Reminder that 90% of development tools are hacking tools. Subversion has subversion right in the name.
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"
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.
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.
It's almost as if there's a difference between DOD classified file storage and google.com.
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."?
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.
I'd be interested in seeing the exhaustive list of programs they are authorized to use.
Is it really that unbelievable that the Department of Defense would have a strict set of software that's allowed to utilize their network, for a variety of reasons, including Manning's usecase or just simple security concerns?
Is your employer comfortable with you sharing encryption keys via post-it notes stuck on your monitor?
Should the DOD be comfortable with people accessing classified filesystems with any software they please?
This is simply a non-argument. I think it's a tacked-on charge meant to take down a maybe-legitimate whistleblower, but it's not like you can say it's actually unreasonable/unrealistic.
These are the real limitations of the real world and they're there by design.
Manning skirted them, and he got hit for it.
Whitelisting acceptable software really isn't a bad idea, especially for organizations that care about safety and security of data. The next step is to lock down the platforms to only execute whitelisted software (similar to how Apple tries to lock down iPhones, iPods, and iPads).
Blurred lines. [Apologies if that song is now stuck in your head as it is mine]
So what does it matter what the government calls them? The government reaction to a security threat should not depend on the classification.