(On the other hand, as Bruce Schneier argues at Wired, I *do* think the slow reaction of many security companies and of Microsoft is suspicious. They haven’t protected their own customers: they have had an “industry versus the customers mentality”.)

The story has run in the print media here in the UK. See, for example:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-1873580,00.html

… it just hasn’t made a big splash. However, the BBC, I was pleased to see, has actually run several items in its Technology News Section:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/default.stm

And, in fact, I think you should see a clue in that. The BBC, because of its anomolous and anachronistic funding-model, can afford to have full-time tech journalists on the staff. I doubt many news outlets can. The largest-selling broadsheet newspaper over here – The Daily Telegraph – actually laid off the guy who did its weekly computer-help column, although I just checked, and he seems to be back now.

More generally, I think almost all tech/online news is only of the edge of the horizon for most mainstream news organizations.

Consequently, what you have on this, as on most other tech news, is patchy and sporadic press coverage. Thank goodness for the blogosphere, eh? I think you’ll find that most media outlets have recycled Reuters’ stuff on this. And when they do write material themselves, they get it wrong. USA Today, I learnt on the tWiT podcast, referred to Sony’s “virus”. Hardly accurate (as the malware doesn’t self-replicate) but serve Sony right to get the v-word.

That reminds me of Patience Wheatcroft, the (London) Times’s business editor who in her write-up of the Microsoft US DOJ trial said that Microsoft had been accused of integrating Internet Explorer into Word. Probably, to such a person, a computer *means* “Microsoft Word”. How can such people be expected to understand what the case was about?

I expect this story still has legs. And, if it goes to court, it will certainly get coverage in the mainstream press, although I’d expect many articles to be less than well-informed.

I would make a list of each song that I was accused of downloading. I would then check my puchased music collection for any songs that were on the list. Any purchased or borrowed CD that had a listed song would then be photographed. I would then take CASH (not a check nor credit card), and I would purchase the other songs from music stores, garage sales, or I would borrow from other people. I would photograph or produce these CD’s for several witnesses to see. This would prove that I puchased every song I downloaded beforehand. I would then sign an affidavit stating that the reason why I downloaded these these songs is because I am afraid to use the ones on the CD because they might contain a rootkit. I would give this affidavit to my lawyer.

anothe good one

They can’t.
They’re not “allowed” to.
Money talks

Right now, I wouldn’t buy a HDTV from any of the makers. Since they haven’t gotten their stuff together on standardized format, tomorrow may well result in some change to have the broadcast flag answer to another “newer” format. In fact if they want the broadcast flag active, I am not sure I want a new tv in any form. It seems that much of the electronics are in flux, far more than in the past (or maybe I notice it more).

Anyway be that as it may, at some point in future posts (as a regular here) I might remind you of the photo spoof in posting. *grins* Oh, and I still look forward to your articles.

…and Jon, I don’t care if you wrote it or linked to it, keep up the good work. *waves bye for now*

i did think it was written by jon, but apparently jon got the story from that BBSpot page, as there is a link in the p2pnet article pointing to it.

however, it is still a spoof.

if you compare the original here, and the one you saw, you will see that the other one is almost identical to the original one that jon wrote here.

obviously, that other “news” site” also fell for it and is “reporting” it as if it were true.

IT IS A SPOOF WRITTEN BY JON!

OKAY?

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/11/sony_photo_sharing.html

I’m also waiting for the google bomb. How long before typing Sony into Google takes you to a Digital Rootkit Malware explanation page.

of course you can share pictures from a sony camera.

Sony’s nightmare seems to get worse daily.
1) they infect customers computers exposing them to viruses/trojans
2) they release a flawed uninstall that increases users’ exposure
3) they are caught “spying” on customers as software sends back users listening habits
4) sony currently has no uninstall for their malware
5) sony reluctantly corrects the number of CD titles infected with XCP from 20 to 52
6) now we learn that XCP has misused open source code. In other words Sony or its vendor essentially “stole” parts of the copy protection code.

It’s pretty laughable to think that Sony is protecting anyone’s intellectual property. Instead, it is unfettered corporate greed. Hopefully, Congress with re-think DRM for upcoming movie releases given the industries behavior.

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/11/sony_photo_sharing.html

Also this guy has some interesting points about the whole saga.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,69601,00.html?tw=rss.TOP
(you might need to copy paste this url)

It does give a good reason why MS doesn’t drop on Sony about all this. They’ve essentially given bigbiz permission to screw you.

Two new F4I license infringements found
http://www.the-interweb.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/20051117.html

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=931

It has now turned up that parts of code from DVDJons GPL licensed VLC has also shown up in the player. Where is this mess going to end with violations that Sony feels free to borrow upon while screaming that “Pirates are stealing our stuff”?

Sony has yet to admit wrong doing though they are making moves that would indicate they know well it is wrong, such as recalls and teh removal of the rootkit from use without saying that is the purpose. Instead they have merely mentioned they are “reevaluating”.

Where was the lamescream media in all this? It was far after folks on the net were raising cain before the first article had appeared. They were waiting to see if the hubbub would die down and blow over before mentioning a peep.

After the showing up of a virus using the rootkit to hide, no one is after Sony for malware that enabled it to hide. Why?

This hasn’t just started with this latest rootkit thing. Just the last 20 cds (according to Sony who later changed this number to 50 different titles) and Sony who has admitted no wrong has been rewriting their corporate EULA on their offical web site more often than you can keep up with. Only the fact that copies have been made of the EULA before the changes exist to show those changes.

What is even more disturbing is evidence has show up that Department of Defense computers are infected with this mess. You can bet Homeland Security isn’t happy about that either. Were it an individual he would long ago been sitting in jail waiting either bond or trial. Why isn’t Sony being faced with these aspects already?

The only recognised player that Sony includes as the authorized player has been shown to have code that was ripped off from the LAME encoder. In violation of the LGPL license, no mention has been made, nor has any effort been made to meet the requirements of the LGPL license. For one so interested in protecting licenses, why is Sony so deeply involved in what is definately by their own standards piracy?

Why has it been so long before Microsucks came out against this rootkit with a defination to identify and remove the mess that affects its own product? More than 1/2 a million networks have been infected by this rootkit.

That’s is one huge figure, 1/2 a million, so where were the antivirus and antitrojan writers in all this. That sort of figure ranks right up there with some of the worse malwares, like the Blaster virus. So why have the likes of Symantic, Norton, and other major fighters been so mum on it or writing removers?

But hey, don’t take it from me, read about it here…
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,69601,00.html