Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

+ - Legal liability of "virus" reports on websites?

Submitted by crossmr
crossmr (957846) writes "I do some very part time web design for a couple places. One of the sites I built 3 years ago was part of a business that was recently sold, the new owner reported that some people couldn't access the site claiming it had a virus. I couldn't replicate the problem and began digging around. I finally ran one of those website virus scans and was surprised to see 3 out of 61 sites had reported the site had a virus. Some aggressive security settings on Chrome browsers were apparently preventing people from evening visiting the site.

2 of the 3 sites simply said that the website in question contained a "trojan" with a scary name seemingly made to frighten people away from the site. Googling the name provided basically zero details as to what the problem was. Through googling I found my way to Sucuri who do a free website scan. They then claimed the site was infested with "SEO SPAM". I did more googling and found out that a while back there was a scandal involving some module creators and SEO spam. They had been inserting invisible links into pages containing their modules to increase their SEO. This was the "trojan".

There was no real virus. There was no danger to users computers or even the webhost, or anything except google's ranking. For that reason these scanning sites recommended and were used in such a way that people were prevented or strongly encouraged not to visit the site. All because of a hidden back link.

Legally this seems pretty shaky. They use vague names to label the problem, and never explain to the end user the issue that is on the site. Most people see "trojan" and say "I want no part of this!" Immediately after removing the javascript code that hid the links (and the links itself) two of the three scanners report the site clean and we're waiting on a rescan request from the last (scumware). It's clear there was never a real trojan or virus anywhere on the site. Anyone ever experienced this before? Have any of these scanning sites ever been sued because of the labelling they've done? Any lawyers want to way in on that? If people say they didn't visit the site because of this label, it seems like it'd be pretty obvious to prove there was damage from what they did."

Comment: Re:eSports aren't like regular Sports (Score 1) 146

by crossmr (#47635509) Attached to: The ESports Athletes Who Tried To Switch Games

No, they really aren't. The media liked to make it out like they were, and they were certainly bigger here than anywhere else, but they're not remotely as big as traditional sports.

They still have a video game channel, but it broadcasts all kinds of things, it's also in the nosebleeds and nowhere near comparable to regular TV channels. In the same area they also have a channel for Baduk (Go), and Janggi (Korean chess) and other cerebral activities, one of which was called "BrainTV". Interestingly the media never bothered to mention that in context when they pointed out how crazy it is that Korea had a channel or two for video games. There are also a host of other channels around that area airing things like poorly dubbed retro chinese dramas, and other low interest subjects.

if ESPN can cover the snooze-fest that is professional poker, there is no reason they shouldn't have a channel for gaming.

Comment: Re:But is it false? (Score 1) 268

by crossmr (#47313831) Attached to: Wikipedia Editors Hit With $10 Million Defamation Suit

That's not what it means by public interest.

It means that it's something that is crucial for people to know.

The fact that some random guy had an affair isn't really in the public's interest. It really doesn't make any difference to anyone except him and his wife if he's had an affair. However, if the guy was doing something bad that affected many people like say touching little kids or selling tainted food, that would be in the public's interest to know. Essentially the person would need to give cause as to why people would need to know the information that was said or written in order to defend against the charge.

Comment: Re:But is it false? (Score 1) 268

by crossmr (#47313731) Attached to: Wikipedia Editors Hit With $10 Million Defamation Suit

For the most part that wouldn't involve Korea or Koreans on the vast majority of topics. Other than the Japanese/Korean editors who constantly war on there.
Sure they can be all different countries, but we know that the hosting/registration/etc doesn't have anything to do with Korea.

It would really only end up in the courts here if the subject and editor were both in Korea. Koreans don't seem to do a lot of suing of foreign nationals who aren't here to defend themselves in the courts, at least nothing that really makes the news.

Comment: Re:But is it false? (Score 4, Interesting) 268

by crossmr (#47313301) Attached to: Wikipedia Editors Hit With $10 Million Defamation Suit

They should be glad they aren't in South Korea.
After moving here and giving the laws a good read, it's quite interesting.

Truth isn't a defense here. Simply saying something negative about someone is sufficient for defamation, and the only defense is "public interest". If you can prove it was in the public's best interest to know that information you're okay.

Further defamation is part of criminal law here. 2 years for defaming someone with a true statement, 5 years for a false statement. There is a separate law for defaming the dead with a false statement.

Korea also has public insult laws on the books. So if you insult someone publicly so that others can hear it, that's also a criminal offence.

To a certain extent, the laws are somewhat interesting. they have a "keep your nose in your own business" kind of quality about them. I'm not sure what would happen to a thing like wikipedia if it was hosted here.

Comment: Re:why is this news? (Score 1) 208

by crossmr (#47184359) Attached to: Lego To Produce Three Box Sets Featuring Female Scientists

Oxford, a Korean Lego clone, actually had the foresight to make sure their girls sets used the same bodies. Even their hello kitty line uses large heads attached to regular bodies.

Despite Oxford bricks being lego compatible (and as good quality wise) sadly their minifigs aren't totally the same. The bodies are slightly different. You can swap hands and heads but that's it. They are the same size though, so outside of some slightly off looking legs they can mingle

They also didn't completely overdo it in the pink purple department:

A set like that goes for about $45 USD in Korea.

I really wish they'd get their act together though and focus on developing lines like Lego does. Their military line is incredible.

Comment: Re:Ramifications (Score 1) 334

The fact that you need to put art in scare quotes indicates that you've got some kind of inherent bias here, and it's obviously coloring your perspective.

This tells me you have no idea what the words "explicit" and "implicit" mean, in a legal context or otherwise.

I'm aware of what they mean. I think in most situations, at least the first time one party tries to snap some intimate photos, a direct question would be asked "Do you mind if I take these photos?" or "is it okay to take some pictures?" or even a "let's take some photos" waiting for a confirmation. Allowing the photographs to be taken in that context is explicit. Further along in the relationship the party may just take the phone out and start snapping as it's assumed that the consent continues and it's unnecessary to ask every time.
That's implicit consent unless the party suddenly objects at some point.

Nobody is revoking the creator's right to keep "art" that they have legally obtained informed consent for. For example, I think I should be able to write a contract that says I will allow you to take my photo, but that you have to destroy all copies of it after five years. You don't have to agree if you don't want to take the photo. Should the law prevent such a contract?

The problem is there was no duration specified at the time of the creation. That was not the contract as created, and it's a non-starter here. This is exactly like you agreeing to pose for photos then 5 years later suddenly going back and saying "oh yeah, you know what I know I agreed to them and you put all that work into them, maybe even exhibited them, etc, but now I'd like you to destroy them all, k thanx"

That's pure and simple bullshit.

The subject never specified they were for the length of the relationship, and there is no reason the photographer should be the one who suffers for them failing to specify the terms they wanted when they consented to have the work created. Now the article mentions that she took some herself. It's certainly within her rights to withdraw any implied usage rights when she shared those photos with him and ask for those to be destroyed/returned.

but "compromising" photos are a special case.

You talk about America being puritan but then think nude photos should get special care. Which is it? There is in fact no reason that nude photos should get special attention. A photo is a photo is a photo.

Comment: Re:Ramifications (Score 1) 334

That is a totally unwarranted assumption, many such photos are taken without explicit consent in either the legal or common usage. But let's just run with the specific example you want to use, to keep things simple. He asks "Can I take some nude photos?" and she says "Yes, go ahead."

It's not unwarranted at all. Unless the pictures were taken secretly via hidden camera the issue of taking pictures was discussed and the subject agreed.

Otherwise if one party whipped out their camera and started snapping away and the other party didn't want it, they would have stated as much.

If someone is going to court to withdraw consent, it's because consent was given in the first place.

You continue to get hung up on the legal definitions and legal precedent (particularly American law, I assume). That's fine, but you need to be clear on that. It is quite probable that a judge in America, right now under current laws would not require someone to return or destroy all nude photos of their ex. Just because the subject hasn't given unlimited explicit consent is not LEGALLY important. Morally, ethically, logically, yes. Just not LEGALLY, right here, right now.

That's right, it isn't legally important, that's the way the law works. Oral contracts are also legally binding in many places. So while they may not have a signed piece of paper, the verbal consent given to take the photos is a contract to create those works.

If you don't think the law regarding photography has changed since 1814, then I'd have to say you were mistaken. All the laws that govern this case have changed dramatically since the invention of photography and they continue to evolve at different paces and in different directions depending on the jurisdiction. It is quite possible that the laws covering this area in America will change, but even more likely that courts will interpret existing laws in light of new technology as they have done in many cases, including this one in Germany.

It's changed, but an author's right to their own work has pretty much always been tantamount. This is a dangerous road to travel for art.

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." -- John Wooden