5 ms·

He deserves no such applause. The fact that he recanted his position so quickly shows that he literally put no research/effort into his initial article that was

He deserves no such applause. The fact that he recanted his position so quickly shows that he literally put no research/effort into his initial article that was published not just on a small personal blog, but on the Washington Post's website. It is completely irresponsible of a man of his intelligence/qualifications to post something like that to a major news organizations website. edit: If down-voting I'd like to know why as I'm not saying anything inflammatory. Please don't down-vote for disagreeing as that's not what down-voting is for!

PeterWhittaker 12y ago
The author is (apparently) an expert in his field (the law). He is not an expert in our field (technology, broadly speaking), and certainly not an expert in my field (security, broadly speaking). He wrote a post based on legal considerations and upon his domain knowledge. One of the interesting things about domain knowledge, or, more to the point, lack thereof, is that without any, one cannot know the exact extent of one's ignorance of other domains. I am not going to go so far as to assert the author was heretofore unfamiliar with the concept of a zero-day exploit, though it seems likely, but I would suggest that the author is now at least notionally familiar with the concept - and has written quite a good, clear follow-up article devoid of our jargon (which is easily among the worst of the several domains I've been exposed to over the years) indicating exactly and precisely why he reconsidered his position. THIS IS HOW KNOWLEDGE WORKS. Forgive the caps, but they are appropriate in this case. If we waited for everyone to know everything we think relevant before they wrote anything at all, all we would have written would be recipes. And pornography. A domain expert wrote a reasoned piece based on their domain knowledge. Others helpfully directed that expert to domains relevant to the piece. The domain expert then (quite speedily, I think) absorbed just enough of that domain's knowledge to draw and state reasonable conclusions. This is also how the law works, which is why it is so maddeningly slow sometimes. Editorial or "meta" notes: I upvoted because I don't believe in downvoting (I often upvote downvoted comments for this reason) - but I believe you were downvoted because you were lazy and chose to post ad hominem comments without due consideration.
- phaus 12y ago
  >The author is (apparently) an expert in his field (the law). He is not an expert in our field (technology, broadly speaking), and certainly not an expert in my field (security, broadly speaking). He markets himself as an expert on computer law. He also brags about working on a government panel that studied privacy and other security related topics. You cannot be an expert on computer law if you lack the context that is provided by a basic understanding of privacy / network security issues. The man is an incompetent fraud at best. Shortsighted and technologically ignorant people acquiring authority is a large part of the reason the United States' computer laws are terrible. We aren't talking about a complex issue that requires domain specific knowledge, this guy was genuinely surprised that a backdoor designed for admin access could be used by those with malicious intent. If he really cared about justice, he would hand over his license to practice and refrain from talking while there are adults in the room.
- akmiller 12y ago
  There was nothing ad hominem about my post at all. Oh well...so goes HN these days.

PeterWhittaker 12y ago

The author is (apparently) an expert in his field (the law). He is not an expert in our field (technology, broadly speaking), and certainly not an expert in my field (security, broadly speaking). He wrote a post based on legal considerations and upon his domain knowledge. One of the interesting things about domain knowledge, or, more to the point, lack thereof, is that without any, one cannot know the exact extent of one's ignorance of other domains. I am not going to go so far as to assert the author was heretofore unfamiliar with the concept of a zero-day exploit, though it seems likely, but I would suggest that the author is now at least notionally familiar with the concept - and has written quite a good, clear follow-up article devoid of our jargon (which is easily among the worst of the several domains I've been exposed to over the years) indicating exactly and precisely why he reconsidered his position. THIS IS HOW KNOWLEDGE WORKS. Forgive the caps, but they are appropriate in this case. If we waited for everyone to know everything we think relevant before they wrote anything at all, all we would have written would be recipes. And pornography. A domain expert wrote a reasoned piece based on their domain knowledge. Others helpfully directed that expert to domains relevant to the piece. The domain expert then (quite speedily, I think) absorbed just enough of that domain's knowledge to draw and state reasonable conclusions. This is also how the law works, which is why it is so maddeningly slow sometimes. Editorial or "meta" notes: I upvoted because I don't believe in downvoting (I often upvote downvoted comments for this reason) - but I believe you were downvoted because you were lazy and chose to post ad hominem comments without due consideration.

phaus 12y ago
>The author is (apparently) an expert in his field (the law). He is not an expert in our field (technology, broadly speaking), and certainly not an expert in my field (security, broadly speaking). He markets himself as an expert on computer law. He also brags about working on a government panel that studied privacy and other security related topics. You cannot be an expert on computer law if you lack the context that is provided by a basic understanding of privacy / network security issues. The man is an incompetent fraud at best. Shortsighted and technologically ignorant people acquiring authority is a large part of the reason the United States' computer laws are terrible. We aren't talking about a complex issue that requires domain specific knowledge, this guy was genuinely surprised that a backdoor designed for admin access could be used by those with malicious intent. If he really cared about justice, he would hand over his license to practice and refrain from talking while there are adults in the room.
akmiller 12y ago
There was nothing ad hominem about my post at all. Oh well...so goes HN these days.