6 ms·

I mean, there is such a thing as ethics. A programmer writing software with malicious intent or with the explicit purpose to defraud, undermine, or otherwise ha

I mean, there is such a thing as ethics. A programmer writing software with malicious intent or with the explicit purpose to defraud, undermine, or otherwise harm another person and/or their property should absolutely be held responsible for the code they write.

woah 10y ago
You think security research should be illegal?
clavalle 10y ago
The code or the actions? I'm all for holding people accountable for bad actions but I don't think that writing code is enough of to show intent to harm.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I don't know if it's that simple -- if I print out fake dollar bills it'll probably be treated differently if I sell them as movie props than if I sell them as counterfeit money you could pass off as real.
  - kahrkunne 10y ago
    If the printed money is identical? No, you'd be treated the same for both. If you're talking about different bills then your analogy obviously doesn't apply.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      Are you sure about that? http://www.omaha.com/townnews/crime/prop-money-used-in-movies-among-counterfeit-bills-passed-around/article_aa328426-e1c7-11e6-a011-7fa4f1f37370.html http://www.omaha.com/townnews/crime/prop-money-used-in-movie... > Owning prop money in itself is not a crime. But it's a crime if people try to pass the prop bills off as real money, said Capt. Jim Duering of the Grand Island Police Department. Seems like the same principle would apply if you were selling it for the purpose of enabling fraud.
      - lawtguy 10y ago
        You're not allowed to print fake money that looks like too much like real money. See https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/10/business/tricky-business-behind-fake-hollywood-money https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/10/business/tricky-busin.... From the article: "Essentially what this law says is that bills must be either 75% smaller than or 150% larger than the size of a real bill and one color, one side." So printing fake money could be a crime even if you don't attempt to pass it as real.
fictioncircle 10y ago
> I mean, there is such a thing as ethics. A programmer writing software with malicious intent or with the explicit purpose to defraud, undermine, or otherwise harm another person and/or their property should absolutely be held responsible for the code they write. Congratulations. You've just publicly stated you should remove your game from Steam and anyone else who distributes DRM rootkits. Rootkits are re-purposable into malware too. Will you? No? Color me surprised. /s
- soverance 10y ago
  I'm confident there is an extremely large gap between a game developer with an open-source video game on Steam (which does not use Steam's DRM feature or any 3rd party DRM) and a developer who writes a malware rootkit. Like... a HUGE gap. wtf.
  - fictioncircle 10y ago
    You are aware Steam distributes rootkits, yes? If you use it, you are just as "guilty" as the logic used in the OP.
brilliantcode 10y ago
The action makes it wrong not the code itself. Writing code cannot be evil, it's the user's decision to exploit the code for own selfish gain. ex. See people using cars or knives or guns as weapons to commit crimes, we don't throw in Toyota or H&K executives in jail. Just because an item was used by someone, the inanimate object by itself do not display intent, intent is something that can only be held in the minds of a person.
- soverance 10y ago
  Intent is what matters. Writing code can most definitely be evil when written with evil intentions, or with the expectation of having the code used in malicious ways. It's a very different thing to write code with good intentions, only to have it repurposed by others for nefarious intent. It's obviously not a black and white matter, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. The important thing to remember, though, is intent. What was that code or feature originally intended to do? If it was intended to be malicious, then why write the code? I actually do not believe this is really a legal issue, and is instead a moral and ethical issue on a personal level. It is only becoming a legal issue because we have no other way to deal with it, since not every person operates on the same moral code. If more software developers went out of their way to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard, maybe fraud wouldn't be as prevalent as it is today, and we wouldn't need to have this discussion in the first place.
  - brilliantcode 10y ago
    code itself cannot show intent. the code is executed when the person chooses to run it to fulfill their intent which can be judged to be bad in hindsight if it caused harm to others. a gun by itself doesn't show intent to commit assassinations. only when it's taken by a revolutionary and aimed at the heart of capitalist pigs will the intent be realized. the gun maker cannot be held responsible for creating a device that intended to kill someone important.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      Yes, but if the gun maker started advertising on the Underground Assassins Network it might be a different story.
arca_vorago 10y ago
> A programmer writing software with malicious intent or with the explicit purpose to defraud, undermine, or otherwise harm another person and/or their property should absolutely be held responsible for the code they write. Then I think Cisco, Microsoft, and all the other NSL, backdoor inserting, government roll-over companies count in this category too. Do you not see how slippery the slope is you are arguing for?

woah 10y ago

You think security research should be illegal?

clavalle 10y ago

The code or the actions? I'm all for holding people accountable for bad actions but I don't think that writing code is enough of to show intent to harm.

emodendroket 10y ago
I don't know if it's that simple -- if I print out fake dollar bills it'll probably be treated differently if I sell them as movie props than if I sell them as counterfeit money you could pass off as real.
- kahrkunne 10y ago
  If the printed money is identical? No, you'd be treated the same for both. If you're talking about different bills then your analogy obviously doesn't apply.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Are you sure about that? http://www.omaha.com/townnews/crime/prop-money-used-in-movies-among-counterfeit-bills-passed-around/article_aa328426-e1c7-11e6-a011-7fa4f1f37370.html http://www.omaha.com/townnews/crime/prop-money-used-in-movie... > Owning prop money in itself is not a crime. But it's a crime if people try to pass the prop bills off as real money, said Capt. Jim Duering of the Grand Island Police Department. Seems like the same principle would apply if you were selling it for the purpose of enabling fraud.
    - lawtguy 10y ago
      You're not allowed to print fake money that looks like too much like real money. See https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/10/business/tricky-business-behind-fake-hollywood-money https://www.marketplace.org/2015/03/10/business/tricky-busin.... From the article: "Essentially what this law says is that bills must be either 75% smaller than or 150% larger than the size of a real bill and one color, one side." So printing fake money could be a crime even if you don't attempt to pass it as real.

fictioncircle 10y ago

> I mean, there is such a thing as ethics. A programmer writing software with malicious intent or with the explicit purpose to defraud, undermine, or otherwise harm another person and/or their property should absolutely be held responsible for the code they write. Congratulations. You've just publicly stated you should remove your game from Steam and anyone else who distributes DRM rootkits. Rootkits are re-purposable into malware too. Will you? No? Color me surprised. /s

soverance 10y ago
I'm confident there is an extremely large gap between a game developer with an open-source video game on Steam (which does not use Steam's DRM feature or any 3rd party DRM) and a developer who writes a malware rootkit. Like... a HUGE gap. wtf.
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  You are aware Steam distributes rootkits, yes? If you use it, you are just as "guilty" as the logic used in the OP.

brilliantcode 10y ago

The action makes it wrong not the code itself. Writing code cannot be evil, it's the user's decision to exploit the code for own selfish gain. ex. See people using cars or knives or guns as weapons to commit crimes, we don't throw in Toyota or H&K executives in jail. Just because an item was used by someone, the inanimate object by itself do not display intent, intent is something that can only be held in the minds of a person.

soverance 10y ago
Intent is what matters. Writing code can most definitely be evil when written with evil intentions, or with the expectation of having the code used in malicious ways. It's a very different thing to write code with good intentions, only to have it repurposed by others for nefarious intent. It's obviously not a black and white matter, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. The important thing to remember, though, is intent. What was that code or feature originally intended to do? If it was intended to be malicious, then why write the code? I actually do not believe this is really a legal issue, and is instead a moral and ethical issue on a personal level. It is only becoming a legal issue because we have no other way to deal with it, since not every person operates on the same moral code. If more software developers went out of their way to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard, maybe fraud wouldn't be as prevalent as it is today, and we wouldn't need to have this discussion in the first place.
- brilliantcode 10y ago
  code itself cannot show intent. the code is executed when the person chooses to run it to fulfill their intent which can be judged to be bad in hindsight if it caused harm to others. a gun by itself doesn't show intent to commit assassinations. only when it's taken by a revolutionary and aimed at the heart of capitalist pigs will the intent be realized. the gun maker cannot be held responsible for creating a device that intended to kill someone important.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Yes, but if the gun maker started advertising on the Underground Assassins Network it might be a different story.

arca_vorago 10y ago

> A programmer writing software with malicious intent or with the explicit purpose to defraud, undermine, or otherwise harm another person and/or their property should absolutely be held responsible for the code they write. Then I think Cisco, Microsoft, and all the other NSL, backdoor inserting, government roll-over companies count in this category too. Do you not see how slippery the slope is you are arguing for?