SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On Monday, The Washington Post reported one of the most stunning breaches of security ever. A former NSA contractor, the paper said, stole more than 50 terabytes of highly sensitive data. According to one source, that includes more than 75 percent of the hacking tools belonging to the Tailored Access Operations. TAO is an elite hacking unit that develops and deploys some of the world's most sophisticated software exploits.
Attorneys representing Harold T. Martin III have previously portrayed the former NSA contractor as a patriot who took NSA materials home so that he could become better at his job. Meanwhile, investigators who have combed through his home in Glen Burnie, Maryland, remain concerned that he passed the weaponized hacking tools to enemies. The theft came to light during the investigation of a series of NSA-developed exploits that were mysteriously published online by a group calling itself Shadow Brokers.
[...] An unnamed US official told the paper that Martin allegedly hoarded more than 75 percent of the TAO's library of hacking tools. It's hard to envision a scenario under which a theft of that much classified material by a single individual would be possible.
Source:
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:30PM
This guy never stole any hacking tools. I am 100% sure that the NSA still has all their hacking tools, and has not lost use of them whatsoever. If this guy did indeed make unauthorized copies as alleged, that's all he did: he made copies. The tools are still there.
Unauthorized copying is not stealing, no matter how much some people try to insist that it is. This will never change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:19PM
You're playing football on a baseball field.
The problem isn't about piracy. The problem is what the recipient can do with that copy. The right people will be able to reverse engineer how the tools work to circumvent security systems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:30PM
reverse engineer what? the tools are INTENDED to circumvent security systems. do you need to "reverse engineer" winamp to listen to an mp3?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:46PM
If your copy of winamp came from the NSA, and you're listening to 'DJ Ayatollah - Death to the Great Satan America.mp3' on endless repeat, you might want to be very, very careful about it phoning home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:09PM
Dr. Phil!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:03PM
Well, it is a stolen copy- how about that. You use copy as a noun, but the contractor copied as a verb: he 'duplicated' things. NSA contractors are not to take things out of the office. So any exact copy now residing anywhere the original is not- is theft. Theft of a copy at least.
How about Identity Theft. Is not the original person still walking around, whilst ill-doers act up in their name?
If I duplicated your entire home, family members, bank accounts, memories, and did with them as I will... would you not consider mimicking & tarnishing of your life the 'theft' of your life? Or would you just shrug and say "well that's not the real me".
It's because OF the copied item's capabilities & 'brand association' that it's mere existence is defined by the word STOLEN. A stolen copy.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Grishnakh on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:44PM
Hey, if you can figure out how to make a duplicate of my bank account, and then spend that money, while my own bank account is unchanged, let me know. I wouldn't be upset about that at all.
And if you can figure out how to duplicate family members, that'd be a real feat too. I wonder if my girlfriend would mind if I had a duplicate of her? A duplicate of myself would be great too: I have more projects than I have time to complete. Two of me could get more stuff done around the house (and keep the girlfriend and her clone satisfied as well...).
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:07PM
I'm often stuck looking for an everyday example of someone being pedantic. Usually I have to refer to people who insisted that 2001 was the start of the millennium. Now I can also use this narrow-minded view of the word steal. But, keep in mind that, historically, when absolutely everyone uses a word to mean a thing the word didn't originally mean, the word meaning changes. No one throws the pedants a party for being right.
And if you're going to rely on a dictionary definition for your argument, make sure it's true for all cases. According to Merriam-Webster, this can still be defined as stealing:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal [merriam-webster.com]
Definition of steal
stoleplay \ˈstōl\; stolenplay \ˈstō-lən\; stealing
...
transitive verb
...
2c : to take surreptitiously or without permission (steal a kiss)
...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Arik on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:01PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @09:46PM
If you're asserting that precision and common sense are mutually exclusive, then I disagree with your premise. My comment was that one can focus on a facet of word meaning unnecessarily, and miss the entire point of an (attempted) discussion.
I am willing to risk the theoretical (but vanishingly small) possibility of a world where communication accidentally becomes impossible as you describe, rather than embrace people who intentionally choose to prevent communication. Particularly those who lord such obstinacy as "intelligence". In fact, there's a word to describe precisely that: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedant [merriam-webster.com]
Definition of pedant
...
2b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:16PM
Actually he did. You have to think "outside the box". "Stole" is a different concept here. If you own a specialized software tool and its IP, you're the only one who has it and has the power to do whatever you need done with it. If someone copies it, they too now have that power.
The problem is not the software being copied- it's the theft of the unique power it gives.
(Score: 3, Funny) by istartedi on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:41PM
Next to a tombstone in the rhetorical grave yard, the soil stirs. An eerie shiver runs down your spine. A cold wind blows. With a moan of desolation the black dirt over the grave cracks open and the gnarled hand of this semantic ghoul rises. Like a snake it darts for your ankles, coils, and grabs. It threatens to pull you in. You whack it with a shovel and run like hell.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @11:30PM
Unauthorized copying is not stealing, no matter how much some people try to insist that it is.
Okay, so I thought you were wrong in this specific case, but actually you (and I, for that matter) are wrong in the general case. Even unauthorized copying movies is "stealing":
(transitive) To take illegally, or without the owner's permission, something owned by someone else. [wiktionary.org] Did he take it? Yes. Did he have the owner's permission? No.
To take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully [merriam-webster.com]. Did he take it? Yes. Did he intend to keep or make use of it wrongfully? Yes.
You are probably trying to argue that it isn't theft [merriam-webster.com] or larceny [merriam-webster.com]. This is a much stronger case (although I'd argue by definition of a secret, it loses value if it's well known so in his particular case it still is larceny). However, no matter how you look at it, he did steal.