4 ms·
I don't see why not. As long as you don't actually break into Exxon and commit I crime. The real reason your scenario is unlikely is just that Exxon practicall
by forensic 15y ago
I don't see why not. As long as you don't actually break into Exxon and commit I crime.
The real reason your scenario is unlikely is just that Exxon practically owns the government, so they would change the laws or something to fuck you over.
But I mean what if you discovered a security vulnerability at McDonalds or something, a way to pick their locks. Why are you morally obligated to disclose it without compensation?
On which moral principle are you condemning them?
- seabee 15y agoIt is possible to be an accessory to a crime. If you plan a bank robbery and give the details to somebody else to perform, you're still guilty. Hell, you're still guilty even if you never perform the crime (conspiracy to commit ...)! If you send a letter to a bank saying "I have found a breach in the kind of vault you use at your banks, I'm giving the details to some expert robbers but you can't have it unless you pay me $10m", with evidence you've done it, I'm pretty sure you will find yourself waking up at gunpoint at 6am, courtesy of the FBI. Since unauthorised access of a computer is a crime in many places, I'm sure you can see the relevance, even if the consequences aren't as drastic. One hopes that we have misinterpreted this and that they have performed 'responsible disclosure' by telling Google all the details.
- lawnchair_larry 15y agoFYI, the industry has rejected the doublespeak term "responsible disclosure". Even Microsoft has issued statements denouncing the term. Most prefer to call that "coordinated disclosure". This accurately communicates the idea, without sneaking in someone's moral judgement.