3 ms·

> That said, there are multiple definitions of "malice". To some of the developers involved, posting unverified patches from an experimental static-analysis too

> That said, there are multiple definitions of "malice". To some of the developers involved, posting unverified patches from an experimental static-analysis tool without disclosing their nature is a malicious act. It is another form of experiment involving non-consenting humans. What an absurd statement. Malice implies intent ie: the goal was to do harm. There was never any malice - not in the hypocrite commits and certainly not in the static analysis findings.

darksaints 5y ago
Yes, malice requires intent, but intent can be interpreted differently too. If I shoot a gun repeatedly in the air for a celebration, I'm not intending to kill someone, but I am intending on acting in a way that has reckless disregard for human life. Malice is an appropriate interpretation of that kind of action, IMO.
- staticassertion 5y ago
  What? No, it isn't appropriate for that kind of action. That would be negligence. Malice is defined as deliberate harm.
  - darksaints 5y ago
    When you have a reasonable assurance that your actions will cause harm, and you do it anyway, that is virtually indistinguishable from intent to cause harm.
    - staticassertion 5y ago
      No, sorry, that's not how words work. Greg very clearly was implying malice, and intent, which there was none of. I don't care how bad you think the research was, you're welcome to call it negligent, but it was not malicious and it's totally absurd to try to change the definition of the word post-hoc.
      - darksaints 5y ago
        Yes, it actually is how words work. They're imprecise, layered with meaning. Deliberately introducing bugs into the most widely deployed OS in the world has severe real world consequences. If you drive 100mph down a residential road, it is no longer an accident when you kill someone.
        staticassertion 5y ago
        Yeah, it's literally manslaughter, because it is NEGLIGENT and not MALICIOUS. And, beyond that, NO ONE introduced bugs into the kernel, and Aditya never even participated in the research that you're attempting to reference. Greg repeatedly accuses Aditya of intentionally and maliciously introducing bugs. He is explicit about this. Trying to change the definition of malicious is ridiculous when the context is so blatant.
        darksaints 5y ago
        Wrong again. It is murder, not manslaughter. Manslaughter would be killing someone cause you got a text message and decided to take your eyes off the road to read it. If you know your actions are likely to hurt or kill someone, and you perform those actions regardless, it literally meets the definition of malice with respect to murder charges. More specifically, that type of intent is formally defined as implied malice, which is one of two types of malice aforethought, which is the legal standard for the crime of murder vs manslaughter. It is you trying to redefine the word, not me...you're trying to narrow the definition of the word to exclude valid usages of it. https://www.sevenslegal.com/criminal-attorney/difference-murder-manslaughter/281/ https://www.sevenslegal.com/criminal-attorney/difference-mur... This team intentionally sought to introduce bugs into the Linux kernel, just to see if they could. Entire companies, governments, organizations, microeconomies, and lives are literally dependent on the integrity of that kernel. That is malicious.
        staticassertion 5y ago
        > If you know your actions are likely to hurt or kill someone They never thought this. For good reason - they didn't harm anyone. > This team intentionally sought to introduce bugs into the Linux kernel Do your own research, they never merged those patches, they alerted the kernel developers before anything landed. > Entiree companies, governments, organizations, microeconomies, and lives are literally dependent on the integrity of that kernel. Sounds like understanding that it's trivial to convince kernel devs to merge in backdoors would be some pretty useful research. Anyways, I'm done with this conversation.

darksaints 5y ago

Yes, malice requires intent, but intent can be interpreted differently too. If I shoot a gun repeatedly in the air for a celebration, I'm not intending to kill someone, but I am intending on acting in a way that has reckless disregard for human life. Malice is an appropriate interpretation of that kind of action, IMO.

staticassertion 5y ago
What? No, it isn't appropriate for that kind of action. That would be negligence. Malice is defined as deliberate harm.
- darksaints 5y ago
  When you have a reasonable assurance that your actions will cause harm, and you do it anyway, that is virtually indistinguishable from intent to cause harm.
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    No, sorry, that's not how words work. Greg very clearly was implying malice, and intent, which there was none of. I don't care how bad you think the research was, you're welcome to call it negligent, but it was not malicious and it's totally absurd to try to change the definition of the word post-hoc.
    - darksaints 5y ago
      Yes, it actually is how words work. They're imprecise, layered with meaning. Deliberately introducing bugs into the most widely deployed OS in the world has severe real world consequences. If you drive 100mph down a residential road, it is no longer an accident when you kill someone.
      - staticassertion 5y ago
        Yeah, it's literally manslaughter, because it is NEGLIGENT and not MALICIOUS. And, beyond that, NO ONE introduced bugs into the kernel, and Aditya never even participated in the research that you're attempting to reference. Greg repeatedly accuses Aditya of intentionally and maliciously introducing bugs. He is explicit about this. Trying to change the definition of malicious is ridiculous when the context is so blatant.
        darksaints 5y ago
        Wrong again. It is murder, not manslaughter. Manslaughter would be killing someone cause you got a text message and decided to take your eyes off the road to read it. If you know your actions are likely to hurt or kill someone, and you perform those actions regardless, it literally meets the definition of malice with respect to murder charges. More specifically, that type of intent is formally defined as implied malice, which is one of two types of malice aforethought, which is the legal standard for the crime of murder vs manslaughter. It is you trying to redefine the word, not me...you're trying to narrow the definition of the word to exclude valid usages of it. https://www.sevenslegal.com/criminal-attorney/difference-murder-manslaughter/281/ https://www.sevenslegal.com/criminal-attorney/difference-mur... This team intentionally sought to introduce bugs into the Linux kernel, just to see if they could. Entire companies, governments, organizations, microeconomies, and lives are literally dependent on the integrity of that kernel. That is malicious.
        staticassertion 5y ago
        > If you know your actions are likely to hurt or kill someone They never thought this. For good reason - they didn't harm anyone. > This team intentionally sought to introduce bugs into the Linux kernel Do your own research, they never merged those patches, they alerted the kernel developers before anything landed. > Entiree companies, governments, organizations, microeconomies, and lives are literally dependent on the integrity of that kernel. Sounds like understanding that it's trivial to convince kernel devs to merge in backdoors would be some pretty useful research. Anyways, I'm done with this conversation.