UK Law May Criminalize IT Pros

An anonymous reader writes "More worrying news from the UK. This time, a bill meant to fight cybercrime may make it illegal to use or make available network security tools available, just because they could be used by hackers." From the article: "Clayton cited the Perl scripting language, created by Larry Wall in 1987, as an example of a useful technology that could fall foul of the law. 'Perl is almost universally used on a daily basis to permit the Internet to function,' said Clayton. 'I doubt if there is a sysadmin on the planet who hasn't written a Perl program at some time or another. Equally, almost every hacker who commits an offense under section 1 or section 3 of the CMA will use Perl as part of their toolkit. Unless Larry is especially stupid, and there is very little evidence for that, he will form the opinion that hackers are likely to use his Perl system. Locking Larry up is surely not desirable.'" A note that this is equally confusing but separate from yesterday's story about the UK government wanting private encryption keys.

Comments

Do I see a pattern?

[alx5000]

From the country that criminalized privacy:

Let's convict Perl users.

I also heard that something called TPC or TCP is widely used by hax0rs to pwn remote servers. Wait till the UK Government can get their hands on it...

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[DarkShadeChaos]

So basically IT security experts can't test their own networks? I'm sure that will go a long way towards making the Internet more secure! Yeah I see a pattern, it's called ineffective and ignorant legislation... it seems to be quite popular these days.

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[Tackhead]

> From the country that criminalized privacy:
>
>Let's convict Perl users.

First they came for the COBOL programmers, and I was silent,
Because ADD KEYSTROKES TO SYNTAX GIVING OBFUSCATION was always lame.
They they came for the BASIC programmers, and I was silent,
Because I considered GOTO harmful,
Then they came for the C++ programmers, and I was silent,
Because I could still write FORTRAN in any language,
Then they came for the Perl programmers, and now the only way I can win an obfuscated programming contest is to write it in APL.

(First they ignore you, then they fight you, then they mock you, then they come for the Brainf*ck programmers and their heads explode.)

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[arivanov]

Applause.

Though frankly, the parallel between the story of Rev. Martin Niemoller and the direction where El Presidente de partida Laborista Antonio Bliar leads the country scares the daylight s**t out of me. And not just me.

It has reached the point when I take the books written by another Blair (Eric Arthtur) in another time and put them back on the shelf. As one of my friends said recently: "Not funny mate, this is not a comedy, it is a documentary".

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[kfg]

. . .now the only way I can win an obfuscated programming contest is to write it in APL.

Wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis? APL code is intuitively obvious . . .well, if you're a mathematician who's memorized Iverson.

KFG

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[Tackhead]

And then they came for the guys who didn't close their tags, and
NO CARRIER

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[WinterSolstice]

That's it - I totally have to write a BF virus now! I knew the time I spent learning that would eventually come in handy :D

hehehe

-WS

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[sendtwogrey]

I say while we at it, round up those SQL users as there a breach of the data protection act just waiting to happen!

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[just_forget_it]

This is what happens when you have non-technically-oriented lawmakers trying to regulate technology. They'll fall for the first line of BS anyone with a lot of money and something to gain will throw at them, especially if something is "danger" to the "children."

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[Intron]

I also heard that something called TPC or TCP is widely used by hax0rs to pwn remote servers.

They don't need a law to protect TCP. It already has RFC 3514. All they need is a similar flag for perl. I think they can just overload the "-t" flag. Perl must be tainted if it is being used for criminal purposes.

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[pintpusher]

So basically IT security experts can't test their own networks?

Of course. If the security folks can test and secure their networks, then the gub'ment can't get in as easily... I'm mean come on. You can't expect the government to sit idly by and not harvest as much info as possible, can you?

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[Firehed]

If they're doing their job well, the gov't won't know what they're missing.

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[From A Far Away Land]

Dude! First they "May Criminalize IT Prose", but next it'll be IT Poetry!

A System Admin named Jody
Could code in both Perl and in C
But a quote he let slip
In a CGI script
And his output is now all wonky

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think positive. The law would prohibit Windows ("... it is likely to be [criminally] used.").

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[LandruBek]

the time I spent learning that

What, like, three, three-and-a-half minutes? :-)

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[John Frink]

Alright it's really bugging me now. What is that "First they came for ******, and I was silent" a parody of, what's the original? It's eating me up inside! (kind of an odd feeling)

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[michaelpb]

A one second Google search turned up this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
(the periods are part of the URL)

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[Jesapoo]

The worrying thing is that GCHQ would never want this to happen, ever. The government has a whole organisation there devoted to computer security, and they didn't ask what they thought...

Re:Do I see a pattern?

[FermionExpress]

I wouldn't be surprised if some idiotic politician thought that the TCP in question was trichlorophenylmethyliodisalicyl!!!

it's the nature of these tools

[yagu]

Just as these tools are useful diagnostic tools they are also handy tools for commiting crimes as described under this proposed law. That's the nature of networks and tools to manage them. To deem these tools and availability of such a crime because they could be used to commit a crime is insane.

This is akin to the recent proposal that all encryption key owners make their keys available to law enforcement. The expected eventual end result will be cautious users relinquishing valuable resources with criminals holding the trump card. This too is insane.

So, when an administrator gets the call to investigate what appears to be suspicious behavior, where do they go to troubleshoot the problem? Heck, peel away all the layers of this onion and it wouldn't be surprising to find hackers are behind this... get the government to suspend priveleges using FUD, and run rampant over the network infrastructure.

There is a hint of sanity from the article:

People who distribute networking vulnerability scanning tools such as nmap or Nessus could also be caught up in part (b), Clayton warned.

"The effect will be that people will stop offering these tools on their sites. Why should the only place to fetch Perl and nmap be from hacker sites in Eastern Europe, where the risk is that they carry Trojans? This makes the Internet less safe," argued Clayton.

I only hope the government will listen to that reasoning.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anne Thwacks]

I only hope the government will listen to that reasoning.

You obviously have not had any experience of the UK government. "Listening" and "reason" are not concepts governments in general are familiar with, and especially not the present UK government.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[rolfwind]

It's like outlawing chainsaws because they can hurt people, or forks and knives, etcetera. Some countries/areas already outlaw certain knives while allowing other, potentially just as deadly knives (chef's knives) to be carried around.

That's not to say, certain items should never be outlawed (nuclear/radioactive material), but with a proposed banning the legitimate uses have to be considered along with the illegitimate uses -- would a ban be more effective than simply punishing the specific people who harm others?

But I have a feeling that a politician/joe_public hear about hackers/programming and react reflexively without knowing much about the issue.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[MrNougat]

This is akin to the recent proposal that all encryption key owners make their keys available to law enforcement.

It's also akin to the insistence that everyone cut off their feet, because feet can be used by criminals to move into and out of areas in order to commit crimes, and then escape from justice.

I hereby proclaim that in order to be safe from those who would do us harm, we must all cut off our own feet, and turn them in to the authorities immediately. Except for people who can't walk. They'll have to turn in their wheelchairs.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Jazzer_Techie]

I think the issue is that Perl code can be classified as a form of encryption.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[lukas84]

Oh, they are quite familiar with listening.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Khomar]

If you replace the software with guns, you will begin to understand the position of those who want the right to bear arms (modifications have been made).

This is akin to the recent proposal that all gun owners give their guns to law enforcement. The expected eventual end result will be cautious users relinquishing valuable resources with criminals holding the trump card. This too is insane.

Can guns kill people? Sure they can, but so can many other things that the typical person owns (knives, drills, cars). Guns are also tools, and used well they can be of great help. Many families in my area (Montana) rely upon guns for hunting to support their families (cheap meat). Unfortunately, hunting rifles fall into the category of a "sniper rifle" which comes under attack as an unnecessary weapon. And do not underestimate the value of having a weapon for self defense.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[tomjen]

So after i cut of my feet - just exactly how will i turn them in?

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Mistshadow2k4]

Hmmm, I have to respectfully disagree. Guns are made to be able to kill, whether in self-defense or not. This proposed law is more like outlawing surgeon's knives because Jack the Ripper (supposedly) used one, never mind that surgeons use them to save lives; network tools are used to hack networks but are also used to secure them. That's the most apt comparison I can think of.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[MrNougat]

So after i cut of my feet - just exactly how will i turn them in?

WITH YOUR HANDS. HURRRRR.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[IAmTheDave]

Some countries/areas already outlaw certain knives while allowing other, potentially just as deadly knives (chef's knives) to be carried around.

This is easy to break down. It's all about one thing - the next election. Perception is huge, and instead of governing for the common good, people govern for the incumbant good.

Take knives for example. Giant chef knives have the perception of being used to cook yummy food. Crazy blade shape dragon jewel encrusted lock blade half-the-size-of-chef-knives type knives carry the perception of being used only to harm others.

So lawmaker X decides to latch on to that perception and propose a bill that outlaws the greater of the two perceived evils and then brag about how he is a champion of the people come next election cycle.

This is one thing term limits are meant to stay off... to whatever effectiveness. Point is, outlawing "hacking" tools like this is simply a grab for the spotlight. Who cares if the details are ironed out. See, the likelyhood is it won't make it out of committe, but come election time, Mr. X can say "I proposed a bill that would have made it safer to surf the internet, but my opponent Mr. Y (a former network admin, but we won't mention that) STOOD AGAINST this potentially LIFE SAVING measure!!"

Politics, pure and simple.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[mdielmann]

There is a presupposition in your statement that all killing is (equally) bad. Much of the world doesn't agree with this opinion. There are also far more categories than "self-defense" and "other". Again, there seems to be an implication with you associating "gathering food" and "murder" which I think much of the world would take issue with, as well.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[drinkypoo]

Hmmm, I have to respectfully disagree. Guns are made to be able to kill, whether in self-defense or not.

What about a carving knife? Given otherwise equal capabilities, a person with one will definitely have a great shot to kill someone without one. Yet, they are quite handy when carving a roast.

Also, yes, the purpose of a gun is to kill. However, if someone attacks me with the intent to kill me, their life is forfeit. If I feel I can safely stop them without killing them then I will do so. However, it is disturbingly easy for any human to kill any other human - it happens by accident all the time! I am not likely to be lenient.

Guns are used to kill people who should not be killed, but they are also used to kill animals so people can eat them, and for killing animals so they don't kill other animals or people, and for killing people so they don't kill people. I find all of these uses to be highly acceptable.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[SSJ_Ramon]

Guns don't kill people, BULLETS kill people.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars are often used as part of the process when performing large robberies, so should these be banned too. How about cricket or baseball bats? Women's tights/stockings can be used to mask a criminals appearance whilst committing the crime, so presumeably these should also be banned?

Almost anything with any practical use can be turned around on it's owner, and computers are no exception. Does this mean that we should throw away these tools? Hell no, because you can bet your arse that only otherwise law-abiding citizens would be obeying it, with the criminals just going right on using them...

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[duffstone]

It's like outlawing chainsaws because they can hurt people, or forks and knives, etcetera.

Not to derail the topic too much, but kind of like banning guns cause they kill people??? Just curious if we're in the same ballpark.

-Duff

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

Unless you're a member of PETA.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[malsdavis]

This story is ridiculous! It is implying something totally different from what the law actually states in order to attract horrified readers. I bet the website is getting massive amounts of hits at the moment, but lets look at what the bill actually says:

"A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article --
(a) intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3 [of the Computer Misuse Act]; or
(b) believing that it is likely to be so used."

This is a common-sense sense law which recognises software for what it is: a tool. It looks almost identical to the law which applies to other tools capable of being used to commit offences, i.e. knifes, hammers, axes, pieces of wood etc.. You don't see the police arresting people who use these, unless they use them to commit (or attempt to commit) a crime, so why would they suddenly arrest anyone who writes a pearl script?

I think it is good to see a government finally recognising software like the useful tool it is, but one which (like most tools) can be intentially misused to cause harm.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Andrew Kismet]

guns have the exclusive purpose of killing (or for simulated killing, such as rifle ranges etc.), just the same as crossbows or any ranged weapon. However, a Chef's kife clearly has other uses that may outweigh their potential threat. Just like this networking tool.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[kalirion]

Yup, cannibals have rights too, you know.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a presupposition in your statement that all killing is (equally) bad. Much of the world doesn't agree with this opinion.

And as long as that remains true, wars will continue to rage the world.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[sconeu]

The problem is part b. As TFS said, Larry has to know that evil h4xx0rZ are likely to use Perl as part of their attacks. Therefore, he's guilty under part b of the proposed law.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[compro01]

Hmmm, I have to respectfully disagree. Guns are made to be able to kill, whether in self-defense or not.

yes, but the differance is what the gun is being used to kill.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[pla]

(b) believing that it is likely to be so used.

I totally and unwaveringly believe that we domesticated primates will use any and every tool or concept we can get our hands on to fuck one another over.

Some of us play nice because we've found that takes less work, on average, than killing, raping, and robbing our "fellow" man; but we still have the same goal - win the pack dominance game by having the biggest pile of green slips of paper.

So does that mean that any work I do would violate this law, if I lived in the UK?


And I don't mean this as hyperbole. We made it to the top of the food-chain by proving ourselves the most evil bastards on the planet.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[malsdavis]

...Only when he starts sniffing around other people's networks.

Laws governing knifes and such items have the exact same clause. Just having a knife in your kitchen doesn't mean anything, it's when you start going around other people's houses with it in your hand that your likely to get busted. The same is being applied here to pearl scripts.

Personally I think thats about the exact the level cybercrime laws should be at. What possibly valid reason could someone have for running port sniffers and other such scripts on a network which they no legitimate reason to access??

Even if you have dodgy pearl scripts on your computer a judge would through the case out as there is no direct evidence the script is "likely to be so used".

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[dgatwood]

Guns are used to kill people who should not be killed, but they are also used to kill animals so people can eat them, and for killing animals so they don't kill other animals or people, and for killing people so they don't kill people. I find all of these uses to be highly acceptable.

It's dangerous to overgeneralize this to "guns". That's the same mistake the politicians are making by overgeneralizing software, and we shouldn't sink to their level....

For example, a lot of people (I'd go so far as to say -most- people) think that assault rifles should be banned. Their primary purpose for existing is killing people, and serve no legitimate purpose for hunting and very little legitimate purpose for self defense. There are probably tools like that in the software world as well, though I can't think of any offhand.

To draw a better comparison, you need to be more specific. Choose something whose primary purpose has nothing to do with killing people... like a hunting rifle. Banning things like Perl is like banning hunting rifles. Sure, Dick Cheney has used them to shoot people on occasion, but that isn't their primary purpose.

:-D

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[orzetto]

Perl is used for legitimate purposes. There is no such legitimate, day-to-day purpose for guns. In case someone tries to rob you, any expert's advice is do not react or try to be the hero: chances are they are much better than you at shooting, and have drawn their guns first. Again, check the murder rate in the US vs. in Europe.

You make the example of Montana (which is not so much of a hunter-gatherer society, but whatever). I suppose there are places where it does make sense to have a gun. On Svalbard you are actually supposed to carry a rifle anytime you are outdoors, since there are polar bears around. But that's because more people get eaten by bears than killed by guns (last one eaten was an Austrian tourist a few years ago).

Following your argument, we may legalize pretty much anything: cocaine makes politicians and CEOs work better, crack can be used responsibly, acetyc anhydride is useful for a lot of chemical reactions (also production of heroine, that's why you have to fill a ton of paperwork to buy/move/use it), and whatever dangerous stuff that has some sort of far-fetched legal use (nukes have been used in civil engineering).

In short, the point is: are the costs/benefits to society enough to justify the right to own X? Is that going to increase the total welfare of the population? Or is one's freedom becoming the next guy's threat?

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[malsdavis]

If you follow that logic then we are all guilty under pretty much every country's attempted murder laws. In the Common Law system at least (the system of law in use in the UK as well as most British settled countries e.g. Canada, USA, Australia etc.) then in any there has to be a specific victim you are suspected of attempting to murder or attempt to hack into.

Even having obviously dodgy scripts on your computer doesn't qualify for prosecution under the part b) you quote unless there is direct evidence of you planning (or supplying to someone who you know is planning) to launch a specific attack against a specific target.

Without the specific target a judge would simply laugh the case out of court as this is an extremely fundamental principle which the journalist who wrote the article fails/chooses not to identify.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Rix]

The difference is that guns serve absolutely no purpose other than to kill things. People in developed nations do not need to supplement their diet with wild meat, and if they do they should be assisted through a more rational way.

As for self defense, guns cause far more danger than they avert. And as you say, many other tools can be used to injure, and thus can be used for self defense.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[zoeblade]

If you replace the software with guns, you will begin to understand the position of those who want the right to bear arms (modifications have been made).

I think the main difference is that guns are used pretty much exclusively to intimidate or kill animals, be they human or otherwise. Perl and various other languages and utilities, on the other hand, can be used for various good purposes, neutral ones, and evil ones.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[malsdavis]

That would be the case if thats what the bill actually states. Fortunatly, it's not.This is more of the case of an IT journalist who has no idea of the principles of law completely misinterpreting the legislation.

Your analogy is valid, but the law for surgeon's knives as well as hammers, chainsaw etc. already is pretty much identical to the relevant section of this bill and they are not all banned in the UK, so why would pearl scripts be?

Either the journalist who wrote the article is extremely ignorant of basic law principles or he just needed a good story so decided to disregard some basic facts.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[CodeBuster]

For example, a lot of people (I'd go so far as to say -most- people) think that assault rifles should be banned

The problem is that gun control advocates are manipulating the definition of "assault rifle" such that just about every modern firearm will run afoul of the definition and be banned. This is just another attempt to implement a backdoor ban. The police cannot be everywhere all of the time and just ask any hardened criminal what they would like more: a gun owning public or a passive, submissive, non-weapon carrying society with under funded and overworked police departments trying to pick up the slack. The right to defense of life and property is just that...a right. There would be fewer violent crimes and asshole loudmouths if all of the honest and law abiding citizens walking around were armed to the teeth.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[TykeClone]

guns have the exclusive purpose of killing (or for simulated killing, such as rifle ranges etc.), just the same as crossbows or any ranged weapon. However, a Chef's kife clearly has other uses that may outweigh their potential threat. Just like this networking tool.

In other words, "no" because I like cooking and networking tools, but don't like guns.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[dgatwood]

The definition of an assault rifle is pretty clear-cut, IMHO. Any rifle capable of fully automatic fire.

There would be fewer violent crimes and asshole loudmouths if all of the honest and law abiding citizens walking around were armed to the teeth.

There would be fewer people, too.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

guns have the exclusive purpose of killing

Mine must be defective. In other news, in the US alone, 200 million guns were used to harm absolutely nobody last year.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice sig. I laughed.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sure everyone is familiar with the story of the 5 year old who accidentally killed himself when he found his father's loaded Perl script. Oh, wait, that never happened.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[CodeBuster]

The definition of an assault rifle is pretty clear-cut, IMHO. Any rifle capable of fully automatic fire.

you would think so, but depending upon the state in which you live the definition can be much more strict, including such things as detachable magazine (regardless of the number of rounds it holds), portruding pistol grip, semi-automatic (just about every modern gun except for bolt action rifles), larger calibres (.308 and .50), muzzle brake, etc. There is generally some clause that says if the gun has two or more features from the list of "assault rifle" features or if it is specifically named on the banned list then it is by definition an "assault rifle". Naturally the gun control advocates would like to expand the list to include as many features as they possibly can so that the widest possible range of useful civilian firearms are banned. I am not suggesting that everyone needs to own a .50 calibre belt-fed Browning machine gun, but why should an M-14 target rifle (a popular choice among enthusiasts), which has the detachable box magazine, semi-automatic fire, a portruding pistol grip, and a flash suppressor/muzzle brake be banned?

Look at it from the criminals' perspective. What is the most desirable gun with which to commit a crime? Is the AK-47, the M-16, or the M-14 a good choice? All of these rifles are bulky, difficult to conceal, tough to wield in tight circumstances, and expensive when compared to the cheap likeable and disposable .22 calibre automatic pistol. Remarkably few crimes have been commited with .50 calibre bolt action rifles, or AK-47s, and the like and it is not because criminals respect the ban or couldn't get these weapons if they wanted to. The gun control people are mostly rude and disengenous in their arguments or at least the ones that I have encountered have been, while the gun owners are mostly polite, courteous, and intelligent in theirs. Draw your own conlcusions, but like so many other issues, upon which reasonable people should be able to compromise, this one has been turned into a political pissing match between the red states and the blue states by the advocates and their petty agendas.

As for fewer people...well the world could use a few less assholes :D

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[thc69]

Okay, I'll bite.

You make the example of Montana (which is not so much of a hunter-gatherer society, but whatever).

Hunting is not wrong just because it's not necessary for the sustenance of society.

Following your argument, we may legalize pretty much anything: cocaine makes politicians and CEOs work better, crack can be used responsibly, acetyc anhydride is useful for a lot of chemical reactions (also production of heroine, that's why you have to fill a ton of paperwork to buy/move/use it),

I, personally, am not so against the legalization of such drugs. It's not my business what people do with their own bodies.

and whatever dangerous stuff that has some sort of far-fetched legal use (nukes have been used in civil engineering).

Sure, if nukes can be used safely in civil engineering and have no reasonable substitute, then I'm all for a controlled-access model. However, I don't have faith that they can be used and secured safely enough. Also, they would cause huge destruction when wielded ineptly or maliciously. Meanwhile, other options seem to work well enough that nukes aren't necessary.

Let's bring it down to street level. Real life. Actual people doing actual constructive work with tools that are commonly used by criminals in order to perpetrate crime. Here's a better analogy than I've seen in this discussion: crowbars. If you don't know what a crowbar is (I'm not sure that "crowbar" is the globally accepted word for it; I'd be interested in the etymology), it's a steel pry bar that's generally two to three feet (or 2/3 to 1 meter) in length. It is used daily by demolition and construction professionals. It is also used daily by criminals breaking into locked houses. It makes quick work of most wood-framed doors. Perl, nmap, nessus, and such, are all used similarly -- they are the bread and butter of the professional, as well as the criminal.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[x2A]

To be fair, it doesn't really matter whether the government do or not. On the whole, are police can be pretty good, and use good judgement about what's worth and what's not worth enforcing. I hate to go back to the cannabis thing after just using it for a joke, but it was the police who lead the way in the change of law, for example I think it was in the Manchester area where police announced they were gonna stop going after and prosecuting those in posession, and redirect the resources elsewhere... and there's no point having a law that your own police won't enforce. I'm hoping we will see this more often, then even when part of the country fails us, enough people /do/ in fact see sense, that the failing part doesn't really matter.

Yes, I did say *hoping*. It's not always going to occur, but the fact that it every now and then does, gives me a little faith :-/

(please don't ruin it for me :-p)

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[x2A]

Nah, banning perl is more like banning the metal that can be used to make guns.

I think the question will be how the law gets used. There are often laws which give powers that can so easily be abused, but then the laws are rarely exercised - it's better to have a power and not need it, than not have a power and find you need it. How many people get away with things because of "loopholes" in the law? So they're closing loopholes.

I'm not saying this is the case here, we'll have to see how it gets used before we can make any real judgement.

But really, perl's so not gonna be banned, that was an extreme example to illustrate a point.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[x2A]

"so why would pearl scripts be?"

perl... (sorry) :-p

Don't s'pose you'd like to expand a little on that for mine and other slashdotters purposes? Just a little education, nothin too deep or time consuming for ya...

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[x2A]

No it's not, it's saying you can't escape justice by saying "hey I only supplied the software, I didn't actually do the illegal thing" - if you know it was going to be used in a certain way, and you still supplied it, you're an accessory... which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It's called responsibility.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[x2A]

"(b) believing that it is likely to be so used"

It doesn't say "for anything bad" as your interpretation would have people believe, believed that it is likely to be used for the things covered in the article.

"So does that mean that any work I do would violate this law"

So no, it wouldn't.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a presupposition in your statement that all killing is (equally) bad.

My take on this topic is that all killing IS equally bad and that only, under very narrow circumstances of self-defense it is excuseable. It's still equally bad though.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[JesseMcDonald]

Except that the law in this case does not make any distinction between the primary use for a given piece of software, and the possible uses of the software. If the author believes that the software will be used to do something illegal at some point in the future -- which is pretty much a given for any general-purpose piece of software (compilers, operating systems, scripting languages, libraries) -- then creating that software would earn the author a criminal sentence. Perhaps they wouldn't choose to apply it that way, but there is no way to be sure. They certainly could choose to do so, under the current wording of the law, and that is what worries people (myself included). I would rather not see programming become a heavily regulated and licensed profession.

Disclaimer: IANAL

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[lysse]

I understand what you're saying, but unfortunately the right to bear arms has been long since lost to Britons, on precisely the same grounds (that they can be used for nefarious purposes).

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[x2A]

I guess if you're making stuff that you believe is -likely- to be used to break the law, you have a certain level of responsibility to try and make sure it doesn't. For example, I've refused on an occasion to write software for someone because of how it was going to be used (in this case, it was for managing unsolicited mailouts aka spam). It would keep track of who recieved what and when, so as to not send them too much, and use embedded images to verify who was reading them (this was a few years back) - so I had started putting thought into it. But, I couldn't continue, because of how much I know spam pisses people off (even more now), even tho I did really need the cash.

I know this isn't going to be the same with off-the-shelf products, you can't know enough about who's buying and what they're using for, but there are often /some/ things you can do to make it more difficult to use something for illegal purposes. I think if you can be shown to have made an effort, that is what will count. If it can be shown that there were things you could have done, that you didn't, with knowledge that that means it could be used for illegal purposes, that's when you'll start hitting problems.

Idealy, yes, how it's worded? Maybe not. How it will be carried out? Let's hope so.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should the only place to fetch Perl and nmap be from hacker sites in Eastern Europe, where the risk is that they carry Trojans?

In Soviet Russia, Perl and nmap Trojan you.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[jonadab]

> Look at it from the criminals' perspective. What is the most desirable gun
> with which to commit a crime?

Depends on the crime.

> Is the AK-47,

Actually, in some parts of the world the AK-47 is extremely popular with criminals. These tend to be areas of the world with approximately zero real law enforcement, where the criminals can openly parade around with their weapons in plain view, sieze control of entire cities, and so forth -- i.e., the third world mostly, and parts of the second world.

> the M-16,

From a criminal perspective, the M-16 is in pretty much all ways inferior to the M-8 Carbine. However, neither is very popular with criminals and here's why: it's harder to obtain than the AK-47, especially in the second and third world (where assault rifles make sense). In the first world, where there is reasonably decent law enforcment, the dynamics are such that range is pretty much a non-issue, because everything has to be done up close. Under those circumstances, a submachine gun is preferable to an assault rifle, so the criminals will go with an Uzi (or a Thompson or MP5 or whatnot) when they need bulk firepower, or a handgun otherwise.

The M-8 or M-16 might be somewhat popular with criminals in Africa and the Middle East, if it were as easy to obtain there as the AK-47 is, although Kalashnikov's idiot-friendly maintenance is also a factor.

> All of these rifles are bulky, difficult to conceal, tough to wield in
> tight circumstances,

The tight circumstances are key. If you know you'll NEVER have to fire on a target more than about a block away, you're going to go with the submachine gun over the assault rifle every time, and possibly even the handgun. The choice of the handgun versus the submachine gun is going to come down to whether you expect to be in firefights (gang warfare or somesuch -- get the submachine gun) or not (more "ordinary" crimes such as armed robbery -- you wave a handgun and don't wait around afterwards for the police to show up).

> Remarkably few crimes have been commited with .50 calibre bolt action rifles,

Assasinations. But yeah, non-automatic weapons are not mostly used for crime.

> or AK-47s,

Depends where you live. Seriously, in some parts of the world, the AK-47 is *THE* weapon of choice for criminals of all sorts.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[AndreiK]

Seeing some of the code that's come out today, I think it should be. ;)

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[1u3hr]

Can guns kill people? Sure they can, but so can many other things that the typical person owns

It's getting so the gun nuts try to hijack every discussion about civil liberties here. Soon I'll have to skip them as I do every discussion that refers to evolution, which invariably turns into an 800 post creationism vs evolution flamewar.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[1u3hr]

it's better to have a power and not need it, than not have a power and find you need it.

IF you trust the government, and all future governments. Otherwise anytime you piss off someone in power, by pointing out corruption say, they have a perfectly legal way to lock you up, or threaten to do so.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the issue is that Perl code can be classified as a form of encryption.

But that logic is easily refutable: any encryption must be decryptable by someone with a legitimate key, therefore Perl is not encryption.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[CarpetShark]

There is a presupposition in your statement that all killing is (equally) bad. Much of the world doesn't agree with this opinion.

Much of the world can't tell its ass from its elbow ;)

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[jrockway]

> Why should an M-14 target rifle, which has the detachable box magazine, semi-automatic fire, a portruding pistol grip, and a flash suppressor/muzzle brake be banned?

Ummmmm... dunno. Maybe because it has a detachable box magazine, semi-automatic fire, a portruding [sic] pistol grip, and a flash suppressor/muzzle brake!!?

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[galdosdi]

Politics, pure and simple? Perhaps that's what we've come to, but.... No. Politics, you say? This isn't even politics. It's just plain rape.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Eivind]

But I *do* believe it perfectly likely that Perl will be so used.

Infact I'm sure of it. I've seen dozens of examples of it myself.

The law is stupid -- as written it basically bans all software. Certainly all developer-software. (but there's been plenty of attacks carried out by say MS-Word too.)

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the world doesn't agree with this opinion.

You've mistaken the USA with the world again, dumb mcmerican nitwit. Go call for a whambulance.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine must be defective. In other news, in the US alone, 200 million guns were used to harm absolutely nobody last year.

That's pretty damn stupid. Just because you haven't used your gun for it's designed purpose doesn't mean it doesn't have a designed purpose.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

So you'd support the UK firearms ban? We don't have any appreciable amounts of wild game here, aside from longpig.

p.s. all killing of humans is not equally bad, but it is all very bad (outside of euthanasia).

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

If you kill an intruder who is raping your wife/daughter or brandishing a weapong and threatening
your life, then YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. This used to be recognized in all religions and
legal systems until sometime in the mid 20th century. This starts with Gun Control
and Ends with State Control of EVERYTHING. Thats why I'm a libertarian. Labor and the
Democrats in the states are no better then GWB. They just differ in what they want to start with.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Immediately thinking everyone that believes in the right to keep and bear arms is a nut
is exactly why we can't keep any of our civil liberties.

. Sys Admin in City... : Guns can only kill people Government should ban them.
      (never touched gun)

      Montana Deer Hunter... : About time Government cracked down on those hackers
      (probably doesn't know what Perl is)

    I've lived both lives. I do a little hacking and I hunt and fish. Of the
two activities the hunting and fishing skills are more likely to keep me alive
if civilization ever does go under. We all need to have a lot more
respect for the other persons view point. 99.9% of gun owners I know
are completely law abiding citizens that want to be able to defend their
family, want to put meat on the table, or just like to shoot at paper and
other targets on a range. Their is no threat from these people having
guns.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[itsdapead]

You don't see the police arresting people who use these, unless they use them to commit (or attempt to commit) a crime, so why would they suddenly arrest anyone who writes a pearl script?

Members of some ethnic groups might beg to differ on this, but I almost trust the police, courts and juries to make a sensible distinction between the crowbar in my trunk that I've just bought from the hardware store and the crowbar that I'm holding while lurking in a back alley next to the jewelry store.

However, anybody who has ever done any sort of IT support knows that the mere mention of computers causes many people's common sense lobes to instantly shut down. How do you explain yourself to someone who can't distinguish between "I was using ethereal to confirm that my mail client was using the correct authentication protocol" and "I was using my sonic screwdriver to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow"?

The currency of expert witnesses in UK courts isn't particularly high at the moment, either...

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[6031769]

For example, a lot of people (I'd go so far as to say -most- people) think that assault rifles should be banned. Their primary purpose for existing is killing people, and serve no legitimate purpose for hunting and very little legitimate purpose for self defense. There are probably tools like that in the software world as well, though I can't think of any offhand.

I think that the Sony DRM Rootkit might well qualify.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[malsdavis]

My response is based on the response of my girlfriend who is a British law student (currently taking a module specifically in electronic crime) who is aware of the bill from her studies and was appalled after I showed her the article in qestion.

Basically, she explained there are two types of possession laws: 1) for totally contraband items (i.e. drugs) and 2) items which have legitimate uses but can be used illegally (e.g. knives, axes, screwdrivers, glass etc.). The law for drugs states basically any possession no matter what is an offense, but for items like knives or screwdrivers it depends on the situation: Owning a knife in the kitchen is fine or a screwdriver in a toolbox, but going around someones house after an arguement holding one in your hand is illegal.

The Computer Misuse Act specifies programs (whether interpreted or compiled) clearly as the 2nd case. Meaning if you are a network admin or computer enthusiast and have perl scripts than there is nothing they can do to you, the law clearly states that both in the part I (and even the article) quoted and elsewhere, although the journalist who wrote the article obviously has no education in basic principles of law.

If what the journalist says throughout the article was correct, everyone owning pretty much any physical item would be guilty under "conspiring to commit an offense" laws.

But to qualify for prosecution under part b), some direct evidence of either: 1) the suspect wishing to commit an offense or 2) the suspect having absolutly no legitimate reason to have possession of such code has to be available.

There is absolutly nothing in the bill which would make Perl scripts illegal due to their vast range of legitimate uses, unless the script in particular has no other purpose but to attack a foreign networks and even then only if the suspect has no legitimate reason to do so (i.e. is not involved in legitimate IT security). A network admin, for example, could own such scripts though and could only be prosecuted if he was seen to be snooping around other people's networks to which he has no legitimate reason to do so (i.e. port sniffing etc.).

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[symbolic]

Point is, outlawing "hacking" tools like this is simply a grab for the spotlight.

I say it's a sign of imminent brain death, since it belies any sign of rational thought. There seem to be a lot of simlarities between an internet full of zombied PCs, and various governments full of zombied "representatives," each controlled by a few simple commands. The only real difference is that in the latter case, the effectiveness of these commands seems to vary with the amount of money that accompanies them. At least that appears to be true in the US.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how British law works!

If software is made available to the world at large (legal mumbo-jumbo: "an invitation to treat") with a legitimate use than no offense has been committed. It's only if the software developer either:
         

• writes software which has no conceivable legitimate use (this would have to be very specifically malicous software, probably pre-set to target a particular network - like some modern viruses do),

         

• makes their legitimate software specifically available to someone who they suspect will carry out an attack,

then they have commited an offense. To put in plain english:
If a car company makes a car and sells it to the world at large, which is then purchased by bank robbers to commit a robbery, then the car maker has done no wrong. But, if the car maker either i) makes a car named "Getaway car 3000" with all the usual "wacky races" getaway gadgets and sells it or ii) sells their car to a group of people wearing ex-president masks and holding swag bags with dollar (or pound) signs on them, then they have possibly committed an offense (depending on the specifics of the case of course).

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[JesseMcDonald]

Thanks for clarifying that. It's nice to know that they (probably) won't be trying to enforce this law against makers of general-purpose software. However, I still think that it's badly worded, since someone reading the text of the law as plain English and not legalese could hardly help but come to the conclusions that I did.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[dajak]

Some countries/areas already outlaw certain knives while allowing other, potentially just as deadly knives (chef's knives) to be carried around.

Don't know about other countries that criminalize knives, but here in the Netherlands it depends on the length of the blade, where you carry it, and whether it is ready for use. You can take your chef's knife wherever you want, as long as is it packaged. You can also take swords and bows in the same way.

You are allowed to carry a blade ready for use not longer than the width of your hand in public space (except public transport infrastructure), and a significant percentage of the male population does. Carrying a screwdriver in your pocket in the wrong place is on the other hand prohibited.

Slashing and stabbing weapons are used in 32% of lethal incidents here. Knifes do require a lot more skill than firearms: victims of stabbings usually survive.

Views on legitimate use do depend a lot on context: in many European countries there is so little nature that claiming hunting is a legitimate reason to allow people to have firearms sounds a bit ridiculous. And then when you have already banned firearms, people start carrying knives...

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[BalanceOfJudgement]

"People in developed nations do not need to supplement their diet with wild meat, and if they do they should be assisted through a more rational way."

Not that I want to start an argument on why it is wrong to eat animals, but I have yet to see a good reason why this is true (i.e., a reason that doesn't already assume that it is wrong to eat animals, which basically throws out every morality argument I have ever seen).

I'm really not trying to troll or flamebait. I wouldn't have posted this question if I weren't asking for a genuine answer, and I asked you because you didn't present the issue in an already-standoff-ish manner.

"As for self defense, guns cause far more danger than they avert."

I don't know about the voracity of this statement, but for my part, the purpose of owning a gun really has nothing to do with hunting and more to do with making sure my government knows that if they step over the line, there's going to be a price [for the record, I do not own a gun]. That was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution in the first place; it was to ensure the existence of a populace that could keep government power in check. The Founding Fathers couldn't have cared less about people hunting for food.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[stmfreak]

Hmmm, I have to respectfully disagree. Guns are made to be able to kill, whether in self-defense or not. This proposed law is more like outlawing surgeon's knives because Jack the Ripper (supposedly) used one, never mind that surgeons use them to save lives; network tools are used to hack networks but are also used to secure them. That's the most apt comparison I can think of.

Knives were originally made in order to kill, whether in self-defense, food gathering or otherwise. Your excuse that they are a useful surgeon's instrument is akin to guns being useful for hunting. After all, surgeons save lives, as do food suppliers.

Outlawing tools because criminals use them in the commission of crimes is political subterfuge; they seek to distract you from the real issue: crime, and their inability to capture and detain criminals. Or at least that's the rational excuse. If you want to go the conspiracy route, then you can conclude that preventing common citizens from possessing useful tools is a way to maintain control in the hands of the select and soon to be wealthy few.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[zoephile]

I agree. Turning programming into a tightly constrolled profession, (like pharmacy) would inhibit innovation. Limiting accessibility of programming tools, network analysis tools, compiles, debuggers, etc. to only certain individuals would limit the ability of others to learn, experiment, tinker, and develope useful things. Plus, thoise who invest the time and money in a license are going to be more apt to look for a monetary return on and investment rather than engage in a project and volunteer time out of sheer interest and passion for what they are good at. It is likely that many of the useful things we take for granted today would not exist if software development was a tightly controlled, limited and stricktly licensed profession with harsh penalties for violators. And if they did ever adopt such a system it is unlikely to have any affect on whatever bad guys are out there..

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[julesh]

I guess if you're making stuff that you believe is -likely- to be used to break the law, you have a certain level of responsibility to try and make sure it doesn't. For example, I've refused on an occasion to write software for someone because of how it was going to be used (in this case, it was for managing unsolicited mailouts aka spam).

Let's take another case. This one is also real. Back in the 90s, I was involved with a project called NASM, a free assembler for Intel processors. Back in the early days, we had a rather nasty bug in the preprocessor that caused it to segfault if you tried to use a certain feature in a certain way (I forget the details, but it was hard to work around if you wanted that feature). The bug was reported, and we fixed it. However, it was clear from the way that it was reported that the reporter wanted it fixed because he needed that particular feature for a toolkit for virus writers.

So: do we fix the bug, and release software that is "adapt[ed] ... to assist in the commission of ... an offence under section 1 or 3" and "believing that it is likely to be so used" (in fact, we damn well knew for certain that it would be used that way), or do we sit on it?

Well, we sat on it for a while. But in the end, there were other users who needed that bug fixed. So the virus writers got their toolkit.

But if this law had been in place then, we'd have had to seriously consider whether we were committing a criminal offence that could earn us 2 years inside. And by my interpretation, we would have been.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[CodeBuster]

The detachable box magazine makes the weapon easier to clean and maintain, semi-automatic fire is a feature of almost all modern firearms with the exception of bolt action rifles and muzzle loaders, the pistol grip improves aim and allows a quick and controlled second shot (useful in many hunting situations), and flash suppressor/muzzle brake reduces recoil and flash again contributing to the utility of the aforementioned second shot. These are all legitimate and useful features and there is absolutely no reason, no reason at all, why a law abiding citizen should be denied his right to own this type of weapon. It is not the job of the government to ban outright activities, items, and lifestyles which are quietly enjoyed by law abiding citizens simply because a minority of people in society cannot handle adult responsibilities. As long as the activities of an individual law abiding citizen do not directly harm or impinge upon the rights of others then they should be allowed to do as they wish...it's a free country after all. You are of course free to disagree, but I for one do not want to live in a nanny society with the government carefully monitoring and regulating every detail of my existence.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[jc42]

Otherwise anytime you piss off someone in power, by pointing out corruption say, they have a perfectly legal way to lock you up, or threaten to do so.

Of course, in the present US, they don't need a legal way to lock you up. You're just grabbed and carted off to jail, usually in another country, to be held until terrorism ends or Jesus returns, whichever comes first.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Cowpat]

You don't see the police arresting people who use these, unless they use them to commit (or attempt to commit) a crime,

Yeah you do, or with guns at least. There was a story about a year ago about someone who kept a Luger handgun which his grandfather had yoinked from a German officer during WWII. It had been in the family for ~ 60 years and was kept in a safe (although it still worked & he had ~ 20 rounds of ammo for it as well). His house was robbed. He reported it to the police and made sure to mention that a working WWII gun had been stolen with some ammo and so they might like to look into finding that. He was arrested, charged and convicted of possesion of an illegal firearm: here

You have 3 choices: accept selective enforcement, accept people occasionally being screwed over by unreasonable laws which it's someones "duty" to enforce, even when innappropriate, or get rid of the unreasonable laws, which may make it harder to deal with real criminals.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats law for you. But if they made it simpler, how would barristers and solicitors be able to justify their extortionate fee's?

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[RogerWilco]

It might be an interesting statistic for you to know that in the USA three times more people per capita get murdered a year by firearms, as the total number of people murdered in my country per capita (Netherlands).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fi r_percap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap

If substract all firearms murders (0.027) from the total (0.042), you get almost the same number as for the Netherlands (0.011), where owning a firearm is mostly illegal. I know you can easily lie with statistics, but to me it suggests that a country with few people owning firearms, is a lot saver as one where almost everyone owns one.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[Rix]

It isn't wrong to eat animals. My point was simply that a developed nation has plenty of food to go around, and there's no *need* for anyone to go off and kill something in the bush to feed themselves.

The second amendment is one of those things that make people think Usians are stupid. You are absolutely no threat to the government, with or without any gun you can buy. Call me when you have APC's, mortors, and air strike capability.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[tehcyder]

Giant chef knives have the perception of being used to cook yummy food. Crazy blade shape dragon jewel encrusted lock blade half-the-size-of-chef-knives type knives carry the perception of being used only to harm others.

No, a chef's knife *is* used for food preparation, and so you may have a legitimate reason to be carrying one down the street (e.g. you are a chef and are going to work).

Some other blades really do only have one purpose, which is to cut people.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[tehcyder]

if someone attacks me with the intent to kill me, their life is forfeit

The problem arises in the real world with correctly interpreting someone else's "intent".

I get the impression that in the US, someone being in your house is sufficient to show this intent, whereas here in the UK you need a bit more evidence - ideally someone rushing at you with a sword dripping blood and shouting "I intend to kill you."

Oh, and I prefer the latter interpretation.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[tehcyder]

Remarkably few crimes have been commited with .50 calibre bolt action rifles

Right, and even fewer with Cruise missiles or Challenger tanks, so there's even less reason to ban them!

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[CrimsonAvenger]

Slashing and stabbing weapons are used in 32% of lethal incidents here. Knifes do require a lot more skill than firearms: victims of stabbings usually survive.

In 1997, here were 39400 firearms injuries from assaults (treated in hospitals) in the USA, and only 13300 firearms homicides. Looks like most victims of gunshot survive too....

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[mdielmann]

And the odds are, you're a member of that category. ;)

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[mdielmann]

If you're a member of PETA, or financially support PETA, then numerically you don't represent much of the world, either. They don't even represent much of North America, for that matter. They may be competition for the Vatican, though.

Re:it's the nature of these tools

[CarpetShark]

Nope, sorry. Almost by definition, the odds are that I'm one of the observers who noticed.

Bits are TEH EVAL!

[GillBates0]

...I say just make bits illegal and get it over with.

The world will be SO much safer without all those nasty bits and bytes floating around on the internets

OUCH! That pesky little bit just bit me. Take that and THAT you pesky bit! *smack*.

Re:Bits are TEH EVAL!

[DJNephilim]

...I say just make bits illegal and get it over with.

No.

The world will be SO much safer without all those nasty bits and bytes floating around on the internets

No.

OUCH! That pesky little bit just bit me. Take that and THAT you pesky bit! *smack*.

Yesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyesyes!

Re:Bits are TEH EVAL!

[pyite]

...I say just make bits illegal and get it over with.

As Claude Shannon rolls in his grave...

Re:Bits are TEH EVAL!

[Rob T Firefly]

We can't get rid of all the bits! Are you mad??

I say we just outlaw those hideously dangerous 1's, and let us keep the safe, agreeable, non-pointy 0's.

Re:Bits are TEH EVAL!

[operagost]

I suggest we just drop zero. That way, we can stop paying licensing fees on that Babylonian patent.

Re:Bits are TEH EVAL!

[shawb]

But small children will choke on 0's.

Won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN????!!??

Re:Bits are TEH EVAL!

[x2A]

It doesn't matter, you can still breath/swallow food/drink through the hole in the 0.

Re:Bits are TEH EVAL!

[AndreiK]

The following message is in base one ASCII:

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111.

Re:Bits are TEH EVAL!

[schlumpf_louise]

But you could strangle people with 0's.

No shit.

[AoT]

And I thought it was getting bad here in the U.S.

I guess a written constitution does have some utility.

Re:No shit.

[Master of Transhuman]

Oh, yeah, our Constitution has been working really WELL lately...

Now if we could get our President to read it once in a while...

Face it, folks, the US will go the way Britain is going - it's only a matter of time. ALL states end up in the same place - fascist dictatorships. As long as the public are gutless wimps - like this fool I've been arguing with over the NSA wiretaps yesterday - it is inevitable.

Re:No shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess a written constitution does have some utility.

Of course it does. The Whitehouse has spent nothing on toliet paper in almost 5 years.

Re:No shit.

[A beautiful mind]

"Face it, folks, the US will go the way Britain is going"

Actually, I can't decide if the UK is going on the way the US is going, or the other way around and that fact itself is quite scary.

Re:No shit.

[alx5000]

I guess a written constitution does have some utility.

Sure. You can go and check any time it is violated...

Re:No shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess a written constitution does have some utility.

"It's just a goddamn piece of paper!"

President George Bush

Re:No shit.

[jfftck]

I guess a written constitution does have some utility.

Sure. You can go and check any time it is violated...

I don't know about you, but I don't think I could keep up with all the violations that have been going on for a while.

Re:No shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

50 quid says the U.S. will be getting compulsory ID cards around 2012.

That is, unless we have the balls to make it a disaster in the UK.

Re:No shit.

[Gordonjcp]

Keep in mind the UK has completely outlawed self-defense and are at the mercy of criminals.

In what way has it outlawed self-defence?

Re:No shit.

[sendtwogrey]

There may be hope of a reprieve from President George Bush yet!

Re:No shit.

[Andrew Kismet]

Gun ownership.

In contrast to selling guns at Wal*Mart, which is equally stupid...

Re:No shit.

[pete6677]

Here's a good example

Re:No shit.

[Tango42]

They dropped the case before it even got to court! Yes, the police over-react sometimes, that's why the legal process doesn't stop there.

Re:No shit.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

They dropped the case before it even got to court!

A week before. Surely they could've done it sooner.

Re:No shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its been like that in Canada for as long as I can remember.

Try crossing any international border without ID and you'll find youself getting the anal probe pretty damn quick. They seem to enjoy that sort of thing, must be the alien influence.

Re:No shit.

[iminplaya]

Yep, The US is in lockstep with Britain, has been since the Red Coats left. The war in the Middle East is a British operation. The US is the muscle keeping the empire afloat.

Re:No shit.

[jargoone]

Is this a joke? I stopped right here:

an intruder he found in his bedroom.

This guy would have a hole in him the size of a bowling ball if he had been in my bedroom. And in any state in the US I know of, I would win in court.

Re:No shit.

[Gordonjcp]

Gun ownership.

Which is (mostly) legal in the UK. It's easier to get a shotgun licence than a motorcycle licence. In any case, this is Britain, most people ignore laws they find inconvenient - something I've never understood about USians. You lot are happy enough to stick to any law, no matter how stupid.

Re:No shit.

[Tango42]

Buerocracy for you...

Re:No shit.

[julesh]

I guess a written constitution does have some utility.

1. I don't think it would protect you from this. While I'm not familiar with it in-depth, none of the aspects of it that I'm aware of would prevent the criminalisation of the supply of a tool in the knowledge that it was likely to be used to commit a criminal offence. In fact, the language here is almost identical to the anti-circumvention language of the DMCA, which is widely believed to be constitutionally fine.

2. Much of the British constitution is written; it just isn't written in a single document like the US constitution. See the summary here that describes what parts of it are written. Particularly the Human Rights Act 1998.

Although now it seems our illustrious leader wants to ... er... "clarify" that act, but it doesn't matter -- it seems that whatever our parliament does, the European Convention on Human Rights is, as per our treaties with the EU, placed above everything else.

Re:No shit.

[tehcyder]

a hole in him the size of a bowling ball if he had been in my bedroom

Wow, who's a big boy then?

Re:No shit.

[Lotharus]

Actually, no, you wouldn't. (See Chapter 7). (Sorry I don't have links to actual case files.. Would love anyone else to provide them, either supporting or debunking my claim).

The H Tag

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we slap another "horrifying" tag on there?

Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Geldon]

... Or at least forcing someone to debug it should

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Frumious Wombat]

You beat me to it. I was going to suggest that Perl's syntax is a good enough reason to lock Larry Wall up. Of course, since he was good enough to license it in a community friendly manner, is a brilliant programmer, and gives great addresses, I would settle for him being incarcerated on some Hawaiian beach. The golden handshake and , "No, Really, you've done enough. Don't add anything else to Perl".

Of course, using the above criteria, they'll be hunting the author of APL with dogs.

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[forkazoo]

... Or at least forcing someone to debug it should

I thought PERL would be illegal in England because nobody has a decryption key available to give to the government!

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Watson Ladd]

"The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching, therefor, should be a criminal offence" Dijkstra beat you to it.

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Darby]

Come on now, that joke is getting really stale.

Seriously, who can't tell at a glance what this does just isn't paying attention:

#!/usr/bin/perl
                        +
                       @A=
                      (25,0
                     );@B=(0
                    ,24   +0)
                   ;@C=( 49,24
                  );@X=($")x(40
                 +9)         ;@_
                =(@X,       $/)x(
               25);$_[     $A[1*1]
              *50   +$A   [0]   ]=q
             /./;+ $_[$B [1*1] *1*50
            +$B[0]]=qq/./;$_[$C[1]*50
           +$C                     [0]
          ]="."                   ;@X=(
         $C[0*0]                 ,$C [1]
        );1   *1*               1*1   *1;
       while (394>             (join $",@_
      )=~y/.//){do{           $R=3*rand;@X=
     (((         int         (($         {(A
    ,B,C)       [$R]}       [0*0]       +$X[0
   ])/2+.5     )),int(     (${(A,B     ,C)[$R]
  }[1   *1]   +$X   [1]   )/2   +.5   +0)   ))}
while $_[$Z =$X[1 ]*50+ $X[0] +0]=~ /\./; $_[$Z
]=".";+system$^O=~/[wW]in/?"cls":"clear";pr int@_}

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Jehosephat2k]

"Of course, using the above criteria, they'll be hunting the author of APL with dogs."

LISP

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, would that I had mod-points. Definately +5 "cunningly humorous" - particularly the APL/dogs part :)

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

About your sig:

Mercy killings really should not be considered "murder".

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[drinkypoo]

too bad it doesn't actually cls, it just scrolls. cls is a function of cmd.exe or command.com; either way, I ran it, and it just scrolled. I had to pause and resume just to see the progress. It would be better if it just jumped up to the upper left corner and started drawing again. (I ran it on windows, both in cygwin and in cmd.exe.)

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[jskiff]

Um...is it a triforce?

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Dom2]

As opposed to somebody wanting to debug Java, for which they merely need sectioning.

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[djimi]

It runs perfectly on Windows with PxPerl, once you fix the 'pr int' error on line 25.
I think your Perl has the evil bit set to "on". You may want to check that.

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Frumious Wombat]

Regrettably, Dijkstra beat me to quite a bit in the field, including the much-needed screed against GOTO.

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

umm lesse... it makes an array @A with members 0, 25.... then one B with (0, 24)...but fuck what is that plus sign...and ...

shit i give up

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Rigrig]

Wasn't that a legal punishment yet?
(I'm not sure what for exactly, something to do with three sheep and an iMac I think, could be two sheep, an iMac and two vowels though.)

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[jrockway]

Fortunately B::Deparse deobfuscates the code instantly, resulting in:


@A = (25, 0);
@B = (0, 24);
@C = (49, 24);
@X = ($") x 49;
@_ = (@X, $/) x 25;
$_[$A[1] * 50 + $A[0]] = '.';
$_[$B[1] * 1 * 50 + $B[0]] = '.';
$_[$C[1] * 50 + $C[0]] = '.';
@X = ($C[0], $C[1]);
'???';
while (394 > join($", @_) =~ tr/.//) {
        do {
                $R = 3 * rand;
                @X = (int((${('A', 'B', 'C')[$R];}[0] + $X[0]) / 2 + 0.5), int((${('A', 'B', 'C')[$R];}[1] + $X[1]) / 2 + 0.5 + 0))
        } while $_[$Z = $X[1] * 50 + $X[0] + 0] =~ /\./;
        $_[$Z] = '.';
        system $^O =~ /[wW]in/ ? 'cls' : 'clear';
        print @_;
}


which is actually pretty easy to understand :)

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I found it fairly easy to read. It was the math that stumped me.

Yes, by this I know that I have done too much perl...

Re:Using Perl Should Be A Crime

[tehcyder]

Er, is it 42?

Well then...

[eosp]

Let's ban the English language because you can discuss crimes with it.

Re:Well then...

[dr_dank]

Then the criminals will use other languages

Hey Senor Bob, Let's robbo el banko!

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubleplusgood that is. When we finally destroy the English language and completely embrace NewSpeak it will be impossible to commit thoutcrime!

                            It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. ...
                            So the Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.
                            The secret's to move from translation, to direct thought, to automatic response.
                            No need for self-discipline. Language coming from here, not from here.
                            Excuse me for intruding.
                            You're saying that we'll be rid of the last vestiges of Goldsteinism...
                            when the language has been cleaned.
                            - I couldn't agree with you more, brother. - Absolutely.
(1984 - George Orwell - movie version)

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually all crimes have one thing in common -- Humans. Eliminate the Humans and we'll be safe!

Re:Well then...

[Sky Cry]

Why stop there? Let's ban thinking, because it's the very foundation of crime. Hello police state, where people aren't allowed to think.

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stop there? All forms of communication should be made illegal 'cause it is possible to lie, which is a crime (obstruction of justice). Also, when people communicate, it is possible to plan a crime, which is also a crime.

The gub'ment should just presume we are all criminals and lock us up before something bad happens.

Re:Well then...

[Opportunist]

Then outlaw language altogether. It allows criminals to communicate!

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our Klingon-speaking criminal overlords.

Sorry.

Re:Well then...

[Elvii]

Better yet, don't ban english, change it. About 10 revisions of the language should be good enough to make it so we can't misunderstand words and they mean just what Big Brother wants them to mean... sounds like a DoublePlusGood answer to me.

Either you got that, or go read 1984. :)

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Let's ban the English language because you can discuss crimes with it.

Da! Otlichnaya ideya!

Good riddance

[Anonymous Coward]

Next step: ban hammers because they could be used to smash people.

Re:Good riddance

[sarabiz]

They already want to ban pointy knives, so why not hammers?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/international/eu rope/27knife.html?ex=1274846400&en=cef76721be98494 c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Re:Good riddance

[DarkOx]

Take is few steps beyond that; lets ban any sort of communication at all. We have to preven conspiracy some how. Not to mention communicating an shareing information is what allows all crimes to happen in the first place.

Hey you'd never have been able to steal my car if nobody went and told you how to drive one.

The only reason my credit card is vulnerable to theft is becase people can read the number. I am gonna sue the government for teaching literacy.

Hey kid drop back away from the printer we are taking you to jail. The only reason to have a printer is certainly for producing forged documents.

These laws are moronic can you just image if they were enforced as writen. Honestly I think we need to redesign the legislative process, (at least here in the States and from the looks of things the UK as well) to include imediate judicaial review with a stawman case or something to keep these foolish ideas from every really hitting the books.

Re:Good riddance

[Exile1]

at this point, you better ban anything you can write with too, it's copywrite infidgement. pens pencils crayons paint, ona don't forget you can stab people with pens and penciles so better double ban them.

Re:Good riddance

[x2A]

"Hey you'd never have been able to steal my car if nobody went and told you how to drive one"

Round here, the people who steal cars /haven't/ been told how to drive them. Yurp, we always get our cars back... in lotsa pieces.

Re:Good riddance

[bpsheen]

You know, i am starting to get the idea that a lot of these stories regarding insane laws are really just someone making a lot of noise......even if there is such a law going through the house of commons, maybe it just not worth paying attention to anymore. There is no way such a law could pass and to waste time on it is well just fruitless (anything over 5 minutes is just nutz). write a new encrypted proctocol instead. make a difference through action... not words..

This is great news for India!

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of news is great for nations like India, Singapore and Malaysia. The more the Western world places completely unnecessary and unjustifiable limits on its use of such technology, the better off the non-Western nations are.

A strong economy, and the higher quality of life it may bring, depends heavily on innovation and progress. That is clearly being hindered by those who support such legislation. Companies won't be able to take advantage of the productivity gains one gets from using the technology that may be restricted.

In the end, it comes down to a matter of freedom. Those nations who are now free to innovate will do so, and will eventually prosper. Those who seek restrictive legislation over free innovation will see their wealth and standard of living decline rapidly.

Re:This is great news for India!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, a strong economy and the higher quality of life it may bring in itself is good news for those nations. It means inflated costs of living and doing business in the countries that have them, and thus an advantage for those that don't.

The Western world has, by pumping up their economy for half a century, inflated their costs and income expectations so much that under-developed countries can perform the work at much lower cost. And then we try to tell them that this is "unfair". It was just stupid on our side to allow all these bubbles to expand.

Re:This is great news for India!

[jadavis]

Yes, you're right.

However, keep in mind that people who live in the U.S. actually still have a lot of freedom in comparison to places like India.

It's worrisome because the U.S. is losing freedom while India is gaining freedom. But India is still far, far away from allowing people the freedom we have here. There is rampant corruption (corruption in the U.S. Congress is nothing compared to India) and overwhelming government control of business. Property rights (and other civil liberties) in India are not protected as much as they are in the U.S.

I see this as a situation where the governments in places like India let the people have a little freedom for a while to get the economy going, and then fall back into government control before the people ever have the level of freedom that exists in the U.S. today.

Re:This is great news for India!

[Reducer2001]

I see this as a situation where the governments in places like India let the people have a little freedom for a while to get the economy going, and then fall back into government control

This may be what is currently happening in the US as well. The gov't granted more freedom in the 60's and 70's (civil rights, women's rights, etc.) to keep America's economic dominance going in the post-WWII boom. Does the fact that the gov't is beginning to restrict freedoms again (PATRIOT ACT, SOX, NSA wiretapping) have a correlation with America's waning economic dominance (BRIC)?

Re:This is great news for India!

[jadavis]

This may be what is currently happening in the US as well.

Maybe so. It depends how you look at it because usually when freedoms in one area go away you get a smaller improvement in freedom somewhere else. Of course that's a political trick. It certainly seems to me like the U.S. is becoming less free.

My point was not that the U.S. is perfect, but that it's the most free country around right now. You could make a good argument for other countries like Canada or Australia or Japan, but the U.S. is certainly ahead of places like India. Bribery in India is the normal course of events.

Sure, the U.S. Congress is corrupt. But compared to India, it's a big improvement. Sometimes it seems like there are lots of things I'd like to change about America, but I also like to keep track of the things that are good about America that we don't want to change. We don't want to become like India.

Re:This is great news for India!

[newt0311]

actually, the Indian government is sadly even stupider than that. It is actively pursuing affirmative action for ~50% of the workforce. basically, companies will be forced to waste half their HR budget on hiring idiots because the people in the India parliament have a vacuum for a brain.

Re:This is great news for India!

[x2A]

"Bribery in India is the normal course of events"

Wow, they're even free to do that?!!

Re:This is great news for India!

[BlueStrat]

I see this as a situation where the governments in places like India let the people have a little freedom for a while to get the economy going, and then fall back into government control

This may be what is currently happening in the US as well. The gov't granted more freedom in the 60's and 70's (civil rights, women's rights, etc.) to keep America's economic dominance going in the post-WWII boom. Does the fact that the gov't is beginning to restrict freedoms again (PATRIOT ACT, SOX, NSA wiretapping) have a correlation with America's waning economic dominance (BRIC [wikipedia.org])?

Actually, it's at once simpler and more complex than that. As population densities increase, there is not a linear increase in policing abilities and resources available to keep order among an increasingly dense population.

Detection of crime or other socially unacceptable or harmful behavior increases almost exponentially in difficulty, as does finding individual wrongdoers in a dense population.

So, as population densities grow, governments find themselves increasingly outnumbered by their own citizens, as regarding the amount of resources and human beings required to maintain any sort of order and what is practical to apply without that in itself sucking away so much manpower and resources that the society becomes unsustainable.

In the past, these pressures had a "relief valve" of unsettled lands to which populations could spread, and thus avoid having these situations reaching levels threatening continued viability.

This "relief valve" is coming to an end as the planets' reasonably-sustainable areas have mostly all been claimed and/or settled by this point in our history.

We as a species are in increasingly dire need for new areas in which to expand. Let us hope that colonization of places off-planet becomes a reality in time, before a world police state becomes reality, or at least before we as a species kill ourselves off...either by conflict and war, or simply choke on our own waste.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:This is great news for India!

[dajak]

You could make a good argument for other countries like Canada or Australia or Japan, but the U.S. is certainly ahead of places like India. Bribery in India is the normal course of events.

"Poor people are easy to buy", or rather inequality causes corruption. It's one of the classical 19th century arguments against introducing universal suffrage.

Countries are most vulnerable to corruption if most of the GDP is generated by a small elite. This happens if the internal economy is relatively small compared to the income from trade between this productive elite and abroad.

This productivity of the elite may consist simply of the fact that they control some resource (oil, gold) that other, richer countries want, as is the case in many countries in the Middle East and Africa. This can seriously mess up a country: in countries like Congo the only ambition most people seem to have is to be among the conquerers of a gold field and receive regular kickbacks from foreigners. Crime pays better there than here.

Compilers and Debuggers?

[mario_grgic]

So, how long before compilers and debuggers are made illegal? Especially the open source ones.

Re:Compilers and Debuggers?

[Rob T Firefly]

I think they'll just put those under the umbrella law outlawing the computer.

Re:Compilers and Debuggers?

[richieb]

I recomend you read the essay The Right To Read for a possible future.

Re:Compilers and Debuggers?

[tomjen]

already done

Doesn't make sense...

[gmiley]

To compare this to another industry:

Person 1: Hi, I make hammers, would you like to buy one? You can use them to "hammer" nails into things, really quite nice for building houses and such.

Person 2: Wow, this is nice. I'll take one!

Law: Woah woah woah! Hold on right here... This "hammer" you got here... yeah well that can be used to bash someone in the head, so... it's now illegal, you'll have to come with me now. That's right, hands behind your back.

I've never understood the idea that because a tool can be used to commit a crime, that it inherantly makes the tool evil.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Tweekster]

Just for fun to play devil's advocate...

Gas Chamber

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[saboola]

I like where you are going with this. I agree, hammers need to be banned.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[ScentCone]

I've never understood the idea that because a tool can be used to commit a crime, that it inherantly makes the tool evil.

Welcome, fellow NRA member.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Overzeetop]

Sweet irony, isn't it.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[ScentCone]

Sweet irony, isn't it.

Like Tupelo honey. (apologies to Van Morrison). I just love this sort of thing when it comes back around in interesting rhetorical ways.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns don't kill people...Chuck Norris kills people.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[ChristTrekker]

I know a guy who has a gas chamber. He's a bird farmer, and that's how he puts them down before they are made into...whatever they get made into.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[barzok]

It may sound like a joke, but this basically happened just this week to a kindergartener.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[vux984]

Welcome, fellow NRA member.

The express purpose of guns, with the exception of hunting rifles, is to shoot people. (Hint: you don't use handguns or automatic weapons to hunt deer.) Many people buy these guns for their ability to shoot people, even if they *never* intend to use it in that capacity.

Now suppose there was a magical way to prevent guns from shooting people. I predict that the NRA would, for the most part, lose interest in guns. And demand for them in general would drop off sharply as all the "self-defense", or "home invasion/tresspassing", or "deterrent/security" arguments go out the window if the gun can't shoot at people.

However, if the same magical system could be applied to hammers preventing them from being used for bashing heads the market for hammers would be completely unaffected.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm *not* suggesting we should ban guns. But I am saying its wrong to equate the gun controversy with a similiar view on hammers or perl.

Its a false comparison. Most guns have no other purpose. Even people who simply collect guns would likely find themselves uninterested in collecting guns that couldn't be used to shoot people. On some level they just wouldn't be guns anymore.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[A beautiful mind]

I'm on the middle ground I think, between the "omg this could be a tool to do $evil" and "this is just a tool, intent matters!".

Both ends are generalizations. There is no ultimate reasoning why you should either allow all tools to be used just because they are tools or restrict their usage, because they could do something harmful. It should be a per-case decision which involves multiple factors:

• How general usage the given tool is? (Perl - tactical nuke)
• What is the ratio of harmful and non-harmful usage? (Perl - tactical nuke)
• If harm occurs, how serious the harmful effect? (Perl - tactical nuke)
• How enforceable is the restriction if it would be applied to the given tool? (Perl - tactical nuke)
• Would banning the given tool have any effect on reducing the harm (alternatives to create the same harmful effect?)? (Perl - tactical nuke)
• How serious effects would banning the given tool have on legitimate usage? (Perl - tactical nuke)

I don't think my list is even half of what should be asked, but it should show my point. I included the Perl - tactical nuke after every question because it shows how can you make a difference between a tool that should be open to everyone's usage and one that should be restricted. I think the same example is applicable to kitchen knife - gun too, although to a lesser extent and I don't want this discussion to degrade to one about gun control.

The two general ends fail miserably, because if people think something is just a tool, then people could walk around with tactical nukes and if you think that something that can do harm should be restricted then you'd ban Perl and pretty much every software out there and also every household tool and appliance.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: you don't use handguns or automatic weapons to hunt deer.

Funny, my dad hunts deer with a handgun because he had a stroke that impairs the use of one of his hands. It's a lot easier (and safer) to shoot the deer with a pistol vs a rifle if you're only capable of using one hand. You might want to be careful with blanket generalizations.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

The express purpose of guns, with the exception of hunting rifles, is to shoot people.

So? Some nails need hammering, some people need shooting.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[A beautiful mind]

If we save 100 lives and your dad can't shoot deer, then tough shit, he should deal with it and get another hobby.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

The express purpose of guns, with the exception of hunting rifles, is to shoot people.

indeed it is...and why do you think we have an ammendment that allows us to bear arms? hint it wasn't just so we could hunt deer. it was at least in part so we could overthrow our own govt if we had to. and even a few of founders of our govt thought that it important that we overthrow our govt if it no longer speaks for the people.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Arandir]

The purpose of handguns may be to shoot people, but it's shooting for the purpose of defense, and not the perpetration of crime. There are also many legal and moral secondary purposes for guns that do not involve crime (or even shooting people).

Thus it is the same argument as hammers. If guns can be banned because they *could* be used to commit a crime, then why not hammers? Or Perl?

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[gmiley]

The problem with your example is that a tactical nuke has but one purpose. It was created to destroy. A hammer, kitchen knife, even a gun have several purposes.

The gun, granted, is used for one primary reason: to kill. It is what it is used to kill that gives it the ability to be used as a tool for survival: hunting for food, disposing of threatening animals.

There are, no doubt, software applications that are developed for the single purpose of attacking this or that. These are the specific cases in which the particular software package should be evaluated. But should they be made illegal? I don't necessarily think so. Perhaps I would want to use these tools to see how they would work on my personal network. Use them in a way that I can monitor my network for particular signatures that would distinguish an attack as originating from this particular software.

Posessing "questionable" software is akin to posessing any other "questionable" multi-purpose tool. It's only as evil as the person who uses it.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[ahodgson]

The express purpose of guns, with the exception of hunting rifles, is to shoot people. (Hint: you don't use handguns or automatic weapons to hunt deer.) Many people buy these guns for their ability to shoot people, even if they *never* intend to use it in that capacity.

Shooting people isn't always a crime; some people just need to be shot. Like the meth addict performing his latest home invasion.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[A beautiful mind]

Usage of guns for that is long since useless. Warfare advanced considerably since that time and I don't see any amendment saying that you can own an A-Bomb, nervegas, or any military grade equipment capable of taking on the military, so as it stands today that reasoning of the amendment is entirely useless.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[A beautiful mind]

"The problem with your example is that a tactical nuke has but one purpose. It was created to destroy. A hammer, kitchen knife, even a gun have several purposes." Did I speak to the wind? Where did I mention that I want to ban a hammer or a kitchen knife? Why do you think I was talking about per-case judgement and questions to consider?

You've basically ignored most part of my post.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Say goodbye to your car, then.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Buelldozer]

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but in many U.S states, perhaps even yours, it is perfectly legal to hunt deer with a handgun as long as it meets certain minimum specifications.

Since you didn't know that I have to assume that you're generally clueless about firearms and have been 'educated' by Anti-Gun propoganda, which is how you formed your "guns are EVIL" opinion.

Firearms are tools, just like the hypothetical hammer everyone is disussing. How the tool is used makes no reflection on it's morality or character. Those properties belong to the user.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[turbod]

"The express purpose of guns, with the exception of hunting rifles, is to shoot people."

There are three incorrect assumptions here:

1) Historically, all guns were developed as a result of warfare. Most of the long range hunting rifles owe some of their development to military history. Guns were a followup development of previous projectile launching weapons used in war, when gun powder was made available. It probably wasn't too long after that some rich king or general decided that he could use it for the hunt too.

2) Guns are used often in sport --- handguns too! There are many people in countries where using a gun for self defense is banned. However, they still pay for their weapons and store them at a club, just so they can punch holes in paper targets. This is trully endless fun.

3) Handguns are often used in big game hunts as a back up weapon of choice, in case the hunter becomes the hunted. There are thousands of stories printed, and probably many more that are not, about people who had to use a 357 magnum or 44 Magnum to bring down a charging bear or boar, that they had intended to kill with a long gun, but somehow ended up on the receiving end of an attack.

Additionally, if guns could be made to magically not shoot people, I'd still love my guns. Too much fun on the range otherwise...

For self defense, I'd simply move to long bladed weapons (which are much more deadly in close combat). Oh wait, they are attempting to outlaw those in England too :)

TurboD

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Toba82]

The original analogy was trying to say "guns have a legitimate use just like perl does" not "guns are made of flowers and rainbows just like perl". If someone is breaking into my house, I should be allowed to shoot them if they don't leave when I tell them to.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Dimensio]

If we save 100 lives and your dad can't shoot deer, then tough shit, he should deal with it and get another hobby.

Indeed. Of course, you will need to justify your "100 lives" statistic for your statement to have any real meaning.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[NiteShaed]

And that's why there's no effective insurgency in Iraq, and it's become a peaceful paradise for U.S. troops. Without tanks, nerve gas and nuclear weapons, guerilla forces would be forced to rely on small arms and improvised weaponry, which obviously are of no use fighting a large, well equipped force.

It's called asynchronous warfare, and if you have enough people with small arms working together, who are willing to sacrifice everything for their cause, I think you'd be surprised at how effective they can be.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[PatrickThomson]

If every shadow you see is a burgling addict that deserves to be shot, I hate to think what you do to the milkman if he doesn't phone ahead.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[killjoe]

I disagree. The punishment for theft should not be instant execution without a trial or jury. Even if found guilty the punishment for theft should be execution by shooting. Even if you believe in the death penalty and even if the person was not merely there to steal and should be executed the execution should not be done with a gun. It's too inhumane a way to kill somebody.

I am shocked at people who are willing to shoot people merely for trespassing, theft, or breaking and entering.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[turbod]

I can't believe someone modded you up.

We can save 100000 lives by stopping of mining of materials and the production of materials used in the computer industry (read: diamond, silicon, lead, tin, tantalum, copper).

We could save at least 100 lives this week by just stopping the sweat shops who are producing your l33t w4r3z.

Your beautiful mind is now not so beautiful.

Now, lets save the 50000 people alone killed in the united state driving cars, by banning cars, delivery trucks.

We can do probably 100 more a year by cutting out train travel too, since many people die each year being hit by a train.

Oh, and stop breathing. The CO2 is increasing global warmth (actually, I don't believe in this religion, but from your comment and name, I'd guess you probably do), which is causing more rain, which is increasing plant population and standing water, which in turn is increasing mesquito population, and which in turn is killing lots of people per year of malaria, still a major disease in the modern world.

So where does it stop? You tell me. Are you implying what you _want_ is more important than what I _want_?

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you're the one bring the knee-jerking issue to the table. Careful, you'll spill my Heineken, and I'll have to shoot you.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[pluther]

Usage of guns for that is long since useless.

Many years ago, I published a column in which I espoused that same idea. The second amendment was written at a time when your average citizen would have the exact same weaponry as any government forces. Since that is no longer true, went the gist of my argument, the right to bear arms is more or less obsolete.

I have re-thought my reasoning quite a bit since then. While you won't be able to out-gun the government should it come to that, the weaponry available to the average rural homeowner is roughly equivalent to that available to the average burglar, so such weapons are still useful in self-defense.

Furthermore, to defeat a government in today's world it is not necessary for a people to completely destroy their ability to make war, but it is enough to hold them off long enough that either their people can force them to withdraw, or you make it no longer cost-effective to bother you anymore. We've seen this many times recently: in 1994, the Maya in Chiapas, armed with bolt-action rifles and sticks were able to force concessions from their government, armed with tanks and F-15s. Hell, right now in Iraq we have a bunch of people with personal firearms and improvised explosives holding their own against the most powerful military force ever assembled.

So, no, despite the imbalance of power, usage of guns to defend against a tyrannical government is far from an obsolete purpose of the second amendment.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Langalf]

The express purpose of guns, with the exception of hunting rifles, is to shoot people. (Hint: you don't use handguns or automatic weapons to hunt deer.)

I do, however, carry a handgun when hunting to put down a deer at close range, or kill a rattlesnake. A rifle is just too damn big in some situations.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[jez9999]

I've never understood the idea that because a tool can be used to commit a crime, that it inherantly makes the tool evil.

Maybe not evil, but overly dangerous. I bet most NRA members would agree that owning a tank, bunker-buster or bazooka should be illegal. How about ricin? They're all 'tools', but put to the wrong use (hard to use some of them any other way), their effects on society are too nasty to allow general ownership.

Having established that, we've established that there's no absolute "all tools are OK" rule, it's a matter of drawing the line. So I guess my question would be, why do most of you gun supporters draw the line at guns, and not bazookas, missiles, tanks, stealth bombers, etc.?

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Toba82]

You're free to disagree, but I advise you don't break into my house.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[sconeu]

It's called asynchronous warfare,

So they're fighting at different times? I think you mean asymmetric warfare.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[jez9999]

Thanks for the most sensible post on this issue I've seen for a while.

The only sane way to think of the issue is that *some* and only some tools should be allowed, some banned. All-or-nothing leads to insanity. So societies reason based on heuristic questions, and different societies have different priorities/opinions/momentums, and make different tools legal/illegal.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[ageoffri]

I am shocked that people think it is ok to break in a house. To steal my things. In the worst case to either rape or kill someone. If someone breaks into my house the big question is does my roommate detain or kill them with his .357 or do I do it with my .45. They have made the choice that they do not respect my property so I will return that lack of respect. Hopefully they will give up and wait for the police, but if they even look like they are going to attack they have made their final choice.

If you have broken into my house you have commited a crime and made your choice. There is no grey area if you are caught in the act.

No matter if people like it or not law, order and society are built on fear. More often than not a person makes a choice based on the consequences of that action.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[compro01]

I disagree. The punishment for theft should not be instant execution without a trial or jury. Even if found guilty the punishment for theft should be execution by shooting. Even if you believe in the death penalty and even if the person was not merely there to steal and should be executed the execution should not be done with a gun. It's too inhumane a way to kill somebody.

I am shocked at people who are willing to shoot people merely for trespassing, theft, or breaking and entering.

you seem to be operating on the assumption that the shot will be lethal. most wounds (short of a lucky shot to something vital like the head or the heart) are treatable. the intent of shooting them is to incapasitate them, not nessesarily kill them.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Beatlebum]

How about publishing detailed plans for a thermonuclear bomb and making the materials available at Home Depot? Sure, in the wrong hands it could be used for evil purposes, but Uranium 235 is just an isotope, it should not be banned *just because* bad people *might* use it. Sheesh.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[vux984]

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but in many U.S states, perhaps even yours, it is perfectly legal to hunt deer with a handgun as long as it meets certain minimum specifications.

Yes I knew that. That is not, however, what they are designed for.

Since you didn't know that I have to assume that you're generally clueless about firearms and have been 'educated' by Anti-Gun propoganda, which is how you formed your "guns are EVIL" opinion.

I did know that, and I am not clueless. And seeing as I specifically said "I am *not* suggesting banning guns", I'm at a loss as to why you think I'm anti-gun. I'm not, not at all, not even a little bit.

Firearms are tools, just like the hypothetical hammer everyone is disussing.

Yes, firearms are tools.
No, firearms are not just like hammers.
See below for my explanation.

How the tool is used makes no reflection on it's morality or character.

Agreed.

Those properties belong to the user.

Also agreed.

However, suppose a tools intended purpose is to perform immoral acts then there is no real reason to have the tool. For example, if I invented a tool which, upon pointing it at someone and pushing its one button it invariably brainwashed them into becoming a brutal serial rapist and killer; what moral use would such a tool have? What possible reason should it be made available to the general public? Sure the technology might have useful moral applications, but as it stands, can we agree that nobody should be wandering around with one of these things?

Now, I'm NOT saying that this is the case for guns at all, but I AM recognizing that a controversy of this nature surrounds guns. Some beleive it has substantial moral uses, others think its little better than my rape-n-murder-gizmo.

And THAT is why hammers are different from guns. There is no controversy about whether hammers have moral uses: putting nails into wood is universally acceptable.

There is, however, a great deal of controversy with respect to using guns. "Killing trespassers", "killing in self defense", "killing car-jackers", and even "hunting" and "target practice (practice killing)" are controversial. A lot people don't beleive ANY use of a gun to kill or practice killing is acceptable, which is why the tool itself is surrounded in controversy.

Hammers *can* be used to bash heads in sure, but there is no controversy at all about its 'normal' uses. There is no automatic police investigation when ever a nail is hammered to make sure it was legally justified.

The same simply is not true for guns, and its a false comparison to say banning guns is like banning hammers.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[cdkayak]

If someone has broken into my home I'm not about to ask them what there intentions are. They will be warned and given the opportunity to leave if the situation allows it. If they fail to heed that warning I will take whatever action necessary to protect my life and the lives of my loved ones.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[MooUK]

Legal, maybe. Sensible, probably not. A handgun isn't designed for hunting. It's designed for killing. The difference may be quite subtle.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Fweeky]

"If guns can be banned because they *could* be used to commit a crime, then why not hammers? Or Perl?"

Hammers and perl are critical for everyday tasks, and using them irresponsibly poses, on the whole, a pretty small threat. Guns on the other hand are of little use in day to day life, and pose a considerable threat from misuse.

I'm sure you, too, feel there's a cutoff point on the utility:threat potential scale that can be trusted to the average chav/hick. Personally I like to err on the side where they don't get to kill people with the push of a button after a 5 day waiting period and a trip to Tesco.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[MooUK]

Actually shooting them, in my book, should be entirely unacceptable unless you believed you were in actual danger. Having possessions stolen is NOT physical danger.

If you believe it completely necessary to shoot someone in order to defend yourself, your family, your property, or whatever, then you can consider any punishment you could get from shooting them in your decision to do so easily enough. Injuring someone, whether to kill or not, should never be taken lightly.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[MooUK]

You wouldn't take a fully automatic weapon for such purposes, though, would you?

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[vux984]

Thus it is the same argument as hammers. If guns can be banned because they *could* be used to commit a crime, then why not hammers? Or Perl?

Because even when guns are used legally its controversial. Using Hammers and Perl legally is not. It is a perhaps subtle difference but its important. I made another post expanding on this elsewhere in the thread.

When a trespasser is shot in "self defence" there are questions. Was he really a threat to your life? Was killing him for taking your wallet really justified? Not only are these questions asked, but different people beleive the answers are different. Its controversial.

When you hammer a nail, the purpose for which the hammer was made... its simply devoid of moral content.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[kaligraphic]

No, it's asynchronous. I use my leet skills against a soldier, and 60 years later he gets around to dying.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[BigCheese]

You must be from Texas.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[jefu]

Its the old saying : "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Or a skull?

Or a numbskull (otherwise known as a politician).

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, slashdot, listen up, because I'm about to share a genius insight I just had. Check it out:

The express purpose of guns, with the exception of hunting rifles, is to shoot people. (Hint: you don't use handguns or automatic weapons to hunt deer.) Many people buy these guns for their ability to shoot people, even if they *never* intend to use it in that capacity.

What else can a handgun do besides hunt deer that is legitimate, and non people-killing? That's the thought you ask for, and I believe I have an answer:

A HANDGUN HAS AN ABILITY/FUNCTION OTHER THAN KILLING PEOPLE. IT'S A LOCALIZED REALITY-DISTORTION FIELD.

In this capacity, it has the same function as a logo stitched onto an otherwise bland, generic object. It distorts reality.

In what ways does it distort reality? I leave that as an exercise to the reader[1]; however, it clearly and obviously can be used for the express purpose of distorting reality.

Hint: this function is somewhat independent of whether the "express purpose" (killing people) of the gun works, in much the same way that the latest iPod, if it's battery is dead and you do not currently have a way of charging it, still functions as a localized reality-distortion device independent of its "express purpose" (music player), at which, much like a handgun, it may not currently be functioning!
--

[1] hints for "exercise for the reader" (suggest decoding one at a time.)

ROT13------------hint1:
gur rffragvny cebcregl bs iratrnapr vf gung vg punatrf ernyvgl

ROT13------------hint2:
va jung jnlf qbrf "orvat uhzna" cebgrpg gur nirentr uhzna gung qvfnccrnef vs jr vzntvar n zragny vyyarff juvpu gnxrf njnl bhe novyvgl gb ubyq n tehqtr ybat rabhtu gb npg ntnvafg bhe bja vagrerfgf? Jul qbrf gur znsvn rzcunfvmr xrrcvat n pbby urnq naq engvbanyvfz orsber znxvat gurve "bssref"?

ROT13------------hint3:
va jung jnlf jbhyq n crefba or zber yvxryl gb npg ntnvafg gurve vagrerfgf haqre "iratrnapr" ernyvgl-zbq guna jvgubhg vg?

ROT13------------hint4:
nffhzr:
1. rirelbar va Nzrevpn xabjf gung vg'f arire va nalbar'f vagrerfgf gb hfr n tha.
2. rirelbar xabjf rirelbar ryfr nyfb xabjf guvf.
3. rirelbar va Nzrevpn vf uhzna.
4. rirelbar nyfb xabjf rirelbar ryfr vf uhzna.

Haqre gurfr pbaqvgvbaf, jul jbhyq fbzrbar npdhver n tha naq yrnea ubj gb hfr vg, tvira gur nffhzcgvba (1), juvpu fgngrf gung vg'f arire va nalbar'f vagrerfgf gb hfr n tha? Vs lbh XABJ (ubjrire snyfryl) gung lbh jvyy ARIRE or va n cbfvgvba jurer vg'f va lbhe vagrerfgf gb hfr n tha, jul jbhyq lbh npdhver n tha naq yrnea ubj gb hfr vg?
Abgr: gur nafjre "whfg va pnfr lbh qb trg vagb n fvghngvba nsgre nyy jurer vg'f va lbhe vagrerfgf" ivbyngrf bhe nffhzcgvba, vg'f abg gur nafjre. Gur nafjre zhfg abg ivbyngr gur nffhzcgvba: "Cbfvg gung vg vf arire va lbhe vagrerfgf gb hfr n tha", juvpu vf jung rirelbar va (1) nobir xabjf.

Jul jbhyq lbh npdhver n tha naq yrnea ubj gb hfr vg, juvyr cbfvgvat gung va rirel pnfr vzntvanoyr vg jbhyq or ntnvafg lbhe vagrerfgf gb hfr vg? (Tvira nyfb 2, 3, naq 4 nobir, juvpu vapyhqr gung lbh'er uhzna, naq rirelbar xabjf guvf)

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[maxume]

Because there are legitimate, responsible uses for guns?

Also, shooting at the bazooka range might be fun, but I can't imagine it would be fun to pay for.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[x2A]

No, he was right with asynchronous - the ability to fire your missiles in a non-blocking manor, so you can carry on doing stuff while it completes it's job. And of cause the latest technology is to give your missiles landscape details and the path to take in XML format, which is known as AWAX. Asynchronous wars run a lot more smoothly and seamlessly, and are generally a lot less painful for everyone.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[x2A]

"Was killing him for taking your wallet really justified?"

Sure; we don't have a shortage of people, and if we kill all the people who steal your wallet, then all that will be left are people who won't. Sounds like a better world to live in.

I am against it tho, for other reasons. Here in the UK, most people that break into your house won't be carrying a gun. If we all start owning guns to protect our properties, then the people doing the breaking in will start protecting themselves with guns too, which negatively affects the risks of all people who have a home that may be broken in to.

It's all about the bigger picture.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[x2A]

What we really need to think about, is do we really need to keep everyone alive? We have enough people, and yeah we gotta be a lil careful of who we get rid of (just pissing someone off isn't enough), but I don't see anything wrong with increasing the standards for being allowed to live. As the standard of decent human beings alive on the planet goes up, we won't even need to keep killing off those at the bottom, because the bottom will move up. Damn our compassionate nature, it's holding us back.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[x2A]

Why should you only be allowed to protect your physical body? I work really hard (except right now :-p) and have relatively little "stuff" to show for it (I'm a generous guy), and if someone tries to take that from me, they are taking the portion of my life I gave to generate the money to be able to own it.

Why do we need people on this planet who are willing to do that, when there are so many who don't?

But yes, I am against killing people under those circumstances regardless, at /least/ until a trial or something - seems like too easy way to get rid of someone - arrange for it to look like they were breaking in, which is why everyone should have to right to say "it wasn't me" (or variants of), because sometimes - it really wasn't.

So yes I am against the killing on technical grounds, but I can't be on the moral grounds you give.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[ScentCone]

The punishment for theft should not be instant execution without a trial or jury.

Except, that's not what we're talking about, and you know it. When you hear a sound in your house in the middle of the night, do you phone up a jury to determine what the intentions are of the person that's creeping in through the window? If you know that people in your neighborhood have been accosted by someone breaking into houses at night, do you just err on the side of assuming that person (who also knows that) is hoping for a sandwich?

The point is that when someone deliberately chooses to act in a way that leaves other people unable to ascertain their intentions, and they do so while invading their home, they waive any right to their own well being. And no jury should find someone guilty for taking into account what they know can happen (and has) under similar circumstances.

And then there's actually being overtly, directly threatened. Have you ever had some drug-addled 300-pound guy beating on your door with a pipe at 2:00AM? I have. Yes, my wife called the police, and they were almost 20 minutes arriving. The only thing that kept that person from breaking down the door (and, presumably carrying out the threats he was shouting) was that some part of his brain recognized the large-frame revolver that I pointed his way. That was a classic case of "brandishing," and it did what it almost always does: it dissuades all but the totally crazy from advancing any closer to the person they're threatening. For the truly crazy, it can be used in its full capacity and to disable, physically, the threatening person. And when that's in my house, with my family being threatened, I'm not in the mood to wait for a jury's deliberations on just how dangerous this person - who has already demonstrated complete disregard for civility, privacy, perceptions of safety - is or is not.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

If every shadow you see is a burgling addict that deserves to be shot, I hate to think what you do to the milkman if he doesn't phone ahead.

You aren't very bright, are you, Patrick?
He very clearly stated "Meth addict doing a home invasion." For some reason you equate that with a milk delivery. Perhaps some counseling would help you learn the difference.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[ScentCone]

Legal, maybe. Sensible, probably not. A handgun isn't designed for hunting. It's designed for killing. The difference may be quite subtle.

Careful, your complete ignorance is showing.

First, hunting is killing. A 120-pound whitetail deer destined for the dinner table, for example, requires exactly the same sort of killing as a 120-pound attacking human. In my area, many deer are hunted in very close, densely wooded areas. Many hunters hunt from tree stands, waiting only for animals that are only a few meters away. Packing and mounting a climbing tree stand requires a lot of work, and if you're equipped with the right handgun (personally, a 7-1/2" Ruger Redhawk in .44 magnum with a Leupold scope), you can climb the tree with your weapon nicely stowed in a shoulder holster. Much, much easier (and safer) for that type of hunting than hiking in and climbing with a long gun.

Works great, and drops a deer stone cold dead right where it's standing. Mmmm, venison. Best red meat money can't easily buy.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[killjoe]

"I am shocked that people think it is ok to break in a house."

Great. I am very impressed with your shock. I am amazed by your shock. Oh wait a minute you are shocked at a straw man never mind. Did anybody say it was OK? Besides you I mean.

"If someone breaks into my house the big question is does my roommate detain or kill them with his .357 or do I do it with my .45. They have made the choice that they do not respect my property so I will return that lack of respect. "

Of course you can kill them but what happens once your hard on goes away? You have just shot somebody for the crime of trying to steal your TV. If you were not home they might get a misdemenor or a maybe a light jail sentence but you took it upon yourself to give this guy the death sentence without even a jury or a trial. I guess some living human beings life is worth less to you then your TV. I guess you would rather snuff out somebody then to try and get your TV back by reporting the crime and talking to your insurance company or the police.

I get the feeling that the argument I just laid out doesn't really wash with you. I get the feeling that you are not capable of understanding other peoples pain. To you a human life is worth a TV. Take my TV, I kill you, we are even!.

All I can hope for is that you do actually kill somebody. Then you will find out that it's not so simple as "he was in my house so I shot him". You see it's not really legal to kill people who are in your house. there will be a trial, you will most likely end up in jail with the rest of the murders. At best you will be sued civilly and lose all your pocessions not just your TV.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[JesseMcDonald]

I bet most NRA members would agree that owning a tank, bunker-buster or bazooka should be illegal.

Well, I'm not an NRA member, but I would say that none of those items should be banned outright. To say that they have no valid self-defense purpose makes the sometimes-faulty assumption that self-defense need only be practiced against a single attacker at any given time. On the contrary, there are certainly occasions where it may be necessary to defend one's self, one's family, and one's property[1] against an invasion from an organized, well-equiped enemy (think civil war/totalitarian regime/foreign invasion), and under those circumstances it would be quite reasonable to own such weapons (assuming that you believe in the whole "the best defense is good offense" theory[2]).

The question still ultimately breaks down to how the tool is used -- was the action an aggressive first strike, or merely a reasonable response to a previous attack by an opponent? The tool used matters not at all in answering that question, except perhaps in determining whether the response was, in fact, reasonable given scale of the threat, which can only be known after the threat has presented itself.

[1] The mention of property here is simply a strategic issue: if you lose control of your "base", or your supplies, it becomes extremely difficult to defend yourself. It's a tactical matter only; I'm not saying that life is somehow less valuable than property by any means.

[2] There are many who would argue instead that good diplomatic relations are the best defence against attack. I do not necessarily disagree with them. However, the question is still far from decided, and I would not choose to take from anyone the right to defend themselves by responding to an attack in kind.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[NiteShaed]

Fire away, I deserve everything I get for that stupid mistake. I know perfectly well what the term is, and I have no excuse for how I did that.

In short, ladies and gentlemen, I am an ass. :)

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[LordWill]

The problem with tools that help everyone is that they help everyone. They help the good guys and the bad guys.

Good or evil is in the heart of the wielder.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[sconeu]

Sorry NiteShaed, I should have put a smiley on that one. No hard feelings?

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[vux984]

Are you implying what you _want_ is more important than what I _want_?

All I _want_ is to live you insensitve clod. ;)

Seriously though; while banning cars and whatnot is impractical, and I _agree_ with you.

But just suppose for a moment that the next 50,000 people to-be-killed in car accidents showed up at your doorstep telling you they want to live. What would your response be... "Well I want to drive to work!"

That doesn't exactly feel right either.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[MooUK]

OK, I can understand that.

Now why would you use an automatic weapon for such things, though?

(Also, it's waaaaay too long since I last ate venison. Which can quite easily be bought, here.)

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[A beautiful mind]

Thank gods the iraqi have the second amendment so they can resist an attack by their own government...oh wait.

Iraq is a huge country (437,072 sq km) with a lot of people (26,783,383 (July 2006 est.)). You're suggesting that a 100k military force, in a foreign country with practically zero support from the natives should be more effective than it already is? You mean that what, a few thousand soldiers at max dead is effective? I'd say it's brilliantly not, compared to the 100 thousands dead iraqis.

I'd also add that Iraqis get their weapons from neighbouring countries, get the explosives from home made methods or also neighbouring countries or old Saddam-time reserves. They are not running around with a handgun, but with automated weapons mostly.

You must have a different measure of effectiveness than me. They are achieving something, mind you, but it is brutally ineffective. If the USA goes out of Iraq it won't be because they are physically forced to retreat, but because it will be a political decision based on public pressure.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[ScentCone]

Now why would you use an automatic weapon for such things, though?

I think you're confusing "automatic" with "auto-loading" or "semi-automatic." In order to actually own a true, automatic weapon in the US, you have to pass extremely invasive federal inspection, demonstrate secure storage, remain open to surprise inspection from the feds, and renew your license on a regular basis. Essentially, it's serious military collectors, clubs, etc. I believe the records still show that no crimes involving an actual automatic weapon in the US have been committed by a person who legally obtained and owns such pieces.

A semi-automatic, though, is different. It's a means by which to repeat your fire with relative, but deliberate speed. A double action revolver, for example, can do this (typically) six times - as fast as you can pull the trigger. The problem with that revolver is that pulling the trigger in quick succession usually messes up your aim because it's a fair amount of forearm/finger work unless you've got really big hands. A semi-auto pistol (say, a good old 1911-style .45 with a nine round magazine) allows the same repeating action, but with considerably more control because the gun is doing more of the work. In a long gun, it's the same story. Repeating rifles, for example, have been around a long, long time. Bolt-action, pump-action, lever-action (some of which can be operated with amazing speed if you practice)... and, gas/recoil-operated semi-autos.

The most common real use for a repeating gun, for most hunters, is in bird hunting. I'm guessing, based on your handle, that you're from the UK. Folks in your area have made some of the finest side-by-side shotguns ever made. That's a two-shot repeating gun, which can get off those two shots in an instant. Unfortunately, when hunting, say, larger rooster pheasants in the Great Plains, two shots doesn't do the job when you flush up four birds in high winds. A repeating gun helps a lot, and a semi-auto one helps even more. My freezer is full of pheasant and partridge meat that fell to both my gun and my wife's (she's fond of Italian shotguns - and shoes). There isn't a moment of gratuitousness in using a semi-auto shotgun to stop the game you're after. Also very appropriate on rabbits (yum, hasenpfeffer) and other high-speed targets that zig, zag, and don't politely hold still just because you want to eat them.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[MooUK]

There is the possibility that legal ownership of such weapons, even by only a few, makes it easier for someone to get their hands on one (by stealing). Whether true or not, I have no idea.

I'm no expert on US gun laws, obviously. I can also see plenty of reason for owning a semi-automatic handgun, and for owning a rifle. Just not for anything in between.

On the other hand, I will admit freely that I've never knowingly shot something living. (It's possible that I've hit the odd worm or insect or something shooting in the garden, but there's only so much damage you can do with an ancient, underpowered .22 air rifle.)

Last time I tried rabbit, I was unimpressed. Same with pheasant, I think.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Chamberlain

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[ScentCone]

There is the possibility that legal ownership of such weapons, even by only a few, makes it easier for someone to get their hands on one (by stealing). Whether true or not, I have no idea.

The overwhelming majority of perceived-as-more-dangerous-because-they-look-that -way guns that fall into the wrong hands do so because of deliberate, overtly "straw" purchases or outright illegal importation. Stolen guns, per se, aren't nearly as much of an issue as the lack of really, truly punishing incarceration of those that set out to traffic in them as a business. Needless to say, we (in the US) have a much bigger problem with stolen cars used in crimes (and a vastly, vastly higher number of people killed by criminally negligant drivers). People fret about guns entirely out of scale with the real threats in their lives... like, eating fatty meat. Which bring us to:

Last time I tried rabbit, I was unimpressed. Same with pheasant, I think.

With rabbit, the diet of the animal is crucial to the flavor (or lack of), and the meat is pretty lean, so it actually needs the same sort of care as game bird meat (lest it become dry and tough). From that same web site, here's how to deal with that pheasant meat. It's all about not over-cooking. It's counter-intuitive, but even when the meat's in a soupy marinade, too much cooking can still make it dry, flavorless, and annoying. Which, of course, leads to bans on repeating shotguns authored by people that only eat steroid-pumped, farm-nasty chicken. See how it all comes together? My goal is to preserve my right to own my firearms by pointing people to web sites about juicier bird meat preparation. Of course, a lot of people wouldn't follow my reasoning, there. :-)

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[MooUK]

Chicken gets boring fast. Despite the price, a lovely bit of lamb is hard to beat.

It's an interesting method of convincing people that you have there. Major problem with that line of thought in the UK is that there's a lot more people for less animals (in a comparable space), hence a lot of people hunting would really be a bad idea. In the US you have a lot more space with a lot more game.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[ageoffri]

"Of course you can kill them but what happens once your hard on goes away? You have just shot somebody for the crime of trying to steal your TV. If you were not home they might get a misdemenor or a maybe a light jail sentence but you took it upon yourself to give this guy the death sentence without even a jury or a trial. I guess some living human beings life is worth less to you then your TV. I guess you would rather snuff out somebody then to try and get your TV back by reporting the crime and talking to your insurance company or the police.
I get the feeling that the argument I just laid out doesn't really wash with you. I get the feeling that you are not capable of understanding other peoples pain. To you a human life is worth a TV. Take my TV, I kill you, we are even!."

Amazing how you lack the ability to understand what you read. The very first thing I said was detain the criminal. You seem to be under the imprssion that detain means kill, detain means hold the scum who attempted to take my stuff at gun point until the police arrive and charge them. If they make any threats then where I live you are allowed to use force up to and including deadly force.

A human life is always worth more then a TV but no matter how much pain you are in it doesn't give someone the right to break in and steal stuff. Your argument about someone being in pain is just an attempt to shift the responsibility of the criminal actions. "Oh look he had to steal because of his circumstances."

I also belive in making my house the least attractive target as possible by having an alarm system with outside placards. Keeping door and windows locked and on the first floor window covers closed.

"All I can hope for is that you do actually kill somebody. Then you will find out that it's not so simple as "he was in my house so I shot him". You see it's not really legal to kill people who are in your house. there will be a trial, you will most likely end up in jail with the rest of the murders. At best you will be sued civilly and lose all your pocessions not just your TV."

Maybe were you live your right to defend yourself has been restricted or maybe you don't have a right to even defend yourself and your property but here in Colorado we have a law that allows the use of deadly force and gives immunity from criminal and civil prosecution. I know and understand this law, because I firmly belive that owning firearms requires me to be famialir with the the local, State and Federal laws. It also gives me a responsiblty to practice and know how to use my firearms.

Just for your benefit I've included the applicable State law below so that you can be educated on my local laws that apply to how I can defend my home and possesions.

18-1-704.5 Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder ("Make My Day law")

1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions or subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

4. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Langalf]

No, they tear up too much of the meat. Also, the Federal Firearms Permit is too expensive to make it worthwhile.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[killjoe]

"Maybe were you live your right to defend yourself has been restricted or maybe you don't have a right to even defend yourself and your property but here in Colorado we have a law that allows the use of deadly force and gives immunity from criminal and civil prosecution."

Wow amazing. in colorado you can kill anybody who in inside your house if you think they will break an ashtray and if you think they might punch you.

Fantastic state you live in there. They have made it legal to murder anybody by simply inviting them to your house and then killing them and claiming that they broke in and that you thought they might punch you.

Or maybe the law is more complex then that huh?

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the milkman is in your house he ain't just delivering your milk, is he?

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

I do agree that there are too many people in this world already and there are people who don't deserve to live. But how do you decide what the standards should be?

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[ageoffri]

Please read and understand exactly what I posted. If you had bothered to read the actual law you would know that this is the one of the key phrases.

and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

So far the only thing you have demonstrated is you know how to use a Strawman attack.

I never said or even implied that merely damaging property was enough to use the "Make my Day Law".

I have the right to expect absolute safety in my home. I will detain anyone who breaks and enters. If and only if they make like they are going to use physical force then I am justified in shooting them.

I can tell at this point that trying to remove your ignorance is a waste of time. I hope for your sake that you never become a victim, but right now you have the victim mentality.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[killjoe]

"and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant."

Right. It's all up to what the shooter believes. Since there is no way to determine what the shooter actually believed at the time of the shooting the stage has made murder legal. You can shoot anybody on your property and then claim that you thought they were going to slap you. Since even if you thought they "might" use "any" force "no matter how slight" it's legal for you to kill them then they have for all intensive purposes given you a blank check to kill anybody you want as long as they are on your property.

Then again maybe the law is more complex then your quotes.

"I can tell at this point that trying to remove your ignorance is a waste of time. I hope for your sake that you never become a victim, but right now you have the victim mentality."

I have lived in NY (in the bad old days), NJ (including newark!), and various other "dangerous" places in the US. I have never ever been held up, mugged, broken into or assaulted in any way. Maybe I am lucky who knows. Oddly enough when I lived in the west in some of the least dangerous parts of the world (wyoming for example) everybody was scared some boogey man was going to break into their house and kill them so they were all armed to the teeth. I always thought that was weird. I think the same applies for colorado.

I heard this in a movie once "By the time you need a gun you have already made a dozen mistakes"

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

If they ban U235 how am I supposed to power my nuclear bicycle? All this bullshit about dangerous substances cause people to think Pu is something harmfull. Now I can't even hire schoolchildren in the weekends anymore to dust the Pu of the reactor.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had mod points, you would get them.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[Arandir]

The problem is, banning guns is like banning Perl. It only stops the law adiding citizen. Criminals do not obey the law, that's why they are criminals.

Re:Doesn't make sense...

[ahodgson]

I said home invasion, not burglary. One offers an imminent threat to one's life.

Criminalize owning a computer

[VisceralLogic]

It's the only realistic solution... computer users are 100% responsible for computer attacks and hacking. Clearly, owning a computer should be illegal for individuals. Just wait... you'll see...

Wide open? Like a hotdog in a hallway.

[voice_of_all_reason]

A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article... believing that it is likely to be so used... to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3 of the Computer Misuse Act

"Article" sounds pretty broad to me. It can mean object. I may be able to commit computer offense with a hammer, for chrissakes.

Illegal Tools

[pjwhite]

I suppose crowbars and hammers should be outlawed, too, since they can be used for burglary.

Re:Illegal Tools

[canning]

What about guns? I can commit a crime using a gun or prevent one.

I'm so confused!!

Re:Illegal Tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, gee, combine the last two comments and you get:

- crowbars could be used to break into places that have computers;
- hammers could be used to smash computers

"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right."

Re:Illegal Tools

[amigabill]

Automobiles can be used to assist in escape from a burglary or any other kind of crime, so automobiles should also be illegal.

Re:Illegal Tools

[mobby_6kl]

>What about guns? ... I'm so confused!!

Don't worry, the UK government already decided this one for you.

Re:Illegal Tools

[kfg]

My SO actually convicted someone of possession of a burglery tool.

The tool?

A screwdriver.

What makes this doublely daft is that the perp, who did commit a burglery, didn't use it in the comission of the burglery, it was . . . part of the loot.

KFG

Re:Illegal Tools

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I suppose crowbars and hammers should be outlawed, too, since they can be used for burglary.

Already done. Skulking around with all black clothes and a crowbar will get you charged with possession of burglary tools.

Re:How about gun companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad analogy, guns don't have a non-killing function.

OMG OMG!

[Clazzy]

Let's ban LUNIX!

Tony Blair and his amazing Labour party will keep me safe from those dirty hackers, yay!

Why the focus on Perl and Larry Wall?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be far more understandable to the general public, yet just as accurate, to use Microsoft and Windows instead of Larry Wall and Perl.

Larry Wall got kicked out of Intel for hacking ...

[gd23ka]

I guess with the regime over here the way it is they could still throw the book at him for that :-)

Shitty Government.

[Ckwop]

This is more sensationalist shit like the story about the RIPA. The law isn't very effective because the police can't force you to hand over keys that are used only to ensure the integrity of messages. This basically means that stuff like SSL, SSH and Zimmerman's Zphone are safe against seizure.

I submitted a story on this but obviously the Slashdot editors care more about exciting headlines than the sober truth. I wrote an essay in 2003 and you can read it here.

I've not read the act but I can already guess how useless it will be. The short and long of it is that it is very tough indeed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone that you put the software there. Believe me I know, I was a witness in a Child Porn case. The defence won because when we found the content we didn't follow CPS guidelines in the data recovery method.

Even worse, a hackers machine can look very much like a hacked machine. Hackers, after all, use one machine to get to the next. How are you going to prove they aren't the innocent bystander - BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Yet more time wasted by an incompetent government that can't even deport convicted foreign criminals.

Simon.

Re:Shitty Government.

[richieb]

If I had mod points you'd get an "Insightful" +1

Re:Shitty Government.

[JesseMcDonald]

I've not read the act but...

I know this is nearly heresy around here, but perhaps you should at least take a look at the proposed law before blindly stating that it will be unenforceable? The relevant part of the proposed text reads as follows:

A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article --
(a) intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3 [of the Computer Misuse Act]; or
(b) believing that it is likely to be so used.

It's part (b) that's the problem here. This law would make it illegal to make (etc.) not just programs intended for computer-related crimes, but also any programs which the author believes will be used to commit such crimes. That is just insane.

Here's an (hypothetical) example: I make a completely general-purpose program -- a C compiler. It is well known that I am the author of this compiler. Assuming that my compiler is popular enough to warrant attention, it is a near certainty that someone, somewhere, will use it to create a tool used in a computer-related crime. Under this law, I could be prosecuted for making a tool knowing that it was likely to be used by someone to commit a crime, regardless of other, legal, uses for the tool.

As the law is stated, all non-crippled development languages and programming environments would certainly qualify. The only way around it (that I can think of, anyway) would be to hold an irrational belief in the impossibility that anything one makes could be used to commit a computer-related crime -- <span class="humor">and that would probably just convince them that you're criminally insane instead.</span>

Disclaimer: IANAL

Re:Shitty Government.

[proteonic]

I suspect that such laws will never get much use, and 50 years from now people will look back and say 'Hey, can you believe some of the crazy computer laws we have on the books!' much in the way people look back today on outdated laws in some states. For examples: http://www.crazylaws.com/

Re:Shitty Government.

[incabulos]

How does the encryption on DVDs and so-called 'copy protected' CDs figure into this? Should we expect the local RIAA and MPAA equivalents to be arrested and jailed? Microsoft and Sony have a lot of hardware code-signing crypto stuff in their consoles, better arrest them all too.

Or are we going to see draconian police thuggery against ordinary people while criminal corporations get ignored or even encouraged by the government? I guess if laws there were being upheld then Tony Blair, Jack Straw, and lots of other government officials would be behind bars right now, so I cant see any way that this will end well.

Re:Shitty Government.

[julesh]

This is more sensationalist shit like the story about the RIPA. The law isn't very effective because the police can't force you to hand over keys that are used only to ensure the integrity of messages.

Well, frankly you're arguing against a strawman here. The problem with the RIPA has nothing to do with message authentication codes, hell it isn't even that it allows the police to demand your encryption key (I don't have a problem with this). The problems with it are:

1. It does not require an order made under it to be issued by an appropriate authority. The authority to make orders extends essentially to any police officer in pursuit of his duty. It should require judicial oversight (e.g. only a magistrate or judge could issue the order).

2. The secrecy requirements on orders are potentially problematic. They never expire, so if you are subject to one you cannot tell anybody about it, ever... other than your lawyer.

3. It shifts the burden of proof. If it can be proved that you once had the key, your only defence is to prove that you no longer have it. How this is likely to be shown I don't know.

I wrote an essay in 2003 and you can read it here.

Your analysis misses the point of what the law is for -- it isn't targeted at breaking SSH connections or similar systems where the key is not stored permanently. The law's drafters knew very well that they couldn't attack these systems without making them illegal, and I suspect didn't want the consequences of criminalising HTTPS. The main target is getting keys for access to encrypted hard disks and e-mails, which with current technology are very much covered. The law achieves what it was originally intended to achieve.

The short and long of it is that it is very tough indeed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone that you put the software there.

Huh? I'm not sure what you're talking about. This law criminalises providing tools to a 3rd party that are either designed to be used in a crime under the CMA, or where the transferer believes (knowing UK law this will be interpreted as 'a reasonable person in the same situation would have believed', as of course an individual's state of mind is nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt) that it is likely to be used in such a crime.

Believe me I know, I was a witness in a Child Porn case. The defence won because when we found the content we didn't follow CPS guidelines in the data recovery method.

Laws on handling of evidence exist for very good reasons: to make it harder for anyone to plant or falsify evidence against a suspect. The only evidence required here is evidence that the supply took place. This could be found from (e.g.) web server access logs, ISP logs, or police monitoring the activities of a downloader who is already a suspect, among other possible sources.

As an aside, you mention that you did data recovery in the case you talked about -- it's worth noting that downloading child porn to a computer and immediately deleting it would not (provably) constitute an offence in itself, as I understand the law. You must intentionally do it, in the full knowledge of what is contained. If the suspect deleted it, this could be seen as evidence that the suspect did not know the contents of the files he downloaded and did the reasonable thing on discovering them -- immediately delete them. Without knowing the details of your case, I surmise that this is probably why the CPS wouldn't use recovered files; they couldn't be certain they had been kept for any length of time.

Make computers illegal!

[9mm Censor]

Computer hackers tend to use computers to commit computer hacker crimes. The link between hackers and computer systems is enhertiently intrinsic, therefore banning the use and ownership of computer systems would greatly reduce computer crime!

Re:Make computers illegal!

[saboola]

That will only stop the sloppy hackers. The good ones will pick up a telephone and start making the necessary modem tones with their mouths.

Re:Make computers illegal!

[jadavis]

From http://m-w.com/dictionary/enhertiently

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right.

Suggestions for enhertiently:

          1. interdentally
          2. intermittently
          3. interdental
          4. intolerantly
          5. inheritances
          6. intertidally
          7. antirealist
          8. antihunter
          9. antinarrative
        10. antirealists

Huh? At first I thought it was a real word because I couldn't think of a word that made sense in that position.

Re:Make computers illegal!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he meant "inherently". I hope he meant something else though, as inherently would be superfluous and redundant. :)

Re:Make computers illegal!

[9mm Censor]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safa ri&rls=en&q=define%3A+inherently&btnG=Search Ok, I cant spell. Gas me.

Re:Make computers illegal!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Sorry, gas can be used to commit a crime and has been outlawed.

Re:Make computers illegal!

[Anonymous Coward]

Say good bye to calculators, abacuses, and brains!

Re:Make computers illegal!

[kahei]

'enhertiently' is my new favorite made-up word.

Incidentally, if you meant 'inherently', it doesn't make sense before 'intrinsic'.

Re:Make computers illegal!

[canuck57]

Computer hackers tend to use computers to commit computer hacker crimes. The link between hackers and computer systems is enhertiently intrinsic, therefore banning the use and ownership of computer systems would greatly reduce computer crime!

There is a strange twist of truth to this. Just like cars, if we take half of them off the road then we will have half as much deaths and DWI. If we banned baseball bats, hammers, screw drivers, hatchets, chain saws, nails, pens, glass bottles, airplanes, boats, matches, lighters, drugs, electricity, houses with stairs... see my point? Might as well go back to the stone age as it would be terribly hard to ban the rock we live on.

There are countries that have spent billions trying to ban guns, now only the criminals have them. You should see what happens with rape and burglery rates when the honest home/business owner can't protect themselves.

People commit crimes, not tools.

What is more likely to happen is the government will pass the law and place security professionals at odds. Limiting the testing of real networks and actually make it easier for hackers. After all, these are the same tools the hackers use.... what a better way to test with? Sort of like taking guns away from honest people. The criminals will like this mentality and lack of insight.

This gets worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

There was this other post... http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186090&cid= 15358185
"It's like some sick competition between the US administration and the UK one.

"Oh, yeah, you think that telephone call database is slick, check this sh*t out. We're gonna make our subjects give up their crypto keys or go to jail"
"Oooh, good one!" (high five)"

It should be continued with
American Administration: "But still we have the DMCA and some states has even extended that to cover "unlawful" communication devices..." http://www.hackbusters.net/
UK administration: "Good one, I think I can top it though... wait a minute" UK administration drafting a bill ... "Check this out, this lands everyone that who tries to asses their information security in jail!"
American Administration: "Wicked!"...

Want to reduce crime?

[MarkByers]

If there were no laws there would be no such thing as crime. To reduce crime, we should remove laws, not add more.

Re:Want to reduce crime?

[mctk]

You're proposing that we make it a law that there shall be no laws?

When it's unlawful to be lawful only outlaws will be lawful.

In other news...

[Xichekolas]

... the UK outlaws hammers (citing their use to commit vandalism and murder), pliers (citing their use for sabotage and torture via fingernail removal), and cell phones (citing their use to coordinate groups of people without government knowledge and approval). From now on, all houses will be built by government agents, all wiring will be done by government spooks, and all interpersonal communication will happen by calling the new Worldwide Home Office Relay Exchange (WHORE) and giving a government agent the name of the person you wish to talk to and the message to relay that person. The government agent will then check the recipient, and either send agents to detain you on terrorism charges or deliver your message with a smile...

... U.S. said to be considering similiar, if not more draconian, measures...

Glad to see...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not only the US Government that is going stupid...but I am sure you will all be more then glad to tell me this is the US government's fault somehow...the UK is capable of making their own laws and it seems they are doing a great job lately of making ones that might even make US officials cringe....

It's easier to fight the tool than the person

[MikeRT]

Leftist leaders even more than right wing leaders tend to have a hard time accepting the fact that you can do bad things with different tools. They also have a hard time blaming the person for their use of it. Conservatives do it with drugs by blaming the drugs for the armed robbery to feed the habit. Leftists do it with weapons. It's easy to blame a drug, a gun or a scripting language for a crime. It allows you to not be "judgemental" toward a person who is just an asshole. Neither side likes to admit that these things are totally the person's fault, derived from some inner flaw in the person's character that causes them to get high and rob, shoot to murder someone or hack to steal a person's money.

Re:It's easier to fight the tool than the person

[ChristTrekker]

You're right, it's the current "politically correct" culture we live in. You don't want to be judgmental, you don't want to "discriminate", don't want to hurt anyone's feelings you know.

Sorry, but I'll call a spade a spade. If you're a jerk, then you are, and trying to shift blame onto your childhood/current circumstances doesn't fly with me. You had a choice. You made a bad decision. Tough cookies. Grow up and be responsible.

Re:It's easier to fight the tool than the person

[NATIK]

I seriously dont hope they really believe this. I think it is just a way to show that they are on top of things, by banning random things that are vaguely connected to things people fear, the government can achieve two goals at once.

1: gain more power through law and
2: Get the support of the ignorant masses as they think it sounds like a good idea, which in turn also grants more power.

Re:It's easier to fight the tool than the person

[Anonymous Coward]

At a societal level nothing can be attributed to 'assholes', the question is what made them that way (poverty, education availability, etc.)

Re:It's easier to fight the tool than the person

[Obi-w00t]

Leftist leaders...

I'm sorry, "Leftist"? More like "Leftish". New Labour is centre-left. And the Conservatives are now centre-right, with the Liberal Democrats being equidistant. That basically means that all the serious (well, half-serious for Lib Dems) choices for government differ very little in terms of policy. So these "leftist" laws are probably (either publicly or privately) endorsed by the Conservatives. And the Lib Dems (who have little to no power) stand around muttering something about rights, but nobody listens to them so they don't really count. Yes, we are stuck with a lot of ministers who try to make stupid laws, but that's what you get from a fusion of powers, people from the legislative have to work in the executive - meaning you get a lot of people working for the PM who are entirely useless. My eyes are darting wildly between Ruth Kelly, Charles Clark and John Prescott.

Re:It's easier to fight the tool than the person

[Chemicalscum]

New Labour is not even leftish or centre left. It's leaders are bunch of neocon war criminals just like their masters' in the US administration. When I lived in Britain I was a Labour Patry member. If I still lived there I would have burned my party card on the day they joined in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Re:It's easier to fight the tool than the person

[orasio]

The whole thing against weapons it that some people think that those who feel the need to use weapons, _do_ have a problem with their character, and that's exactly why they shouldn't get them!

Nothing can be expected

[JamesP]

from a contry that banned guns to make it "safer". Guess what happened...

It's going to be the same movie, all over again. Guess what, politicians never learn.

Bans Nmap Too

[fv]

TFA also states that "People who distribute networking vulnerability scanning tools such as Nmap or Nessus could also be caught up in part (b), Clayton warned.". A quick reading of section 41 seems to bear that out. As author and maintainer of the Nmap Security Scanner, I am more than a little concerned.

I'm certainly not going to let anything as silly as some U.K. law stop me from distributing Nmap, but I also don't want to become like Dmitry Skylarov the next time I give a presentation in England. And even if (as I would expect) the rest of the world ignores this, it could have a chilling effect on important security tools and research from U.K. citizens. Think of all the good research and tools that David Litchfield from London (NGS Software) has brought us. And my London friend Hoobie brought us the free Brutus password cracker, which appears to be prohibited by this bill.

The good news is that this is just a proposal. So I would join the chorus in urging our British friends to make their voice heard against this silly bill.

-Fyodor
Insecure.Org

Re:Bans Nmap Too

[morgan_greywolf]

TFA also states that "People who distribute networking vulnerability scanning tools such as Nmap or Nessus could also be caught up in part (b), Clayton warned.". A quick reading of section 41 seems to bear that out. As author and maintainer of the Nmap Security Scanner, I am more than a little concerned.

I think that was the plan...but the really stupid thing and obvious thing that people seem to be missing is that tools like nmap, nessus and ethereal serve legimate and necessary purposes.

I have no idea how I would be able to harden the security of networks I maintain without these tools. Nmap shows me what ports are open, for instance. Without that tool, I have no idea and I'm just guessing that the firewall rules, etc., I have set are correct or are even actually being enforced by the firewall. It would be like writing a program without being able to compile it or writing HTML without passing it through a validator or even having the ability for an HTML preview.

That's patently ridiculous. Network security is a very complicated thing and it would be even more complicated without tools to test it's strength. Thanks for the vote of confidence -- nmap is one of the many essential tools in my network security toolbox and I've been using it forever.

Re:Bans Nmap Too

[Handpaper]

It's not just a proposal. It's more than halfway into law:

It was passed by the House of Commons earlier this month, and will be considered by the House Of Lords over the next couple of months

Once again we must rely on the Lords to stop the knee-jerk stupidity of the Commons foisting more draconian laws upon us. Let's hope they continue to do their job.

Re:Bans Nmap Too

[canuck57]

... U.K. law stop me from distributing Nmap ...

Tell us, has the UK government lost it's marbles? I always thought the UK had more sense than this.

The good part of this is the internet is so busy it makes tracking every car driver in the world and easier task. There would be so many ways to beat them they would go broke trying.

Re:Bans Nmap Too

[BigCheese]

I work for a British company (from here in the US) and they have an absolute passion for intrusive, complicated and completely ineffective security measures and from what I've heard is this is rather common.

Re:Bans Nmap Too

[Anonymous Coward]

Bizarly i find the unelected house of lords (has common sence of many issues) and represents my views far more than the "elected" house of paraliment - no wonder they trying to remove the house of lords

Re:Bans Nmap Too

[julesh]

Once again we must rely on the Lords to stop the knee-jerk stupidity of the Commons foisting more draconian laws upon us. Let's hope they continue to do their job.

I have this recurring fear that Blair's last act as PM will be to force through a new Parliament Act that renders them completely powerless.

I hope I'm being paranoid. I really do.

Re:Bans Nmap Too

[Anonymous Cowpat]

yes, let's hope they do. There's only one problem - when the lords smack down a piece of insanely stupid legislation (like this) which would increase the power of the commons (by making more people into criminals), the commons starts screeching that the UNELECTED (their emphasis, not mine) house of lords is usurping the authority of the elected commons to do anything they damn well please. Which is then used as an excuse for another round of trying to pound the lords back into the stone age, and so the commons gets away with more stupid stuff.
Basically the lords have to weigh up doing their jobs of protecting us from bad legislation against their future ability to do the job.
It all started back about a century ago when the lords turned the (liberal) budget down (it was a tradition that the lords just rubber-stamped pieces of 'money' legislation). This set off two things - first, the king appointed more (liberal) lords so that the conservatives no longer had the majority and secondly resulted in the 1911 parliament act, which means that even if the lords did stand up to the commons and keep throwing the legislation out, once the commons had passed it three separate times it just bypassed the lords. In the 1940's this was changed to 2 separate times.
Basically the lords is just a toothless house which can only stall legislation, but the commons will always win by attrition if they can be bothered.

Another trend which will be noted is things get passed with every labour MP voting for, and every conservative & lib dem MP voting against. Why? Whips (not physical whips, they're people), even if you write to your Labour MP and tell them in the strongest of terms that this is a very bad piece of legislation and you want them to vote against it, they'll most likely just ignore you and follow the party line - just like in any 'democratic' system, representatives are under no obligation to vote the way that the people who they represent want.
So, right now, the Labour government can do basically anything that it wants because they can force any piece of legislation through twice and get it enacted without anyone being able to oppose them.

The last line of defence is the Queen, who could refuse to sign something into law. Which she's technically not allowed to do but there's not much that anyone can do about it if she doesn't.

Don't get yourself involved in UK constitutional affairs, it WILL give you a headache. (because we don't need a nice clear-cut written constitution, because that might make life difficult for bliar)

Re:How about gun companies

[chrismcdirty]

They may not have non-killing functions, but they do have non-criminal functions. Hunting.... and.. umm.. target practice?

Another one that speaks in a field with no clue 3

[unity100]

This is the 3rd case that we heard of such idiotic law proposition in some place in u.s. or in europe.

When will this folly end ? I have typed such comment as before, and i am doing it again before a month passes from the last time i did it.

I repeat - representatives should not be allowed to propose laws for fields they do not know nothing about.

It is DEFINITE that the people in question have no information on how internet functions, even though they might hold doctorate on information technology - because NO ONE can be STUPID enough to propose to BREAK something in order to make it law compatible. Such STUPIDITY disproves any prior education.

These people, mark that, are stupid. Thats flat.

Do not let stupid people run your country.

Re:Guns don't kill people, Perl scripting does

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems slightly akin to restricting guns to reduce gun violence

Not really. Guns are not a general purpose tool, they perform a specific task and that is to kill or wound.

Restricting guns is similar to restricting lockpicks to licensed locksmiths.

Re:How about gun companies

[jedidiah]

Sure they do.

I can aim at your kneecaps rather than your chest.

Then there's that whole "gathering your own food" thing. Let's also not forget that the Brits can be pretty darn menacing just with bows and arrows (enough so to make Tecumseh green with envy).

Next:

[HoboMaster]

Hands outlawed because they can be used to steal things and write malicious code. Legs outlawed because they can be used to run fom the police. Mouth outlawed for possible use in libel.

Reproductive organs outlawed just because.

Re:Larry Wall got kicked out of Intel for hacking

[TimToady]

You are confusing Larry Wall with Randal Schwartz. Larry never worked for Intel. (Now, it might well be that Larry Wall should be locked up, not for cracking, but simply because he's crackers. Though maybe with some of the newer antipsychotic drugs that might not be necessary.)

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

the U.S. is considering legislation to outlaw the possesion of black eye masks and bags with big dollar signs as they have been known to have been used by bank robbers in the 1920's, and clearly anybody who isn't a bank robber wouldn't need to own these anyway.
This law will work like a charm, I'm sure. In fact, I'll be surprised if it is not as successful as prohibition was. I mean, it's so obvious, it has to work!

um...no....

[Digital_Mercenary]

It reads like this bill limits the ability of people to communicate with each other about security flaws because someone may abuse the knowledge? So who decides what knowledge is safe and unsafe? My elected official?
As an American I can say my elected officials are the last people I want making decisions about what information is or is not unsafe.

Better ban guns too!

[MirrororriM]

Oh wait...

Well then...

[Programmer_In_Traini]

Well... they might as well make owning cars illegal because bank robbers will typically be using them to escape.

They should also consider forbidding the sale of nylon socks since a lot of criminal do use them to hide their face.

That's pretty sad that they ready to forbid everyone to use something because hackers uses them. Because in the end....hackers already have these tools and will still find a way to get their hands on it which will make the situation globally unchanged.

Re:How about gun companies

[darth dickinson]

Yes they do...it's called "Wave it in their face and make them piss their pants"

Just a reminder for those not familiar.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a lot of Americans are confused by the British political system, so I'd like to explain it to them.

First of all, the Labour Party has very little to do with the general, working-class labourers of the UK. So don't think of them as being liberal, or supportive of workers rights.

In the US political system, they're most like the Republicans. Basically, they're neo-conservatives. That means that they threw out what might have been the most beneficial of conservative ideals, and instead replaced them with the worst of the liberal convictions.

Unlike actual conservatism, they take a strong stance against personal freedoms. They are supportive of near-paranoid domestic surveillance and incomprehensible legislation designed to limit liberty.

Unlike actual liberals, they do not care what is best for society as a whole. They are often very supportive of corporations, and are often willing to use their power to mislead the public if it will help bring financial profit to their corporate supporters.

Hopefully that clears up the situation somewhat. We have to realize that even if they claim to be "conservative", neither the Republicans (in America) or Labour (in the UK) actually are.

Re:Just a reminder for those not familiar.

[lawpoop]

Thanks for the explanation. But can you tell me how the Labour party is able to push their agenda so freely? In the parliamentary system, aren't there a greater variety of parties that have at least some measure of say in what goes on?

THe UK seems to be following the same track that the US is. Which confounds me, because I think 9/11 put America into a state of almost fanaticism, and provided political cover for a facist agenda. However, what is going on in Britain that provides cover for the same kinds of things? Surely 9/11 can't have affected the mindset of Brits as it has Amercans?

Re:Just a reminder for those not familiar.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is indeed much the same problem. Many politicians don't have the guts to stand up against these policies. First of all, they don't want to be labelled as "soft on terrorists". Second of all, they don't want their stance to be used against them if some even does happen. Third, it's always possible that some have undisclosed financial ties which benefit when there is war and unrest in certain areas of the globe. Basically, it's the same problems as in America.

In effect, those politicians who do have some intelligence have to cater to the morons of society, namely those who don't realize that war and excessive security are often the worst courses of action to take given the current situation.

Re:Just a reminder for those not familiar.

[6031769]

But can you tell me how the Labour party is able to push their agenda so freely? In the parliamentary system, aren't there a greater variety of parties that have at least some measure of say in what goes on?

I can see why you might think that. However, since the last election (2005) the Labour party has had an overall majority (ie. more than half of all the seats in the commons are held by Labour members) and therefore they can pretty much railroad anything they like through the commons. The only chance anyone has of stopping crap like this becoming law is either (a) try to convince some of the labour members to vote against the party or (b) hope the Lords throw it out.

Unfortunately, item (a) is pretty unlikely given the size of the current majority (67?) and item (b) can always be circumvented using the ironically unparliamentary Parliament Act. The only situation where the multi-party system comes into its own is in the event of a "hung parliament" where no one party has more than half of the seats. Alas, this situation is very rare these days.

All that we in the UK can do is to write to our MPs and point out that as valued members of the IT industry, we will have no option but to take our services overseas if such a boneheaded law is actually passed.

Legislation

[reking2]

To quote Robert Heinlein, through his character Lazarus Long, "A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain."
Clearly this applies to the UK Parliament as much as the US Congress. Politicians are all too willing to mandate legal solutions to technical problems, without being able to recognize the error of their ways.
To quote William Shakespeare, "First we shoot all the lawyers..."
Why don't we engineers search for technical solutions to legal problems? We stand about as much chance of being correct as the politicians do.

Re:How about gun companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they do. If you want to kill me, and I have a gun and you don't, then I am preventing you from killing me. There's the non-killing function.

Re:How about gun companies

[zippthorne]

One word: Brandishing.

And back on topic...

You don't see them trying to ban Ruby or Python do you? Take that inferior scripting languages!

Re:How about gun companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they do perform the same additional function as nuclear weapons do - primarily deterrence. The mere display of one can change a situation entirely.

Now only criminals will have the tools

[bigtrike]

This will only lead to a net decrease in computer security.

Many network administrators like myself use these same tools to detect vulnerabilities. Obviously criminals aren't going to respect any laws relating to disclosure or tool creation, so preventing only law abiding administrators from access to them will only prevent system administrators from knowing about vulnerabilities in a timely manner.

I know why these things happen

[mordejai]

Richard Stallman is the one to blame for all these abuses.
He gave them ideas!

This is getting out of control.

[infojunkie]

Is it just me or are legislators and government officials all nuts.

While they're at it, why not just criminalize the use of ANYTHING that could be used for less than honest purposes...

Let's start with any programming language that is used to write the tools that are available to the bad guys. hmmm... that would potentially be all of them... so we may as well just ban computers in general... and cell phones, PDAs and anything with microchips... There goes my new toaster... Can't let the bad guys get my toast.

But... wait there's more. Why not ban anything that could lead to the knowledge of how to do this crap in the first place? TV and radio are gone because of the whole microchip thing. Burn the books and close the schools. That way the kids don't learn about technology that may lead to tools that might be used by bad people for possibly malicious puproses...

And just to make sure that no one ever learns about it again, let's "silence" all programmers, scientists, researchers, teachers, librarians, hobbyists, and anyone who's ever operated a computer or even entered a Radio Shack.

I'm still not sure why vehicles are allowed on the road considering all the contraband and stolen possessions they could be used to transport. Coat hangers, hair pins, and any sharp tool. Instuments of evil, all of them.

Next up: Legislating the use of whatever part of the brain is the basis for the formation of new thoughts and notions.

Re:This is getting out of control.

[shutdown -p now]

"Save the children - kill yourself"?

Re:This is getting out of control.

[surprise_audit]

so we may as well just ban computers in general.

Yes!! As the saying goes, "When [something] is outlawed, only outlaws will have [something]" So, ban all computers, then only the hackers will have them. They'll only be able to hack each other, and with luck they'll grind each other into the dirt. In a couple of years it'll be safe for the rest of us to get our computers back...

Hey, I can dream, can't I?? In the meantime, Sun Microsystems had better tread carefully in the UK. They're distributing Perl with Solaris 10, so not only are they supplying a hacker's tool, they also supply the hardware and the OS...

Action?

[fandog]

I sure hope if you're from the UK and posting here that you're also voicing your complaints to your gov't officials who are proposing and voting on this stuff...

Let them know it's horsecrap before businesses have to start moving out of the UK to survive.(!)

Condoms should be made illegal too

[Anonymous Coward]

after all rapists are now using condoms so they don't leave any evidence (not only does the condom stop the sperm entering the woman the spermicide on the condom is great for making any stray sperm unusable).

Everything that can be used for good can also be used for bad. Its just how things work.

Not all bits are the same

[JonTurner]

In fact, we here on Slashdot are partly to blame. I mean, we've known about the Evil Bit* for years and what have we done? Nothing. Actually worse than nothing -- we laughed about it.

Well, after a few hax0rs are locked up in jail I can't wait to ask them "who's laughing now, funny guy?"

(And just between you and me, word has it that **electricity** is involved in 100% of computer hacking cases. I say it's time to dig up Edison and Tesla and try them for conspiracy!)

Evil Bit info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/01/143 4209&mode=thread&tid=95&tid=172

Re:Not all bits are the same

[x2A]

And I keep seeing all around the place, god damn all the bits are becoming god damn lefties more and more!

Re:How about gun companies

[ScentCone]

Bad analogy, guns don't have a non-killing function.

Ever use a gun to prevent harm from coming to someone? I have. Ever use a gun to remove a diseased, predatory threat from a farm? I have. Ever filled you freezer with lean, chemical-free meat while playing a role in controlling the exploding population of whitetail deer in the suburban US... using a gun? I have. You need to get out of your tiny, scared little world a little more often.

Knives!

[gers0667]

I've found that a majority of stabbings have been commited using knives, therefore knives should be illegal.

criminalizing possession

[ChristTrekker]

Criminalizing the mere possession of something just because it could potentially be used in a crime is pretty stupid. Until you do something that actually harms someone, where's the crime? "Innocent until proven guilty" remember? Just because someone has means, and could find opportunity, doesn't mean he has motive to commit a crime. Don't you need all three? Mens rea, anyone? All these sorts of laws do is make criminals out of normal, honest, otherwise-law-abiding people.

Until you stab someone, your knife is just a useful cutting tool. Until you shoot someone, your gun is just a useful self-defense and hunting tool. Until you crack something, your network analysis software is just another tool. There is nothing inherently bad/evil about them. Merely possessing them does not twist a normal person into a psychopathic criminal.

Anyone else think we'd have better lawmakers if we plucked some names at random from the phone book?

Re:criminalizing possession

[Scareduck]

Criminalizing the mere possession of something just because it could potentially be used in a crime is pretty stupid. Welcome to the Bush administration's excuse for Iraq.

Re:criminalizing possession

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anyone else think we'd have better lawmakers if we plucked some names at random from the phone book?"

No, because half the people picked would have a less than average IQ. If you've worked in customer service, you know what I'm talking about.

The unwashed masses are even more clueless than their representatives. Which is why we get clueless representatives. Blind leading the blind, and all that. If only the blind would elect someone who was deaf, instead of blind..

Re:criminalizing possession

[schlumpf_louise]

"Innocent until proven guilty" remember?

Nope.

Re:criminalizing possession

[julesh]

Criminalizing the mere possession of something just because it could potentially be used in a crime is pretty stupid. Until you do something that actually harms someone, where's the crime? "Innocent until proven guilty" remember?

In Britain, at least, this kind of law has existed for a long time. There is a crime, for instance, of "going equipped to commit burglary"; that is, carrying tools that might be useful in breaking into a house and behaving in a way that makes the police suspicious that you might intend to do it. I bet all the locksmiths got really nervous when that one was passed, and with good reason. They're relying on the police and the courts to be sensible with it. I'd rather them than me.

Oh. Looks like I'm next.

I hope Phil Zimmerman doesn't like London

[GPLDAN]

I guess ZFone is right out then. Dynamic encryption key set up by using Diffie-Helman on a call by call basis with an unknown peer using no pre-shared key (PSK). A dynamic way to make VOIP untappable. Even with the incredible tools that the NSA uses from Narus Networks and optical splitters to assemble profiles on every conversation and protocol used by a given source IP address. (The Narus tools used by the NSA can decode all major codecs). Assume your Vonage calls are on a hard drive somewhere.

Guns Don't Kill People...

[necro81]

I'm not sure if I always agree with this statement, but it seems particular apt in this case. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

There are any number of examples out there of a tool, or technology, having multiple uses. Many are legitimate, and some are illegal. Should we ban the use of knives everywhere, essntial tools of every chef on the planet, because they can be used to injure or kill people?

There are many cases where a double-edged (no pun intended) tool or technology requires licensing, or is not generally available, or the use/possession of it is illegal for most folks. For instance, there are many weapons out there that only the military is permitted to use. Explosive can be used by terrorists, but are also essential for mining and legitimate demolition. Access to nuclear technology, which can power cities or destroy them, is heavily restricted by international law and the threat of war.

But something so universally used and depended upon as sysadmin tools? This law sounds like the cyber equivalent of drug paraphenalia laws, which restrict access to syringes and bongs. In this case, however, is more like trying to criminalize automobiles, which everyone uses and depends upon, but could be used for things like robberies, help criminals flee the law, and cause tens of thousands of deaths per year.

I reiterate: tools are not the problem, nor is criminalizing them the solution. It is what one makes of those tools that can be the problem, and what should be sanctioned.

Re:Guns Don't Kill People...

[ChristTrekker]

Yeah, just like I'm so glad that the gov't is so concerned about when I have a sniffle, that it wants to register my purchase of Sudafed...

Re:Guns Don't Kill People...

[Oswald]

This was so irritating that I ordered 100 Sudafed caplets from Canada. They arrived promptly and cost about the same (after shipping) as buying them from the local speakeasy, er, drug store. Of course, I "registered" even more completely than I would have to at Walgreen's (name, address, telephone, Visa, etc.), but at least they sold me 100 at time and I wasn't enraged by the process.

Hackers shouldn't be afraid of Goverments...

[monopole]

Goverments should be afraid of hackers.

Perl...

[setirw]

Well, here's my response:

length q caller lc and print chr ord uc q lt eval and print chr ord q chop uc and print chr ord q tie lt and print chr ord q msgctl m and print chr ord q q q and print chr ord q tie lt and print chr ord qw q sin q and print chr ord q q eq and print chr ord q map m and print chr ord q q q and print chr ord qw q dump q and print chr ord qw q uc q and print chr ord qw q m q and print chr ord qw q bless q and print chr ord qq q q and print chr ord qw q le q and print chr ord q each ne and print chr ord qw q warn q and print chr oct oct ord uc qw q for q

It prints "This is a dumb law." Run it and see!

Labour is not 'leftist'.

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite their name, the Labour Party is not liberal by any means. They are, much like the Republicans, neo-conservatives. They are very pro-corporate, eager to suppress individual freedoms, and rather supportive of directly influencing the politics of foreign nations (be it through war, media manipulation, or other shenanganery).

And really, it isn't a "two-sided issue" as you'd like to think it is. It's not a matter of liberals and conservatives. A hallmark of both true liberalism and true conservatism is an utmost regard for personal freedom. The Republicans (between their many scandals, the latest being the NSA wiretapping) and the Labour do not stand for such ideals. To suggest they are conservative is just plain incorrect, as they do not fit the characteristics of conservatism in any way.

The same goes for the Democrats and liberalism. They're just not liberals. They're best described as lite-neo-conservatives, rather than as liberal. This is indeed true, as they too are often against the idea of maximizing individual freedom. They're not as extreme as the Republicans, but they still exhibit many of the same tendencies and beliefs. That is why there is no real opposition to the Iraq War in the US House and/or Senate.

So, with this line of thinking...

[Net_fiend]

police officers using cars in a chase to catch crooks who just robbed a bank are crooks themselves?

Maybe the need non tech examples

[arrgster]

Let say: A knife you can use a knife to cut something or spread you butter on your crumpet or You can use a knife to stab someone to death so do you make the knife illegal simply because it can be used for a bad purpose? Same goes with software....

expect more countries to try this..

[SillyNickName4me]

Read this and realize the USA is a party to this as well.

End Of Microsoft?

[nick_davison]

A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article --
(a) intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3 [of the Computer Misuse Act]; or
(b) believing that it is likely to be so used.

Given their well known and frequently abused security issues, doesn't this outlaw the distribution of Windows along with Outlook, I.E. and various other of their products?

A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, or offers to supply any article (above products) believing that it is likely to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3 [of the Computer Misuse Act] (botnets once it semi-inevitably gets infected in most unsecured installs);

I always suspected that Perl was the tool of Satan

[ishmalius]

I wonder what they think of 'Subversion?'

This is similar to banning fertilizer after Oklahoma City, or nail clippers after 9/11. These people are only shrill little Cassandras who fret about the great cruel world out there. People should be thrown into little pink padded cells, where they will be safe.

Outlaw English!

[J05H]

They should outlaw the use of English in all communication. It is used in an activity called "planning" of almost all major crimes, cyber or real world. Very dangerous language. Ban it!

Or, as others might say "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people." Perl is not your enemy.

Yay

[Rorian]

This makes me feel so much better about moving to the UK as an IT professional..

Why must they always pick on the good, honest guys while the criminals just dodge by their "preventative measures" every time?

"Innocent until proven guilty"

[nuggz]

Sorry innocent until proven guilty is obsolete.

They found it was inconvenient to prove someone did something before punishing them.
Much easier to simply accuse and punish, how else can they prosecute thought crime.

Seizure and liquidation of the property of people accused but never convicted of a crime does happen, and has for a long time.

Criminal justice reform is unlikely to happen because people see this as soft on crime, they just want to punish someone there is little political incentive to work on making sure they get the right person.
Plus when there is a wrongful conviction, they just blame the defendants lawyer.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Useful power tools around your home can be used for MURDER! Law in the works to outlaw using them! Story at 11!

They won't all be illegal.

[Kadin2048]

They'll never make the computer illegal, they're far too useful as tools for oppression and control. How else do you data-mine the peons' phone calls?

Much like guns, nobody really wants to get rid of all of them, they just want to get rid of yours.

Eventually I suspect that they'll just require you to have a "computer permit," showing that you're not a hacker, terrorist, or pedophile. From there it's trivially easy to ratchet up the qualifications for obtaining a permit (since the permits won't do anything to stop crime, whether cyber- or regular): until you have to pass three background checks, a credit check, give a sample of your DNA, and show your Party membership card to get on the 'net. And a stiff tax, of course: naturally the government will get its pound of flesh for the Treasury. That helps to keep the riffraff out too.

Everyone without a permit will still have some, limited, probably one-way access (the TV networks wouldn't allow it otherwise), but it's just far too dangerous to let them send things. Computers are just far too complicated for the average person; they let you do anything!

Re:They won't all be illegal.

[ahodgson]

And, again just like guns, the only effect of such a law will be to guarantee that only the criminals have hacking tools.

Re:How about gun companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Then maybe you can explain who's getting killed when I take my gun to the range and poke holes in paper with it?

Same argument

[generic-eric]

"...a bill meant to fight cybercrime may make it illegal to use or make available network security tools available, just because they could be used by hackers."

Gun control anyone?

Everyone's a dumb terminal

[DigiShaman]

Don't worry. Just you wait. One day, all humans will have a wireless uplink to a central government database. Every action at every second processes by your organic brain, will first have to parse the governmental database.

It's a perfect system (sic). Everyone's a "dumb terminal"

Lets expand on this.. its a great theory.

[rmadmin]

I propose that we expand this to people in general. Almost every robery involves a gun, or knife, or some type of weapon. So, lets ban weapons completely. This includes law enforcement and military. Lets see how they do without their guns, knight sticks, finger nail clippers.....

Re:Lets expand on this.. its a great theory.

[surprise_audit]

I think we should follow that thought to it's logical conclusion and just ban people. Clearly people are involved in all kinds of crimes...

When coding tools are illegal, only criminals...

[mmell]

will have coding tools.

You can have my networking tools when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the keyboard!

Similar

[grumpyman]

Sound like the 'gun registry' program here in Canada. Criminals don't register their guns. PS: I'm not pro-gun nor do I have a gun.

Screwdrivers

[tfg004]

Let's make it illegal to own screw drivers!
Criminals can use them to break into houses.

Re:Screwdrivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it is already to own the "Skrewdriver: Live in Germany" DVD..

Prohibits anything from pencils to PCs

[Anonymous Coward]

> (b) believing that it is likely to be so used.

Wow! Even computer criminals are likely to occasionally make notes
with pencils, hence pencils are banned. And paper. And coffee, chairs,
tables, houses, telephones. Most certainly any kind of PC. Coins
and bank notes! Ban them!

guns.

[Skadet]

I've never understood the idea that because a tool can be used to commit a crime, that it inherantly makes the tool evil.

Like guns?

Just Perl?

[bcmm]

Never mind Perl, what about every networked OS available?

Re:How about gun companies

[tfg004]

I believe sports shooting even is an olympic sports... (At least it's part of biathlon)

Operatings Systems

[DivineOmega]

Wait a second... aren't operating systems a tool used during hacking? Oh yes, so no more operating systems. What about networking? I hear hackers use that too. Oh and the Internet, can't be having any Internet access. Ban the Internet to stop hackers? Er.. no.

The innocence of tools

[carpecerevisi]

At the risk of bordering on repeating the hammer/etc. analogies: "Nothing is intrinsically good or evil, but its manner of usage may make it so." Saint Thomas Aquinas

They are illegal

[KenSeymour]

An item can be legal, unless you use it to commit a burglary.

Many US states have laws such as these:

511.050 Possession of burglar's tools.
(1) A person is guilty of possession of burglar's tools when he possesses any tool,
instrument or other thing adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or
facilitating the commission of an offense involving forcible entry into premises or
theft by a physical taking under circumstances which leave no reasonable doubt as
to his:
(a) Intention to use the same in the commission of an offense of such character; or
(b) Knowledge that some other person intends to use the same in the commission
of an offense of such character.
(2) Possession of burglar's tools is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 100, effective January 1, 1975.

This example is from Kentucky.

If you steal a key and use it to break in someplace, it too can be a "burglar's tool."

I see...

[FrankieBoy]

So we should lockup the good people of Stanley Tools because they make tools like hammers and crowbars that can be used to break into places.

And we should lockup the people who make airplanes since terrorists fly them into buildings.

And we should lockup teachers since they teach math and accounting used by the criminals at Enron.

And we should lockup gun makers because guns are used to commit...uhhh..hmmm...

Re:I see...

[slothman32]

Airplane makers are gov't, to some extent, paid.
Boeing does much for the military.
At best they will require permits for even trying to learn flying. They can then limit that to "patriots."

Teachers will just get paid less and have to go into other careers. Or be ridiculed perhaps for being anti-gov't.

Gunmakers have the huge NRA so that will never happen. They might keep limiting types from machine guns to assualt to hand to rifle from felons to people who join the NRA and have been determined to be pro-gov't.

Most of these could be done by the slipperly slope method. Unless logic is also outlawed.

WHEN PERL IS OUTLAWED.

[atarione]

Only outlaws will have

#!usr/bin/perl

tshirts http://andrewhitchcock.org/index.pl?page=perl

This is SO American

[RagingFuryBlack]

Why does this begin to smell more and more like the Prohibition era of the '20s again? Why go after the criminals, lets just ban something that the general public can easily be persuaded to believe is evil. Paranoia is setting in. I truly feel bad for UK Citizens. First your guns, next your private keys, then perl. What else can they take away. Also, how long before the US Gov't takes notice, breaks out the paedophile excuse and does the same?

Re:This is SO American

[DragonWriter]

IIRC, many US states already have statutes making it illegal to make, sell, etc., anything with the knowledge, intent, or reasonable belief it will be used to commit any crime, and even where there is no such specific law, doing so may go a way toward convicting you as an accessory, conspirator, etc.

Re:This is SO American

[RagingFuryBlack]

However, you don't sell a programming language, at least not the open-source ones. I think this would require a new law vendetta by a lawmaker, don't you?

What is going on in the UK?!

[lawpoop]

I'm a United States citizen. While I am horrified about what's been going on currently in the US, it doesn't really suprise me, given our history as the self-appointed Savior of Europe after WWII, defender against communism, the Vietnam war, etc.

With our two-party political system, both parties have to pander to their base, which, to simplify a lot, is socialists for the Democrats and facists for the Republicans. Now that the republicans are in ascendancy, I'm not surprised that corporate power is going unchecked, and those who don't believe in government are unable to govern competently. After 9/11 burst our bubble that oceans would protect us from what's going on in the rest of the world, and the fact that we're waging a 'war on terror' that will never end, I'm not surprised that people would become fanatical and fall in line behind a militaristic administration.

However, what the hell is going on in Great Britain that gives political cover for this radical infringement into the rights and privacy of the people? Didn't the U.K. defeat Facism that threatened to overrun the country? Hasn't the UK been fighting terrorism from Ireland relatively sanely for decades? Doesn't the parliamentary system give *some* power to other policital groups which are somewhat left-leaning?

Re:What is going on in the UK?!

[Robotron23]

Doesn't the parliamentary system give *some* power to other policital groups which are somewhat left-leaning?

No, it does not. The UK's first past the past system does not cater for what is very much a minority today in the UK.

The closest thing to a "left-leaning" group is "Old Labour" - a relatively small group of 30-40 left wing Labour MPs: remnents of what the Labour party was prior to Thatcher and neoliberalism. With age, Old Labour are gradually retiring to graze - thus leaving no real "left-wing" force within Parliament - save a few radical Lib Dem/New Labour MPs. There was talk of an Old Labour revival that might come after Blair, but not many people really want a leftist government anymore, and theres no leader to bring Labour left again. The flock is there, but the shephard is missing. Basically Parliament is a centre to moderate right institution now, and looks to be that way for a long time to come.

The Lib Dems are perhaps the most centrist of the parties, with moderate policies such as increases in direct taxation plus a cogent, long standing environmentalist program. But this is nowhere near to the real left - who would want the rail nationalized, aswell as keeping a strong hold on Royal Mail, as opposed to its current impending privatization. But with an aging, lacklustre leader they lack much chance of gains next election - they spent much of the local election campaign complimenting two things; their progressive environmental policy...and Menzies Campbell, their leader. Why should a party have to attempt to justify a leader in a local election?

Re:What is going on in the UK?!

[mickwd]

This may sound a little partisan and controversial, but the problem is basically Tony Blair.

Since coming to power, he's increasingly become a control freak.

He's emasculated the house of lords, under cover of "reform", while seemingly trying to block the option (favoured by many MPs) of a largely-elected house of lords (because a largely-elected second chamber would be a legitimate "check and balance" on his authority, as compared to a set of nominated place-men). (See for example here).

He's also marginalised parliament - his government carries out the minimum of "debate" there now, merely using it as the place to anounce previously-decided policies. There was a big fuss recently, little reported, about the government trying to pass a law allowing them to change legislation at will, without any debate at all, under cover of "reducing red tape" (see here.

Even within the cabinet, he seems to fire anyone who seems remotely a threat or who disagrees with him in any way (with the exception of Gordon Brown, the chancellor (and probably the next Labour leader), who is powerful enough to be left alone).

Since he's been prime minister, there have been dozens of crime bills, making hundreds of new criminal offences (e.g. see here.

He's increasingly making noises about the criminal justice system being "out of touch" (i.e. not automatically just doing what he says), in a seeming bid to further curtail their powers. For what he's already achieved, see, for example, here.

He himself is becoming increasingly irrational and out-of-touch to the extent where his party are starting to think of him as a liability, let alone what the country now thinks of him. The more out of touch he gets, the determined to get his own way he becomes. He's done a lot or damage to this country's constitutional processes, a lot of damage to its reputation (via Iraq), and the sooner he goes, the better.

Re:What is going on in the UK?!

[SigILL]

Doesn't the parliamentary system give *some* power to other policital groups which are somewhat left-leaning?

Nope, the UK has a two-party system too.

Re:What is going on in the UK?!

[FrostedWheat]

Hasn't the UK been fighting terrorism from Ireland relatively sanely for decades?

It's fairly sane now, but there were a lot of mistakes early on. Here's the thing though... in the rush to jump on the Terrorism bandwagon the government are making the very same mistakes again - except on a UK wide scale.

Insanity is to do the same thing and expect a different result.

Re:What is going on in the UK?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't the U.K. defeat Facism that threatened to overrun the country?

Huh? I think you've either confused us with another country, or you've confused fiction with fact. Not counting the present day, the UK has never been anywhere near fascism. Or are you one of those people that use "fascism" as a synonym for "something I don't like"?

Hasn't the UK been fighting terrorism from Ireland relatively sanely for decades?

That depends on how you define "relatively sane". The Prevention of Terrorism Acts that were passed in direct response to the IRA are pretty bad in terms of civil liberties, although abuse of them has been relatively rare (and better - abuse has been very public and damning for the government).

Re:What is going on in the UK?!

[lawpoop]

" Didn't the U.K. defeat Facism that threatened to overrun the country?"

"Huh? I think you've either confused us with another country, or you've confused fiction with fact. Not counting the present day, the UK has never been anywhere near fascism. Or are you one of those people that use 'fascism' as a synonym for 'something I don't like'? "

Am I mistaken in thinking that Nazi Germnay had plans to conquer Great Britain, like it had done to the rest of Europe? And didn't GB succesfully repel the invasion?

While I personally dispise Naziism, I think it can be reasonably considered facism by any objective definition.

Re:What is going on in the UK?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I mistaken in thinking that Nazi Germnay had plans to conquer Great Britain, like it had done to the rest of Europe? And didn't GB succesfully repel the invasion?

Actually, there was no plan for an invasion.

Re:What is going on in the UK?!

[mormop]

Absolutely spot on, Blair is the problem but I think the truly amazing thing about Tony is that whenever New Labour draws up a new law it's always poorly thought, motivated by a need for a popular headline for tomorrows papers and is so vague in definition that it'll either criminalise people who have no ill intent or allow real criminals to get off on technicalities. Seriously, given that 90% of the laws that the gov. comes out with are so full of holes and badly drafted, if you ever needed a lawyer would you put your life in Tony Blair's hands?

I think that one of Margaret Thatcher's strongest points was the fact that when her government made laws she spent a lot of time making sure it would achieve what she wanted and there would be no way around it.

Another problem with the current government is that although they're really keen to make Britain a technological leader, they don't seem to have a clue about technology and the limits of it's abilites/usefulness. As a result, you end up with poorly designed government IT systems that are over budget, hated by those that use them and out of date before the systems installed. Even more surprising is that it's always the same bunch of companys that have provided a string of emabarrasing failures that end up getting the next contract.

        So, for the question "What is going on in the UK?!". Basically it's being run by people with no principles, ideas or attention to detail in order to keep the press and media from turning on them while they give themselves 100% payrises, keep their corporate friends happy and destroy anything to do with Britain that may offend even the most over-sensitive minority. To stop the pissed off masses rebelling all it takes is country wide CCTV, RFID ID cards, number plate recognising cameras and a culture where people feel isolated.

Re:What is going on in the UK?!

[bishorange]

Actually - you are wrong. There was a plan drawn up for the invasion of Great Britain

Adolf Hitler, Directive No. 16 (16th July, 1940)

'As England, despite her hopeless military situation, still shows no sign of willingness to come to terms, I have decided to prepare, and if necessary to carry out, a landing operation against her.

The aim of this operation is to eliminate the English motherland as a base from which war against Germany can be continued and, if necessary, to occupy completely.'

Re:What is going on in the UK?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that one of Margaret Thatcher's strongest points was the fact that when her government made laws she spent a lot of time making sure it would achieve what she wanted and there would be no way around it.

Not sure - For example, I don't think I'd really heard of Gerry Adams until the Thatcher government tried to restrict the broadcast of statements by IRA supporters. It was OK to report their words - just as long as their voices weren't broadcast. I think they had visions of prim BBC newsreaders delivering the quotes in a dispassionate, cut-glass accent.

Of course, this ticked off the media who soon realised that it was perfectly legal to show a film of the speaker sans sound and get an actor (with an appropoiate N Irish accent) to lip-sync the words, and suddenly Mr Adams was all over the TV.

They say that censorship is bad but it is, on occasion, hillarious.

Re:What is going on in the UK?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but you weren't talking about invasion before. The full quote, in context:

However, what the hell is going on in Great Britain that gives political cover for this radical infringement into the rights and privacy of the people? Didn't the U.K. defeat Facism that threatened to overrun the country?

The context is clearly the UK government transitioning to fascism, not the UK being invaded and having its government replaced by a fascist government.

I agree that the UK fended off Germany, but that's not at all relevant to the discussion or your comment.

Re:What is going on in the UK?!

[lawpoop]

The idea that I was trying to convey was that, since GB was directly threatened by Naziism at one time, there might be a greater public consciousness about what facism is, how it came to power in its various historical incarnations, and a general impression that it was bad and unwelcome. 'Overrun' is basically a synonym for a successful invasion. Dictionary.com says it means "1. a. To seize the positions of and defeat conclusively: The position of the forward infantry was overrun by large numbers of enemy troops at dawn." It certainly doesn't mean peaceful political transition

I apologize for not being clear.

I am aware that the US fought against Nazi Germany, but I don't think that Americans felt directly threatened by Germany -- at least not in the near term. Americans felt protected by oceans, and that whatever was going on in Europe would never really affect us. We eventually did declare war on Japan after they attatcked us, and then in turn entered into war with the Axis powers. So my point is that I don't think Americans ever felt too threatened by Facism because we never felt directly threatened by it. So, since it was never taken seriously as a threat, we never learn about it in school. But, since GB was directly threatened by Nazi take-over at one time, I imagined there would be more education about facism, and in turn, greater awareness of its methods and hostility towards those methods. As an example, here in the US, there has been near-hysteria about communist take-over for most of the last century. Because of that, there was a lot of talk and education about what communism is and why it doesn't work. And any kind of proposed idea that bore the slightest resemblance to communism was ridiculed as delusional -- such as welfare, national health insurance, etc. I figured the same hostility would exist in Britain, but against facism, too.

Intelligence agencies outlawed !!

[tfg004]

This would criminalize intelligence agencies as well, I guess, for using tools to monitor our communications...

Dr Mr. Torvalds...

[Anonymous Coward]

As the lead developer of a tool known as the 'kernel', we find that your software is substantially likely to be utilized by any number of network security tools...please turn yourself into the nearest police station before we come for you.

Coming soon: subpoenas against the authors of the BSD network stack, handheld wireless devices, and DARPA. Those idiots who invented TCP/IP to be interoperable *must* have known someone would abuse it...

This just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

World wide governments are drafting laws to ban computers which are more and more frequently being used to commit cybercrime.

There's More Than One Way To Get Revenge

[Anonymous Coward]

If I understand this legislation correctly, it can be used to prosecute the inventor of Perl for crimes against humanity.

Tell me: Do I need to actually emigrate to Britain to support this law, or can I simply write a check?

Unless I'm mistaken...

[DragonWriter]

...in both Britain and the US, laws phrased the way this is are usually construed such that, in order to commit an offense, the person making, distributing, etc., an article would have to have the intent or belief that that particular instance would or was likely to be used for criminal purposes. It wouldn't outlaw, e.g., making a software tool with the belief (or even near-certain statistical knowledge) that, among all the users, some number of them would use it illegally.

That's not to say its not still overly broad, unnecessary, chilling, etc., even so, but the idea that it amounts, if enforced across the board, to a ban on Perl on the basis that the creator knows that someone, somewhere is likely to end up using them illegally is probably greatly overstated. At least, as I understand things.

Re:Unless I'm mistaken...

[julesh]

in both Britain and the US, laws phrased the way this is are usually construed such that [emphasis mine]

I don't care. I want to be sure that the law will be interpreted that way. I want it to be totally unambiguous. That way, there's no chance of creeping scope in the case law.

Re:How about gun companies

[revlayle]

Still, it *intentionally* kills, correct?

Or at the very least cripples, yes?
And if not used for that, it is used, at times, with the threat of killing or crippling to gain something else.

</devilsadvocate>

that's stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

And I thought it was getting bad here in the U.S.

Well, that's your first problem right there. That's a completely stupid thing to say, not to mention FUD. It's not bad in the US; the problem is there are a few people that THINK it is, when it reality it's not.

In fact, I would say that that most people's lives have improved. (MOST, not all... You can never have *all*, no matter what you come up with).

Yeah, there are some people running around like chickens with the heads cut off saying things are bad, but *SAYING* things are bad, and things really being bad are two different things.

Oh....and I'm sure the counter example you'll give is it's all Bush's fault. It's all the Republican's fault.

Well, that's crap. Clinton was in office for eight years, the Democrats controlled congress for part of that time and they didn't do jack. It took the Republicans to get ahold of congress to bring the debt under control.

The debt? Republicans caused that? Uh, no, sorry...that was a Clinton area dot-com bust after math, coupled with 9/11.

Yeah, uncontrolled spending by BOTH parties is a problem, but the tax cuts are getting us out of that, plus things like what happened today in the Senate (Cutting about 15 billion in pork from the latest round of funding).

There's been more tax revenue in the last two years because of that, and we're currently exceeding the goals of bringing the debt back under control.

Getting bad in the US.....that's a load of FUD.

Now, if we had Pelosi running the House, and Reid running the Senate, and Howard Dean....well, figuring out where the hell he stands on marriage, or whatever the hell he does when he's not screaming.... ....Well, then you'd see Jimmy-Carter-Era REALLY bad things happening. Spending COMPLETELY out of control, Candian style health care where NO one gets ANY decent health care, immediate pull outs of troops in Iraq leaving the fledgling government to the hands of foreign terrorists, trying to make nice with Iran (Jimmy Carter was SO good at that...NOT),

and much much worse things.

Yeah, just keep thinking things are bad. What a moron.

Re:that's stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod Parent UP. The Parent is the best undiscovered writer of fiction since Steven King!

Re:that's stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit. You must be one of the 29%.

Re:that's stupid.

[everett]

Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, NSA wiretapping.

"It's great in America!" - If you work for a government contractor.

(i do)

Re:that's stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

"(Cutting about 15 billion in pork from the latest round of funding)."

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

15000000000/8,344,917,929,456.38 * 100 = 0.18%

I'm not sure how often these 'round of funding's come about, I assume it's a yearly budget this is from? I'll assume so, which means at that rate, it'll take... 555 years? That's not taking into account interest, etc.

At that rate, we'll have colonized other galaxies and the US will be but a distant memory by the time it's paid off.

Re:that's stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-huh.

It Has to be Said

[gyrogeerloose]

"When Perl is outlawed, only outlaws will have Perl."

Re:It Has to be Said

[chmod a x mojo]

oooh, motorcycle riding programmers...sounds cool. but how are you gonna interface with the harly davidson?

P.S. the Outlaws are a motorcycle gang in wisconsin and illinoise.

If the UK goes down this path...

[Anonymous Coward]

it wasn't for lack of warning by numerous local prophets, many of whom were also gifted writers.

Seems to me...

[eth1]

...that a good way to fight this would be for every single government IT worker to follow this law TO THE LETTER! "Sorry boss... can't do that anymore... here's why." When the lawmakers can't get their email and have their security breached because their own people didn't have the tools to do the job, maybe they'll see some sense. And, of course, if they fire you because you wouldn't do something illegal, that's probably a big settlement coming your way...

Going after Larry Wall?

[anocelot]

Someone help me out here... How could the BRITISH government go after Larry Wall, an AMERICAN citizan for his creation of the Perl language?

I'm certain Larry won't be losing any sleep over this. (Over something ELSE right about now, maybe, but certainly not this ;) ).

Re:Going after Larry Wall?

[surprise_audit]

How could the BRITISH government go after Larry Wall, an AMERICAN citizan

Remember Dmitri Skylarov?? A Russian citizen, arrested at DEFCON in Las Vegas for writing software in Russia that violates the DMCA. With that kind of precedent, Larry had better be careful visiting England...

Um, did you read it?

[tinkerghost]

FTA : " ... but it doesn't criminalise those innocent of hacking attacks," said a Home Office spokeswoman. "[It] shifts the emphasis on to those intending to deliberately develop tools for criminal use."
FT Bill: "A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article --
(a) if your naughty
(b) believing that it is likely to be so used."[emphasis mine]

Any tool that is useful for monitoring, filtering, or altering network traffic can/will be used for criminal activity.
Any tool that is useful for finding buffer overflows, sql errors, or any other type of software error can/will be used for criminal activity.
Any tool that identifies open ports/vectors of attack on a box, can/will be used for criminal activity.

Based on past history, any tool that can possibly be used to help identify vulnerabilities on a Admninistrators system so he/she can fix them will be used by hackers to find them & exploit them. Therefore, based on the wording in the bill as is - it would be illegal to make and/or distribute any security tool that identifies or reports security vulnerabilities. Evidently only software that identifies and automagicaly 'fixes' vulnerabilities (you can't identify them to a user, so the user of the software can't be advised of the issue & allowed to make a decision on how/if fixing it should be done) will be allowed.
Also on strict interpretation, a vulnerability in OSS code cannot be discussed. Since you cannot diseminate information on an unpatched vulnerability, it can never be fixed except by the person who finds it. In theory, the code would have to be sent to the maintainer with no explanation of what the change is for, since that would disclose the nature of an unpatched vulnerability.
[sarcasm]I love it when people with no clue run with an idea and tell everyone they know best. It's almost as fun as when they listen to people with agendas.

Coming next

[Anonymous Coward]

It has widely been observed that most, if not all, criminals are alive.

Therefore to combat this the government has ordered that the population of Britain who are deemed to be 'alive' will be shot.

Plumbers are next

[tengu1sd]

How about an ammendment making supplying pipe and pipe fitting tools illegal. Pipes are bad and have been used in robberies, assaults and murders. Anyone using a length of pipe is up to no good. Tools to modify pipe should be strictly regulated, access must be controlled by a licensing board of government professionals.

There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men.

Re:Larry Wall got kicked out of Intel for hacking

[anocelot]

Hey now, uh... Tim. Let's hope it's not necessary. Let's not relegate New Life to a thoroughly mediocre guitar player - at least not until that cell phone rings.

let's outlaw jean pockets too

[bariswheel]

so when do we outloaw jean pockets, because we know pickpocketers use them, and we can't have that. so let's outlaw pockets. fucking morons.

Due process

[Trouvist]

This goes against every possible interpretation of due process of law. Does Britain guarantee a due process?

Re:Another one that speaks in a field with no clue

[robertjw]

When will this folly end ?

Probably never, or at least not until the revolution comes unless people start actually VOTING on things. Worst part is 99% of the eligible voters don't care about issues like this. As long as their daily lives are happy they'll just stay home on election day or vote the party lines - and they think those of us that care are cranks.

In other news...

[mythandros]

...the UK plans on phasing out "computers" in favor of the more secure "monkey with abacus in a box". Details tonight at 9.

old system fighting for survival

[superwiz]

The "terra governments" (i.e. nations) are just trying to stay relevant in a world that will soon not need them. They formed in the first place because of consolidation of power at the time when power came from land ownership. But as the world moves away from power through land ownership and towards power through idea ownership (not through ownership by law but through ownership by being competenet enough to utilize and develop new ideas) the terra governments will see their power and influence diminish. It is already happening and these governments are fighting for relevance based on almost-religious the belief that their formation and presense is the last step in the development of civilization. They are constantly trying to diminish the ever-growing power of the knowledge elite.

let's criminalize everything that can harm

[Walter Carver]

Let's Criminalize knifes. They can be used to kill someone.

Holy shit, you're right... I retract ... partially

[gd23ka]

Okay Larry, I retract and I apologize. Randal Schwartz was the cyberterrorist in this case. But still, you know with all this National Socialist^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hecurity hype going on it's better to finger someone fast and report the first guy who comes to mind. But still... according to this Larry is not much better than Schwartz and now also definitely an assessory to the crime. I just refreshed my memory on the subject and according to the source I read Schwartz probably got most of his firewall defeating crack running ideology from writing a book on Wall's information system assault scripting language, Protected Entity Reconnaisance Language or what he wants to call it.

This Has Been Done Before...

[Anonymous Coward]

Demonizing tools that are useful in the correct hands and when used with benign and righteous intentions as the devilish devices of criminals most vile?! No government would ever do that! Oh, wait... the British government has been doing that for a long, long time. Some small but violently vocal minorities in the US want our government to do the same.

What am I referring to? The demonization and criminalization of firearms. Anyone else see the similarity? Britain got away with outlawing many classes of firearm with perfectly legitimate uses, from hunting and sporting firearms to firearms for personal protection and home defense. I somehow don't think that the fact that developers and sysadmins can use PERL or JAVA or anything else for the forces of good will do too much to deter them from this course. Unless, of course, some people in their government infrastructure and some of their populace have decided they don't like that practice anymore. Here's hoping they learned something.

Utter stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

The British government is going after the wrong thing and it is mind of the dangerous person they or governments should be going after.
This a soapbox and you may hate but here it is:
Anything in the world can be made into a weapon. It is ones mind that makes an useful and non-dangerous object into a weapon. Take for example s knife. If you didn't have a knife you couldn't prepare an meal or eat the meal. But if you have an dangerous mind that knife can be weapon that can kill.
We should criminalize the dangerous mind and not the device or object.

arrogant sob

[mustafap]

>'I doubt if there is a sysadmin on the planet who hasn't written a Perl program at some time or another.'

There are a few of us on the planet who use Windows server and GUI's, you know. Not everyone thinks perl is better than sliced bread. Jeez, give us a bit of fecking balance man.

Re:arrogant sob

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he said "sysadmin", not "MCSE". There's a difference you know.

(sorry, it was too easy)

KLL

How is this not off topic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything is an excuse to rant about gun rights, eh? Sheesh. Take it to alt.stroke.my.big.black.rifle.

Only outlaws

[Proney]

@perl_owners=('Sys Admins','Developers','Outlaws');
if ($perl_outlawed)
{
$#perl_owners=-1;
@perl_owners=('Outlaws');
}

Re:How about gun companies

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Still, it *intentionally* kills, correct? Or at the very least cripples, yes? And if not used for that, it is used, at times, with the threat of killing or crippling to gain something else.

You say that as if it were a bad thing. Also, when hunting, you generally only cripple because you missed your shot. You then go finish the job so the animal doesn't suffer.

Who thinks this shit up?

[RoffleTheWaffle]

I've asked this plenty of times about my own government, but you have to wonder, are they just paying someone to come up with really, really bad ideas in the United Kingdom? Like, do they have a 'Professional Dumbass' position available in the government over there, too? (I already know they have several such positions filled over here, but I've just got to know...)

UK is an Airplane?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that all the rules for using computers in the UK are strikingly similar to the rules against weapons on airplanes. If something can be used as a weapon, it can't go on the plane. Is there any reason why hacking should be so much more dangerous in England?

"President" Bush?

[Lord Balto]

So what does he think makes him president, then? If it's just a goddamned piece of paper, then he's just a goddamned loony from Texas who just *thinks* he's president. I have to say, the capacity of the American people to swallow this nonsense is positively staggering, even to a perpetual cynic like me.

Re:"President" Bush?

[Anonymous Coward]

Presidential Aide: Great news, Mr President!
President George Bush: I get to play Dumbledore in the next Larry Potter movie?
Presidential Aide: Ah, no, Sir, no, not from Warner Brothers; we still haven't heard back from them yet, Sir, no. It's from the U.N. Our weapons inspectors are going in.
President George Bush: And why should I be interestificated in that?
Presidential Aide: Because we need a report, Sir, before we invade Iraq.
President George Bush: No we don't! Besides, we're not invading Iraq. We're invading Tiraq. Take a look at the survalence pictures.
Presidential Aide: Sir... Sir, that's not 'Tiraq', that's 'Tie Rack'; it's a store in Britain that sells ties.
President George Bush: That's just what they want you to think. You see, they're called 'Tie Rack', but they also sell cufflinks and underpants. And are we meant to acceptify that it's mere coincidenecification that they lurk in every airport and rail station.
Presidential Aide: Sir, if we invade Tie Rack, you're going to be a laughing stock.
President George Bush: You mean I have a choice?

Re:"President" Bush?

[espinafre]

Well, one way or the other, he got up there, and this means that, if not the majority, at least a good deal of people think like that piece of scum.

Re:"President" Bush?

[jc42]

[O]ne way or the other, he got up there, and this means that, if not the majority, at least a good deal of people think like that piece of scum.

Nah; it just means that some folks at Diebold like him.

As Joe Stalin told us; it's not the people that cast the ballots, it's the people (now machines) that count the ballots that matter.

Open to interpretation by officials no doubt.

[Brobock]

I think the law will be open to interpretation as most are written that way. If you are using these tools for a legitiment purpose, I doubt the government will be coming after you. If you committed a crime while using these tools, then they will charge you with the crime in question and enhance it with software paraphernalia.

Re:it's the nature of these tools Reasoning?

[davidsyes]

"I only hope the government will listen to that reasoning."

Not only that, but what about the fact that government can't even protect the public that well. If WE cannot protect our own machines, then our devices and networks will only serve to complicate the Trojan, worm, and virus problems.

The UK government is obviously foolishly overstepping its bounds in that it has no capabilities to protect the populace from spammers, attackers and crackers-- short of destroying or shutting down the Internet and tributary devices...

Could this be a generation problem?

[Qbertino]

We all know these completely insane laws. In germany there about to put full responseability on Forum posts upon the person that runs the server.
Could these laws and their utter stupidity be a generational problem? I mean , could it be that the people doing the decisions right now are just plain unable to grasp the concept of "Interweb" "Computer" and "Turing complete"? It would be nice to see these laws dying out together with the people who made them.
What do you think?

Criminalize who??

[nsundeepreddy]

And in a latest proposal, the lawmakers are planning to criminalize car manufacturers b'cos these automobiles are being used by criminals to commit crimes.....

------
What else is left??

Re:it's the nature of these tools Reasoning?

[davidsyes]

DAMN!

I meant to say:

"The UK government is (if this report is credible, accurate and not sensationalist...) obviously foolishly overstepping its bounds in that it has no capabilities to protect the populace from spammers, attackers and crackers-- short of destroying or shutting down the Internet and tributary devices..."

Nature's warning sign

[kahei]

If you replace the software with guns,

You see, when someone starts an argument with something like that, it's Mother Nature's way of leaning over your shoulder and saying in her soft sweet low voice:

"FRUIT LOOP WITH AN AXE TO GRIND ON THE STARBOARD BOW!!"

Computers Belong to the people

[jlebrech]

Computers and what we do to them belong to us and not to politicians.
why the hell when something comes along that the government wants people to obey new laws.
Soon it will be like we will have you pay for a license to use a computer, and similar to a driving license, and with fair use tests n shit.
And then ther wont be linux as the government will want people to use governments stickered OS's which of course microsoft will have.

By the same inference...

[zentigger]

Windows would be illegal as most hackers will use it as a part of their toolkit, and so will TCP/IP for that matter.

Perhaps the use of the letter E and the binary number 0 should also be considered illegal as they are useful tools used by hackers.

dept. of redundancy dept.

[makeyourself]

"a bill meant to fight cybercrime may make it illegal to use or make available network security tools available(...)"

file under: Department of redundancy Department...
sheesh... is this the same people writing that law?

It must be in the food supply

[Smarty2120]

I thought the law proposing people give the government their encryption keys was dumb and ineffective, but this is a whole order of magnitude dumber and just plain crazy. There is only one explanation:

MAD COW!!!!!!

The gestation period for Mad Cow can be years or decades and it seems those pesky prions have finally let loose the dogs of war.

from the UK

[ElephanTS]

I grew up in the 70s in London when the IRA were fairly routinely blowing stuff up. At no stage did anyone suggest compulsory ID to deal with this. Mainly the bins were taken off the trains and eventually a 'ring-of-steel' (meaning police checkpoints at increased presence) around the City Of London (our Wall St). Then somehow by the end of nineties we had become the most surveilled people on Earth.

Post 911 the talk of terrorism never went away. And then 7/7 came along and the paranoia and suspicion just went sky-high. Now we too lived in a country where any change of law could be carried off with the mere mention of the T-word. (Either that or the other one, the P-word, the Glitter-crime). This year Blair has is own little version of the Patriot act coming into force, one where he can issue laws without recourse to Parliament as long as they don't include tax increases or a prison penalty greater than 24 months.

Electronic sniffers are be trialed on a few parts of the underground smelling for explosive traces and there is a scheme in planning for a countrywide network of number plate recognition cameras recording all vehicles on a gigantic DB. Most London Transport users use RFID (oyster) in replacement for the old tickets and all this data is recorded. We will have RFID national ID soon at a cost of around £90 per person, compulsory. I could go on but here's a link or two to go on with.

http://www.no2id.net/

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/

So, as Orwell (real name: Eric Blair) predicted, we really are heading for a BB state. It's obvious that the UK is the USs puppy dog and we are in the 'endless' war just as long as you are. Really the UK is just another state of the USA. Maybe even quite a powerful and important one at that.

There is a saying in England "Watch America that's what here will be like in 10 years time" - now it seems we've just about caught up or even exceeded what's going on in the US.

Re:from the UK

[ScrewMaster]

Truth be told, I think you've definitely surpassed us in this area for the time being, although we are hard at work catching up to your magnificent antiterrorism defense. Good news: the recent renewal of some of the Patriot Act's worst provisions indicates that we'll soon be at parity with the U.K. once more. I must say am ashamed to admit that we are rather far behind you when it comes to automated surveillance. Fortunately, significant efforts in that arena are ongoing as well and I am comforted by the thought that, in just a few short years, there will be at least two video cameras covering me wherever I go. In addition, there is even talk about embedding RFID chips into everyone! Isn't that wonderful? Now we'll know who everybody is all the time, no matter where they are. Ha, I'd like to see the terrorists get past that one! I, for one, welcome our high-tech, camera-wielding overlords.

Re:from the UK

[ElephanTS]

http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/s tory/0,,1778674,00.html

We are in the lead! Huzzah for our friendly neighbour hood spies!

Perl bug report

[mangu]

There is a bug in your program, in the last line "print" has been printed as "pr int".

See, Perl isn't hard to debug at all!

Re:Perl bug report

[x2A]

That would be slashdot filter tho right?

(genuinly asking)

Create Perl, Go To Jail?

[justasecond]

Locking Larry up is surely not desirable

He obviously hasn't spent any time reading other people's Perl code!

Burglar's tools

[Peyna]

Looks pretty much akin to many other statutes that outlaw "burglar's tools." Most of those statutes only make it illegal to posess items which have absolutely no other purpose than to break into a building and possessing items that COULD be used to break into a building with the INTENT of using it for that purpose.

So long as such a statute is drafted in a similar way, it shouldn't be a problem for anyone not using the tools for wrongful purposes.

Re:Burglar's tools

[slothman32]

Unless the gov't decides what is wrong then it could be used that way.
Burglers' tools have a much more limited use and ownership so it is harder for the gov't to decide it's rightful use.

I don't agree with either that because of my libertarian tendencies though but that is besides the point.

In any case I equate that phrase to, "if you aren't doing anything wrong then the law shouldn't affect you."

Re:Doesn't make sense... (very OT)

[DarkProphet]

Just curious -- are you an American? If not, feel free to disregard the following for being out of context in relation to your point of view.

In many places, it is legal (in the context of the property owner) to shoot someone for Trespassing, Breaking and Entering, Attempted Burglary, etc. I am unsure how many, if any, state laws trump this right. I assume the purpose of this is to discourage would-be ne'er do wells from doing something they already know they shouldn't. Personally, if someone unknown to me enters my home uninvited (especially say after 10 P.M.), I will shoot first and ask questions later. Because property holders are allowed to shoot on sight, one has to assume that the perpitrator is likewise aware that the property holder is potentially armed, and thus is armed himself. It would take an incompetent criminal indeed not take that possibility into consideration.

With that said and for what its worth, I don't own any guns because I don't hunt and I live in what I would consider to be a safe, rural area, where the aforementioned occurance is extremely unlikely. However, I do fully support the right to bear arms for a separate, alltogether more important reason. The second amendment read as thus: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Given the political climate at the time it was written, I infer (correctly or incorreclty) that the right of the People to keep and bear arms is in part due to inherent mistrust of government. Power corrupts, and all that. If only law-enforcement officials and the military are allowed to carry weapons capable of killing a person, who ultimately can keep them in check? Given the polaraized socio-political climate presently found right here in the U.S., I can't think of better justification for owning a weapon capable of killing a person, even if the owner never intends to fire it.

Which, in the end, is my overy-verbose way of saying that it is the right and duty of every American to oppose tyranny from within, and defend the Constitution. If that means shooting agents of said tyrants... well, the price of freedom isn't free.

And finally, I personally believe a well placed bullet to the head is a very effective and comparitively humane way to take someone out. YMMV.

It would be of some comfort to me

[ScrewMaster]

if our respective governments would just come right out and admit that they really just want us all to grease up, bend over and take it, and that acquisition of power, not national security, is at the core of their efforts. Furthermore, it would be nice if they'd acknowledge that what they are doing is simply shifting the balance of fear experienced by our respective populations from real terrorism to the rule of {bad} law.

Holding not my breath, am I.

This law would ban 'ping' !

[The Famous Druid]

This is the most brain-damaged law I've ever heard of.
It's like making it a crime for car manufacturers to supply a car "likely to be driven while drunk".

...yeah, but it's okay

[x2A]

...we've decriminalised green, so we just sit around stoned all day anyway... *I* can't even remember how to get into my system :-p

Yah!

[jefu]

Think of all the laws that the legislators pass that are used for less than honest (though legal just because the laws were passed) purposes. Lets then outlaw legislators!

But then :
"If legislators are outlawed, only criminals will own legislators."
and how would we know the difference?

just forbid computers

[AlgorithMan]

well you know - programming languages can be used BY HACKERS (just yesterday I commented on a similar thing) to write security software! so forbid programming languages...
operating systems can execute security software... you have to forbid operating systems!
oh wait - real hackers can write programs directly in asm - they can run them on processors without operating systems! forbid processors!
all together this means: forbid computers...

maybe thats the only way to stop politicians from babbling nonsense about computer-related stuff they don't understand...

from my cold dead IDE

[opencity]

'they' want to dumb the world down.
texting, mtv, php
it's all a plot
pretty soon you'll need a license to shell

Perl Users

[systemofadown]

Perl programmers in jail, glad I"m a python developer!

Sloppy goverment, Sloppy laws

[NoMercy]

Making a sentence of section B of the clause in question:

A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article believing that it is likely to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3 [of the Computer Misuse Act].

Now why, can't the UK goverment learn to make laws which actually don't have virtually unlimited scope. You could probably make this law fit the local supermarket, which sells the food that the hackers will eat during the commission of the offence under section...

I'm sure it could be worded a lot better, I know the courts will only ever use this for things like people who make exploits, virus kits, detailed guides on how to exploit things... but!

The basic idea of a written law is to not have a situation where 'Everythings illegal, but we'll only arrest/punish you if we think what you did is wrong', just like what we had before Magna Carta.

But no one gives a damn.

Re:Doesn't make sense... (very OT)

[x2A]

I agree with this ideology, but under those grounds, whilst it should be legal for someone to own a gun, it should be kept securely locked up, only to be taken out for practice (no point having something you can't use) and when you need to turn on your government.

If people were only allowed to get their guns out when they needed to remove or bring into line the government, I think the government would behave better :-p "let's not give them an excuse"

Re:Doesn't make sense... (very OT)

[killjoe]

"Just curious -- are you an American?"

Yes I am.

"In many places, it is legal (in the context of the property owner) to shoot someone for Trespassing, Breaking and Entering, Attempted Burglary, etc."

I really don't think so. I think you have to be reasonably sure you were in mortal danger before you took somedies life. I don't know of anybody who was able murder somebody for merely trespassing on their property and I would be shocked if any state had such a law (even texas!).

"Personally, if someone unknown to me enters my home uninvited (especially say after 10 P.M.), I will shoot first and ask questions later. Because property holders are allowed to shoot on sight,"

Once again I don't think any property owner is allowed to willy nilly shoot people who enter their house. I am sure there would be trial and am sure you would be found guilty of something and spend time in jail. If not they you would be sued civilly and pay restitution to the family of the person you killed.

"Which, in the end, is my overy-verbose way of saying that it is the right and duty of every American to oppose tyranny from within, and defend the Constitution. If that means shooting agents of said tyrants... well, the price of freedom isn't free. "

People who bring this scenario strike me as being naive to the point of silliness. Ask the palestenians how well it's working to shoot at their opressors. After decades of living with IDF boots on their throats they haven't accomplished jack shit with all their guns and bombs. You really think your 45 can take on the US army? Good luck with that.

"And finally, I personally believe a well placed bullet to the head is a very effective and comparitively humane way to take someone out. YMMV."

Let's hope someone who doesn't like you feels the same way.

Just force register all Perl users...

[ManyLostPackets]

Just force Perl users to register as human WMD's!
And make them tatoo #!/usr/bin/perl -W on their forheads (or just #!perl -W for windoze perl hackers)

Re:How about gun companies

[ScentCone]

Still, it *intentionally* kills, correct?

No, it doesn't do anything. Only I do something, or nothing happens at all.

And if not used for that, it is used, at times, with the threat of killing or crippling to gain something else.

Except, in my case, I've never used it to "gain" something else, unless you include dinner. Oh, and my family's safety. I've used a gun to dissuade a truly dangerous person from continuing to try to beat down our door in the middle of the night. So, I "gained" (re-gained, really) some household peace of mind, without having to fire a shot. Yes, "intentionally" (though I had no intention of having that person choose our door to start beating on and ranting at).

Balto, meet espinafre

[Anonymous Coward]

You and "Lord Balto" have user #'s that differ by 1. What a coincidence.

Re:Balto, meet espinafre

[Anonymous Coward]

They may be twins, for all we know!

V for Vendetta

[Anonymous Coward]

Read and or watch V for vendetta to get the idea where this is going... "The former United states" og fascist regime of United Kingdom.
With officials continuing to try to fix the problems by banning the tools of the trade we will get somewhere I sure as hell don't want to be, lets ban paper because evil plans can be printed on them, cars because they are used for getaways in robberies, This is highly dangerous because they obviosly don't know what the hell they are talkin about, We need more informed goverments if we are to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
And stop industries from getting their power into laws, like the DMCA seems to be, Our freedoms are getting slashed every minute and all we do is bitching on some forums, lets get out there and organize the revolution!

Tony did not remember the gunpowder plot...

[Matarick]

he forgot what was the Fifth of November was really about.
England Prevails!

I just have one question about that code...

[patio11]

How in God's name did that make it past the lameness filter?q

On the bright side...

[Archtech]

There is a limited upside to all these demented laws. At last we have a reasonably objective, reliable way of evaluating the intelligence and competence of lawmakers.

People are emotional, allusive, and easily swayed. Computers are perfectly logical, and completely deaf to overtones, intentions, "what I really meant", etc. etc.

Thus, the ability of a group of elected representatives to write fair and meaningful laws dealing with computers is an accurate reflection of their competence to understand and legislate for the natural (i.e. "real") world. If a politician thinks that "hackers" can really "break into" a computer, or that any particular kind of software is essentially "bad", he is putting up an illuminated sign ten feet tall that says "I can't think straight; or else, I am too lazy to learn a few simple facts (or both)".

So Balir shows his true colours once again

[Anonymous Coward]

I see So tony Airy Fairy Blair (first used by me when he first came to power so I claim the copyright on this PGN)
sri bout that folk but i am sick of the press nicking things and not giving credit.

Moan over.

So tony blair and his bunch of jerkoffs are showing how they intend to ATTEMPT to control the nation in there (in there minds) continued rule of this country of ours . Do they realise just how easy it would be to flush the whole darned lot of them out , It only takes a bit of pushing and bingo AND i would not mind betting the Military would not back them if push came to shove.

It is time to develope message within message systems so that if i write "freddy bollock chops has no nutts" then it actually should read something completely different ie "Hi jo how life treating you these days see you sunday night at the pub" but done in such a way as to not be apperrant to the reader then encrypt and let em play as for giving out your keys they got 2 chances of that NO Chance and Actually Impossible i can also see another way of screwing up there ideas but more on that another time i got plans got to go code ..

Pete .

Typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Very typical of the new brand of Neo-Conservative Facism that has been introduced by the ignorant, authoritarian, right wing extremists of the Government of the famous warmongering liar, Anthony Blair.

Outlaw Outlook

[Anonymous Coward]

Outlaw Outlook, its the most important virus plataform (then it's an intrusion tool).
And IE, and ...

if u can't solve 'em, ban 'em!

[lon3st4r]

well i used to have a college dean who actually banned vehicles on campus because people would have accidents. that is when i gave up all hope for humanity!
we were wondering when football would get banned because we knew of a lot more broken bones due to football than road accidents!

This also in...

[Anonymous Coward]

Legislation has been proposed in UK that makes it illegal to manufacture, sell, or otherwise make available crowbars and sledgehammers, which can be used for break-and-enter crimes. Also being discussed is a similar law for phone books and address books, which can be used to find homes and businesses. A proposal to include wood lathes and blast furnaces in the legislation was nixed at the last moment due to strong lobbying by industrial interests, who suggested a blanket ban on all manufacturing equipment might have a negative impact on their businesses.

Said the minister proposing the legislation:

"I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of Intarweb oblivion. I want everyone to remember *why* they need us!"

Hackers also use Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Hackers also use Windows, so ban that while you're at it... (I'm not trying to bash Windows, just making a point)

wtf?

[wingman358]

You don't see any government banning the use of automobiles, do you? They kill about 42,000 people anually here in the US.

First and Foremost...

[infiniphonic]

For millions of years, humans have been beating each other to death with sticks from trees.Those trees have to go.

Richard Clayton is a publicity seeker

[Anonymous Coward]

Richard Clayton is a publicity seeker, he loves drawning attention to himself and any work he has done. Please pay no attention to him and do not encorage him as his primary mission in life seems to be to make a name for himself, regardless of the consequences.

If your wondering why I dislike him so much:

In the past (and again, quite recently) he's been getting quite a bit of milage out of the IWF - effectively he's exploiting the media histera over child pornography to make a name for himself. I won't go into more detail, suffice to say he has done a lot more harm than good - and he has personally benefited from it.

He is not someone attempts to be constructive in his critisizm, his goal seems to be obtaining maximum publicity, not being constructive or helping to improve things (such as by offering to consult, or publishing meaningful suggestions as to how things might be improved).

The other posibility is of course that he is a fool, and frequently is too blind to see the wood for trees and that he actually thinks he is being helpful or useful in some way. I find that hard to believe though.

it happened once

[stachu trawki]

Note that this is exactly like banning guns because "someone can use them to commit a crime".

And yes, that's INSANE!

Whatever you say - 150-200 years ago people were as used to having a gun or being able to shoot their own bottles as we are to being able run perl or test an exploit on our own machines. Arguable the former was even more common!

Lawyers don't understand computers

[CryptoDavid]

The problem here is bad drafting by incompentent lawyers - the idea is sound enough.

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article-
(a) intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1 or 3; or
(b) believing that it is likely to be so used.
(3) In this section 'article' includes any program or data held in electronic form. [my emphasis]

This would be completely sensible were it refering to any physical object. For example, when Stanley makes one more knife, that particular knife is unlikely to be used by a criminal. Conversely, it sounds like a good idea for a hardware store not to sell a knife to Bill Sykes kitted out in his black mask and swag bag.

Unfortunately, lawyers don't understand that you only 'make' a program once, and supply it many times over. Replace 'makes' by 'designs' above, and it becomes nonsense when applied to knives.

I think that this clause, with 'makes, adapts' removed for the puposes of (b), would be quite a reasonable law.

are you sure?

[Gorshkov]

I look at most perl, and get flashbacks to APL

Are you *sure* locking Larry up is such a bad idea? :-)

No, the cat does not "got my tongue."

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> because they could be used by hackers

Well, in the US, safe and effective speedlike drugs for weight loss, available in Europe, are illegal because addicts might illegally get ahold of them.

Not even just software!

[abb3w]

Never mind Perl, what about every networked OS available?

Hm, OS X, Windows, Linux, Solaris; yup, all of those are "likely to be used" for criminal cracking. ( OK, calling Solaris "likely" for anything is stretching a bit....) I believe the law as described bans any interactive networked operating system, and any piece of networking hardware. I suppose you could even stretch it to jailing all of the computer keyboard makers; after all, any serious cracker isn't likely to work without a keyboard for programming.

And I thought the US Congress was clueless....

outlaw Perl?

[MSZ]

I wholeheartedly support this. A law that outlaws Perl is good by definition.

Yay windows finaly illegal

[zenst]

Windows is a networking tool and can and is used to expliot and hack other networks and computers. Actualy every OS is. Ban computers :|. I realy do have to wonder what the UK goverment is doing, who is thinking up these laws and what the hell have they been drinking. Biggest security risk ever is a stupid person and it would seem the goverment are suseptable :(. Social enginering clearly at play here for such a law to go thru.

Re:Doesn't make sense... (very OT)

[dajak]

A note from a non-American: the discussion on whether and in what conditions to kill a trespasser has no relation whatsoever with guns.

I do have a sword in my bedroom, and as I understand it there is a legal presumption that I am defending myself and dependents if I kill a threatening trespasser in my house, for instance if he corners me by coming up the stairs. Even if my action is out of proportion with the threat it is "excessive self-defence" and will usually go unpunished. If I keep stabbing him even though he is already immobilized, I might still apply for "extensive excessive self-defence" and go free. If I execute the trespasser for trying to steal something on the other hand, I am simply a murderer. It depends on the details of the situation.

Guns are prohibited, and I support that prohibition as long as it is at least somewhat effective. Hand guns are hardly more effective than swords and big game arrows, but they are much easier to conceal when you take them out of your home. If you do have a gun in your home, despite the prohibition, you are still allowed to shoot the trespasser in similar circumstances but you will be jailed for owning the gun.

The gun, however, significantly weakens your case of self-defence, because the gun is more suited to chasing away a trespasser who is armed with a gun than a close quarters weapon.

The other point: Militias have been prohibited here in the Netherlands since 1936, when Nazi militias marched in the streets. Wearing military style uniforms, even unarmed, is prohibited. This is not really satisfactory anymore, since we no longer have a conscript army "owned by the people" since a few years (in an attempt to build a leaner and meaner army that is more suited to colonial-style operations like the US). I like the Swiss system, where everybody gets issued an army rifle with a sealed box of ammo.

Outlawing a programming language?!?

[DimGeo]

WTF? These guys are either VERY DUMB or just plain stupid. Or both. Oh, don't bother explaining to them that Perl is just another programming language. It's like trying to explain quantum physics to a local idiot.

This is a fine line...

[aybiss]

...especially when you think about a tool like Snadboy's Revelation. There is only one purpose of the program, to discover passwords that are supposed to be hidden. But a lot of my clients would be pretty unhappy today if it weren't for that program.

Re:Doesn't make sense... (very OT)

[DarkProphet]

Agreed. My home state of Minnesota passed a conceal-and-carry law a couple of years ago that allows the average joe to pack heat provided they've got the C-a-C license (which requires gun safety courses and the like). The only legitimate circumstance I can see for conceal-and-carry is if one is going to (or lives in) a notoriously violent/dangerous neighborhood. But then again, its usually better to avoid such places if possible ;-)

Re:Doesn't make sense... (very OT)

[DarkProphet]

I acknowledge that we will have to agree to disagree. That is A-OK with me. I wanted to respond to a couple of your points, which do have some validity.

I really don't think so. I think you have to be reasonably sure you were in mortal danger before you took somedies life. I don't know of anybody who was able murder somebody for merely trespassing on their property and I would be shocked if any state had such a law (even texas!).

...Once again I don't think any property owner is allowed to willy nilly shoot people who enter their house. I am sure there would be trial and am sure you would be found guilty of something and spend time in jail. If not they you would be sued civilly and pay restitution to the family of the person you killed.

From what I understand (I could be mistaken), it is not a specific law so much as weight in your favor in the context of the benefit of the doubt. Yes, if you do shoot (and not even necessarily kill) an intruder, you are 100% likely to be tried in a court of law. Any jail time, if any, would likely be minimal. The court would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your life was not in mortal danger. If you truly did believe your life to be threatend, hopefully some of the forensic evidence should support the assertion. You are also correct that the family would have the right to sue you civilly, and there is a chance you'd have to pay restitution, however they would have to make a pretty strong case if you were acquitted in the legal case. My earlier explanation was an overly simplified attempt to demonstrate that this self-preservation scenario typically favors the one who tried to save his own life. I apologize for not making that more clear before. That I said it was legal (implying little or no consequence) was a poor choice of verbiage on my part.

People who bring this scenario strike me as being naive to the point of silliness. Ask the palestenians how well it's working to shoot at their opressors. After decades of living with IDF boots on their throats they haven't accomplished jack shit with all their guns and bombs. You really think your 45 can take on the US army? Good luck with that.

I am not sure this is a very good analogy for the situation I was trying to describe. I don't care to get in to further 'what-if' scenarios regarding the US military turning on its own citizens, allowing this discussion to degenerate into an unproductive flamefest :-)
It could be argued that the simple existance of the 2nd Amendment is evidence enough to suggest that the situation shouldn't/won't get to the point of your Palestinian example. However, that is a logical fallacy and moreover I understand that it will not convince you. How about if this theoretical oppressive military raided your home and threatened to kill your family, or put you and them in 'camps'? I don't consider my original point to be naive, rather a sensible and workable precaution as allowed by the Constitution to hopefully prevent that situation from ever occurring, and swiftly correcting it if it does. As I said, we will have to agree to disagree on this point. I think we can both agree that it is nicer to sit safely at our computers and trade comments rather than bullets.

Let's hope someone who doesn't like you feels the same way.

I can't tell whether to take this comment as a personal affront or if you meant it in earnest. I never said anything about killing anyone except in justified self-defense. This comment seems to connote something else. Anyway, if someone disliked me enough to kill me, I DO hope its a close-proximity shot to the head. I don't know about you, but I would rather have a quick and relatively painless death, if I were not able to successfully defend myself.

Re:Doesn't make sense... (very OT)

[DarkProphet]

Thanks for your input. I was hoping at least one non-American would post their take on it. You described essentially what I was trying to get at. Your comment about whether/when to kill a tresspasser being orthogonal to guns is absolutely correct. The reason I continued that particular example was because the OP specifically mentioned shooting the person. I guess because here in the states we are allowed to possess guns, its the most likely weapon of choice.

I'd say that if your country's system more-or-less works well, I see little reason to change it. Likewise in my country's. Its interesting that wearing military-style uniforms is prohibited. I did not know that. I understand the rationale for it. Do you think that the law was made at the time more out of distaste for the Nazis, or was there some additional underlying basis for it?

Re:Doesn't make sense... (very OT)

[killjoe]

"The court would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your life was not in mortal danger."

That would be trivial, it's a he said, he said and you just killed the guy. It's you against the picture of a guy with a missing head. As for the civil case I will point at the OJ trial where he was found not guilty in court and had to pay millions in civil court.

As for the palestenians I think that's a real world example of where a determined armed force is able to keep 3.5 million people under their boots living in misery, poverty and destitution despite the fact that they are armed with not only guns but also bombs, rockets, and mortars. The second amendment is outdated. Your guns are useless to end tyranny in any form. The cops will come in, you will die, your family will die if you resist. For another example look at Iraq where a mere 150,000 US troops are occupying a country. They can and do walk into any house they choose and kill any and all occupents in there or take them away to be tortured and detained. All the guns don't help there either.

The second amendment is toothless and meaningless. if it has to carry any weight at all it has to allow nuclear, chemical and bilogical weapons as well as tanks, shoulder fired missiles, and other sophisticated weaponry. Your 45 or shotgun will not prevent tyrany or help you overthrow the govt.

Re:Doesn't make sense... (very OT)

[dajak]

Do you think that the law was made at the time more out of distaste for the Nazis, or was there some additional underlying basis for it?

When Voelkisch movements start armed and uniformed militias outside the structure of the state something nasty is going to happen. It happened in 1568-1648, 1795-1812, 1831-1839, and 1935-1945 and in the Netherlands always involves some bigger foreign power (Spain, Prussia and France, France and Britain, and Germany respectively).

The proper policy for a state is to run the militia itself. In the past you had "musket guilds" run by the cities in the Netherlands, and the weapons were stored at a local arsenal. The exercise schedule was set by the government, but sufficient exercise was taken to be a sort of civil right. The existence of a healthy militia legitimizes government action against rival armed forces claiming to represent the people. The very existence of the rival may draw in foreign powers friendly to that rival.

The small pro-Nazi militia in the Netherlands was in 1936 uniformed but unarmed. Their uniforms were intimidating the population because of the association with the Nazi movement ruling a bigger neighbouring power, and therefore challenged the government. This is why the government turned on wearing uniforms associated with state functions like police and army.