21 ms·

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 p

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
    Black hat hacking is also pretty useful, because it demonstrates the need to close security holes. But it's also wrong because it takes advantage of real people who have not consented to it. Are you in favor of black hatters too? The fact that they tried to do this, even if they didn't follow through with merging, and even if they eventually came clean about it, is bad. Malicious bad. The lack of informed consent is absolutely critical in calling it malicious. If you want to do that, get GKH's permission first and recruit him to participate in the research. Don't try to slip it under his nose. It's one thing to A/B test your conversion rates, and another thing altogether to A/B test airplane wing flaps. Maybe (as in it is possible, but not an incontrovertible fact) Aditya's role was not malicious, but he was surrounded by people that actually were malicious, and it is an entirely reasonable assumption to make, given the circumstances. If Aditya really does not want his name sullied by this, he should be making extreme efforts to disassociate himself from his advisor. By not doing so, his begging to be treated differently from his peers sounds like the pleas of a getaway driver hoping to not get charged for the bank robbery that his passengers committed.
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      > By not doing so, his begging to be treated differently from his peers sounds like the pleas of a getaway driver hoping to not get charged for the bank robbery that his passengers committed. My gosh I hope you're never in charge of administering justice anywhere because this is just not how justice works in almost any liberal democracy. Say what you will about Prof. Kangjie Liu and his group and the patches themselves, but guilt through mere association is a dark thing to believe in. Takes like this are why so many people feel that, even though the UMN researchers were in the wrong, that the reaction has become mob-like.
      - darksaints 5y ago
        All of the following are true about Aditya: - Used a static analyzer to programmatically create and submit low quality patches to the kernel - When a maintainer pointed out that his patches had bugs, he ignored them. - The static analyzer that was used was also used by his advisor who used it to identify sections of code that could be used surreptitiously for "hypocrite" commits with intentional bugs. - When caught submitting low quality patches with actual bugs, and it was pointed out that he directly works under the professor who was leading the hypocrite commits project, he didn't distance himself from the professor. All he could point out was that his name wasn't on the paper. - He hasn't stopped associating himself with his professor, nor has he denounced the ethical basis for that research. All he can say is that he had good intentions. When you take all of the above into account, it sounds like some major crocodile tear bullshit. Maybe it is all true and he wasn't trying to pull a fast one, but they're not trying to punish him, they're just trying to figure out if they can trust him. And there is no way in hell I would trust him with kernels that I use on a daily basis.

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
  Black hat hacking is also pretty useful, because it demonstrates the need to close security holes. But it's also wrong because it takes advantage of real people who have not consented to it. Are you in favor of black hatters too? The fact that they tried to do this, even if they didn't follow through with merging, and even if they eventually came clean about it, is bad. Malicious bad. The lack of informed consent is absolutely critical in calling it malicious. If you want to do that, get GKH's permission first and recruit him to participate in the research. Don't try to slip it under his nose. It's one thing to A/B test your conversion rates, and another thing altogether to A/B test airplane wing flaps. Maybe (as in it is possible, but not an incontrovertible fact) Aditya's role was not malicious, but he was surrounded by people that actually were malicious, and it is an entirely reasonable assumption to make, given the circumstances. If Aditya really does not want his name sullied by this, he should be making extreme efforts to disassociate himself from his advisor. By not doing so, his begging to be treated differently from his peers sounds like the pleas of a getaway driver hoping to not get charged for the bank robbery that his passengers committed.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    > By not doing so, his begging to be treated differently from his peers sounds like the pleas of a getaway driver hoping to not get charged for the bank robbery that his passengers committed. My gosh I hope you're never in charge of administering justice anywhere because this is just not how justice works in almost any liberal democracy. Say what you will about Prof. Kangjie Liu and his group and the patches themselves, but guilt through mere association is a dark thing to believe in. Takes like this are why so many people feel that, even though the UMN researchers were in the wrong, that the reaction has become mob-like.
    - darksaints 5y ago
      All of the following are true about Aditya: - Used a static analyzer to programmatically create and submit low quality patches to the kernel - When a maintainer pointed out that his patches had bugs, he ignored them. - The static analyzer that was used was also used by his advisor who used it to identify sections of code that could be used surreptitiously for "hypocrite" commits with intentional bugs. - When caught submitting low quality patches with actual bugs, and it was pointed out that he directly works under the professor who was leading the hypocrite commits project, he didn't distance himself from the professor. All he could point out was that his name wasn't on the paper. - He hasn't stopped associating himself with his professor, nor has he denounced the ethical basis for that research. All he can say is that he had good intentions. When you take all of the above into account, it sounds like some major crocodile tear bullshit. Maybe it is all true and he wasn't trying to pull a fast one, but they're not trying to punish him, they're just trying to figure out if they can trust him. And there is no way in hell I would trust him with kernels that I use on a daily basis.