I understand irresponsible disclosure, or premature disclosure, to be a heads up to the people who can protect themselves, and an invitation to equal opportunity ownage, both of those at-risk & otherwise.
-
-
Nobody argues for irresponsibility, that would be ridiculous. The problem is people disagree on the most responsible action.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
The point is not whether something is irresponsible. It's to discern whether disclosure of a nature considered irresponsible by some (earlier disclosure) necessarily mitigates damage to at-risk minorities disproportionally to others.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Every form of disclosure is considered irresponsible by some, that's meaningless. In general, using the phrase "responsible" or "irresponsible" is a sign of bad faith in these discussions, so I don't want to respond to your other points, sorry
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
I personally err on the side of full/early. But it shouldn't be verboten to ask for data. It can't be merely taken for granted that "at-risk" people are disproportionally affected by delays.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's certainly not verboten, just a contentious topic that requires a few ground rules to discuss civilly. The unfortunate answer is that we have imperfect vision of what our adversaries are doing, so we have to extrapolate based on what we know.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
If we had a perfect oracle that could tell us which vulnerabilities the bad guys had, then clearly not publishing the ones they dont have is the way to go, but that's not the world we live in.
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
I contend purely with the grounds on which decisions are made. The world is so no black-and-white. I don't find compelling "at-risk" or "minority" on the face of it. E.g. what's costlier? first-world country's power grid vuln; or minority activist privacy vuln. Need more data.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
There is a reason I asked for a 1-pager on the ethics of reducing the risk for a majority with low risk (because not targeted) at the cost of a minority with high risk (because targeted). Because it is a difficult ethical question, and the question does not get easier with data.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @halvarflake @unixist and
And ask Jamal Khashoggi about privacy risks. Either way, Twitter is a terrible medium for subtle ethical discussions with no clear answers, the instigator of this thread is wasting everybody’s time for eschewing long form and the necessary nuance, and I will write my thoughts...
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes
You're right, I need to stop getting sucked in.. I've got a million things to do 
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.