7 ms·

That’s a legal disclaimer, not a moral one.

by carnitine 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago
It is an attempt at a legal disclaimer. It may not hold up in court.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  Under what charges? If we're talking about the US, they have the first ammendment and all that. As for defamation laws and similar, the person who used the tool for those purposes would be on the hook, not the creators.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    That entirely depends on the circumstances. But given you are mixing criminal, constitutional, and civil law (libel, sometimes also criminal) in one comment (oh, and it's 'amendment') I don't think that this will lead to a fruitful discussion. My only point was: you can disclaim anything you want, but that won't stop people from suing you if they feel like it (this can happen anyway, even if you disclaim any and all responsibility) and creating something that can very easily be abused and then thrown out into the public even though it is standard practice in the security community may well end up being a boomerang. There is some precedent for the creators of such software being sued: https://knowtechie.com/a-company-that-makes-iphone-hacking-software-is-being-sued-by-apple/ https://knowtechie.com/a-company-that-makes-iphone-hacking-s... So I would not be too quick to dismiss that this could happen to smaller entities or even open source creators of such tools.
- t0mas88 4y ago
  It's the same as the age old "guns don't kill people" that seems to work fine for the weapons industry in the US.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    The world is larger than the US, and even there that argument does not hold water: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-families-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-famil...
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      They sued using the argument that the manufacturer’s advertising violated Connecticut consumer law. That’s not remotely the same thing as holding a creator liable for the misuse of his work by unrelated third-parties. Frankly, the illiberal push towards “ban everything that could be misused” is disheartening, especially when we see it applied to a speech-based tool like this one.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Yes, they did that because they did what everybody in that position would do: pick the argument that is most likely to find sympathy with a jury. Also: note that the degree to which everything is labeled 'speech' is fairly uniquely American.
        teakettle42 4y ago
        This argument echos the same justifications made for the US’ cryptography embargoes in the 1990s. (Rightfully) labeling code as speech is what allowed us to break down that barrier. Would you also be questioning the ethics of djb in 1995? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_...
        jacquesm 4y ago
        No, it doesn't. Because once created something will have a life of its own. The question is only meaningful prior to creating it. This goes for the atomic bomb, the invention of gunpowder, strong cryptography and any other tool. But if you don't care about ethics then it is obvious why you would not ask that question to begin with and I think that technology without ethics is no better than your average arms manufacturer. Only there at least we have - in some cases - some control over the uses, whereas software multiplies at a speed that politics can not catch up with. This may be a good thing, or it may be a terrible thing, and if it is the latter you will only find out when it is too late if you don't spend some cycles thinking about it beforehand. I liked the internet a lot better before I had to think about the security implications of every move I made, and the difference between 'bad actors' that are incapable of wrecking everything and 'bad actors' that are empowered by the brain children of the good actors far more than the good actors are (due to the asymmetry between destruction and creation) may be more than we can deal with.
Planktonne 4y ago
I think that's part of what makes me uneasy about this - it's a solely legal disclaimer for something with a moral dimension, and it reads to me like the abdication of responsibility, rather than just a shield against litigation.
- bjt2n3904 4y ago
  Oh no! We didn't remind our users to be kind to each other! We're software developers, not kindergarten teachers. How do you feel about Sqlite's code of conduct? Because if you don't like that, then you shouldn't be making moral statements in your own repositories.
  - Planktonne 4y ago
    Kindergarten teachers, as people who can have significant positive or negative impact, are bound by codes of ethics and practice. This is also true of almost every other area of human effort, whether implicit or explicit. As a catch-all baseline, we have the various legal systems. The fact that a significant proportion of the tech industry refuses point-blank to even discuss the idea of ethics is not a sign of superiority but immaturity.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

That’s a legal disclaimer, not a moral one.

jacquesm 4y ago

It is an attempt at a legal disclaimer. It may not hold up in court.

EMIRELADERO 4y ago
Under what charges? If we're talking about the US, they have the first ammendment and all that. As for defamation laws and similar, the person who used the tool for those purposes would be on the hook, not the creators.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That entirely depends on the circumstances. But given you are mixing criminal, constitutional, and civil law (libel, sometimes also criminal) in one comment (oh, and it's 'amendment') I don't think that this will lead to a fruitful discussion. My only point was: you can disclaim anything you want, but that won't stop people from suing you if they feel like it (this can happen anyway, even if you disclaim any and all responsibility) and creating something that can very easily be abused and then thrown out into the public even though it is standard practice in the security community may well end up being a boomerang. There is some precedent for the creators of such software being sued: https://knowtechie.com/a-company-that-makes-iphone-hacking-software-is-being-sued-by-apple/ https://knowtechie.com/a-company-that-makes-iphone-hacking-s... So I would not be too quick to dismiss that this could happen to smaller entities or even open source creators of such tools.
t0mas88 4y ago
It's the same as the age old "guns don't kill people" that seems to work fine for the weapons industry in the US.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  The world is larger than the US, and even there that argument does not hold water: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-families-settlement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyregion/sandy-hook-famil...
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    They sued using the argument that the manufacturer’s advertising violated Connecticut consumer law. That’s not remotely the same thing as holding a creator liable for the misuse of his work by unrelated third-parties. Frankly, the illiberal push towards “ban everything that could be misused” is disheartening, especially when we see it applied to a speech-based tool like this one.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Yes, they did that because they did what everybody in that position would do: pick the argument that is most likely to find sympathy with a jury. Also: note that the degree to which everything is labeled 'speech' is fairly uniquely American.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        This argument echos the same justifications made for the US’ cryptography embargoes in the 1990s. (Rightfully) labeling code as speech is what allowed us to break down that barrier. Would you also be questioning the ethics of djb in 1995? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_...
        jacquesm 4y ago
        No, it doesn't. Because once created something will have a life of its own. The question is only meaningful prior to creating it. This goes for the atomic bomb, the invention of gunpowder, strong cryptography and any other tool. But if you don't care about ethics then it is obvious why you would not ask that question to begin with and I think that technology without ethics is no better than your average arms manufacturer. Only there at least we have - in some cases - some control over the uses, whereas software multiplies at a speed that politics can not catch up with. This may be a good thing, or it may be a terrible thing, and if it is the latter you will only find out when it is too late if you don't spend some cycles thinking about it beforehand. I liked the internet a lot better before I had to think about the security implications of every move I made, and the difference between 'bad actors' that are incapable of wrecking everything and 'bad actors' that are empowered by the brain children of the good actors far more than the good actors are (due to the asymmetry between destruction and creation) may be more than we can deal with.

Planktonne 4y ago

I think that's part of what makes me uneasy about this - it's a solely legal disclaimer for something with a moral dimension, and it reads to me like the abdication of responsibility, rather than just a shield against litigation.

bjt2n3904 4y ago
Oh no! We didn't remind our users to be kind to each other! We're software developers, not kindergarten teachers. How do you feel about Sqlite's code of conduct? Because if you don't like that, then you shouldn't be making moral statements in your own repositories.
- Planktonne 4y ago
  Kindergarten teachers, as people who can have significant positive or negative impact, are bound by codes of ethics and practice. This is also true of almost every other area of human effort, whether implicit or explicit. As a catch-all baseline, we have the various legal systems. The fact that a significant proportion of the tech industry refuses point-blank to even discuss the idea of ethics is not a sign of superiority but immaturity.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]