Read what he typed again, you didn't get it the first time. He was pretty clear, in CAPS LOCK LETTERS NO LESS, that the problem here was that this policy was mi

Read what he typed again, you didn't get it the first time. He was pretty clear, in CAPS LOCK LETTERS NO LESS, that the problem here was that this policy was miscommunicating what can be done, as you put it "It really bothers me to see anyone suggest that any public port on a machine is 100% free reign to abuse." He was very very clear that he believes you have 0% right to do that, and that the system proposed in the OP would encourage people to do that, that was his BIG problem with it, so you completely misread what he said (or I suspect, stopped halfway through, about on his fifth paragraph). His comment on responsible disclosure is about the other part of the industry. The one where you install a vendors software on your machine, or where you analyze client code with out their server. As a researcher you have zero responsibility to play nice with the distributors of that content. That's like saying movie reviewers can only print reviews of already released movies on a schedule and in a way approved by the studios (certainly studios - and software companies - are allowed to make deals - contracts - with reviewers for embargoed, or even private, reviews of content before it's released).