US Govt proposes to classify cybersecurity or hacking tools as weapons of war by Manish Singh.
From the post:
Until now only when someone possessed a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon, it was considered to be a weapon of mass destruction in the eyes of the law. But we could have an interesting — and equally controversial — addition to this list soon. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that deals with issues involving national security and high technology has proposed tighter export rules for computer security tools — first brought up in the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) at the Plenary meeting in December 2013. This proposal could potentially revise an international agreement aimed at controlling weapons technology as well as hinder the work of security researchers.
At the meeting, a group of 41 like-minded states discussed ways to bring cybersecurity tools under the umbrella of law, just as any other global arms trade. This includes guidelines on export rules for licensing technology and software as it crosses an international border. Currently, these tools are controlled based on their cryptographic functionality. While BIS is yet to clarify things, the new proposed rule could disallow encryption license exceptions.
…
This is like attempting to control burglary by prohibiting the possession of hammers. Hammers are quite useful for a number of legitimate tasks. But you can’t have one because some homeowners put weak locks on their doors.
If you want to see all the detail: Wassenaar Arrangement 2013 Plenary Agreements Implementation: Intrusion and Surveillance Items.
Deadline for comments is: 07/20/2015.
Warning: It is not written for casual reading. I may try to work through it in case anyone wants to point to actual parts of the proposal that are defective.
The real danger of such a proposal isn’t that the Feds will run amok prosecuting people but it will give them a basis for leaning on innocent researchers and intimating that a friendly U.S. Attorney and district judge might just buy an argument that you have violated an export restriction.
Most people don’t have the resources to face such threats (think Aaron Swartz) and so the Feds win by default.
If you don’t want to be an unnamed victim of federal intimidation or a known victim like Aaron Swartz, the time to stop this atrocity is now.