4 ms·
> "I wanted to show the vulnerability of the Android and thought that Google would take care of security.” ... Maza-In said he didn’t contact Google. There sho
by ebg13 8y ago
> "I wanted to show the vulnerability of the Android and thought that Google would take care of security.” ... Maza-In said he didn’t contact Google.
There should be criminal liability for willful negligence that clearly increases risk to others. That kind of "I never thought" mindset is so...I don't even know what word to use...antisocial? Careless?
- elliotec 8y agoI'd go as far as calling it malicious...
- ribosometronome 8y agoIs it much different than youtubers showing how to break into locks (ex. lockpickinglawyer)?
- Jonnax 8y agoSeems like a lie to me. That forum he posts in seems to be a den of criminals. You don't sell crowbars to a bunch of thieves and be surprised when they use it for burglary.
- raverbashing 8y agoYeah > Unlike security pros who disclose bugs in return for credit or monetary reward, Maza-In said he didn't contact Google. This guy does not have my sympathy
- ktjfi 8y agoResponsible disclosure is a scam.
- BlackFly 8y agoFreedom of expression. We humans have created all kinds of things that get misused. The Nobel prizes were set up exactly because people were blaming Nobel for the violent use of dynamite. Let us not further hobble the spreading of ideas with political concerns about which ideas are dangerous. Blame the (mis)user, not the manufacturer and certainly not the discoverer.
- hjk05 8y agoDistributing software that is intended to steal money from people is not freedom of speech.
- BlackFly 8y agoOf course it is freedom of speech. The only thing that was distributed was text: an encoding of an idea. The act of using that idea to build something to defraud someone is the criminal act. Jurisdictions censor all kinds of speech, and maybe you think this kind of speech should be censored, but at least in the USA you would have to argue incitement which is a stretch. The historical example was the publishing of the PGP source code in book form to distribute it. You might consider the software to be "military grade arms" but describing to someone how to build it is just an idea. Certainly the US government might want to reign in this interpretation and might love to create a new exception, but there is no intrinsic reason for a rational individual to insist upon that interpretation.