Slashdot Mirror
Bradley Manning and the 'Hacker Madness' Scare Tactic
New submitter wabrandsma sends this excerpt from New Scientist:
"The Bradley Manning case continues a trend of government prosecutions that use familiarity with digital tools and knowledge of computers as a scare tactic and a basis for obtaining grossly disproportionate and unfair punishments, strategies enabled by broad, vague laws like the CFAA and the Espionage Act. Let's call this the 'hacker madness' strategy. Using it, the prosecution portrays actions taken by someone using a computer as more dangerous or scary than they actually are by highlighting the digital tools used to a nontechnical or even technophobic judge. ... We've seen this trick before. In a case that we at the Electronic Frontier Foundation handled in 2009, Boston College police used the fact that our client worked on a Linux operating system with "a black screen with white font" as part of a basis for a search warrant. Luckily the Massachusetts Supreme Court tossed out the warrant after EFF got involved, but who knows what would have happened had we not been there. And happily, Oracle got a big surprise when it tried a similar trick in Oracle v. Google and discovered that the judge was a programmer who sharply called them on it."
... the prosecution portrays actions taken by someone using a computer as more dangerous or scary than they actually are by highlighting the digital tools used to a nontechnical or even technophobic judge. ... We've seen this trick before. In a case that we at the Electronic Frontier Foundation handled in 2009 ...
I wonder what Kevin Mitnick would have to say about this revelation as news.
... simply to avoid admitting ignorance.
On a broad scale, people have always been scared by what they don't understand. On a more refined level, people are often willing to agree with a strongly-worded argument if they don't understand the premise
There are lots of new problems due to technology - but very few new avoidance tactics / reactions. Look at the opposition to nearly every major advance (in science) in the last 500 years. No need to go further back - you'll find enough examples in the last 50 that going back 500 will be difficult.
- Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
Aren't the judge and jury supposed to have adequate knowledge of the case and the context? Why would they allow a judge that is uneducated about the pertinent topics? The defendant isn't able to ask for a more appropriate audience for their case?
Dunno, could it be referring to this bit previoulsy covered here? I imagine there may have been a few such incidents at that trial.
Oh no... it's the future.
What exactly is the relevance to the Manning case? He was convicted of releasing classified information, something it's pretty obvious he did. Regardless of what the information is or how he obtained it, the release of the information is what he was charged with and convicted of doing.
This sounds like someone trying to hitch their own free software wagon to the pro-Manning/Wikileaks train.
Original article on EFF blog.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
It isn't just black screen with white fonts (THAT YOU TYPE INTO!!!) that are things to be cursed and feared, I also design electronics. Its horrible. Show me a non-consumer-electronics looking box with wires sticking out of it, and I will show you a police bomb squad sealing off a neighborhood. If they saw wires inside of a computer, they surely would blow it up.
Considering that Manning already had access to the networks he downloaded the material from I think it would be a stretch to call it hacking. But I agree that it is SOP to refer to the tools used in a crime in the most intimidating manner to strengthen the argument. Well no matter what the details of the vernacular used Manning will be a rather old man before he will be breathing free air again. He will not get life but the shear number of charges he is being convicted of will assure that his parole, if he is ever eligible, will be decided by our children or grandchildren.
In the Manning case, technology is relevant. There is no way he would've been able to photocopy that amount of information. The case shows the very real danger of switching to digital without considering the security implications. Furthermore, what Manning did had quite a big impact, the volume of the leak more than explains the harsh charges, there's no need to blame it on the 'hacker scare'.
For once that "OT" means "on topic". Considering revelations about NSA and FBI surveillance and that bunny worshipers are likely to be children, do you feel safe? I wouldn't.
Free Martian Whores!
In the Manning case, the prosecution used Manning's use of a standard, more than 15-year-old Unix program called Wget to collect information, as if it were a dark and nefarious technique.
Maybe it's not quite that, but if it's used to download information that shouldn't be collected by an individual, it certainly bears watching. One would hope that the military now flags anyone using it on classified information. Though of course there are plenty of other ways to collect such information, or to hide the fact that wget is being used.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
It's called a "Threat Narrative". It's why there were no WMDs. There never was even suspicion of WMDs. There was only the need for a Threat Narrative to convince the people to let the armed forces off it's chain.
Vietnam? Threat Narrative. McCarthyism? Threat Narrative.... The Holocaust? Threat Narrative.
Require Evidence before belief -- That's rational. Always disbelieve the Threat Narrative.
Don't Fall For It, not even once.
I don't know about shills and all that, but you are right in the first part of your post. Prosecution is there to get a conviction and they will use whatever legal means they have, just like I'm sure his defense tries to minimize his guilt in any way they can. Its called adversarial legal system.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
The EFF is to computer and internet rights as what the NRA is to run rights and the defense of the 2nd amendment.
I would love to see the EFF and NRA team up! *grin*
Life is not for the lazy.
Private jails:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Yes, but that has practically nothing very little to do with the NSA. The people they are trying to catch with their ridiculous dragnets number in the thousands at most, and maybe a couple hundred are in prisons. It's mostly about poverty, harsh sentences for crimes NOT involving a computer, and too many fucking guns and drug laws that provide fodder for the human tragedy of he prison industry.
My irony meter is pegged. Now the EFF is using the same logic that the government is using. If we hadn't been watching out for your interests, who knows what bad things might have happened.
Donations cheerfully accepted.
The "hacking" laws are written in terms of access, which is contextual. Manning had access to the systems to do the work for which he was employed by the DoD. He did not have access to copy off files and give them Wikileaks. So he did violate those laws.
Only if you redefine the word "access".
If I created an account for you on my system, and made you a super-user, you have access to all kinds of stuff... config files, creating users, installing software. This doesn't mean you have my approval, but I did give you access to them.
Redefining the word (in noun form) to mean something else is an exceptionally dangerous road to go down. If someone misreads an order (judicial or executive) and does something unintended, do we really want them becoming a sacrificial scapegoat? Do they not have "access" because they didn't have actual permission? Wouldn't we prefer to nail those who shouldn't have given them access or those who gave bad instructions? Do we just assume that because children aren't allowed in a bedroom that they don't have access to the gun under the pillow? Do we want that legal defense?
"Access" cannot be equated to verbal or paper permission. Access (noun) is the ability to access (verb) something, not the authority to do so.
He accessed something that he wasn't supposed to, but to which he had access. What he did with it was clearly illegal. He shouldn't have been given access, but that's a whole different ball of wax.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Except that Israel was a theocracy conquered by Rome. Within the bounds of Roman law, the Jews were permitted their own governance. The Sanhedrin did hear real trials based on Jewish religious law, brought before them by people who could be called lawyers. Even many of the secular laws were religiously colored in some way, much like Christianity sometimes does in our law today.
It's closer than you might think.
(Yes, "The Law" in most passages does refer to the Law of Moses, but interpretations of it were often the law of the land, as well.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
And the fact that so many people believe that to be true is in the basis of the bad shape of your justice system.
No, prosecution is not there to find yuo guilty but to find the truth of a case. There's no simmetry between prosecution and defense.
Should actions which would violate the geneva convention were they carried out on a prisoner of war be considered acceptable when carried out on individuals otherwise detained? Should a government deal with it's own citizens more harshly than an enemy combatant (whom they would have killed had he not surrendered)?
It seems you consider your fellow man the enemy. Indeed, you believe he should be dealt with more harshly than a foreigner who has taken up arms against you. You should rethink your priorities.
What about curl!!!?
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
Most US prisons are not Federal prisons, and as of 2009 the US incarceration rate was 754 per 100,000, or 0.75%. Russia was second with 577 per 100k, Europe averaged just a little over 100. Meaning you're about 7x more likely to end up in prison in the US than in Europe, and over 9x more likely than in Sweden.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Which is a more reasonable assumption - Americans commit many more (or worse) crimes as people in other Western countries, or the US legal system is a bit different? (Hints: death penalty, three-strikes)
So if we ignore the tier of the US government that deals with most of the serious crime (the state level) we still get an imprisonment rate somewhat comparable to an EU member. How does this support your argument?
No, prosecution is not there to find yuo guilty but to find the truth of a case. There's no simmetry between prosecution and defense.
Your reality meter just exploded (in the negative limit).
First of all, the State (prosecution) is incredibly highly motivated to get a conviction. Their reputation and salary and promotions depend upon it.
Second, there is complete equivalence between the behavior of prosecution and defense. In theory, the defense is supposed to ensure that the trial is conducted openly and fairly (hence the "face his accuser" stuff). In practice, they do whatever they can to achieve a verdict of innocence.
The day I hear a CDL tell the post-trial media conference "well, we presented all valid evidence, and the witnesses were truthful, but my client was guilty as sin and justice was properly served" is the day I begin to trust our justice system.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Contrary to what you claim "There are lots of new problems due to technology" there is really nothing new. The rich will abuse society to get more, the poor will mostly whine about how bad things are, the middle class will be split between those that ignore reality, those that deny reality, and those that speak out against the abuses.
The easiest way for the rich to get more is to entertain the masses with gladiators and heresy/witch trials.
The first well known philosophical writings we have document this very thing in the life of Socrates and his Philosophy. Socrates tells you that the cycle has been happening for some time, and offers a solution in educating all members of society. Those in power have ensured that the poor know nothing about this masterful work. Look upon the Government control over education systems and be amazed.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
These thoughts have been bouncing around in my head for a while now. I've been following a steady stream of stories and reports chronicling the continual demonization of stigmatization of "hackers" and generally technologically proficient people in general.
People misunderstand or refuse to understand at all. The negative perception caused partly by a few ne'er-do-wells and mostly by corporate propaganda paints us all with a thick coat of black. Misunderstanding transforms into mistrust, mistrust into fear, fear to indignant anger, anger to oppression; before you know it, we have a publically supported, government sanctioned witch hunt on our hands. We technology-savvy individuals are being singled out as the next great threat to the establishment.
The FBI threw Sklyarov in the slammer for giving a security talk on flaws in Adobe's DRM. Russia -- Russia, people, not exactly known for a track record of upholding civil rights -- issued a statement for security researchers to stay the hell out of the US because it had become illegal to do some math.
Auernheimer exposed a blatant security flaw, which only existed because of AT&T's utter laziness and indiscretion, and went to prison simply because the way he exposed it and pissed off AT&T.
Swartz hanged himself after the full force of the federal government hounded him and drove him over the edge by threatening a 35-year prison term for what should have been a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor.
An obviously technophobic judge ruled for an injunction against a UK security researcher to prevent him from publicizing an immobilizer security flaw that could be exploited by organized crime to steal millions of dollars worth of expensive sports cars. He is going ahead with it anyway because it's the responsable thing to do when affected parties refuse to address it, and I'm willing to bet the government is going to come down on him heavily for it.
The incidents of tech-savvy people being vilified are too numerous to list, but I'm sure we're all aware of them. The establishment wants their culture of liability, where ordinary individuals are dragged into the big leagues and expected to perform at the same level as corporate and government giants, while our perspective demands greater personal freedoms to offset the goliathan advantage held over us.
I think we're going to see a lot more of this until the societal shift is complete and the new generation becomes leadership, and that's a *very* optimistic view.
Yeah. GP has 'European countries', P has 'Switzerland', and I did some hasty editing. Hopefully that doesn't obscure my point.
He and his administration as well as many others made public statements to that fact just years before and after we went into Iraq. Sorry but paying attention is a must.
No such thing as a verdict of innocence. It is not guilty by reasonable doubt(or jury nullification). There is a rather large difference between innocence and not guilty.