3 ms·
Publishing exploits should certainly be protected as free speech, but the sale of exploits to a party with ill intent (governments included, even ours) is movin
by malandrew 13y ago
Publishing exploits should certainly be protected as free speech, but the sale of exploits to a party with ill intent (governments included, even ours) is moving into the realm of arms dealing because that exploit is going to be weaponized. Intent matters.
If there is a transaction with weaponization as the intent => arms dealing
If it is published to edify => free speech
- mindslight 13y agoBy that logic, having a perl RSA implementation in your signature is arms dealing because the intent is for that speech to spread to others to weaponize it into encryption software. Reality already won that battle, let's not fight it again.