41–50 of 65 posts
Maybe a line can be drawn... Design kits for viruses come to mind. But even then, it's a fine line, and history has shown once a mechanism is in place to outlaw something it will be extended and abused to apply to things that were not originally targeted.
On a completely tangential matter, I have a feeling this is going to be another one of that laws that cost a lot of money and have little to no effect... at least positive effect.
If hacking tools are outlawed, then only outlaws will have hacking tools. Meaning if you're a software developer or system admin in the EU, you better be on standby 24/7 to combat 0-day exploits.
I find myself quite torn by this statement, because while I dont think hacking tools should be illegal, this is the exact same argument pro-gun people make, and i'm quite anti-gun (I'm from UK). Then again, in America drug paraphernalia is illegal but in the UK its not and i personally dont think you should be locked up for having a bong because theoretically you might only use it for tobacco. Anyway, personally i'm…
Bongs are legal in the US. You just can't advertise them for use with pot. They are sold as water pipes.
If hacking tools are outlawed, then only outlaws will have hacking tools. Meaning if you're a software developer or system admin in the EU, you better be on standby 24/7 to combat 0-day exploits.
I find myself quite torn by this statement, because while I dont think hacking tools should be illegal, this is the exact same argument pro-gun people make, and i'm quite anti-gun (I'm from UK). Then again, in America drug paraphernalia is illegal but in the UK its not and i personally dont think you should be locked up for having a bong because theoretically you might only use it for tobacco. Anyway, personally i'm…
Mexico might be a good if rather simplistic "gun" analogy. Tons of illegal weapons flowing over from the U.S., arming drug runners and other criminals who are terrorizing (hmm, I suddenly realize the additional nuances that that word carries these days) the general population.
Back to computers: You can't make secure systems without having appropriate tools and research at your disposal. And we've yet to see any security effectively "legislated", especially world-wide.
So, make the jobs of those who are effective difficult or impossible -- or highly restricted and privileged through special sanctioning and/or the requirement of having very significant capital, investment, and influence -- while gaining no real security advantage. Yeah, that sounds like a good plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find myself quite torn by this statement, because while I dont think hacking tools should be illegal, this is the exact same argument pro-gun people make, and i'm quite anti-gun (I'm from UK). Then again, in America drug paraphernalia is illegal but in the UK its not and i personally dont think you should be locked up for having a bong because theoretically you might only use it for tobacco. Anyway, personally i'm…
There is a pretty easy philosophical workaround for your unease. Support banning doing things, not having things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a pretty easy philosophical workaround for your unease. Support banning doing things, not having things.
What about having things that can only be used for doing things that are banned?
Of course, your milage may vary. I also support repealing intoxicated driving laws, since I reason that reckless driving laws already cover that sort of behavior. For reasons that I don't really understand myself, people tend to think I'm off my rocker there too ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a pretty easy philosophical workaround for your unease. Support banning doing things, not having things.
Pretty easy, and superficially appealing, but I find that there must surely be exceptions to a rule such as this. Nuclear weapons (and similarly, some chemical weapons) are the obvious special case. Edit: reminded reading a comment below that child pr0n is another one that the general moral consensus has problems with (I refer to the 'consensus' not because I think it is always correct but simply as it provides cases…
These sorts of laws need to include exceptions for tools that have a non-criminal purpose. Otherwise, a broad reading could include things like NetCat, Curl, and Apache Bench.
Which would render the whole shebang useless. All tools used for breaking into computers have legitimate uses for security professionals, not the least of which is penetration testing.