3 ms·

I get the intent, but at the same time, doesn't disclosing all potential negative consequences in the paper also provide a sort of guideline on how to weaponize

I get the intent, but at the same time, doesn't disclosing all potential negative consequences in the paper also provide a sort of guideline on how to weaponize their research as well? Seems like a double edged sword, potentially making it easier to negatively utilize the research.

headsoup 8y ago
But if it's public then anyone concerned can watch for it, or it can be evaluated for regulation/law changes.
LeanderK 8y ago
Sounds a lot like the "security through obscurity"-argument. I was never a fan of it. If we don't research and communicate the dangers, potential issues might slip! We need to be proactive in these things.
- Firerouge 8y ago
  That's a good point. Security through obscurity doesn't prevent attacks, but may raise the bar of entry and delay a motivated attacker. I imagine if all 3D printers were distributed with warning stickers saying that they can be used to print guns and knives that more people would try it than if it was less publicized. Making it just a bit harder to discover the knowledge to weaponize something could give defensive researchers the time to build effective countermeasures.
  - onceKnowable 8y ago
    That’s why informed public debate is not about adding warning stickers to things, it’s about creating competent laws that robustly protect the public. In your example, the result shouldn’t be warning stickers, it’s laws specifically against building guns with your 3D printer. Or if right to weapons happens to be enshrined in your constitution, it’s aboyt legal liability protocols being amended to take into account the fact that a perpetrator used a weapon that they built in their 3D printer as opposed to a regularly procured weapon.
criddell 8y ago
I don't really get the intent. The last paragraph makes an attempts to justify, but I think it doesn't make a very good case. Think about some of the most famous and influential papers and try to come up with negative consequences. When Codd wrote A relational model for large shared data banks, should he have tried to think of ways big databases could be abused? When Ritchie and Thompson published the paper that introduced Unix, what could they predict? Or Knuth's many papers on compiler design? Do other disciplines do anything similar? Computer science papers are often so close to mathematics, I suppose mathematics papers should include similar disclosures, right? This feels a little like putting cancer warnings on everything in California. At least there I understand what they thought the outcome might be but maybe they didn't foresee how quickly people tune it out and you end up making it harder to communicate danger when it's actually there.

headsoup 8y ago

But if it's public then anyone concerned can watch for it, or it can be evaluated for regulation/law changes.

LeanderK 8y ago

Sounds a lot like the "security through obscurity"-argument. I was never a fan of it. If we don't research and communicate the dangers, potential issues might slip! We need to be proactive in these things.

Firerouge 8y ago
That's a good point. Security through obscurity doesn't prevent attacks, but may raise the bar of entry and delay a motivated attacker. I imagine if all 3D printers were distributed with warning stickers saying that they can be used to print guns and knives that more people would try it than if it was less publicized. Making it just a bit harder to discover the knowledge to weaponize something could give defensive researchers the time to build effective countermeasures.
- onceKnowable 8y ago
  That’s why informed public debate is not about adding warning stickers to things, it’s about creating competent laws that robustly protect the public. In your example, the result shouldn’t be warning stickers, it’s laws specifically against building guns with your 3D printer. Or if right to weapons happens to be enshrined in your constitution, it’s aboyt legal liability protocols being amended to take into account the fact that a perpetrator used a weapon that they built in their 3D printer as opposed to a regularly procured weapon.

criddell 8y ago

I don't really get the intent. The last paragraph makes an attempts to justify, but I think it doesn't make a very good case. Think about some of the most famous and influential papers and try to come up with negative consequences. When Codd wrote A relational model for large shared data banks, should he have tried to think of ways big databases could be abused? When Ritchie and Thompson published the paper that introduced Unix, what could they predict? Or Knuth's many papers on compiler design? Do other disciplines do anything similar? Computer science papers are often so close to mathematics, I suppose mathematics papers should include similar disclosures, right? This feels a little like putting cancer warnings on everything in California. At least there I understand what they thought the outcome might be but maybe they didn't foresee how quickly people tune it out and you end up making it harder to communicate danger when it's actually there.