5 ms·

Reminder that not using a browser to access a website has been construed as hacking. Reminder that 90% of development tools are hacking tools. Subversion has s

Reminder that not using a browser to access a website has been construed as hacking. Reminder that 90% of development tools are hacking tools. Subversion has subversion right in the name.

johngalt 12y ago
> not using a browser to access a website has been construed as hacking. Huh? I haven't heard that one before? The whole 'hacking tools' thing is just ignorance. As if wireshark and port scanners have no legitimate use. "We don't understand these things therefore they are scary"
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - balabaster 12y ago
    I got voted down yesterday for linking this kind behaviour to the Salem Witch Trials... but I stand by my point: Fear of what they're ignorant about and starting witch hunts to eradicate it is part of American history... you may cast it to the annals of history, but with the undertones of Islamophobia, xenophobia and racism that constantly play out in the media demonstrate that it's still alive and kicking in the halls of politics. This is just another form of the same thing - fear of their own ignorance.
- fweespeech 12y ago
  http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/reporters-use-google-find-breach-get-branded-as-hackers/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/reporters-use-google... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/30/the-free-web-program-that-got-bradley-manning-convicted-of-computer-fraud/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/30... > That Manning was convicted of computer fraud seems to suggest that using wget on a U.S. government computer to download large numbers of files can be considered the digital equivalent of trespassing – even if it's on turf you're otherwise allowed to access. I think is what he means.
  - ethanbond 12y ago
    What the... This is a simple distinction. Computer fraud means using a computer to do something you're not authorized to do. He was not authorized to use wget, he used it, thus he committed fraud. He was authorized to access that "turf," but not with wget. Why? Specifically for the reason he did it: it's a risk. Whatever your opinion on whistleblower protections, this is not a risky judgment.
    - Crito 12y ago
      Does any American website enumerate in their terms of use the software that you are allowed to use to access them? Could they?
      - ethanbond 12y ago
        No, but I'm almost certain that the DOD's filesystem likely includes a "using any unapproved software to access this system is considered unauthorized." It's almost as if there's a difference between DOD classified file storage and google.com.
        Crito 12y ago
        Could it be done with a non-DOD site? If not, why not? Could I make a website that immediately drops you onto a landing page that says "The rest of this website may only be accessed using Safari. Use of Firefox, Chrome, or any other software constitutes unauthorized access."?
        snowwrestler 12y ago
        Yes, you could make such a website, but I doubt that it would mean anything in court. Manning was active-duty military, accessing classified military systems. There are all sorts of duties, laws, and regulations that apply to that situation that don't apply to a civilian accessing some random website on the web.
    - 12y ago
balabaster 12y ago
With the addition of developer tools to every major browser these days you don't even need to step outside your browser... your browser is a hacking tool. Every time you do F12 and navigate your way through the HTML to remove the annoying paywall mask to read an article rather than pay for the subscription is hacking. You are using a site with a behaviour that was not explicitly intended by the owner and that theoretically could get you charged as a hacker, without you ever leaving your browser. Blurred lines. [Apologies if that song is now stuck in your head as it is mine]
pc2g4d 12y ago
Subversion was called Subversion because it was subverting CVS, which it meant to replace. Not to mention the nice double meaning of sub-version.

Reminder that not using a browser to access a website has been construed as hacking. Reminder that 90% of development tools are hacking tools. Subversion has subversion right in the name.

johngalt 12y ago

> not using a browser to access a website has been construed as hacking. Huh? I haven't heard that one before? The whole 'hacking tools' thing is just ignorance. As if wireshark and port scanners have no legitimate use. "We don't understand these things therefore they are scary"

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- balabaster 12y ago
  I got voted down yesterday for linking this kind behaviour to the Salem Witch Trials... but I stand by my point: Fear of what they're ignorant about and starting witch hunts to eradicate it is part of American history... you may cast it to the annals of history, but with the undertones of Islamophobia, xenophobia and racism that constantly play out in the media demonstrate that it's still alive and kicking in the halls of politics. This is just another form of the same thing - fear of their own ignorance.
fweespeech 12y ago
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/reporters-use-google-find-breach-get-branded-as-hackers/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/reporters-use-google... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/30/the-free-web-program-that-got-bradley-manning-convicted-of-computer-fraud/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/30... > That Manning was convicted of computer fraud seems to suggest that using wget on a U.S. government computer to download large numbers of files can be considered the digital equivalent of trespassing – even if it's on turf you're otherwise allowed to access. I think is what he means.
- ethanbond 12y ago
  What the... This is a simple distinction. Computer fraud means using a computer to do something you're not authorized to do. He was not authorized to use wget, he used it, thus he committed fraud. He was authorized to access that "turf," but not with wget. Why? Specifically for the reason he did it: it's a risk. Whatever your opinion on whistleblower protections, this is not a risky judgment.
  - Crito 12y ago
    Does any American website enumerate in their terms of use the software that you are allowed to use to access them? Could they?
    - ethanbond 12y ago
      No, but I'm almost certain that the DOD's filesystem likely includes a "using any unapproved software to access this system is considered unauthorized." It's almost as if there's a difference between DOD classified file storage and google.com.
      - Crito 12y ago
        Could it be done with a non-DOD site? If not, why not? Could I make a website that immediately drops you onto a landing page that says "The rest of this website may only be accessed using Safari. Use of Firefox, Chrome, or any other software constitutes unauthorized access."?
        snowwrestler 12y ago
        Yes, you could make such a website, but I doubt that it would mean anything in court. Manning was active-duty military, accessing classified military systems. There are all sorts of duties, laws, and regulations that apply to that situation that don't apply to a civilian accessing some random website on the web.
  - 12y ago

balabaster 12y ago

With the addition of developer tools to every major browser these days you don't even need to step outside your browser... your browser is a hacking tool. Every time you do F12 and navigate your way through the HTML to remove the annoying paywall mask to read an article rather than pay for the subscription is hacking. You are using a site with a behaviour that was not explicitly intended by the owner and that theoretically could get you charged as a hacker, without you ever leaving your browser. Blurred lines. [Apologies if that song is now stuck in your head as it is mine]

pc2g4d 12y ago

Subversion was called Subversion because it was subverting CVS, which it meant to replace. Not to mention the nice double meaning of sub-version.