crapware, but the scandal here isn't that superfish was crapware, the scandal is the security hole it introduced, which compromised Lenovo users. Yes, we all hate crapware, but there's a big difference between bothering people with sneaky, unwanted, ads, and opening the doors for m…

Injecting ads into traffic is basically stealing advertising space from websites. They should sue the living shit out of Lenovo.

That seems like a bad precedent, I don't want my ad-blocker getting sued into oblivion because then I'd have to see ads online... :)

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#82

Post by seanmcdirmid »

rpedroso wrote: post #70
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it matter that Lenovo is chinese and Superfish Israeli?

Although Superfish was founded in Israel, they're headquartered in Palo Alto now. The nationality of Lenovo is relevant insofar as it affects the applicability of US law. IANAL so I can't say how relevant that fact is, but I suspect it complicates litigation..

As long as lenovo makes money in the USA, they are easily subject to litigation there.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#84

Post by serf »

tek-cyb-org wrote: post #20

even thgough im Palestinian and these guys are Israeli, should we really be blaming superfish? this company makes software, seams like a bunch of hackers to me. Lenovo is the real culprit here.

>even thgough im Palestinian and these guys are Israeli

that has nothing to do with anything.

>should we really be blaming superfish? this company makes software, seams like a bunch of hackers to me.

More like a bunch of crackers. They produced a nefarious piece of software (which couldn't be used responsibly or in a just way), and it got used in a way that harmed users. Both parties profitted from hostile actions, which then hindered the defense of their userbase.

"Should be we really be blaming Cult of the Dead Cow? This company makes software, seems like a bunch of hackers to me. The users of BackOrifice are the real culprit here."

(yes, I know, my cyber-threat definition list is frightfully out of date. Maybe I just like cDc)

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#85

Post by serf »

yitchelle wrote: post #41
hoodoof wrote: post #32

Draper Fisher Jurvetson = SuperFish? Classy. Ultimately its worth remembering this is Windows..... Microsoft has to be responsible for the crapware installed when people buy a Windows computer. The reasonable conclusion is that if you buy Windows you risk stuff like this because Windows resellers install crapware on top of clean Windows builds.

Not so sure that you can pile all the responsibility onto Microsoft for this debacle. If your favorite Linux distro is to include some adware crap on it, should Linus take the blame? Ultimately, Lenovo should take the full blame for this. edit: grammar

False analogy, for a few reasons.

Linus is the maintainer of the Linux kernel. Linux is a product of the work of many people.

Linux is free, and can be redistributed without securing licensing or rights to do so.

Microsoft Windows is a proprietary product, which many people are only exposed to from the initial install on their bought hardware. The company who supplies the hardware, along with the company that supplies the software engage in contractual deals to allow this to happen.

Microsoft's image benefits when it is known that they do due-dilligence in checking out the suppliers who they allow to represent their product through licensing.

How are you okay with companies who create malware for corporations for pay? They deserve no responsibility themselves for simply existing with nefarious motivations? Microsoft requires licensing their product to use it, and goes an extra step by providing evaluation of the products which use their licensed software, and are vocally against the addition of crapware; but they take no blame when they allow their product to be continually licensed by a vendor that does harm to the image?

To answer your question: The distribution that is responsible for spreading the adware should be held responsible, as should the developers of that adware. That's likely why Mint became so popular (numbers wise) after all the Ubuntu fiascos in semi-recent history.

I don't think it's as simple as a one-party fault. Sorry.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#86

Post by 1ris »

rpedroso wrote: post #34
1ris wrote: post #19

What about criminal prosecution? In plenty jurisdictions this is illegal. Wiretaping, unauthorised access, unauthorised decryption, "Hacking", breach of privacy (manybe even copyright infringement; they edited other peoples content without their permission) or something like that is usually prosecuted harshly if it's done by a individual. I hope a company does not get away with it.

I hope that there will be legal ramifications to discourage this kind of behavior, but ultimately, the vendor that packaged Superfish with the computers is a Chinese company who will probably claim that this kind of thing is permitted by their EULA.

That's not how it works. Even if your plumber has "I might come back later and take look your safe" hidden somewhere in his EULA, it's still burglary. Laws are, thank god, over EULAs.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#87

Post by deitcher »

ptaipale wrote: post #42
mobiplayer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few do, I can probably agree with that. But it's not like investors through money out of the window unknowingly of where it ends. They either knew about it and didn't care about it or they just didn't care about it in any case, because following due diligence would've raised some red lights.

Most likely someone showed them some Powerpoint slides, and the hapless investors just did not understand that there could be serious privacy and security implications. That doesn't mean they aren't responsible and shouldn't burn their fingers; investors actually should look into these things when they decide where to invest.

Depends who the investors are. I know some really first-class ones... then again, I know some dumb ones...

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#88

Post by rabbyte »

Tepix wrote: post #14
rabbyte wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a human, you needn't be culpable for offenses perpetrated by others regardless of their relation to you. If you belong to principles and help the people to foster them, your only shame will be from your own failures; a shame you can actually do something about. I'm a proud American but it doesn't mean what people think it means.

Shouldn't it work both ways then? If you're not culpable for offenses, why are you proud of achievments that you have nothing to do with?

Who said I was proud of achievements? I'm proud of my associations for a number of reasons, all by my own choosing, which is consistent with the aggressions I choose to have nothing to do with.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#89

Post by rabbyte »

rplnt wrote: post #18
rabbyte wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a human, you needn't be culpable for offenses perpetrated by others regardless of their relation to you. If you belong to principles and help the people to foster them, your only shame will be from your own failures; a shame you can actually do something about. I'm a proud American but it doesn't mean what people think it means.

> you needn't be culpable for offenses perpetrated by others regardless of their relation to you. Unless they are your children and you brought them up. Then there's some justification in your feelings.

I would consider neglecting to parent a child an offense. If you did not commit that offense then I would say you still have the right to disassociate yourself from your child's offenses, as sad as that really is. I would probably still choose to own them.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#90

Post by rabbyte »

madaxe_again wrote: post #16
Tepix wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't it work both ways then? If you're not culpable for offenses, why are you proud of achievments that you have nothing to do with?

Jingoism.

My pride is not restricted to my birth nation, nor is it manufactured by state media.
Post reply on HN