5 ms·

If you outlaw hacking tools only criminals will have hacking tools. This would make the EU less safe, since security experts will not be able to know what they

If you outlaw hacking tools only criminals will have hacking tools. This would make the EU less safe, since security experts will not be able to know what they're facing or check the security of their own systems against real attacks until they're really being attacked. Another clueless law that does the opposite of what it's supposed to do. Either that or it will be completely ignored.

NameNickHN 15y ago
Exactly. Since when did criminals care about the law.
wisty 15y ago
I don't like this logic for guns, because most criminals (especially the less professional street gangs) get guns by stealing them from law abiding people. I do like this logic for hacking tools, because most criminals make their tools themselves, or get them freely through distribution channels which are impossible to shut down. If guns could be freely cloned, and sent through the mail for free (in locked boxes which the post office couldn't see into), it would be unbelievably stupid to ban them.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  If the issue s that the guns are stolen from law abbiding people without their consent, then make that illegal. If that is not enough then make the penalty higher.
- talmand 15y ago
  I require a source on your claim that most criminals get guns by stealing them from law-abiding people. I guess this might depend upon where you live but I've never heard this claim in the US. Even if it were true, are we saying a law-abiding citizen shouldn't have access to a legal firearm because a criminal might steal it? I personally don't like any rules of this nature because the major problem becomes who defines what is a "hacking" tool? It's much like how the definition of burglary tools can be so broad that just having duct tape and a screwdriver in your trunk can be considered possessing burglary tools. Just for the sake of slapping another charge onto somebody during an arrest.
  - wdewind 15y ago
    I'm not sure why you are being downvoted here. Not only do you make a totally fair point, I'm pretty sure you are correct (at least in NYC). "[Legal purchases from] Virginia are the number one source for illegal guns entering New York." http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=7841676 http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators...
    - lutorm 15y ago
      You're sort of defeating your own point there, in that those guns were originally obtained legally.
    - wisty 15y ago
      I checked, and he was right. A lot of guns are illegally gained, but not actually stolen. Most of the time, criminals will get someone else to buy it, or bribe the dealer. But, very few guns are smuggled in from abroad, or stolen from the military. It's only when civilians can easily get guns that gun crime becomes a big problem.
      - ktizo 15y ago
        guns are fine, as long as you ban the bullets ;)
  - unimpressive 15y ago
    >Just for the sake of slapping another charge onto somebody during an arrest. This hits the nail on the head right here. The way that you get a police state is by making everything illegal and then doing selective enforcement. That way when organizations that control law enforcement decide they don't like you; the police can arrest you with impunity and just find something to charge you with after the fact. I also find it highly unethical to make things illegal for the sake of being able to slap defendants with another charge at trial. It usually ends up causing collateral damage to legitimate people and services (In the case of general laws like this that put blanket bans on things that shouldn't be blanket banned.), and seems like a lazy excuse to do more legislating. And to say nothing of artificially inflating peoples sentences because somehow the sentencing limits weren't enough.
revelation 15y ago
Quite the opposite, frankly. Germany has had such laws for quite some time now - and companies producing intrusion tools and other blackhat industries are doing as good as in any western country. This is used to criminalize people releasing such tools to the public. The government doesn't like people sharing what it considers military technology.
- drucken 15y ago
  It does not matter how it is used now. The point is that it could be easily used by any state at any time for any purpose against any citizen. For example, someone carrying a laptop with any software installed on it, including bare operating system, or even just a portable drive/SD card with software on it. All those citizens are now potential criminals since almost any software can be used maliciously. This is the kind of law that could be used to justify scanning people's hardware and person at airports or in general public in order to arrest them. Now combine this law with ACTA and you have a reason to arrest any citizen coming and going out of their own country if they have any kind of electronics on them at all... Bad laws are bad laws, period, otherwise would all have happily lived under Stasi/secret police regimes and worse with no reason to complain.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    If you have a web browser, you have a hacking tool. SQL injections are far, far too common, and most of the time require nothing more than an input box on a website.

NameNickHN 15y ago

Exactly. Since when did criminals care about the law.

wisty 15y ago

I don't like this logic for guns, because most criminals (especially the less professional street gangs) get guns by stealing them from law abiding people. I do like this logic for hacking tools, because most criminals make their tools themselves, or get them freely through distribution channels which are impossible to shut down. If guns could be freely cloned, and sent through the mail for free (in locked boxes which the post office couldn't see into), it would be unbelievably stupid to ban them.

tomjen3 15y ago
If the issue s that the guns are stolen from law abbiding people without their consent, then make that illegal. If that is not enough then make the penalty higher.
talmand 15y ago
I require a source on your claim that most criminals get guns by stealing them from law-abiding people. I guess this might depend upon where you live but I've never heard this claim in the US. Even if it were true, are we saying a law-abiding citizen shouldn't have access to a legal firearm because a criminal might steal it? I personally don't like any rules of this nature because the major problem becomes who defines what is a "hacking" tool? It's much like how the definition of burglary tools can be so broad that just having duct tape and a screwdriver in your trunk can be considered possessing burglary tools. Just for the sake of slapping another charge onto somebody during an arrest.
- wdewind 15y ago
  I'm not sure why you are being downvoted here. Not only do you make a totally fair point, I'm pretty sure you are correct (at least in NYC). "[Legal purchases from] Virginia are the number one source for illegal guns entering New York." http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=7841676 http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators...
  - lutorm 15y ago
    You're sort of defeating your own point there, in that those guns were originally obtained legally.
  - wisty 15y ago
    I checked, and he was right. A lot of guns are illegally gained, but not actually stolen. Most of the time, criminals will get someone else to buy it, or bribe the dealer. But, very few guns are smuggled in from abroad, or stolen from the military. It's only when civilians can easily get guns that gun crime becomes a big problem.
    - ktizo 15y ago
      guns are fine, as long as you ban the bullets ;)
- unimpressive 15y ago
  >Just for the sake of slapping another charge onto somebody during an arrest. This hits the nail on the head right here. The way that you get a police state is by making everything illegal and then doing selective enforcement. That way when organizations that control law enforcement decide they don't like you; the police can arrest you with impunity and just find something to charge you with after the fact. I also find it highly unethical to make things illegal for the sake of being able to slap defendants with another charge at trial. It usually ends up causing collateral damage to legitimate people and services (In the case of general laws like this that put blanket bans on things that shouldn't be blanket banned.), and seems like a lazy excuse to do more legislating. And to say nothing of artificially inflating peoples sentences because somehow the sentencing limits weren't enough.

revelation 15y ago

Quite the opposite, frankly. Germany has had such laws for quite some time now - and companies producing intrusion tools and other blackhat industries are doing as good as in any western country. This is used to criminalize people releasing such tools to the public. The government doesn't like people sharing what it considers military technology.

drucken 15y ago
It does not matter how it is used now. The point is that it could be easily used by any state at any time for any purpose against any citizen. For example, someone carrying a laptop with any software installed on it, including bare operating system, or even just a portable drive/SD card with software on it. All those citizens are now potential criminals since almost any software can be used maliciously. This is the kind of law that could be used to justify scanning people's hardware and person at airports or in general public in order to arrest them. Now combine this law with ACTA and you have a reason to arrest any citizen coming and going out of their own country if they have any kind of electronics on them at all... Bad laws are bad laws, period, otherwise would all have happily lived under Stasi/secret police regimes and worse with no reason to complain.
- freehunter 15y ago
  If you have a web browser, you have a hacking tool. SQL injections are far, far too common, and most of the time require nothing more than an input box on a website.