Slashdot Mirror
UK Moves to Outlaw 'Hacker Tools'
twitter writes "New guidance rules for the UK's controversial Computer Misuse Act do not allay fears of impracticality, or of the banning of legitimate IT software: 'The government has come through with guidelines that address some, but not all, of these concerns about dual-use tools. The guidelines establish that to successfully prosecute the author of a tool it needs to be shown that they intended it to be used to commit computer crime. But the Home Office, despite lobbying, refused to withdraw the distribution offense. This leaves the door open to prosecute people who distribute a tool, such as nmap, that's subsequently abused by hackers.'" Somewhat similar legislation recently became law in Germany.
So if I hack something while running my custom application in debug mode from an IDE like Eclipse or VS.Net, would that not make Eclipse and VS.Net hacker tools that should be stripped from the land?
These laws are just retarded knee jerk reactions made by people who have no idea about what it is they are legislating on.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
What is it with politicians??! Keep your nose out of business you don't understand and, uh, maybe secure the governments damn servers (a big problem in the US, at least). Maybe mandate security for banks, etc. The policy could be written by, gasp, someone who knows what they are talking about. Somehow, I don't feel like holding my breath till then...
Every now and then I get to look at some OTHER country's heavy-handedness.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Don't believe for a minute this is about security, it's about control. And those who regulate access to information, control those who consume it. Next steps? Mandatory spyware and BigBrother remote control software. To make it easier to spot the criminals/terrorists/boogeyman du jour, of course.
Well, they may as well outlaw all of software development, because any software tool can be put to malicious purposes.
What they should focus on instead are the actual actions taken by individuals to compromise someone's computer or network, not the tools they use to do it with. For instance, there's already a number of tools on the market and in FOSS that can do DDoS attacks -- but they are normally used to stress-test a web site or some other network application.
The whole "intent" bit is always a slippery slope, ready for Kangaroo Court time. Obviously, these idiot politicians never saw or read "Minority Report", where going after "pre-crime" turnned out to cause more problems than it solved.
Yes, the governments of the world are not unlike a bunch of monkeys with dangerous toys -- total unbridled power, without the wisdom nor the precision to use it properly.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
The solution: ban brains.
Outside the sarcasm tags, I wonder how long it will be before some moron tries that.
"osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
What is a 'legitimate' computer program? There are many people who make a living as consultants paid to test how hard it is to break into a company's systems. They might well need to use even the most dastardly and underhanded 'hacking tool' to do their work. Indeed the police and security services also use programs that help them get unauthorized access to computers. What grounds are there for criminalizing any computer program?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
It'd still be a bad move in my opinion. What if you are making a small start up? Can you not probe your own network unless you're "certified" to do so? This would crush small businesses that couldn't afford to hire a "Certified AAA MSCE IT professional networkomagicineer", and could otherwise easily perform the same tasks themselves if it weren't for legal restrictions. These days you don't need to pay to be educated, and all the piece of paper that you get for being certified means is that you shelled out cash for a plaque on the wall.
Kind of like the DMCA?
Great idea!! If we outlaw hacker tools, only outlaws will have hacker tools!
Then we can just arrest everybody who has them, and we'll have our systems broken into by the black hats we missed, while those who would have protected us have their hands tied.
And that's while using the popular meaning of "hacker", rather than the correct one.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Not to throw too much fuel onto this fire, but the UK has a large precedent with the concept that TOOLS are the problem rather than the USERS. Look at guns. Is the phrase "guns kill people" really that much different than "hacking tools break into computers"? Not in my book. In fact, they are so similar as to be scary. Both assume that intent is not relevant, the person behind the tool is not responsible for his/her actions, and that these tools cause crime to be committed. Come on guys... If we start banning tools that *could* be used to commit a crime you had better come lock me up now. I've got a whole garage full of hammers, screwdrivers and other tools... and I know how to use them! :-)
I think it's about time people got over the semantics of the word 'hacker'. Given that 'crackers' don't call themselves 'crackers' they call themselves 'hackers' and they call what they do 'hacking', the word has *CHANGED ITS MEANING*. This is not uncommon for languages. Really. Just look at words like 'gay' for instance or even 'computer'. Go and find the original definition of that one!
Get over the semantic drift already, we're not all mired in some rose-spectacled view of the technoutopia where you have to have hacked solenoids under a model railway at MIT in order to qualify for the term.
I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
In both those cases, the requirements are based on the assumption that there is a risk to the customers, that customers cannot readily evaluate. (The free market can't solve problems, like safety in some cases, that are very difficult for consumers to evaluate.)
I'm firmly against the idea of making ownership of lockpicks illegal, for the same reason as I'm against this law. As I understand the law here in North Carolina about lockpicks, I rather like it. You're allowed to own them, but if you're breaking and entering, tresspassing, or doing something similar, and carrying lockpicks then they automatically count as burglary tools. I rather like this policy -- it adds harsher penalties for those who go about acquiring tools and skills for illegitimate purposes, yet allows people like myself to own lockpicks purely because we like understanding how locks work. The analogy to computer security tools is a very good one, I think.
Requiring certification of people representing themselves as computer security experts might make sense (I'd withold judgement until I knew more about how it worked, personally). But restricting the tools doesn't. Adding something analogous to possession of burglary tools, though, does make sense to me. (Well, somewhat -- it's complicated, and since you can't really break into a computer without some level of software tool, the analogy gets strained.)
So could this legislation potentially prohibit the distribution of complete Linux distros? Since tools like netcat and nmap are part of the base installs of most Linux systems. I work at a Fortune 500 company and we use Wireshark for diagnosing and monitoring network issues. I'm sure many UK companies do the same.
Please don't use my state as a paragon of freedom. Oh, wait, it's *security* you want? Try moving to some nice secure country where everything is prohibited, including crime.
Certifications don't protect the public. They protect the certified against competition.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
They can have my ping client when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Maybe a better analogue would be make using 'hacker tools' illegal across public networks.
Setting up a private network to learn and experiment should be legal.
love is just extroverted narcissism
When did my peers and people of my parent's age become such softcore fascists?
When they got scared.
The real truth is that there is no bogeyman, and that there's nothing to fear but fear itself. Even my four-year old knows that. ("[Girl Name], what do we have to be afraid of?" "Being afraid.")
And now, some "crimes" are nearly impossible to prosecute. How can someone in the UK file suit against a "cracker" from Atiqua or Afghanistan? They could potentially steal your bank account information and steal your life savings, buy a handgun, rob a bank, and put you on death row. Now, when you assume - note that word - that the backwards savages outside your home country have to have help to break in, then clearly someone with brains - I mean a white guy - er, I mean someone from the homeland - er, someone reachable by our police - must have helped them. That's complete junk, but to some the point is valid. The bad guys must have help, so let's go after the help. Never mind that the "bad guys" get paid more than I do.
And people are scared because they think things are the worst they've ever been. The fact is, the good old days were never here. Terrorists have been around since at least the Romans. We survive. The day of judgment will never come.
But that's not enough. You can't tell people to calm down - you have to show them that you're doing something, anything.
Seriously - people are attempting to legislate abstract concepts that they don't know about. I've seen laws suggesting watermarks in A/D conveters. One of the US Senators honestly thinks the Interweb is a series of tubes. He might not even be familiar with the concept of electricity. Imagine Ancient Greeks trying to pass legislation on the use of titanium in groundwater near nuclear power plants. If I give an opinion on civil engineering, I could be fined up to $25,000. If a politician does, he gets rewarded.
Instead of demanding the removal of the clueless, people just revote for the same guy as last time - if they even voted - or "stay the course". When those in charge have literally no consequences for their actions and get paid to pass legislation from special interest groups. Is copyright theft something that ordinary people really care about? Are there people who are thinking, "man, I'd love to go to work today, but I'm afraid that someone, somewhere, is copying a DVD to take the ads out. If only our government would pass some laws to fix that problem." Okay, maybe if the guy works making DVDs, but that's not a normal guy.
When the victims became criminals. Look at identity theft - it could be prevented with 100% accuracy if the credit bureaus updated their computers. All they have to do is add a picture to your report and require an automatic phone call to the last known phone number any time you want a change. That's it. It's now impossible to steal someone's ID. Of course, it's your fault for not buying title insurance, paying Equifax $25 a month for credit checks, and using your "internet thing" for banking.
When people started getting used to the idea of "I have nothing to hide". You do. Everyone does. I have skeletons in my closet, and I want them to stay there.
So what it really boils down to is that people are in general afraid of something, but they don't know what it is. So, they turn their wrath on anything that can possibly hold their ire. Immigrants, Hackers, ID thieves, the Russians, terrorists, etc. As long as the eye isn't on them, then they're fine. Torture the sandnigger or the hacker. They're the ones who made the world such a fucked up place. It's all their fault.
They're really afraid of themselves. How long will it be until the bank comes calling, or the boss cans them, or the spouse will leave with the kids?
It's a scary thought - we're lead by clueless, corrupt, whores who run the place by tacit consent from people who are too afraid to interrupt their routine.
This isn't exactly what I meant to say, but I think the power here has become unreliable. There's a lot of wind outside.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
I'm wondering if "anti-hacking" laws like this will conflict with data retention laws that are also brutally oppressive, to the point where admins will be required to do things they can't possibly do without tools that are illegal to possess. Sounds like the sort of thing one would expect from China.
That just doesn't seem funny any more... :-(
Seriously, though, we're seeing a lot of this: the notion that any funny stuff, be it computer software, electronic goodies, chemistry, what have you, is a priori for bad purposes. Somehow due process has gotten lost in the shuffle, the user is apparently guilty until proven innocent, and must be dealt with accordingly.
Tragic.
...laura
How about if such tools were only legal for licensed/certified IT and Information Security professionals?
The 9/11 hijackers had pilots licenses. I'm sure there are other similarly licensed terrorists. And paedophiles.
Stick Men
I live in NY too...
Certifications provide a baseline clue as to whether or not your has proven at some point to meet certain minimum requirements of knowledge and/or skill.
I agree though that certifications don't protect the public- such professionals would have to be bonded for that.
I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, but I think you are exaggerating somewhat. There are things out there that a reasonable person should fear. There are criminals, there are terrorists. We should be reacting to them. We just need to not overreact.
:-) Good luck!
"One of the US Senators honestly thinks the Interweb is a series of tubes. He might not even be familiar with the concept of electricity."
No, one of our Senators used a clumsy analogy. None of them really think the net is composed of tubes. Yes, they are legislating issues they don't understand... but they aren't retarded. I'm quite sure the majority of congressmen have above average IQs. They may be corrupted or arrogant, ignorant of tech issues, but not stupid.
I'm not really arguing with you, I just think you're passionate and letting some of your rhetoric get a little carried away. Take your own advice: "We survive. The day of judgment will never come."
"This isn't exactly what I meant to say, but I think the power here has become unreliable. There's a lot of wind outside."
I spent a moment trying to figure out what your metaphor meant... is "Wind" our political climate? Then I realized you're literally talking about 'power' and 'wind.'
Indeed. The fix for poor software security is to create requirements for implementation, not punishments for breach. Those breaching don't care about UK or US policy. They are by definition scofflaws. And yes, I am directly stating here that it's not the cracker's fault the bank is easy to get into. It's the bank's fault and they deserve to lose the money. (Does YOUR bank use two-factor authentication, or do they make you think you're safe by asking those personal questions?)
When you build your code by hiring the lowest bidder with the least qualifications, then you should be liable. If a bridge building contractor didn't keep blueprints and didn't hire a qualified crew, then they would be sued or imprisoned. I can't just go and build a stadium or an overpass just because I think there should be one there.
If you do that with software - even software potentially worth billions of dollars - you get more contracts. Of course, it's not like anyone died as a result of bad software... oh, right. Any idiot can grab a book on teaching yourself programming and think they're an expert in 24 hours.
I have the knowledge to visit your reservoir and shut it down. (I'd have to actually visit it in person, but it's not like it's under guard.) That's just damned irresponsible programming on the part of the SCADA guys. Oops, your fecal chloroform count is way too high. Passport applications in Canada were compromised by bad coding, and last year the Canadian tax system shut down due to a glitch.
It is damned irresponsible to punish someone for making an nmap program publicly available when the institutions don't put on basic security measures. The cops say it's my fault if I don't lock my car. Why is this any different?
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Which is actually its original meaning, which is why the word has changed
That's why you get lots of kids at school sniggering when old stories are read: they mention being "happy and gay" using the old meaning of "happy and joyous" rather than being "happy and homosexual".
Deleted
I have a garage full of tools that could be used for burglary..and I do loan one now and then to my neighbors. The possession of tools that are exclusively used for harming or stealing is one thing but leaving it up to the imagination of law enforcement authorities to decide what is dual use is scary. But getting in trouble for distributing or just having tools points does not seem to cover those who know how to MAKE the tools. There is another analogy the I don't see addressed in this this UK "guidance": its illegal to carry an unlicensed or concealed handgun but nobody has any way to monitor or regulate the hands and feet of a highly trained martial arts master. So if I just happen to know how to code, basically from scratch, my own packet sniffers, key loggers, root kits, binary disk file editors, sneaky event handlers buried in image file formats etc etc and I hire myself out to random customers or employers, what can the authorities do?
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.