Could Slashdot (Or Other Private Entity) Sue a Spy Agency Like GCHQ Or NSA? 188
Nerval's Lobster writes "When the GCHQ agency (Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency) reportedly decided to infiltrate the IT network of Belgian telecommunications firm Belgacom, it relied on a sophisticated version of a man-in-the-middle attack, in which it directed its targets' computers to fake, malware-riddled versions of Slashdot and LinkedIn. If the attack could be proven without a doubt, would the GCHQ—or any similar spy agency engaging in the same sort of behavior—be liable for violating trademarks or copyrights, since a key part of its attack would necessitate the appropriation of intellectual property such as logos and content? We asked someone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation about that, and received a somewhat dispiriting answer. "From a trademark perspective, if a company uses another company's marks/logos to deceive, there may be a trademark claim," said Corynne McSherry, the EFF's Intellectual Property Director. "But it's complicated a bit by two problems: (1) the fact that while there may be confusion, it's not necessarily related to the actual purchase of any goods and services; and (2) multiple TM laws are in play here—for example UK trademark law may have different exceptions and limitations." McSherry also addressed other issues, including governments' doctrine of sovereign immunity."
Sue them... (Score:5, Insightful)
And magically drugs appear inside your house plus pictures of you fondling kids.
No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sue them... (Score:5, Insightful)
A trademark claim might not be the best (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:THIS WOULDN'T HAPPEN WITH A HOSTS FILE! (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL, hosts file wouldn't save you, the national-intelligence-level threats are tapping straight into the wire so you continue to access the same IP address everyone else does, but only in your case does it go to their server.