There is a lot of history here that you may not be aware of. Security researchers didn’t invent it, that’s kind of the point. Microsoft did, to further their ow

There is a lot of history here that you may not be aware of. Security researchers didn’t invent it, that’s kind of the point. Microsoft did, to further their own interests, in a way that was very adversarial to security researchers, and one of their vendors at the time (@Stake) tried to formalize it in an RFC that went nowhere. And the primary author of that RFC, who was an @stake employee (Wysopal), has also publicly disavowed it. This isn’t surrendering the term, not only because Microsoft largely invented it, but even they disavowed it 10 years ago. Not even Microsoft wants that term anymore! You cannot “insist” what it means. You’re trying to redefine it from it’s original framework to fit your personal definition of “responsible”, which nobody agrees on, and which is one of the many reasons that it’s a dumb term. It’s like saying you believe in buying cars that are responsible colors. If you want to communicate efficiently and without being inflammatory and presumptuous in a community where reasonable minds have long disagreed, you should just say “red”. Everyone knows what that means. Here is some other reading: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/ecostrat/2010/07/22/coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure-bringing-balance-to-the-force/ https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/ecostrat/2010/07/22/coor... https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/SpecialReport/2017_003_001_503340.pdf https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/SpecialReport/2017... (See 1.2.5.1) https://www.computerworld.com/article/2519499/drop--responsible--from-bug-disclosures--microsoft-urges.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2519499/drop--responsi... https://security.googleblog.com/2010/07/rebooting-responsible-disclosure-focus.html?m=1 https://security.googleblog.com/2010/07/rebooting-responsibl...