Bradley Manning and the 'Hacker Madness' Scare Tactic 169
New submitter wabrandsma sends this excerpt from New Scientist:
"The Bradley Manning case continues a trend of government prosecutions that use familiarity with digital tools and knowledge of computers as a scare tactic and a basis for obtaining grossly disproportionate and unfair punishments, strategies enabled by broad, vague laws like the CFAA and the Espionage Act. Let's call this the 'hacker madness' strategy. Using it, the prosecution portrays actions taken by someone using a computer as more dangerous or scary than they actually are by highlighting the digital tools used to a nontechnical or even technophobic judge. ... We've seen this trick before. In a case that we at the Electronic Frontier Foundation handled in 2009, Boston College police used the fact that our client worked on a Linux operating system with "a black screen with white font" as part of a basis for a search warrant. Luckily the Massachusetts Supreme Court tossed out the warrant after EFF got involved, but who knows what would have happened had we not been there. And happily, Oracle got a big surprise when it tried a similar trick in Oracle v. Google and discovered that the judge was a programmer who sharply called them on it."
Relevance? (Score:5, Interesting)
What exactly is the relevance to the Manning case? He was convicted of releasing classified information, something it's pretty obvious he did. Regardless of what the information is or how he obtained it, the release of the information is what he was charged with and convicted of doing.
This sounds like someone trying to hitch their own free software wagon to the pro-Manning/Wikileaks train.
Re:Relevance? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, for example - ya don't think that the President of the USA calling him a "hacker", even though all he did was copy and email files, isn't part of the current FUD over "cyber-espionage"?
Re:News: Tool creates possibilities, good and bad. (Score:4, Interesting)
The quote:
"Wizard's First Rule: people are stupid." Richard and Kahlan frowned even more. "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.
"Because of Wizards First Rule, the old wizards created Confessors, and Seekers, as a means of helping find the truth, when the truth is important enough. Darken Rahl knows the Wizard's Rules. He is using the first one. People need an enemy to feel a sense of purpose. It's easy to lead people when they have a sense of purpose. Sense of purpose is more important by far than the truth. In fact, truth has no bearing in this. Darken Rahl is providing them with an enemy, other than himself, a sense of purpose. People are stupid; they want to believe, so they do."
So, arguably, the Wizard's First Rule is "People are stupid", though the rest of it makes clear that what Zedd actually meant is "People are credulous".
Noobs. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's called a "Threat Narrative". It's why there were no WMDs. There never was even suspicion of WMDs. There was only the need for a Threat Narrative to convince the people to let the armed forces off it's chain.
Vietnam? Threat Narrative. McCarthyism? Threat Narrative.... The Holocaust? Threat Narrative.
Require Evidence before belief -- That's rational. Always disbelieve the Threat Narrative.
Don't Fall For It, not even once.
Re:Don't they have to understand the case? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously? So, we just assume that every word in any Bible you and I can read is false, because it isn't in the original language? How about some other translations? (picking them at random)
America's next offensive: War on Hackers (Score:5, Interesting)
These thoughts have been bouncing around in my head for a while now. I've been following a steady stream of stories and reports chronicling the continual demonization of stigmatization of "hackers" and generally technologically proficient people in general.
People misunderstand or refuse to understand at all. The negative perception caused partly by a few ne'er-do-wells and mostly by corporate propaganda paints us all with a thick coat of black. Misunderstanding transforms into mistrust, mistrust into fear, fear to indignant anger, anger to oppression; before you know it, we have a publically supported, government sanctioned witch hunt on our hands. We technology-savvy individuals are being singled out as the next great threat to the establishment.
The FBI threw Sklyarov in the slammer for giving a security talk on flaws in Adobe's DRM. Russia -- Russia, people, not exactly known for a track record of upholding civil rights -- issued a statement for security researchers to stay the hell out of the US because it had become illegal to do some math.
Auernheimer exposed a blatant security flaw, which only existed because of AT&T's utter laziness and indiscretion, and went to prison simply because the way he exposed it and pissed off AT&T.
Swartz hanged himself after the full force of the federal government hounded him and drove him over the edge by threatening a 35-year prison term for what should have been a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor.
An obviously technophobic judge ruled for an injunction against a UK security researcher to prevent him from publicizing an immobilizer security flaw that could be exploited by organized crime to steal millions of dollars worth of expensive sports cars. He is going ahead with it anyway [slashdot.org] because it's the responsable thing to do when affected parties refuse to address it, and I'm willing to bet the government is going to come down on him heavily for it.
The incidents of tech-savvy people being vilified are too numerous to list, but I'm sure we're all aware of them. The establishment wants their culture of liability, where ordinary individuals are dragged into the big leagues and expected to perform at the same level as corporate and government giants, while our perspective demands greater personal freedoms to offset the goliathan advantage held over us.
I think we're going to see a lot more of this until the societal shift is complete and the new generation becomes leadership, and that's a *very* optimistic view.