3 ms·
I did setup the question in a way that the developer doesn’t harm someone themselves but sells it to a state actor. I.e extremely similar outcome to finding a z
by gghffguhvc 3y ago
I did setup the question in a way that the developer doesn’t harm someone themselves but sells it to a state actor. I.e extremely similar outcome to finding a zero day and selling it to a state actor except it is “more” secure - need private key.
The point about MIT is that they are saying to the world when publishing “as is” folks. Not claiming I haven’t backdoored it for Uncle Sam.in fact I’m not claiming anything, use at your own risk.
It used to be the law to implicitly do this by weak encryption for exports.
- saagarjha 3y agoSelling to a state actor is also likely to be illegal depending on the conditions of the sale and who the buyer is.
- bawolff 3y ago> that the developer doesn’t harm someone themselves The harm in question is causing the backdoor to be inserted in the first place. Its irrelavent what else you do, like selling it, although that could be a separate crime. > The point about MIT is that they are saying to the world when publishing “as is” folks. Not claiming I haven’t backdoored it for Uncle Sam.in fact I’m not claiming anything, use at your own risk. Just because you think that is what those words mean, doesn't mean that is what those words actually mean. > It used to be the law to implicitly do this by weak encryption for exports. Not comparable. Even now, the MIT license would probably protect you from any consequenes of using super weak encryption. It would not protect you from the hypothetical you setup. They are very different sutuations.