Topic: Harvard University researcher punished for finding bugs

[Mr_Tricorder]

I was checking out Slashdot and came across this interesting article.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Harvard_University_researcher_punished_for_finding_bugs/0,2000061744,39240570,00.htm

I had just finished reading more about Vista before I saw this, and this is even more writing on the wall.  I really don't like the way the commercial computer industry is going.  It's reading things like this that drive me further and further into the open source camp.

[Nemesis]

It seems that his conviction was based on his distributing of source code from the anti-virus program.  It does not explain where and how he got the source code.  I suspect that information on how he was in possession of the code might explain the conviction.

[Javora]

Plain and simple, he should never had published the source code.  He did and was fined for it, I find it a little hard to believe that he could only prove his findings by publishing the source code.  Or at least that he could prove his finding to his distractors in private.  I do however take issue with the fact that some companies will try to sue if a flaw is discovered.  Someone should create a list of companies that do that so we the consumers know to stay away from their product.  Kind of like a Smoking Gun for software.

[FRA.E.Kehakoul_XC]

He published 65 bytes. Those company guys are smal checkered amoralic retards.
I bet they are  impotent in real life issues which are not connected to software.

[Nemesis]

He published 65 bytes. Those company guys are smal checkered amoralic retards.
I bet they are  impotent in real life issues which are not connected to software.

It depends on the origin of the code.  If he had it through illegal means then his publishing even 65 bytes is a crime.  If he had it with a non disclosure agreement or other contract that forbade publishing it then again it is a crime.  How he acquired that code fragment is very important.  Also of course does France have a "fair use" policy?

[FRA.E.Kehakoul_XC]

I am aware that there are always so called laws that allow to criminalize behaviour, even if its  the moralic right thing to do.
Doesnt change the fact that those guys are what i stated in my first post.

[Tus-XC]

I am aware that there are always so called laws that allow to criminalize behaviour, even if its  the moralic right thing to do.
Doesnt change the fact that those guys are what i stated in my first post.

Actually yes it does, if you want to give the guy a moral high ground then aware that he loses it when he breaks a binding contract (something w/ this john hancock on it) or does something illegal in order to achieve the end result.

Remeber, the ends do not justify the means, no matter how many good intentions you attribute to them.

[FRA.E.Kehakoul_XC]

Thats only true if you accept the base for those LAws, which i dont.

[Tus-XC]

Thats only true if you accept the base for those LAws, which i dont.

Ignorance of the law or even acceptance does not matter, the law is an attempt to create a moral standard based on that of the society.  In short SOCIETY says  that if the above scenario resulted from breaking a contract or through immoral means (IE stealing) then no matter what he does, not matter how much good it might bring, he was still in the wrong and should deal with the punishment that comes w/ breaking the law.

This is why Nemesis used the imfamous words "it depends", because it does depend entirely on the circumstances in which he had gotten the codes (ie if he was payed to test it, signed no nda covering the release source code, then he would most likely be in the right and the company would be as you said amoralic retards)

[Just plain old Punisher]

Thats only true if you accept the base for those LAws, which i dont.

Woo hoo! Let's go rob a liqour store together! I need some cash.

[Nemesis]

Woo hoo! Let's go rob a liqour store together! I need some cash.

To buy booze?

(for molotov cocktails of course.)

[FRA.E.Kehakoul_XC]

Hehe:)Bear with me guys, i sometimes get overwhelmed by my inner revolutionary self.

[Commander Maxillius]

I want to see one instance of 65 bytes of VITAL code.  65 bytes of code than can be used to extrapolate an OS, or tell who's antivirus software is different or flawed or whatever.  65 bytes these days doesn't amount to an ant turd when FREE EMAIL SERVICES THROW AROUND GIGABYTES (1,000,000,000's)!!!  This message exceeds 65 bytes in length for crying out loud!!!!

[FRA.E.Kehakoul_XC]

Thats only true if you accept the base for those LAws, which i dont.

Ignorance of the law or even acceptance does not matter, the law is an attempt to create a moral standard based on that of the society.  In short SOCIETY says  that if the above scenario resulted from breaking a contract or through immoral means (IE stealing) then no matter what he does, not matter how much good it might bring, he was still in the wrong and should deal with the punishment that comes w/ breaking the law.

This is why Nemesis used the imfamous words "it depends", because it does depend entirely on the circumstances in which he had gotten the codes (ie if he was payed to test it, signed no nda covering the release source code, then he would most likely be in the right and the company would be as you said amoralic retards)

Doesnt that lack a level of ojectivety here , which would be needed ?
Like Maxillius already pointed out.

Is there a factual objective threat to the interist of those companys,or are they simply trying to impose the law in a situation where rational calculus would be much more needed,for justicias sake.
If i remember right she is often pictured as a balancing entity.
I cant see the balance in this judgement.

I

[Tus-XC]

it depends 

[FRA.E.Kehakoul_XC]

Well Tus, it does not ,as there is no effective damage.
IF being blind is used as excuse for unfairness and amoralic  justice ,then face it, are those lAWS BS and the peoole who where so shortsighted to support and enforce them are too.

[Tus-XC]

you know i gave a pretty decent example on why it does depend, and there are dozen of other possibilities.  Of course this idea that it amoralic IS your OPINION and i haven't been talking opinion, i've been talking in terms of what the LAW would do (though i'm not expert, but i have enough understanding that it ain't black and white)

So again i say  It Depends, and i can tell you now that there is really no way you can prove that statement wrong, unless you believe your opinioins are always right....

[FRA.E.Kehakoul_XC]

The technical point of view lies in front of us Tus i think,i also think critical reevaluation of them is a must, and is something that was done througout history,which lead to refined new laws in some cases.
Accepting a obviously not pleasingly working approach is no option imo.
In the end i could say,this whole discussion is worthless.
I just think that this approach never advanced humanity one bit.