I don't get it. Things like selling of surveillance tools to other nations should be regulated/banned anyway, no? Why shouldn't there be regulations for cyberweapons or selling exploits to nations or spy agencies?
Sounds to me like Errata Security has a horse in the game here...
It's worth knowing that the NDAA comes up basically every year; it's the omnibus defense spending bill. Obviously, EFF isn't responsible for the whole NDAA.
"They abandon their principle that code is free speech by suggesting that some code needs to be regulated."
Typical false dichotomy of libertarian extremist. Speech is regulated all the time, based on intent or effect (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), and the formal protection of free speech is a regulation in itself. (Much like, hey, Net Neutrality.)
One typical sign of extremism is calling everybody that applies thought or nuance unprincipled.
I too find Robert Graham's libertarianism off-putting, because I'm not a libertarian. But let's get past the "typical libertarians" stuff and engage with the actual substance of the issue.
Do you think Congress should be regulating cyber-weapons?
And, how far through have you thought that position?
8 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 27.1 ms ] threadSounds to me like Errata Security has a horse in the game here...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/zero-day-exploit-sales...
It's worth knowing that the NDAA comes up basically every year; it's the omnibus defense spending bill. Obviously, EFF isn't responsible for the whole NDAA.
Typical false dichotomy of libertarian extremist. Speech is regulated all the time, based on intent or effect (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), and the formal protection of free speech is a regulation in itself. (Much like, hey, Net Neutrality.)
One typical sign of extremism is calling everybody that applies thought or nuance unprincipled.
Do you think Congress should be regulating cyber-weapons?
And, how far through have you thought that position?