No but on that point, if we knew the exact odds of being infected in any random encounter and each individual were in charge of making risk calculations and just going about their business, would we all be better off?
-
-
Replying to @0xMatt
Then I don't follow, your argument. My point is that it's a doctors job to explain the treatment options to you, not to just do whatever they think is best. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso
I'm saying that your analogy is trying to frame CVD as a discussion between a doctor and a patient, when the closer analogy is between an Epidemiologist and a large, vulnerable population.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @0xMatt
Ughh, fine
. Should epidemiologists be allowed to make arbitrary rules, without any input from other stakeholders and without explanation?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso
If publishing full information about a lethal virus on the internet would allow random jerks to distribute the disease freely then I'd be OK with being vague for a while and allowing vaccine producers a head start on knowing about it, TBH.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @0xMatt
Well, random jerks can distribute the virus. For example, a malicious person could travel to a hotspot and then purposefully infect other people. So, you do argue for arbitrary rules without explanation and no news coverage of epidemics?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso
No, and I also don't argue for absolute silence and no news coverage of vulnerabilities in software. I do argue for giving the people who can develop the vaccine a short heads-up prior to distributing complete instructions to everyone on how to spread it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @0xMatt
Fair enough, but do you agree it's rational for reasonable people to want information about the virus before a vaccine is available? I certainly want that, for example. I think many people would be outraged if we did what you're suggesting, for example...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso
Now only do I agree that it's rational, I personally would want full information about it before it's available and would have my pitchfork ready with you. Like I said way back in post zero: Full Disclosure folks _are not wrong_. They're just optimizing for freedom(tm).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I love freedom but I'm _also_ an emergency responder, both in the Cyber and the physical sense. I know that sometimes, rarely, the full-freedom model breaks down and "Harm reduction" comes into play. That's where CVD folks tend to live.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Hmmmm I really want to agree, but a core issue is that I think you argue if we have no reports of exploitation, that it wasn't exploited. All my work is working with imperfect information, extrapolating what attackers can do from their motivations and capabilities.
-
-
Replying to @taviso
I think the problem is we're both trying to generalize where the real situation is sometimes exploitation is happening and we can't see it, and sometimes it's not happening, but we don't know when and how often either one is the case. ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
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.