3 ms·
That's beside the point. There are plenty of valid uses for other things which would have been criminalized such as Metasploit and Core Impact. Not to mention
by wuest 14y ago
That's beside the point. There are plenty of valid uses for other things which would have been criminalized such as Metasploit and Core Impact. Not to mention that such things as writing PoC code to validate vulnerabilities would have been right out of the question.
- keithpeter 14y agoI accept what your point which I take to be that a law or regulation that attempted a narrow definition of tools thought to be for criminal purposes would still criminalise legitimate activities. It is the activity that should be against the law, not possession of the software. I was just wondering what the law used in this case was.
- saraid216 14y agoYes, but privacy. A lot of activities are incredibly hard to actually catch someone in the act of, and incredibly hard to actually get hard proof of. Possession, on the other hand, is a strong correlation and proof of itself. The reasonableness of this correlation is what draws the line between whether or not possession is illegal, and that's going to be subjective. It's really easy to forget that the first and foremost reason we defend privacy isn't because its breach is icky. It's because illegality is sometimes the right thing to do. However, usually it's not. This is a natural contradiction that makes writing law difficult.
- wuest 14y agoAbsolutely agreed--this is a point I made in other posts. I apologize if I came across as harsh--absolutely not my intention.