[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56119CE4-B3A8-11D6-B2CD-000393779ABA@sackheads.org>
From: cerebus at sackheads.org (Timothy J.Miller)
Subject: Shiver me timbers.
On Monday, August 19, 2002, at 12:42 PM, aliver@...il.com wrote:
> However, if we consider a problem that involves someone being able
> to easily perpetrate a malicious action against the car owner due to a
> manufacturer defect, then it's apt. See how that works? Now, trucking
> right along, if someone decides to make a hobby or a career out of
> finding
> these specific types of defects, they don't really have any obligation
> to
> report them for free to anyone. They did the work to find the bug, they
> _will_ decide what's morally right to do afterwards regardless of how
> many
> "standards" documents are written by people who think they have superior
> ethics. If that means they want to withhold the information for what
> they
> consider to be a better purpose, then it's not only their choice, but
> they
> also might be morally justified to do so. It all depends on the
> circumstances.
Okay, I'll concede the bad analogy, and the misapplied substitution of
your own. My bad, I'll pay more attention next time.
I think, at this point, I see the common ground we share. I agree that
whether to disclose a new vulnerability is ultimately the decision of
the discoverer. I do not agree that an ultimately convincing case can
be made where non-disclosure is morally preferable to disclosure. I do
not, of course, have the ethical or legal authority to enforce my
opinion on others.
-- Cerebus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists