

Thanks, EFF, for outlawing code. - tptacek
http://blog.erratasec.com/2013/07/thanks-eff-for-outlawing-code.html#.UeRX2GSDSlg

======
jongraehl
Complaint seems to be that EFF isn't advocating for exploit-finding freedoms.

~~~
tptacek
No, it's that EFF is advocating for government restrictions on the publication
of exploits.

------
kylelibra
So the EFF is responsible for the NDAA legislation? Bit of a stretch.

~~~
tptacek
They advocated for this part of the NDAA:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/zero-day-exploit-
sales...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/zero-day-exploit-sales-should-
be-key-point-cybersecurity-debate)

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.

------
mtgx
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...

~~~
tptacek
44 minutes. That's how long this thread took before someone called someone on
it a shill for whatever position they argued. Thanks, 'mtgx!

------
loginalready
"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.

~~~
tptacek
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?

