Sheriff Slams EFF As 'Not Credible,' Insists ComputerCOP Isn't Malware & Would Have Stopped Columbine
from the say-what? dept
Okay, so we thought the response from San Diego's District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis was pretty bad to the revelations about ComputerCOP. After all, she was responding to the news that she had purchased and distributed dangerous spyware masquerading as software to "protect the children" -- and the best she could come up with was that her "security" people still thought it would protect kids? But apparently Damanis has nothing on Sheriff Mike Blakely of Limestone County, Alabama.Blakely, in a bit of unfortunate timing, just announced that his department had purchased 5,000 copies of the spyware earlier this week, so perhaps it's understandable that this "perfect election and fundraising tool" might actually turn into something of a liability. But Blakely's not going down without a fight. When presented with the news that he's proudly handing out tools that are making the children he's supposed to be protecting less safe, Blakely went with an ad hom the messenger approach, attacking EFF's credibility, and calling them "liberals."
Blakely referred to the EFF criticism politics as an "Ultra-liberal organization that is not in any way credible on this. They're more interested in protecting predators and pedophiles than in protecting our children."Anyone even remotely familiar with EFF recognizes that basically every word in that statement is ridiculous, but what are you going to do? The idea that EFF isn't credible on security issues is laugh out loud funny (and, indeed, despite attending a conference and being in a room full of people, I literally laughed out loud upon reading it). However, Blakely insists his IT people are sure the software's fine:
"We have had the key logger checked out with our IT people. They have run it on our computer system." He said. "There is no malware."Reread that a few times. "We had the key logger checked out... there is no malware." Dude. A keylogger is malware. That's what it does. From the description here, it sounds like his "IT people" ran some anti-malware software on the computer they installed ComputerCOP on, and because it didn't flag it, they insist it's not malware. But a keylogger is malware by definition. And the fact that this malware happens to pass unencrypted text, including passwords and credit card numbers, over the internet makes it really, really bad.
But don't tell that to Sheriff Blakely. He insists that ComputerCOP might have stopped Columbine. I'm not joking.
On the phone Wednesday he added "There are some parents out in Columbine Colorado, if they had this kind of software, things would have turned out differently."That comment is so off it defies a coherent response.
Meanwhile, I'm sure that Sheriff Blakely's "IT People" are trustworthy, given that his website looks like it was designed in 1997 and hasn't been touched since. It even has a visitor counter and a "this site best viewed in Internet Explorer" badge. I'm not joking. And a scroll. The only thing it's missing is an under construction gif and the blink tag:
You are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way, the content of these web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the site webmaster.And there's a copyright notice below it. Of course, anyone who views the website has copied, downloaded, stored and transmitted the webpage in some manner -- so, I'm not quite sure what to do other than to say, that most of those demands are completely bogus and not based on any actual law. As for the copyright -- well, while technically only federal government works are exempt from copyright, and state and local governments can get a copyright in some fashion, it's generally not considered the appropriate role of government officials to be copyrighting official government works. Furthermore, in such cases, there would likely be a very strong presumption of fair use for a whole host of reasons.
Oh, but it gets worse. Not only are you not supposed to copy any of the text on Sheriff Blakely's website, the terms of service on his website say he might put you in jail if you do:
The unauthorized use, copy, or reproduction of any content of this site inclusive, may be punishable by both fine and imprisonment.Under what legal theory is that happening? As a sheriff, aren't you supposed to, you know, actually know what the law is? Maybe work on that before slamming the good folks at EFF while distributing dangerous spyware that makes kids less safe. And find someone who's built a website in the last decade.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: computercop, keylogger, limestone county, malware, mike blakely
Companies: computercop, eff
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Sorry, but...
The bashing on the web site's style, build, or organization detract from your point.I do not see that a web site that " looks like it was designed in 1997 and hasn't been touched since" is a security issue, or a legal threats issue, or a Loudmouth Conservative Who Lashes Out issue. Really, I couldn't give two shakes about whether the site uses CSS, or AJAX, or what. It could be written in COBOL for all I care.
It isn't the website style that is important, it's what you do with the website.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
We are now beyond the crisis of having a police state; we now have an incompetent police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
People bemoan how gridlock is preventing the federal government from getting anything done. Given the proclivities of those in power, that is the best we can hope for right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Things would be different with columbine"
He's absolutely right. People would be assuming that this actually does something, and the result would have zero effect on whether their kids were safe. So yeah, the difference would be perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Things would be different with columbine"
do you know which school system?
columbine...
that's right, THE VERY VICTIMS were smart enough to know that installing metal detectors and going full swat on the schools was NOT the right approach and only fed fuel to the fire... AFTER suffering that tragedy, they STILL had the balls to REFUSE to turn THEIR school into a prison, because they understood the ramifications of such extreme -and useless- actions...
good on you, columbinians, the only ones to show restraint and uncommon sense in the face of real horror...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheep going apeshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheriff Mike Blakely of Limestone County, Alabama
Let me predict that at some point in the next month we'll hear the same thing from Texas, the other southern bastion of ignorance and stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't that be nice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F12, the gateway drug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given the mentality of a government that absolutely must spy on it's own citizens and then turn around and claim everything is legal, I have to question if the sheriff, the San Diego District Attorney, or anyone else in law enforcement can also access that data?
Is the reason they are supporting it because otherwise they will look bad or is it this is a new method not to have to get a warrant to obtain info they shouldn't have access to otherwise?
Either way makes them not only look terrible in the eyes of the public just before voting time but the other way makes it look like there is no respect for the law at all, even though both these supporters have a job on the public dime to do so.
Add to this ignorance of what spyware does and is and you have to back up and question are these the right people to hold the jobs they are presently in? No wonder we have so many people in jails from the general population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The owners of the software and their employees
Anyone these people decide to share the data with
LEOs and other government employees, sometimes without a warrant
Anyone who breaks into the server
Anyone who gets a copy of the backups
Anyone who touches the data's route, including people working at ISPs, people who have compromised the routers, etc.
Beyond that, this software is also an attack point for malware, so you can add "anyone who is infected by OTHER malware" to that list, even though this isn't really an issue, as they can always install their own keylogger if this one's not already in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
best line from the local news coverage:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: best line from the local news coverage:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: best line from the local news coverage:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: best line from the local news coverage:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ultra-liberal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ultra-liberal?
When I see those terms used, I just mentally replace them with "asshole", since that's what's really meant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ultra-liberal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ultra-liberal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, I thought "liberals" were the interfering nanny types. Oh well, just another example showing "liberal" means "something I don't like because reasons".
Guess who else's IT security types are teh suck.
Although I would argue that a keylogger in itself is not malware, but this package as designed and as it is intended to be deployed certainly is. If nothing else, it is very badly designed software that is unsafe at any speed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Real conservatives" are against change in values and economy. If a change is needed it has to happen slowly or to preserve the existing.
Reactionaries are for change towards how things were in the "good old days", both in terms of values and in terms of legislation.
Socialists are for change towards more equality in society.
Now, in a time of internationalism the words get twisted and turned to serve as a negative or positive thing, but in reality neither actually holds true if you go to the core ideological reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the way, where's that IT guy? And why is my bank account empty...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pedophile and terrorist cards...
Remember that the USENET alt.* heirarchy was named not after alternative but as an acronym for Anarchists, Lunatics, and Terrorists, the folks in most need of free speech, recognizing that if a place was free enough for them to talk, that the rest of us could do so.
Thanks to 9/11, and thanks to the 1990s pedo scare (really a media bonanza after the 70s Satanic Ritual Abuse panic), the joke has earned something of a too soon status, so you can't endorse TOR or any other popular crypto the way alt.* was endorsed, but the idea is the same: If a tool is used by persecuted sexual fetishists and unpopular policitial ideological activists to discuss their trades, it's probably safe enough to keep your companys ledgers safe from the prying eyes of rival companies... or from government agencies who would give your data to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law abiding Sheriff
Sheriff Blakeley (I presume elected) has chosen to electively enforce laws. What other laws does he enforce, or elect not to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law abiding Sheriff
He's giving it to people to put on their own computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's look at the source code...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's look at the source code...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's look at the source code...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's look at the source code...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's look at the source code...
No, it says "these guys are trying to tell us how technology works, but their public face bears no relationship to modern technology". Given that this is all the direct access most people would have with them outside of their direct jurisdiction, it's not a good sign.
It would be like someone telling you how to use typography, or how you should be taking care of your front lawn. It wouldn't be out or order to point out that their latest ad campaign was hideous or that their frontage looks like it was transported straight from the Amazon.
If that was the *only* argument, then fair enough. But, there's plenty of other things to address at the same time - the website just gives us a quick view as to how serious about technology they really are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's look at the source code...
Considering part of the article was concerning the technical competence of his IT people, I think it was entirely appropriate and I stand by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's look at the source code...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's look at the source code...
even though i am first in line to mercilessly mock my adversaries (and my allies, too, actually, hhh), i *kind of* agree with you here...
there is enough to not like about the situation that getting snarky about the web site design is kind of piling on...
on the other paw, i see the point of the situation, where THEY are claiming technological expertise, and then have crap web sites...
so, perhaps there is a moral reason to excoriate them for that, but i think to non-techies it could seem petty and/or besides the point (even if it isn't)...
rhetorically: justified; tactically: perhaps offputting
just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's look at the source code...
IT Guys: Wait, you can do that!? I thought I compiled that website! You must have violated the CFAA for unauthorized access to a computer system!
Rest of Internet: /facepalm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You all seem to have missed the best part
Or do I get this wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You all seem to have missed the best part
I bet this is done by most police departments who try this out, too. That's got to be one treasure trove ComputerCOP's sitting on. I wonder how many departments forget to remove the software after testing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You all seem to have missed the best part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You all seem to have missed the best part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You all seem to have missed the best part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You all seem to have missed the best part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wonder if the local government gets a kickback from the company for all installs done in their remit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
besides, as you mention, MERELY the 'private' korporations who collect this shit, are -in some ways- MORE worrisome than gummint entities since they are not (THEORETICALLY) restrained in some of their usage and dissemination as (THEORETICALLY) gummint agencies would be...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
So, that would fall into the Office 2003 range...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, but...
I do not see that a web site that " looks like it was designed in 1997 and hasn't been touched since" is a security issue, or a legal threats issue, or a Loudmouth Conservative Who Lashes Out issue. Really, I couldn't give two shakes about whether the site uses CSS, or AJAX, or what. It could be written in COBOL for all I care.
It isn't the website style that is important, it's what you do with the website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, but...
It is if the same era operating system is powering it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry, but...
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.limestonesheriff.com/
They have less than a year before support on their is OS is dropped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, but...
Thats how that section is prefaced. To me, as a citizen, that website shows a lack of *current* technical skills. Since we're talking about security, anything but current is anything but secure.
It doesn't distract, it makes the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, but...
So if you're releasing a product that has security implications, like one with a freaking keylogger built-in, it had better be up-to-date with the latest security protocols. The fact that the company either hasn't updated or is still using tools from before 2003 does not bode well for the actual software they're creating.
Web design is easy compared to software development, and they put zero effort into it. Let me ask you something...if you were to bring your valuables into a bank, and they didn't have an ATM, they told you they couldn't accept debit cards because they didn't have any readers, they were using typewriters behind the counter, and they locked the front door with a chain, would you keep your money there? Or would you argue that the bank's lack of modernization doesn't detract from their security, it's what they do with it that's important?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, but...
It's like saying you have a degree in mathematics, then as proof of you knowing what you're talking about you bring out a counting exercise from your days in kindergarten, drawn in crayon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, but...
It indicates a strong probability that there are major security issues. If the page hasn't changed since '97, that means that their IT department is not terribly interested in maintaining their stuff. Unmaintained stuff is a major security problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caught!
Now, there's 2 things they can do. Either get angry that they were misled (which is an admission they are gullible), or keep insisting that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong (which is an admission they are thick).
But neither is going to remedy that they look stupid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*clears figurative throat*
Sheriff Blakely, I have violated your so-called "Terms of Use" by using the preceding text, your name, and the words, "Terms of Use". I live outside of your jurisdiction. Happy hunting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's because you don't understand securi...wait! Is that you Sheriff Blakely? Or one of your "IT specialists?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
0_o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 0_o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sherriff Barney Fife
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On second Thought
Hey sheriff how about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EFF should sue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How I imagine the Sheriff's statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
License to Kill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: License to Kill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF
Defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They had top men on the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's just cut to the core; Gov. monitored cameras in all house's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]