5 ms·

Everything is a hacking tool. Every programming language and every pre-existing piece of software, every computer and every phone is a potential hacking tool. T

Everything is a hacking tool. Every programming language and every pre-existing piece of software, every computer and every phone is a potential hacking tool. Thought itself is the biggest hacking tool. How are these fucking morons going to define legally what is and isn't a "hacking tool"?

neilk 14y ago
The law has no trouble at all making fuzzy distinctions. They are attempting to keep the peace, not make orthogonal cuts into reality. We programmers need absolute clarity because our systems are executed by machines with no insight. But in other fields where humans execute rules, everyone else just shrugs and deals with little inconsistencies, or make meta-rules about judging "intent", that sort of thing.
- tripzilch 14y ago
  > The law has no trouble at all making fuzzy distinctions. Actually, in most of Europe it does. While the US, UK and Ireland's legal system is based on "Common Law", most of Europe uses "Civil Law", where the primary source of law is the law code, which is a systematic collection of interrelated articles that explain the principles of law, rights and entitlements, and how basic legal mechanisms work. Of course there's still a lot of room for interpretation and pragmatics, but the point is that right from the start, you try to get your definitions down as clear as possible. It's quite interesting to see how the fundamentals of our legal systems actually differ. I decided to look this up for the first time because at some point I read some thread where some US people were actively discussing interpretation of your Constitution or the Bill of Rights, as to whether something fairly trivial to define could be ruled or not--might even have had to do with the right to bear arms, but the specifics aren't important. I was just amazed that this centuries-old document was seriously being "consulted" as if somewhere between the lines would appear some sort of hidden meaning--except it was pretty obvious that the final decision would rest with the interpretation and political ideas of whatever judge got to rule it. Which completely amazed me, it's one thing if somnewhere, in some obscure corner of fiscal tax laws some particular exception to a rule isn't defined unambiguously, but the big-to-medium picture of the law is not supposed to be up for interpretation! Except in the US, or more precisely in Common Law legal systems, that's pretty much the idea. I'm not saying it's bad BTW, it's just different. And I'm just commenting on how surprised I was that there's other ways (in democratic countries) than to strictly codify your laws. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#2._Common_law_legal_systems_as_opposed_to_civil_law_legal_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#2._Common_law_legal_... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)
aes256 14y ago
This is 'hacking' a la the popular meaning of the term (gaining unauthorised entry to a computer system), not the definition adopted by self-described 'hackers'. Think port scanners, password crackers, vulnerability identification and exploitation tools. Any reasonable person would consider these to be 'hacking tools', and that's all a legal system needs for a definition.
- Craiggybear 14y ago
  "Think port scanners, password crackers, vulnerability identification and exploitation tools. Any reasonable person would consider these to be 'hacking tools'" But, once again, these are all perfectly legitimate system engineering tools and are essential for hardening commercial or government or military sites, for example. You can't make something secure unless you know how easy or hard it will be to get past that. It is like making dynamite illegal for civil engineers or morphine forbidden to medical practitioners or hammers and chisels denied to cabinet makers because they might hurt themselves. Ridiculous!
  - aes256 14y ago
    > It is like making dynamite illegal for civil engineers or morphine forbidden to medical practitioners or hammers and chisels denied to cabinet makers because they might hurt themselves. Ridiculous! Described in those terms, what would you say to an exception that permitted possession by authorised information security personnel? That's akin to the legislation we have in the UK with regards to explosives and controlled substances.
    - Craiggybear 14y ago
      There are no legal definitions for being a programmer. There are for being a medical practitioner or a civil engineer. Only practising doctors who are certified to practice may prescribe. Only legally certified civil engineers who after prerequisite training and certification are permitted to handle high explosives and blow things up. Having a degree alone in either of those two professions does most certainly NOT on its own qualify you to do either. Or anything much. So maybe a bad example. But that's a whole different argument. At present it is "programmers" (self-taught or academic or industrially trained) who make things and routinely test them for hardness. You can't suddenly invent rules that say only certain types of programmer may use and deploy "hacking" tools. That won't work because there is no defined path to test suitability or career fitness in the majority of people who define themselves as "programmers". Too broad a church. Too many disciplines and areas of specialisation. And too few people qualified to legitimately or meaningfully assess that either way. Or are we going to say, for example, only Microsoft Certified Pros are allowed to test? God in heaven forbid! Reputation (from both peers and clients) and demonstrated output that works is the only test for whether someone is a good or bad (read, fit or unfit) programmer. And no, in answer to your question, we don't allow only certain government regulated individuals to have legal access to perfectly ordinary systems analysis tools. They are probably the last people you want doing it.
zalew 14y ago
> How are these fucking morons going to define legally what is and isn't a "hacking tool"? They won't. They'll just use the broad qualifications to opress the ones they don't feel comfortable with.
- Craiggybear 14y ago
  Ah, of course. How stupid of me to think that they would have an empirical definition or set of legal definitions that actually was robust and made coherent sense. Why bother with the hard stuff when opinionated prejudice gets you where you want to go?
JVirissimo 14y ago
All the materials to build a firearm can be obtained from most large hardware stores.

neilk 14y ago

The law has no trouble at all making fuzzy distinctions. They are attempting to keep the peace, not make orthogonal cuts into reality. We programmers need absolute clarity because our systems are executed by machines with no insight. But in other fields where humans execute rules, everyone else just shrugs and deals with little inconsistencies, or make meta-rules about judging "intent", that sort of thing.

tripzilch 14y ago
> The law has no trouble at all making fuzzy distinctions. Actually, in most of Europe it does. While the US, UK and Ireland's legal system is based on "Common Law", most of Europe uses "Civil Law", where the primary source of law is the law code, which is a systematic collection of interrelated articles that explain the principles of law, rights and entitlements, and how basic legal mechanisms work. Of course there's still a lot of room for interpretation and pragmatics, but the point is that right from the start, you try to get your definitions down as clear as possible. It's quite interesting to see how the fundamentals of our legal systems actually differ. I decided to look this up for the first time because at some point I read some thread where some US people were actively discussing interpretation of your Constitution or the Bill of Rights, as to whether something fairly trivial to define could be ruled or not--might even have had to do with the right to bear arms, but the specifics aren't important. I was just amazed that this centuries-old document was seriously being "consulted" as if somewhere between the lines would appear some sort of hidden meaning--except it was pretty obvious that the final decision would rest with the interpretation and political ideas of whatever judge got to rule it. Which completely amazed me, it's one thing if somnewhere, in some obscure corner of fiscal tax laws some particular exception to a rule isn't defined unambiguously, but the big-to-medium picture of the law is not supposed to be up for interpretation! Except in the US, or more precisely in Common Law legal systems, that's pretty much the idea. I'm not saying it's bad BTW, it's just different. And I'm just commenting on how surprised I was that there's other ways (in democratic countries) than to strictly codify your laws. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#2._Common_law_legal_systems_as_opposed_to_civil_law_legal_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#2._Common_law_legal_... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

aes256 14y ago

This is 'hacking' a la the popular meaning of the term (gaining unauthorised entry to a computer system), not the definition adopted by self-described 'hackers'. Think port scanners, password crackers, vulnerability identification and exploitation tools. Any reasonable person would consider these to be 'hacking tools', and that's all a legal system needs for a definition.

Craiggybear 14y ago
"Think port scanners, password crackers, vulnerability identification and exploitation tools. Any reasonable person would consider these to be 'hacking tools'" But, once again, these are all perfectly legitimate system engineering tools and are essential for hardening commercial or government or military sites, for example. You can't make something secure unless you know how easy or hard it will be to get past that. It is like making dynamite illegal for civil engineers or morphine forbidden to medical practitioners or hammers and chisels denied to cabinet makers because they might hurt themselves. Ridiculous!
- aes256 14y ago
  > It is like making dynamite illegal for civil engineers or morphine forbidden to medical practitioners or hammers and chisels denied to cabinet makers because they might hurt themselves. Ridiculous! Described in those terms, what would you say to an exception that permitted possession by authorised information security personnel? That's akin to the legislation we have in the UK with regards to explosives and controlled substances.
  - Craiggybear 14y ago
    There are no legal definitions for being a programmer. There are for being a medical practitioner or a civil engineer. Only practising doctors who are certified to practice may prescribe. Only legally certified civil engineers who after prerequisite training and certification are permitted to handle high explosives and blow things up. Having a degree alone in either of those two professions does most certainly NOT on its own qualify you to do either. Or anything much. So maybe a bad example. But that's a whole different argument. At present it is "programmers" (self-taught or academic or industrially trained) who make things and routinely test them for hardness. You can't suddenly invent rules that say only certain types of programmer may use and deploy "hacking" tools. That won't work because there is no defined path to test suitability or career fitness in the majority of people who define themselves as "programmers". Too broad a church. Too many disciplines and areas of specialisation. And too few people qualified to legitimately or meaningfully assess that either way. Or are we going to say, for example, only Microsoft Certified Pros are allowed to test? God in heaven forbid! Reputation (from both peers and clients) and demonstrated output that works is the only test for whether someone is a good or bad (read, fit or unfit) programmer. And no, in answer to your question, we don't allow only certain government regulated individuals to have legal access to perfectly ordinary systems analysis tools. They are probably the last people you want doing it.

zalew 14y ago

> How are these fucking morons going to define legally what is and isn't a "hacking tool"? They won't. They'll just use the broad qualifications to opress the ones they don't feel comfortable with.

Craiggybear 14y ago
Ah, of course. How stupid of me to think that they would have an empirical definition or set of legal definitions that actually was robust and made coherent sense. Why bother with the hard stuff when opinionated prejudice gets you where you want to go?

JVirissimo 14y ago

All the materials to build a firearm can be obtained from most large hardware stores.