McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

https://torrentfreak.com/mcafee-patents-technology-to-detect-and-block-pirated-content-130424/

 

My question would be how exactly is this related to malware protection? I mean yes, there could be malware inside of a Zip or RAR that is downloaded from a Warez or torrent site. But to block me from going to that site at all? It's none of their damn business. Is McAfee the self appointed piracy police? I don't care what side of the software piracy issue you are on. I still have a right to go there. This seems outside the bounds of malware protection and is closer to an act of censorship by McAfee. Does anyone else agree? I think legally this could be a very slippery slope for McAfee. I would love to see a massive boycott of their products to send a message.

 

Why would any company do this, everyone now-days pirates movies and videos. Its a fact of life, and some people from some countries have favorite shows they literally can't watch without pirating (No DVD/Netflix/Download/TV). McAfee will loose all of their single user market base. Mcafee has questionable detection rates as it is, why would you also limit the product that way. Its asking for trouble.

 

This doesn't bother me really. McAfee can't really do anything that ISPs themselves already can't do, and, if you don't use any of their software, it's powerless. Really all it is is a DNS service provided by McAfee and looks to work exactly the same as Norton DNS and others. It even evidently will let you bypass it, making it completely toothless unless set up in a corporate environment and configured not to (or parental controls at home).

If the Pirate Bay can avoid permanent shutdowns by international authorities and can't be blocked for more than a week or two from access, McAfee isn't going to be able to do it either with this system. It's just another vain attempt to stop piracy, it has nothing to do with protecting anybody but McAfee.

 

On the surface, I agree with you...BUT....

My guess is, while this won't be a huge hit with many "individual" PC users (and especially with "younger" folks)...this will likely be a HUGE hit with businesses. I could see their "Enterprise" software sales increasing big time as a result of this. After all, while individual consumers might want to download pirated material....my guess is that most corporations probably don't want their employees tempted to do the same.

That said, this seems like a feature that they should have incorporated in to their "Enterprise" software rather than individuals.

 

Just to add to what JRCATES already mentioned - McAfee is business oriented company, most clients are business users and McAfee is widely used among big corporations. Most companies have strict policies against piracy and pirated things - this will improve this. This is mostly small and big businesses related feature.

 

I personally have no problem with that, probably because I'm not using warez/torrent sites. And with that said, if you or anyone else want to visit a particular site add it to your AV's exclusion list (if you're using an AV) and you will be able to access the site just fine, while me and everyone else that don't have any interests in looking for, or using stuff like that can keep the protection in place. That's my view on this

 

I don't imagine that this will work very well in practice, and legitimate sites will get blocked since it's based on SiteAdvisor. However to be fair, I just looked at the rating for a few sites on SiteAdvisor, and while the sites in question had been given a lot of red ratings by users, SiteAdvisor did correctly give the sites geen ratings.

 

The problem is that you cannot add a site that McAfee designates as unsafe/illegal consumption of content, by adding it to the McAfee exclusion list. If it were that simple this would not be an issue. You have no problem with what McAfee wants to do because you do not frequent the types of websites that will get blocked. I don't frequent those sites either, but I don't want McAfee telling you, me or anyone else where you can go online. How does that have anything to do with producing and selling AV software? Would you not defend my right even if you feel this does not apply to you? This is exactly how the governments & corporations (I know they're one in the same) erode your personal freedoms. They do it a little bit at a time and in the world we live in today, they sell it as protection. They sell it as being for your own good.

I think JRCATES hit the nail on the head:

 

will never use a av that has this type of thing and its not at all because i download these types of things its due to the fact i dont need any other thing or person or software policing me or my browsing regardless. this is seriously out of hand today and its been stated by producers and directors as well as shown at the box office by the numbers that (and i do not condone this) pirating actually in the end helps the movies and artists to get the content out there. i can say i know a LOT of people who will download a movie or album and watch or listen to it and IF they like it will go out and actually BUY it, the only reason the mpaa and riaa are so worried about getting their money from people is because the artist gets almost NOTHING from the sales where the recording companies take it all home. maybe just mo but this whole mess today is a bunch of bs. another reason why mcafee will NEVER be found on any system i own or recc by us at our shop.

 

McAfee would loss many consumer level customers lol They may want to rethink that.

 

I don't think people should assume that one can't alter the settings for their own system.

If it's not a system you control, then what right do you have to complain that it's harder to download content that violates copyright? Do that stuff at home.

 

Hmm I didn't know that, that's wrong of course. One shouldn't need to turn of the whole AV to be able to visit a site that they are blocking. If you want to visit then you should be able to as long as you add it to the exclusions. But no one should come back afterwards and say that they got infected because of the added exclusion, that is their own fault

Sure I defend your right, and my right too for that matter. But if there indeed is malware on the site then they are basically doing their job and protecting their customers by preventing them from visiting the site. Though one can always discuss whether they should block access to the whole site or not

 

A pirate website most probably contains lots of infected files, among many more clean files. That doesn't mean the website should be blocked. If you get infected through piracy, you're an idiot.