T-Mobile
#11
(04-15-2018, 11:19 AM)EnigmaCookie Wrote: You are right. I have absolutely no faith in people's ability to think critically, especially when they are young and have no experience or training in how to think critically!

Is it then your duty to police what they do or don't do by withholding certain tools or information? What gives you the right to decide? Whatever the answer. You understand the arrogance in this position yes?

Everyone should be free to make their own choices, and mistakes for that matter. By extension, everyone should be free to discuss, post or create anything they want, which includes exploits and offensive security tooling.

(04-15-2018, 11:19 AM)EnigmaCookie Wrote: And no, this is not their problem, it's our problem. Thinking like that is what holds the community back, and in the meantime people are going to jail and having their lives ruined.

If it's anyone's problem it's the problem of the parents of these script kiddies. Since it is their job to teach their children critical thinking and ethics.
Reply
#12
(04-15-2018, 12:45 PM)Vector Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 11:19 AM)EnigmaCookie Wrote: You are right. I have absolutely no faith in people's ability to think critically, especially when they are young and have no experience or training in how to think critically!

Is it then your duty to police what they do or don't do by withholding certain tools or information? What gives you the right to decide? Whatever the answer. You understand the arrogance in this position yes?

Everyone should be free to make their own choices, and mistakes for that matter. By extension, everyone should be free to discuss, post or create anything they want, which includes exploits and offensive security tooling.

This is not what I'm saying at all. It is not my duty to police what people do with information, but I do believe that people have a responsability to ensure people do things with information that conforms to my social/moral beliefs. Why? Because they are my social/moral beliefs.

I am not forcing those beliefs on to people - I am not saying YOU MUST NOT DO THIS, but rather I am exerting them implicitly, and people are free to disagree and go their own way.

Yes, everyone does have the right to do what they want, and to make their own choices. But if someone came to me and said they were going to kill someone, I would be remiss if I didn't try and talk them out of, and I would be remiss if I didn't encourage people not to kill people, by implicitly conveying that I believe doing so is wrong, i.e., no consistent with my social/moral beliefs.

Now if I believe it WAS okay to kill people, then I'd be a hypocrite by talking someone out of it. There is no such thing as right and wrong, but if we adhere to a certain belief system, for whatever reason, we will always try to communicate those values to others, and respect their right to disagree.

But anyone is, again, free to disagree. I just believe the cyber security community could benefit from having role models, trying to guide people away from causing needless damage to themselves and to others in the community.

(04-15-2018, 12:45 PM)Vector Wrote: If it's anyone's problem it's the problem of the parents of these script kiddies. Since it is their job to teach their children critical thinking and ethics.

Why is it their problem, and not ours? Does a biological connection mean that parents are the absolute authority on critical thinking? If you believe that, then that's okay, I just think it's a collaborative responsibility to ensure everyone is equipped with the tools to reflect and analyse their decisions. Very often, I believe, that involves discussing issues with a large pool of people who hold conflicting beliefs, rather than relying on one or two biologically connected people for that information.

Oh, and also, I disagree that this position is arrogant. I had no intention of asking anyone to remove any content, I just think it would be useful to have this discussion, like we're doing now Smile
Reply
#13
(04-15-2018, 02:10 PM)EnigmaCookie Wrote: This is not what I'm saying at all. It is not my duty to police what people do with information, but I do believe that people have a responsability to ensure people do things with information that conforms to my social/moral beliefs. Why? Because they are my social/moral beliefs.

I am not forcing those beliefs on to people - I am not saying YOU MUST NOT DO THIS, but rather I am exerting them implicitly, and people are free to disagree and go their own way.

Exerting your specific beliefs implicitly means in practicality you are withholding certain information and are at the same time advocating other people do the same.

That is fine by me, advocate for your beliefs all you want. And live your principles, good on you.

The problem i have with your belief though is that a moral imperative is implied. Well, if what you are advocating for is the right way that must mean any other belief that contradicts yours must be wrong. Which i don't agree with obviously.


(04-15-2018, 02:10 PM)EnigmaCookie Wrote: Yes, everyone does have the right to do what they want, and to make their own choices. But if someone came to me and said they were going to kill someone, I would be remiss if I didn't try and talk them out of, and I would be remiss if I didn't encourage people not to kill people, by implicitly conveying that I believe doing so is wrong, i.e., no consistent with my social/moral beliefs.

Perhaps, but at any rate i don't think the two actions are comparable. Murder is on a different scale then some kid running SQLmap against a vulnerable website to see what will happen.

(04-15-2018, 02:10 PM)EnigmaCookie Wrote: There is no such thing as right and wrong,

If that were true then you would have no basis in trying to influence people to do what you think is right. Why? Because what is right would be arbitrarily decided by everyone individually. Why then, is your belief more valid or right then someone else's?

As a side note, moral relativism is post modernist BS and i would suggest not drinking the koolaid.

(04-15-2018, 02:10 PM)EnigmaCookie Wrote: but if we adhere to a certain belief system, for whatever reason, we will always try to communicate those values to others, and respect their right to disagree.

Fine, but if there is no right or wrong why would anyone listen to you anyway?

(04-15-2018, 02:10 PM)EnigmaCookie Wrote: But anyone is, again, free to disagree. I just believe the cyber security community could benefit from having role models, trying to guide people away from causing needless damage to themselves and to others in the community.

I hear this a lot, and when i do i think: Stop preaching an go be a role model then.

(04-15-2018, 02:10 PM)EnigmaCookie Wrote: Why is it their problem, and not ours? Does a biological connection mean that parents are the absolute authority on critical thinking?

Is this how you view parents? As just having a biological connection to their children? There is an important emotional component to a parent-child relationship. And it is in the best interest of the parents to raise a child that has the ability to think critically and make decisions ethically for more multiple reasons.

(04-15-2018, 02:10 PM)EnigmaCookie Wrote: I just think it's a collaborative responsibility to ensure everyone is equipped with the tools to reflect and analyse their decisions.

No it's not. Everyone that has moral agency has the responsibility personally.

(04-15-2018, 02:10 PM)EnigmaCookie Wrote: Very often, I believe, that involves discussing issues with a large pool of people who hold conflicting beliefs, rather than relying on one or two biologically connected people for that information.
Oh, and also, I disagree that this position is arrogant. I had no intention of asking anyone to remove any content, I just think it would be useful to have this discussion, like we're doing now Smile

I agree, having these discussions is important (n_n")
Reply
#14
I actually believe moral relativism is the closest we can get to any absolute truth. I am personally a nihilist, I don't believe there is any such thing as right or wrong, ethical, or moral. There is just stuff that happens and people that think certain ways.

I don't believe the precludes holding a personal belief and trying to exert that believe, however, it does resolve the tension you point out here:

Quote:If that were true then you would have no basis in trying to influence people to do what you think is right. Why? Because what is right would be arbitrarily decided by everyone individually. Why then, is your belief more valid or right then someone else's?

I have arbitrary, based on my understanding of human kind and my academic experiences, decided on a core set of values. I don't believe they're right or wrong, but I believe they may usefully contribute to a happier society.

Whilst I can't justify that I am a true nihilist, as I haven't killed myself, I'm of the exact same sentiment and understand that being alive makes your death no different - but I am largely constrained by biological functions to strive to remain alive. It's instinct. And if one is going to be alive, the environment should be as good as possible. Ideally, that would mean no war, relative freedom, and economic stability. I don't believe there is any right or wrong way to achieve those objectives, by my societal philosophy is geared towards them. Not because they are right, but because I have assessed them to be desirable - and I may very easily change my mind and am well aware that I have arbitrarily decided upon them.

So I do not care what people do with their lives or what choices they make. I don't believe it matters. By my biological instincts tell me to live, and therefore I should aim to optimise that experience, and potentially even help others optimise their experience too.

Based on those foundational attributes, I prefer that people should be educated over the use of (cyber) force over being given a weapon. That's all I am talking about here, and I don't care whether that objective is met or not - but I will always try to encourage that opinion, and hopefully will be a role model to others by doing so.
Reply
#15
(04-16-2018, 06:25 AM)EnigmaCookie Wrote: I actually believe moral relativism is the closest we can get to any absolute truth. I am personally a nihilist, I don't believe there is any such thing as right or wrong, ethical, or moral. There is just stuff that happens and people that think certain ways.

I don't believe the precludes holding a personal belief and trying to exert that believe, however, it does resolve the tension you point out here:

Quote:If that were true then you would have no basis in trying to influence people to do what you think is right. Why? Because what is right would be arbitrarily decided by everyone individually. Why then, is your belief more valid or right then someone else's?

I have arbitrary, based on my understanding of human kind and my academic experiences, decided on a core set of values. I don't believe they're right or wrong, but I believe they may usefully contribute to a happier society.

Whilst I can't justify that I am a true nihilist, as I haven't killed myself, I'm of the exact same sentiment and understand that being alive makes your death no different - but I am largely constrained by biological functions to strive to remain alive. It's instinct. And if one is going to be alive, the environment should be as good as possible. Ideally, that would mean no war, relative freedom, and economic stability. I don't believe there is any right or wrong way to achieve those objectives, by my societal philosophy is geared towards them. Not because they are right, but because I have assessed them to be desirable - and I may very easily change my mind and am well aware that I have arbitrarily decided upon them.

So I do not care what people do with their lives or what choices they make. I don't believe it matters. By my biological instincts tell me to live, and therefore I should aim to optimise that experience, and potentially even help others optimise their experience too.

Based on those foundational attributes, I prefer that people should be educated over the use of (cyber) force over being given a weapon. That's all I am talking about here, and I don't care whether that objective is met or not - but I will always try to encourage that opinion, and hopefully will be a role model to others by doing so.

I think the most fundamental issue we disagree on is whether there is right or wrong in the world or not. I believe there are things that are universally wrong(Evil) and universally right(good).

Besides that, if your personal convictions compel you to educate people in order to help them, even if only from a utilitarian or practical stand point, and this is done in good faith without limiting other people's freedoms. Then that is something i can respect.
Reply
#16
Quote:I think the most fundamental issue we disagree on is whether there is right or wrong in the world or not. I believe there are things that are universally wrong(Evil) and universally right(good).

Besides that, if your personal convictions compel you to educate people in order to help them, even if only from a utilitarian or practical stand point, and this is done in good faith without limiting other people's freedoms. Then that is something i can respect.

Yes. I don't care what people do or don't do, but I can still advise what I believe they should or shouldn't do based on my relative understandings of Good and Evil.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Mobile Application Exploitation by Attify certasker 3 5,516 03-26-2020, 09:24 PM
Last Post: kodachi
  Free Mobile Data?? Lewis 1 1,734 03-10-2019, 06:28 AM
Last Post: MuddyBucket