,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This starts strong, but ends in garbage. Yes, anti-virus should be triggering on any software spying on people, whether it's by hackers, parents of children, the FBI, or stalkers. No, this isn't justification for the overcriminalization of computer activities.
2/ The ethics of "cybersecurity" are clear: when we defend YOUR computer, we defend YOU from ANYBODY ELSE. That means hackers, criminals, the FBI, your parents, your SO, or space aliens. It's a clear ethical line.
3/ So then how can parents monitor their young children? Well, the family plans by Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T show how to deal with this problem: they track your kid's location AND send them a monthly text message informing them of this.
4/ Thus, when such tracking is valuable, it happens, and when it's just stalking, it's prevented. There's a legitimate market for products that track children, and this should be an easy standard feature.
5/ That anti-virus products haven't been detecting stalkerware seems to be a problem, and I'm glad it's now getting more attention.
6/ However, this almost immediately became a Holy Crusade where suddenly we find our principles and ethics maleable, changed to fit the Crusade. In particular, whereas the @EFF has traditionally opposed overcriminalization of computer activities, it now seems to be in favor.
7/ This is what Marcus Hutchins is accused of, essentially. Yet, the EFF is on Hutchins's side. It seems like we need one set of laws for our friends, and another for our enemies.
8/ Or maybe we can stop with the overcriminalization of computer activities. Stalkerware is evil, but no worse than the many other "evil" thing that we don't want criminalized.
9/ If you want to change the law, instead of overcriminalizing something that'll sweep up innocent people, why not work to change the law that makes it easy for people to sue AV companies?
