Not all Hacking Cases are Treated the Same

23:57 Sun 23 Jun 2013
[, , ]

From the UK, evidence that there’s a markedly higher tolerance among law enforcement for certain types of hackers. “The other hacking scandal: Suppressed report reveals that law firms, telecoms giants and insurance companies routinely hire criminals to steal rivals’ information”. You know, “the right people”.

I’m vaguely surprised that so far, we haven’t seen any hard evidence of data going from government sources to business entities for this kind of thing. Money clearly gets you access to police files and the like, but I’m curious about the extent to which “blue-chip companies” have been able to get their hands on state surveillance data such as that being collected by GCHQ.

That’s the thought I’ll leave you with this week; hopefully I’ll put together a longer post for next week. Take care out there.

« (previous)

2 Responses to “Not all Hacking Cases are Treated the Same”

  1. Steve Casey Says:

    Person vs. company – prosecute

    Company vs. company – don’t prosecute, you’re probably hacking them too and you both know it.

    I’m not sure that’s a state or policing failure rather than simply a fundemental flaw in a system that usually requires the victim to be supportive of the prosecution.

  2. Tadhg Says:

    Of course, you’re missing a combination there: company vs. person, which is clearly present from the article.

    I don’t think the UK system requires support from victims; it can be useful, but here we’re talking about a case where the victims don’t even know they’ve been the targets of surveillance, and law enforcement bodies do, and those bodies don’t do anything.

Leave a Reply