BBC Click Controls Bot Net

Hi,

If you're outside the UK, you might not be able to see this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...ick_14_03_2009/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programm...ine/7932816.stm

A growing argument is whether or not the BBCs actions were illegal. What do you think?

Personally I think their position is indefensible as they're using someone elses bandwidth without permission, regardless of anything else. Those people could have been forced to go over data transfer limits with their ISP, and have to pay for additional usage.

I disagree however that it doesn't raise awareness.

Best regards,
AstroTux.

Not visible in for me in the US.

I think the BBC's action are clearly immoral and wrong. I don't know about "illegal" because IANAL.

Looks like a classic monopoly gone wrong.

Is the BBC an ISP as well as producer of shows/news?

The folks in the UK have long been more tolerant of privacy destroying actions, the many cameras in the cities the most recent example, but the vans detecting if you owned a TV to enforce the TV tax has been going on for decades.

No.

The Computer Misuse Act makes it illegal to use a computer for which you were not permitted access. i.e. if you walked up to a random computer and started to use it, and the owner reported it, you're in trouble.

The thing with the BBC is that they recorded themselves doing this (self-incrimination). It seems no-one is taking action though at the moment.

Best regards,
AstroTux.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Artic...says-lawyer.htm



Best regards,
AstroTux.

Same article:



Wow. What idiots. I hope they get sued for millions of pounds.

This thread might be a bit on the dead side but seeing peoples indignant reactions to the BBC's well done job and good 'undercover' journalism people are more aware of the risks and dangers out there on the web and what hackers are really up to these days with your computers.

It raised awareness; at the ease at witch one could acquire a Botnet and the ease of there use, as well as letting you know what simple but effective measure you can take to protect yourself. To finger point at the BBC for this article is to be a narrow minded, ignorant fool who likes keeping there heads berried in the sand and other peoples along with them.

I can not see why anyone who has an objection to what the BBC has done here. With your arguments surly undercover journalism that revealed the dark side of the BMP, some years back, to be illegal and an invasion of privacy. It wasn’t and nether was this article by Click.

It was informative and educational, the law may have been bent a little to achieve this, but the greater good achieved by this out weighs possible minor infringement of the law. Get off your orange boxes and get a life, you seem to be a bunch of old woman looking for something to complain about regardless of the intent or outcome.

Whilst I agree with what you say, the law is the law, and no-one can alter the fact they broke it.

What if those users paid for every byte of data sent/received? Think it is so innocent?

My ISP will nail me £10 for every additional Gigabyte I go over my limit (20 Gb/month). If I go 20.1 Gb (0.1 Gb over the limit) it is an instant £10 added to the bill.

THAT is why it is illegal, and why everyone is getting upset that they broke the law.

There are other ways of making the point without actually using a real bot net (not to mention UK TV license payers handed over cold hard cash to criminals). Set one up in a lab if you must demonstrate it.

Best regards,
AstroTux.

I also see your point, all be it a naive one. The law is bent by corporations, government and individuals probably everyday, and get away with it because the legal system is flexible not black and white, despite what people might think.

Criminals make deals every day to reduce there sentence or get away scot free, hackers are offered lucrative security jobs with governments / banks / corps they once hacked. The USA and England go to war with out permission of the UN, and get away with it. The legal system needs to work that way to be honest or it wouldn’t work at all. Some time the law can do more harm than good by keeping to the book. This is one such case.

The simple fact is they did it to raise awareness to help try and tackle the serious problem not add to it, and that’s why they will 'get away' with braking (as you put it) or bending the law (as I see).

The people’s computer who where infected with this Botnet could have unknowingly been helping cybercriminals by their ignorance... Which is no excuse in the eyes of the law? So from a certain point of view these people where aiding and abetting cybercriminals by not probably protecting there computers.

It’s like leaving your car door open and then when it gets nicked being surprised that the insurers tell you to go take a high jump. So from a certain point of view the BBC where helping reduce cybercrime, raise awareness and stop peoples computers from ruining other peoples life’s.

They didn’t steeling, editing or removing data from anyone’s computers. All they did was use a bit of band width for about 1 minute and then added a new back drop that alerted them about the huge security risk they had on there computer. In the case of using up their (possible) limited download limit, just think of the money the BBC has saved these people. Had this Botnet been sold to a real criminal with malicious intent the cost to these people who have been huge by comparison to the very unlikely situation that the BBC did over use someone’s download limit.

All these contributing factors are why the BBC will ‘get away’ with this sort of journalism, there doing good, not bad. There was no criminal intent and with the powers that journalist have it probably means they will and can get away with this sort of reporting. It’s happened in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

It will only continue to the point of prosecution. They have broken the law of the land, in consultation with lawyers, they have no defence, and they should be made to answer to a court of law.

Then it's up to the justice to decide if they need to be punished.

The taking of someone else's bandwidth to effect anything without their permission is theft, so now they're looking at two counts before the beak.

And as regards observing such actions from 'certain points of view' is completely irrelevant. That's an opinion, to which you are entitled, but it has no bearing on whether or not they should stand trial.

Effecting cybercrime to highlight cybercrime - that's just beautiful. Put a botnet in place, and then what happens if there was one malicious developer ... do the maths, it's totally irresponsible, and morally reprehensible.

FWIW, the article is no longer available on BBC iPlayer

That's all well and good from a literal point of view without taking into account the time, money and manpower such an investigation would waste and for what? Nothing; as no REAL crime was committed, just a technicality of the law.

It would be such a pointless waste of time that no one is ever going to prosecute them, and to call for such a thing is such a moronic, narrow minded, naive outlook that it just make me laugh. It’s an almost spoiled child like reaction to what was a fantastic piece of undercover journalism.

Have you ever seen The Real Hustle on the BBC, that show I'm sure would give you more to complain about that this random Click special, there 'braking' the law all the time to show how real con artiest con you.

Wake up and debate something that’s important rather than trying to bite the hand that feeds you (so to speak).

Bite me.

The law is the law.

No real CRIME was committed, says who? You? You a judge? Prosecutor? or are we again subject to your personal opinion in the absence of any real fact.

There are no fans of the law, who can call for leniency on behalf of those who have been indicted. That's the function of the judge and/or jury, after the presentation of the facts, and argument by counsel.

And if the programme creators hadn't considered this when making the programme, then they're the ones who are naive.

The purpose of programming is not to educate you, but to keep you on that channel, any education, albeit stunted, is totally accidental.

We all have our own opinions, you're entitled to yours ...

so to speak

Sorry my last post may have been a little demeaning, it wasn't my intention to insult, I just have a bad habit of specking my mind. I get where you’re coming from but it's never going to happen, and it shouldn't.

The laws of our land are flawed and no matter how many years we have had to revise them or make new ones up you'll never cover all angles or account for every variable that could be exploited or target people unjustly due to keeping to the letter of the law. It is called the Justice system not the law system, laws do not take into account all the varying factors and possible instances that can pop up in the real world, this is why each case is adjudicated over by council of peers, who using the laws determine weather a crime has been committed or not, or if it has was there mitigating circumstances;

like a wife killing her abusive husband. Yes she killed him, yes she committed murder, but she would not get life for it as she was abused and that gives her mitigating circumstances when it comes to being punished. A similar proccess is used to determine weather or not a case should even go to trial, and that’s why the BBC will not go to trial over this.

That is why the law IS open to interpretation, and Judges have power to administer what ever punishment they feel is appropriate; with in the confines of a predetermined sentencing structure for a crime, or if a case is even worth the courts time. I would bet money there will not be a Judge or prosecutor in the land who would realistically motion to have the BBC brought up on charges for this show.

That’s is why I harshly called you naïve, because your looking at this monochromatically, when it’s full blown Technicolour in its complexity.

Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, just as I am to have mine. But I also have the right to try and pull apart your argument because I think its narrow minded, short sighted, and ultimately borne out of naivety; rather than something more malicious, or am I wrong? Do you have a vendetta against the click show, the staff on the show, or the BBC it’s self?

As to the purpose of the show only being to keep you on that channel is laughable again, you show your naivety... or general lack of awareness; the BBC is funded via the tax payer, TV licensing, and fines. Not by adverts and ratings, so the BBC doesn't really need to keep you on its channels to make money via advertising and alike. This is why in principle the BBC is really the only truly independent and unbiased TV network in the UK... or at least the TV network that holds up to the ideal the most, all others have a vested interest to keep you on there channels to get the best price out of the advertising spots.

The BBC only vested interest in keeping you on that channel is so that the BBC executives keep there well paid jobs, that is the only area where the BBC would have a vested interest in keeping you on there channels, as low ratings means bad management. To be honest if that was the BBC only interest I think the executives would play it a little more safe as many have lost there jobs due to poor decision making, like that Jonathan Ross incident. Thank god they dont is all I say, sure the BBC might brake a few eggs from time to time but they make good TV more often than not.

Oh and one more thing


Says the lack of public support for a prosecution, as yet no news of any intention of a prosecution, or for that matter any kind of inquiry. No requests for any BBC management or staff involved in Click to resign or be suspended. All this supports my opinion that no laws where broken, or if they where; then they where done in the public interest and there for supply the mitigating circumstances I was talking about above.

If the BBC says they took legal advice before going a head with this, then they probably did and most likely worked closely with the Police, including the handing over of all information acquired during the making of the special, which would strongly help them not getting prosecuted.

You have to try and remember that the BBC is a powerful and well funded PUPLIC organisation that most likely has more power for journalism like the Clicks BotNet special because of it being a long standing British institution that supplies accurate hard hitting and (mostly) unbiased news reporting. If the BBC asked if they could break/bend the law to raise awareness of cybercrime, I'm sure the relevant legal bodies that could give such dispossession would; as long as all information was given to the police and that the show was in the public interest.

Just like the BBC: The Real Hustle; anyone of the presenters in that show could be arrested for their actions at the time, but due to the fact they return any thing stolen or ill gotten; and have most likely prior to film have requested and alerted the police to there activities. Hell they even shoot shows in different counters which just goes to show that the BBC even has this kind of journalistic power outside of the UK also.

Anyway I doubt anyone will have the patients to read all of this waffle but hell it was fun ranting.

I'm not going to read the bulk of what you've written, but ask yourself this question
The gain is in being able to serve an agenda at will, I'm not saying the BBC do, but they sure as hell reserve the right to do so. It's not by accident that it's called programming ...

Not going to read the bulk of my post humm... yet you latched on to a part of it near the end? Strange, that’s a convenient way to avoid my argument, and a plausible one at that lol. I had way to much free time on my hands yesterday.

We seemed to have moved off topic onto an area that I am in full agreement with you on, I’m not a big TV fan because it is full of someone else’s agenda, but that’s why I can stand the BBC for the simple fact that I’m not bombarded with subliminal messaging every time there’s a advert on. As I’m sure you know there are many forms of subliminal messaging and not all of them are considered ethically or morally wrong. A classic one is repetition, just to pluck one out of the air.

As long as one knows that every media company be it TV (including the BBC), news papers, magazines etc all have there own political agenda. As long as you know this you can take it as it comes and ignore their propaganda.

Beware the pitfalls of 'cognitive dissonance' ... reading a book, the Control Revolution, by Andrew L Shapiro, 1999, but still relevant