4 ms·
This argument, which the creator of the tool also uses, strikes me as essentially, “I’m going to harm you to show you that there is potential for you to be harm
by adriand 4y ago
This argument, which the creator of the tool also uses, strikes me as essentially, “I’m going to harm you to show you that there is potential for you to be harmed”.
To make a crude analogy, what if I punched you in the face to demonstrate that you should consider learning kung fu? Or perhaps to indicate that, if a corporation wanted to, they could hire people to assault you and there would be little you could do about it? At the end of the day you’ve got a busted nose either way. Are you really better off?
- icegreentea2 4y agoYour analogy makes a fundamentally different assumption - which is that you weren't already being physically assaulted or that your risk of being physically assaulted was truly negligible. OP and creator assume that attempts at creating privacy online are always under active attack. The threat environment already exists. Publication of this tool does not meaningfully change the threat environment. Some more analogous situations might be: * Publicizing that police do not quickly respond to 911 calls for assault or break and entry in certain neighborhoods * Selling lockpicks and publicizing how to pick standard tumbler locks * Publicizing which bike locks can be cut with hand tools The real fundamental disagreement is on the assumption of if your privacy is already under attack by competent actors.
- tptacek 4y agoPeople have been doing this kind of analysis for decades; all that happened today was that you got a demonstration of it, using a particularly simple approach.