EricMausler

10 ms·

61.
by EricMausler 3y ago
Some companies will absolutely give a crap. And the ones that don't create a paper trail of not giving a crap The researcher is protected from being sued by being granted permission and following any regulations created for ethical sec
62.
by EricMausler 3y ago
You need permission because 1) the probing almost always involves breaking the terms of the contract you made with that company. 2) it creates a paper trail of intent 3) it's not your property so why wouldn't you need permission t
63.
by EricMausler 3y ago
When you get a surprise food safety inspection, you are notified right? They don't just break into your business without your knowledge and look around. You can refuse them entry, even if it comes with consequences later. They also a
64.
by EricMausler 3y ago
The point is in enabling the conversation. We can make the laws whatever we want that would help it be fair White hat: can I hack? Company: no Later: Company has 100 security request denials Company info leaked Company gets sued Judge is p
65.
by EricMausler 3y ago
I proposed protected legal channels for researchers. It does remove any pressure from companies. Their neck is still on the line. It adds pressure to companies because it creates a paper trail. It enables good faith companies to work with r
66.
by EricMausler 3y ago
That does suck and we should do something about that. Accountability could be part of the legal framework. Trying to gain access to those video recordings by exploiting the device is still threatening too.
67.
by EricMausler 3y ago
Tampering with a device increases your liability compared to not tampering with it. Don't install it in your home if you don't trust it. Don't buy things with terms and conditions where you dont own the device if you want to
68.
by EricMausler 3y ago
If they bought a prefab house which was sold to many people in the neighborhood, and part of the terms and conditions were do not open up the walls, and the owner opened up all the walls to find out weakspots it can be robbed, then that doe
69.
by EricMausler 3y ago
Well, in this analogy the problem starts with how the person is noticing the lock can be broken in unexpected ways Everything you said after that is a valid continuation from that, but the scope of the issue I am talking to centers around t
70.
by EricMausler 3y ago
Building codes analogy still supports my argument. You cannot just walk into a strangers home and inspect it for whether or not it is up to code. I agree analogies are going to be imperfect, which is why it's important not to criticiz
71.
by EricMausler 3y ago
You can't give them a slap on the wrist if you assert what they are doing isn't criminal. Having an issue with the punishment model is no reason to throw out the law. I think the subject has enough depth and complexity to it that
72.
by EricMausler 3y ago
You don't own the inside of it. That's the core part of all this. Businesses decided to sell items with special conditions where you can own possession of the item as a whole but not the ability to dismantle it. That's just
73.
by EricMausler 3y ago
People aren't white or grey or black hats. Actions are. A person can wait until they find a vulnerability to decide what type of hat they want to be. That is not only possible, but also the most rational thing for someone to do if ther
74.
by EricMausler 3y ago
I think the analogy would be someone doesn't realize they left their backdoor unlocked. You can see an open door. You can see an unlocked door unless you go up and try to open the door. if a stranger informed me that my backdoor was un
75.
by EricMausler 3y ago
The status quo is not sufficiently codified. I am suggesting we codify it so that we can look at the rules and change them so that they make sense. I also think it would be a good thing to have a legally protected avenue for people to decla
76.
by EricMausler 3y ago
I hate it too, but the heart of this is that ownership is under question. People should not have agreed to buy things where there are parts of it they don't own that they don't even need, but they did. They did it a lot because it
77.
by EricMausler 3y ago
In that scenario I would MUCH rather the company be aware someone is putting that lust together, notfiy me in advance of the research being concluded, provide updates, organize and manage the contents of that list, offer solutions, patch th
78.
by EricMausler 3y ago
I agree the laws are too broad. I think we need add layers of granularity to them. Create more of a framework for settling the rules on what is and isn't allowed. Maybe we settle on everything goes, but the company should be involved.
79.
by EricMausler 3y ago
I think the difference is in what's yours and what's theirs. If it's yours, I agree. If it's theirs, I disagree. The idea of absolute ownership is being eroded. You purchase a device but that device may use information y
80.
by EricMausler 3y ago
I was speaking towards internet side of things where you do not own the infrastructure. As a related note, I do firmly believe in right to repair, and if you own something you can do whatever you want with it. Partial ownership seems to be
81.
by EricMausler 3y ago
I proposed a preference for systemic solutions over building a soft dependence on white hat hackers. This benefits society as a whole because it clearly delineates actions with intent. If doing X is always not allowed, then all you need to
82.
by EricMausler 3y ago
I was speaking towards probing the business not the things you own. Using housing as a metaphor is common because it's an incredibly common thing people can relate to with personal experience, and is something people typically have rel
83.
by EricMausler 3y ago
"Hey Timmy I noticed you talk to Susan 5 times a day sometimes for 5 minutes and sometimes for 2 hours. Always right after you say goodnight to us. Sometimes I see you call her late at night from outside her house for 10 seconds when y
84.
by EricMausler 3y ago
This might be an unpopular opinion but I respectfully do not see it that way. I agree with promoting security for IoT devices, but there needs to be consent from the company being probed for vulnerabilities or else I find it hard to consid
85.
by EricMausler 3y ago
That may be common circumstances where a union becomes the only viable option for the workers, but unions have additional benefits that something like it would greatly benefit the software industry. In particular, it's the assignment o
86.
by EricMausler 3y ago
Unionize already. It's not just about wage, it's about assigning appropriate work to peoples level and having them progress through the most efficient steps to mastery while also completing billable hours
87.
by EricMausler 3y ago
I think you are right on these points. It's also possible previous Generative Art was not sufficiently problematic enough to be thoroughly analyzed. Something feels different about AI than other Generative uncontrolled processes like t
88.
by EricMausler 3y ago
I definitely understand the model does not contain the images. You gave a very valid description for probably the most critical copyright issue around it at the moment. I'd say my point is more around the fact that the content will hav
89.
by EricMausler 3y ago
I'd be curious to know the legality here more concretely. My understanding is that although a lot of it is not enforced, it is technically illegal to sell or publicly display images of another person's likeness without their cons
90.
by EricMausler 3y ago
It's new territory, not really just a tool nor just a box of things. I didn't want to overcomplicate my message so I went with asserting the box extreme as it puts the fuller range of legal options on the table. I do think in it&

More ›