3 ms·

It's not 'unequivocal' though - we don't have enough information to say that. You have to know what the vulnerability is, how it's exploited and what the conseq

by jariel 6y ago

It's not 'unequivocal' though - we don't have enough information to say that. You have to know what the vulnerability is, how it's exploited and what the consequences are. While I don't doubt that in reality, erring on the side of closing it is probably the right thing to do, the fact is we don't know. If the vulnerability is being used to thwart a rogue entity from developing nuclear weapons, the balance of facts may be on the other side. At very least, Google should have worked with agencies on getting it closed down. If they were using it to make a drug bust, when then who cares, shut it down.

chopin 6y ago
> If the vulnerability is being used to thwart a rogue entity from developing nuclear weapons, the balance of facts may be on the other side. At very least, Google should have worked with agencies on getting it closed down. The rogue entities on this planet already have nuclear weapons (and no, I am not talking of North Korea). A widely overlooked fact is that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty obliges the nations with nuclear weapons to get rid of them[0]. This part of the treaty has never been uphold. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
- jariel 6y ago
  This is a misrepresentation. There are no 'rogue entities' with nukes outside of N. Korea unless you consider Pakistan to be 'rogue', or, their benefactors, Saudi Arabia who undoubtedly have access to the tech the moment they need it to be ... but they are not 'rogue', or rather, the action would be widely condemned but a different story altogether. Iran, would be a 'rogue nation' trying to get nukes, which they have signalled they are trying to do. A wayward state or quasi-independent province in the Caucuses, the M/E or Africa would be that as well. Or of course some legit terrorist group. And it would have nothing really to do with non-proliferation obviously. If the US was trying to thwart Iran from getting nuclear weapons through some back door, then it frankly would be in Google's best interests to help. The notion that large corporate entities can exist in a geopolitical context and yet somehow ignore it at the same time is nonsensical. Once you are 'Google Scale' your piece is on the table and you have to play. Edit: to put another way - Google's very existence is protected and enabled by the US Economic and Geopolitical situation in a tangible way. It's not abstract at that level, like it would be for a small company. Remember how we thought of US Army in Iraq as 'Exxon's Army'? Well it's 'Google's Army' now ...

by jariel 6y ago

chopin 6y ago

> If the vulnerability is being used to thwart a rogue entity from developing nuclear weapons, the balance of facts may be on the other side. At very least, Google should have worked with agencies on getting it closed down. The rogue entities on this planet already have nuclear weapons (and no, I am not talking of North Korea). A widely overlooked fact is that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty obliges the nations with nuclear weapons to get rid of them[0]. This part of the treaty has never been uphold. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

jariel 6y ago
This is a misrepresentation. There are no 'rogue entities' with nukes outside of N. Korea unless you consider Pakistan to be 'rogue', or, their benefactors, Saudi Arabia who undoubtedly have access to the tech the moment they need it to be ... but they are not 'rogue', or rather, the action would be widely condemned but a different story altogether. Iran, would be a 'rogue nation' trying to get nukes, which they have signalled they are trying to do. A wayward state or quasi-independent province in the Caucuses, the M/E or Africa would be that as well. Or of course some legit terrorist group. And it would have nothing really to do with non-proliferation obviously. If the US was trying to thwart Iran from getting nuclear weapons through some back door, then it frankly would be in Google's best interests to help. The notion that large corporate entities can exist in a geopolitical context and yet somehow ignore it at the same time is nonsensical. Once you are 'Google Scale' your piece is on the table and you have to play. Edit: to put another way - Google's very existence is protected and enabled by the US Economic and Geopolitical situation in a tangible way. It's not abstract at that level, like it would be for a small company. Remember how we thought of US Army in Iraq as 'Exxon's Army'? Well it's 'Google's Army' now ...