undefined

points

[-]

Would you prefer that they kept this for themselves instead of disclosing it?

I get criticizing their business and what they do wrong, but doesn't seem right to criticizing them for doing the right thing.

by trinsic217 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It means they are suspect. I think its right to be wary of motives if they are involved in the very thing they aim to bring awareness too. Questions arise in my mind as to why they would do something like this in the first place.

Its been my experience that the general public doesn't seem to follow patterns and instead focus on which switch is toggled at any given moment for a company's ethical practices. This is the main reason why we are constantly gamed by orgs that have a big picture view of crowd psychology.

by celsoazevedo16 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I don't trust them more because of this and maybe they've disclosed it for the wrong reasons, like not allowing a competitor to use it when they don't, but at the end of the day they did disclose a serious issue, and that's good for users.

I understand where you're coming from, by the way, but sometimes the worst person you know does the right thing and it's not fair to criticize them for doing it (you could say nothing, don't have to change your opinion about them, etc). We also don't want someone to go "if I'm bad no matter what I do, then might as well make some money with this" and sell the exploit.

by trinsic211 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> I understand where you're coming from, by the way, but sometimes the worst person you know does the right thing and it's not fair to criticize them for doing it (you could say nothing, don't have to change your opinion about them, etc). We also don't want someone to go "if I'm bad no matter what I do, then might as well make some money with this" and sell the exploit.

I hear you. I guess I just want to promote more vigilance. Looking at patterns and motives helps us stay balanced about these things IMHO.

by lyu0728216 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

What are you even saying? It's like getting upset at somebody who criticizes a criminal because they once helped some grandma across the street. I'm not upset at the criminal because they helped a grandma across the street obviously that's not the fucking point.

by celsoazevedo15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm not upset, I just don't think we should criticize someone for doing something good. Maybe they're a terrible org, maybe they deserve criticism most of the time, but not in this instance.

It's not like you can't point out that they did a good deed, but that they're still in the shitty business of fingerprinting users.

Also, if people only get the stick no matter what they do, then eventually some will embrace the dark side and at least make money out of it. And that's not good for you.

by diydsp13 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This isn't a someone. It's a corporation, a legal fiction explicitly designed to dissolve responsibility.

by celsoazevedo12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

And like a broken clock that is right twice a day, sometimes a corporation also does the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons.

Nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy and bullshit, but criticizing something they did right? That's not how I operate. You are, of course, free to do things differently.

by lyu0728214 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

The inverse is also true, letting them whitewash their image by pretending they care about your privacy and seek to protect you will be good for their public relations, but only if we let them. I refuse to be this gullible and run to their defense for no apparent reason.

by celsoazevedo12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

They can pretend all they want. I know what their business is, my opinion on the practices haven't changed.

And yet, they did a good thing. I will criticize everything else, but not what they did right. It doesn't mean I'll go out of my way to praise them either... if it wasn't your comment, I wouldn't have said anything at all.

by Vinnl15 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

It's more like criticising a criminal when they are helping some grandma across the street, thereby treating them more harshly than the criminals that don't do that.

(Also known as the "Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics": https://gwern.net/doc/philosophy/ethics/2015-06-24-jai-theco... )

by somerset16 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Responsible disclosure and commercial fingerprinting aren't contradictory.

by lyu0728216 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

[flagged]

by flufluflufluffy15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

If you take their claim that they don’t use vulnerabilities in their products as true, then I don’t see a contradiction. If it isn’t true, then obviously there is a contradiction.

But your considering of all methods that enable fingerprinting as vulnerabilities is your own opinion. There are definitely measurable signals that are based on a user’s behavior, rather than data exposed by the browser itself.

by kube-system14 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

It's a little bit disingenuous to call intentional wont-fix features "vulnerabilities".