hacker != cracker (Re: Swartz, Weev & radical libertarian lexicon)

coderman coderman at gmail.com
Wed Jan 8 16:51:15 PST 2014


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Adam Back <adam at cypherspace.org> wrote:
> ...
> Independent security researcher can be risky.  Get a legal signed doc from
> the people you audit people say (yeah like they're gonna give you one for an
> unsolicited investigation).
>
> Weev was an independent security researcher after all, in a team even.
> Goatse security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse_Security.  They did find
> some interesting and news worthy hacking stuff, even won awards from Tech
> Crunch seemingly.


my comment was in reference to the prosecution of a guy for merely
calling himself a hacker, e.g.:
https://plus.google.com/+AndreasSchou/posts/XBhgQ72UP83
""
... accused of: threatening national security by open-sourcing a
network visualization and whitelisting tool....
""
... and ""hacker" admission on defendants website"
!!!
also,
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131022/13260324972/govt-contractor-uses-copyright-fear-hackers-to-get-restraining-order-against-open-source-developer.shtml
  http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/10/25/developers-computer-seized-because-he-called-himself-a-hacker/



the only reliable way to avoid retribution and arbitrary prosecution
seems to be: stay off the radar!



but this runs counter to the need, as you describe, for "brave
canaries with squeaky clean reps".  i am exploring a gambit for
disclosure post-statute-of-limitations, but even this protection seems
meager and risky.



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list