Anti-Piracy Video Masquerades As Anti-Malware Education And Is Filled With Lies
from the trust-goes-both-ways dept
As some of you may be aware, Safer Internet Day just passed. Started in the EU, the day is supposed to be used to educate the masses on some dangers that are tangentially or directly connected to the internet, such as malware awareness, cyberbullying, or abuses on social media sites. It's also heavily supported by the Industry Trust for IP Awareness, which is a UK entertainment industry group that chiefly looks to "educate" the public on how super-awesome copyright is in every respect and how piracy and copyright infringement are the work of Satan.
In a video titled... and I can't believe I'm going to actually type this... Meet the Malwares, viewers in Australia are "educated" on exactly zero specific malware threats, but they are told that filesharing sites should be avoided completely. And if you're thinking that there are a ton of other parts of the internet that are far riskier, rest assured that the video insists it's all about file sharing sites.
What really caught our eye, however, is the statement that pirate sites are the most used propagation method for malware. “Did you know, the number one way we infect your device is via illegal pirate sites,” an animated piece of malware claims in the video.
Forget about email attachments, spam links, compromised servers, or even network attacks. Pirate sites are the number one spot through which malware spreads. According to the video at least. But where do they get this knowledge?
As far as anyone can tell, the people behind the video just made this up. The Industry Trust for IP Awareness claimed that this was based on a paper from 2014, except nobody can find these figures in the paper either. The closest thing in that paper is the claim that illicit streaming websites for copyrighted content were the number one source for malware as 97% of them contain something malicious. But that claim was based on another unpublished study, and that unpublished paper's actual claim was that out of thirty pirate sites researched "90% contained malware or other potentially unwanted programmes." These unwanted programs include such everyday annoyances as popup ads. In other words, this whole response reads like a grade-schooler's made-up bibliography.
And none of that gets us even close to pirate sites being the number one way that malware spreads. The folks over at Malwarebytes, who know a thing or two on this topic, helpfully chimed in.
“These days, most common infections come from malicious spam campaigns and drive-by exploit attacks,” Adam Kujawa, Director of Malware Intelligence at Malwarebytes informs us.
“Torrent sites are still frequently used by criminals to host malware disguised as something the user wants, like an application, movie, etc. However they are really only a threat to people who use torrent sites regularly and those people have likely learned how to avoid malicious torrents,” he adds.
Kujawa goes on to summarize that the claim in the video about pirate sites is generally inaccurate. Which, you know, lies about malware aren't really a great look from an organization with the stated mission of educating the public on malware. While you may not want to learn how to avoid malware, you should learn not to bother with any nonsense coming from the Industry Trust for IP Awareness.
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: anti-malware, anti-piracy, copyright, education, malware, piracy, propaganda, safer internet day
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is why you should not trust malware. Animated or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best computer security measure is an ad blcoker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having made NO study at all, YOU are definitely just making it up. -- Do you think the target audience will heed better with a study that'd meet your requirement for absolute proof? Or should a warning be in no uncertain terms?
Because you and your (merely assertive) "authority" MUST admit that torrent sites are a LIKELY source. You are at most only arguing where in a list to rank the risks.
Is it better that people get caught by, say, a 10% chance than a 12%? -- NO, the computer is still 100% compromised.
The choice is between WARN of KNOWN LIKELY RISKS, or blithely NOT warn. There's no middle ground as you imply.
But seems your and Techdirt's interests somehow are in saying that torrent sites and the stolen software on them is safe! -- Why do you at all imply that when EVERY authority agrees that's 100% percent FALSE?
Next STORY. You are entirely in the wrong on this, due to your piratey bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having made NO study at all, YOU are definitely just making it up. -- Do you think the target audience will heed better with a study that'd meet your requirement for absolute proof? Or should a warning be in no uncertain terms?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having made NO study at all, YOU are definitely just making it up. -- Do you think the target audience will heed better with a study that'd meet your requirement for absolute proof? Or should a warning be in no uncertain terms?
Maybe we need a flag for "Delusional"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is why we have the “Funny” vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, you know, warn people of likely risks beyond just visiting “pirate sites”—like, say, malicious advertising or behind-the-scenes cryptocurrency mining. Just because “pirate sites” are the most likely source of malware does not mean they are the only source; concentrating on them and ignoring other, possibly more insidious sources does no one any favors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just because “pirate sites” are the most likely source of malware does not mean they are the only source; concentrating on them and ignoring other, possibly more insidious sources does no one any favors.
Not so, it's quite favorable for those spinning malware education into anti-copyright infringement propaganda by giving them another whack at trying to portray torrent sites as evil dens of sin and villainy, such that even visiting one will cause your computer to explode and your hair to fall out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having made NO study at all, YOU are definitely just making it up. -- Do you think the target audience will heed better with a study that'd meet your requirement for absolute proof? Or should a warning be in no uncertain terms?
Torrents are bad.
Torrents are bad.
Wrenches are bad.
Torrents are ..
You're mamma is rad.
Propaganda is essential.
What?
Break glass, pull handle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Having made NO study at all, YOU are definitely just making it up. -- Do you think the target audience will heed better with a study that'd meet your requirement for absolute proof? Or should a warning be in no uncertain terms?
..Well, damn. I guess my sense makes as you, then, or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Having made NO study at all, YOU are definitely just making it up. -- Do you think the target audience will heed better with a study that'd meet your requirement for absolute proof? Or should a warning be in no uncertain terms?
Warning that the people who pirate will ignore. As ever, you'd be better served getting your corporate friends to streamline copyright and make it easier to get content legally rather than deliberately fragmenting and overcharging the market than you are lying about the words everyone can read for themselves.
"saying that torrent sites and the stolen software on them is safe"
Who is saying that? Not the Techdirt that exists in this reality, and we don't have visibility of whatever alternate dimension your mental illness has created for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, "generally inaccurate" is not a lie.
For instance: " And if you're thinking that there are a ton of other parts of the internet that are far riskier," is "generally inaccurate". The riskiest part of the internet is whatever site you're on. -- Right now for me, that's Techdirt. -- Advising to avoid all known risks might be better, but there's NO way to rank them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, not really
“Did you know, the number one way we infect your device is via illegal pirate sites,”
That for one. They're not claiming that torrent sites are risky, they are claiming that they are the most risky source of malware online, and given how they came to that conclusion at best it's a baseless assertion, if not a flat out lie if they knew that it was based upon empty air.
But hey, no need to take my word for it, how about people who's job it is to deal with malware?
“These days, most common infections come from malicious spam campaigns and drive-by exploit attacks,” Adam Kujawa, Director of Malware Intelligence at Malwarebytes informs us.
(Also, thanks for the laugh in trying to undermine the credibility of an actual authority on malware and how it most often spreads, in defense of a a group merely pretending to be an authority on the subject in a laughably obvious attempt to co-opt internet safety education into anti-copyright infringement propaganda.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also, "generally inaccurate" is not a lie.
I used to get way to high too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also, "generally inaccurate" is not a lie.
It would be better for everyone if it wasn't. Especially you.
"Advising to avoid all known risks might be better, but there's NO way to rank them."
So, you admit that you *don't* know if the pirate sites are any more dangerous than other sites? Hmmm...
[ 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 ]
Anti-piracy video ... filled with lies.
I mean - if you'd have video with some scientific backing, citing some research, ... wouldn't it be immediately declared by MPAA/RIAA as pro-piracy, misguided, or flawed (with 'what about children' on the top)?
They are, after all, under siege (so what if imaginary?), so any dissent means treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lesson here is very clear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The lesson here is very clear
If you see piracy . . . duck and cover!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I'm not on board with mis-educating the public on IPR I don't have rose-tinted specs on where pirate sites are concerned. There's got to be a way for them to spot and get rid of the malware uploaded by their users, if only to keep other people on board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think anyone is saying that there aren't dangerous files on torrent sites, just that saying that they are the number one source of malware is a flat out lie, and ignores much more likely sources in a blatant attempt at vilifying torrent sites in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adblockers
How many times have we seen legitimate sites become the unwitting delivery system for malware simply because they use a "trusted" service like doubleclick?
Yet there's no mention that people can get infected this way?
And did the video talk about Flash ads that contain malware and that Flash should be disabled for safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for the topic! Interesting point of view! I was writing an article on the piracy topic for the UK's writing service (on their website you can find a lot of topics) and I consider that pirate sites are the controversial theme to discuss... there are pros and cons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]