3 ms·

I do think there's nuance when the product is a medical testing device, and the company doing the reverse engineering is a competitor of the company who made sa

I do think there's nuance when the product is a medical testing device, and the company doing the reverse engineering is a competitor of the company who made said device and that engineering was faulty and could have cost people's lives. But I don't know if the context of any of this is what some really want to discuss. It's just the slogans. You know: "hack the planet" and all. I also don't think I'd be really OK with working for a company that told me to do this reverse engineering, but if your morality says differently, then: hey.

kragen 5y ago
I don't think you should be criticizing reverse engineering here any more than you should be criticizing programming, science, skill, studying, engineering, logic, thought, changing your mind when you're wrong, or any of the other basic aspects of hacking. You're as out of place here as someone complaining about how nerds study all the time, get better grades than you do, and know how to fix their computers while you're stuck paying someone else to do it. You come off as a troll posting deliberate flamebait in hopes of getting a rise out of us. Of course badly done reverse engineering can be bad. But that's not because it's reverse engineering; it's because it reaches incorrect conclusions that hurt people, just like not doing any reverse engineering at all. The problem that put people at risk in this case wasn't that Theranos did reverse engineering; it's that they didn't do enough reverse engineering.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > I don't think you should be criticizing reverse engineering here any more than you should be criticizing ... No, sure, real reverse engineering is fine. But when "reverse engineering" is used in the sense Theranos (and/or Holmes' defense team) apparently did -- i.e. tampering with a competitor's machines so they sometimes don't work properly, and passing off the sometimes-invalid results as super-duper hot stuff created by your new and superior WonderTech™ -- then yes, it darn well should be criticized to Hell and back.

kragen 5y ago

I don't think you should be criticizing reverse engineering here any more than you should be criticizing programming, science, skill, studying, engineering, logic, thought, changing your mind when you're wrong, or any of the other basic aspects of hacking. You're as out of place here as someone complaining about how nerds study all the time, get better grades than you do, and know how to fix their computers while you're stuck paying someone else to do it. You come off as a troll posting deliberate flamebait in hopes of getting a rise out of us. Of course badly done reverse engineering can be bad. But that's not because it's reverse engineering; it's because it reaches incorrect conclusions that hurt people, just like not doing any reverse engineering at all. The problem that put people at risk in this case wasn't that Theranos did reverse engineering; it's that they didn't do enough reverse engineering.

CRConrad 5y ago
> I don't think you should be criticizing reverse engineering here any more than you should be criticizing ... No, sure, real reverse engineering is fine. But when "reverse engineering" is used in the sense Theranos (and/or Holmes' defense team) apparently did -- i.e. tampering with a competitor's machines so they sometimes don't work properly, and passing off the sometimes-invalid results as super-duper hot stuff created by your new and superior WonderTech™ -- then yes, it darn well should be criticized to Hell and back.