Techies do all sorts of things that _we_ understand to be consumer protection. The thing that I find odd is that no techie groups ever say loudly the words "consumer protection".
Organizations such as Consumer Reports and persons like Ralph Nader have made their successes by breaking other people's products. This is a valid and perfectly acceptible thing to do in our society. I say that cracking CSS is the same thing.
Saying that one "reverse engineered an algorithm" or that one "found a vulnerability" doesn't mean anything to anyone but techies. I don't care how smug and smart nerds think they are (self included) the courtroom audience are not techies.
I am saying that a spin problem is causing hacker/crackers a legal problem.
What if organizations such as 2600 said this?
"We provide consumer protection in our expert laboratories in much the same way that Consumer Reports tests fire retardant baby clothing. We burn the baby clothing in our labs. If a product fails we will inform the consumer. We provide proof based on science." (One should still be held accountable for lible if there science can't back up their claims.)
Is there anything illegal about reporting of consumer protection information? I doubt it.
Are the techies loosing credibility in courts due to a failure to communicate to an audience that understands and accepts "consumer protection" but doesn't understand "reverse engineering an algorithm?"
Slashdot Mirror
Techies do all sorts of things that _we_ understand to be consumer protection. The thing that I find odd is that no techie groups ever say loudly the words "consumer protection".
Organizations such as Consumer Reports and persons like Ralph Nader have made their successes by breaking other people's products. This is a valid and perfectly acceptible thing to do in our society. I say that cracking CSS is the same thing.
Saying that one "reverse engineered an algorithm" or that one "found a vulnerability" doesn't mean anything to anyone but techies. I don't care how smug and smart nerds think they are (self included) the courtroom audience are not techies.
I am saying that a spin problem is causing hacker/crackers a legal problem.
What if organizations such as 2600 said this?
"We provide consumer protection in our expert laboratories in much the same way that Consumer Reports tests fire retardant baby clothing. We burn the baby clothing in our labs. If a product fails we will inform the consumer. We provide proof based on science." (One should still be held accountable for lible if there science can't back up their claims.)
Is there anything illegal about reporting of consumer protection information? I doubt it. Are the techies loosing credibility in courts due to a failure to communicate to an audience that understands and accepts "consumer protection" but doesn't understand "reverse engineering an algorithm?"