[email protected] wrote: > --- On Thu, 11/26/09, Gadi Evron <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree, which is why we don't debate climate change, but >> the hacker's actions. > > My take: > > The hacker is wrong - ethically, morally and legally.
Thank you for answering the question actually asked. I agree. > > The exposure of the information can be either good or bad, separately and > distinctly from the ethics of the hacker. Which one it is is more > complicated than I can determine at the moment - looking back a decade or two > would give the vantage to determine. It will remain unclear whether the > release of information contributes to the public good or has a sum negative > impact until it can be determined whether the public discourse is improved or > not, and whether the aggregate public "decision" on the topic is empirically > proven to be wise or not. > > -------------------- > > An example of my thinking: > > There is an extremist who has knowledge of a ticking bomb. I (with my Jack > Bower glasses on) choose to torture the information out of him, succeed, and > the bomb is defused. > > The ethics? > > o I am ethically, morally and legally in the wrong. I expect to go to jail. > > o The disclosure of the information that I unethically gained? That is an > ethical act, saving human lives. > > ---------------------- > > Since we cannot extricate this conversation from global warming, I'll add my > two cents for better or worse (probably worse) on that, too. > > o All would be better served to start the conversation with the question: > "Do you believe it is *possible* for mankind to have any impact of any kind > on the global climate under any conditions?" Anyone answering "no, God > (Gaea, Kermit the Frog,...) won't let us" doesn't need to be involved in the > conversation further. > > o Increasing ratios of components known to retain heat in atmospheric > systems in a single-change scenario would have seemingly obvious results. > > o The global climate is anything but a single-change scenario: it is > actually a "constant multiple-factor change scenario", in which it is > conceivable that we are currently otherwise in a cooling phase and we have > just happened - by sheer dumb luck - to find ourselves pumping warming agents > out at the right time. > > o Counting on dumb luck to work in our favor over the long term is a Bad > Idea. > > -chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. > -- Gadi Evron, [email protected]. Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/ _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
