2 ms·

> It is like making dynamite illegal for civil engineers or morphine forbidden to medical practitioners or hammers and chisels denied to cabinet makers because

by aes256 15y ago

> It is like making dynamite illegal for civil engineers or morphine forbidden to medical practitioners or hammers and chisels denied to cabinet makers because they might hurt themselves. Ridiculous! Described in those terms, what would you say to an exception that permitted possession by authorised information security personnel? That's akin to the legislation we have in the UK with regards to explosives and controlled substances.

Craiggybear 15y ago
There are no legal definitions for being a programmer. There are for being a medical practitioner or a civil engineer. Only practising doctors who are certified to practice may prescribe. Only legally certified civil engineers who after prerequisite training and certification are permitted to handle high explosives and blow things up. Having a degree alone in either of those two professions does most certainly NOT on its own qualify you to do either. Or anything much. So maybe a bad example. But that's a whole different argument. At present it is "programmers" (self-taught or academic or industrially trained) who make things and routinely test them for hardness. You can't suddenly invent rules that say only certain types of programmer may use and deploy "hacking" tools. That won't work because there is no defined path to test suitability or career fitness in the majority of people who define themselves as "programmers". Too broad a church. Too many disciplines and areas of specialisation. And too few people qualified to legitimately or meaningfully assess that either way. Or are we going to say, for example, only Microsoft Certified Pros are allowed to test? God in heaven forbid! Reputation (from both peers and clients) and demonstrated output that works is the only test for whether someone is a good or bad (read, fit or unfit) programmer. And no, in answer to your question, we don't allow only certain government regulated individuals to have legal access to perfectly ordinary systems analysis tools. They are probably the last people you want doing it.
mjwalshe 15y ago
that's probably what they want
nitrogen 15y ago
The problem with regulating possession of specific kinds of software is that they are entirely a product of the mind. You need specific precursor materials to create explosives and controlled substances, but anybody can imagine and create a good system administration tool. There should never be a legal concept of an "authorized" information security person. It's about like defining a concept of an "authorized" painter or musician, since all are talents that can be developed in isolation.

by aes256 15y ago

Craiggybear 15y ago

There are no legal definitions for being a programmer. There are for being a medical practitioner or a civil engineer. Only practising doctors who are certified to practice may prescribe. Only legally certified civil engineers who after prerequisite training and certification are permitted to handle high explosives and blow things up. Having a degree alone in either of those two professions does most certainly NOT on its own qualify you to do either. Or anything much. So maybe a bad example. But that's a whole different argument. At present it is "programmers" (self-taught or academic or industrially trained) who make things and routinely test them for hardness. You can't suddenly invent rules that say only certain types of programmer may use and deploy "hacking" tools. That won't work because there is no defined path to test suitability or career fitness in the majority of people who define themselves as "programmers". Too broad a church. Too many disciplines and areas of specialisation. And too few people qualified to legitimately or meaningfully assess that either way. Or are we going to say, for example, only Microsoft Certified Pros are allowed to test? God in heaven forbid! Reputation (from both peers and clients) and demonstrated output that works is the only test for whether someone is a good or bad (read, fit or unfit) programmer. And no, in answer to your question, we don't allow only certain government regulated individuals to have legal access to perfectly ordinary systems analysis tools. They are probably the last people you want doing it.

mjwalshe 15y ago

that's probably what they want

nitrogen 15y ago

The problem with regulating possession of specific kinds of software is that they are entirely a product of the mind. You need specific precursor materials to create explosives and controlled substances, but anybody can imagine and create a good system administration tool. There should never be a legal concept of an "authorized" information security person. It's about like defining a concept of an "authorized" painter or musician, since all are talents that can be developed in isolation.