Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

University of Minnesota Linux "Hypocrite Commit" Researchers Publish Open Letter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by ddriver View Post
    Yes, precisely, it is all Trump's fault.

    They should ban Trump from contributing to linux and get it over with, problem solved.
    You were thinking you were making a point that this was joke. The reality is Linux kernel submits are multi national. It is absolutely possible by a University or company messing around in country to cause another country who infrastructure has been effected to go after the countries government for damages rendered. The fact it happened in the USA why Trump was in power if this gets to the legal side without being resolved it will be USA presidents problem and it will be his responsibility to get is Civilians legally punished to the satisfaction of the other countries or risk other problems.

    Yes its important understand the word contributor in the code of conduct of the Linux kernel can mean a individual, entity(that a company, organisation...) or even a country. These are very broad strokes.

    Linux kernel maintainers can ban complete countries from submitting if there are repeating issues from them. The Linux kernel rules allow very broad strokes in response to issues.

    Legally once you go international this can get very broad strokes very quickly where you government is being held responsible for your actions until your government punishes you or deports you for the other country to punish.

    Playing with a internationally operating open source project you do need to show serous respect because it is possible to end up in international courts.

    ddriver most of your arguments was that they did not have to take responsibility for their actions because what they did should have been detected. Its like j-walking across a street in front of a police officer they saying you were their so you should not give me a fine to pay now. The Linux kernel form of fines is bans yes if you wish to dispute those bans and what you were doing was wrong expect to end up in court possible in multi countries with lot worst risk.

    Yes if you are a employee of a company on a job and you j-walk and the police cannot 100 percent ID who you are but they can absolute ID that you own to X company they can take the fine for jwalking from the company and say company make sure your staff don't jwalk. This is how the system works. Heck if all the staff are too poor to pay the jwalking fine they police can decide to always take the fine from the company they work for. Of course that will result in the person doing the jwalking fired in most cases. This is just how the legal system works.

    1) Individual responsibility that straight forwards.
    2) Entity responsibility is where a company/organisation/university has responsibility for the actions of their employees/members/students to the point of taking corrective action so the actions stop this normally equals staff/student dismissal.
    3) Country responsibility this is your broader stuff.

    Fun part is the word contributor is vague enough to be any one of the 3. As a Invididual can be a contributor so can a Entity be a contributor and final so can a country be a Contributor.
    Last edited by oiaohm; 25 April 2021, 08:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThoreauHD
    replied
    I don't see a problem with banning them. Treat them like any other terrorist org the FBI kneels to.

    Leave a comment:


  • sverris
    replied
    My two cents: these guys should be banned for some time and should prove in the mean time that they can do better elsewhere. And then, one might consider to give them a second chance.

    Leave a comment:


  • OneTimeShot
    replied
    Originally posted by ddriver View Post

    Clearly, the context of my post was referencing the supposed upholders of "ethics", and the distance between their words and actions, but even more importantly - claimed and deduced from the outcome motivations, curious to why you'd decide to twist it orthogonality, especially in light of the fact you haven't offered anything better than words yourself.


    I am clarifying since... you know... you tend to take out of context and misunderstand everything that doesn't suit you.
    To be fair to him - I'm pretty confused as to what you are trying to say too... You should just stick to "Supporting researchers looking at security processes in Open Source projects is really important. If they messed up in some way (and we may disagree if they actually have or not), they've apologised and cleared it up."

    You see - stating your view point isn't hard, and you don't need to start attacking everyone who disagrees...

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by ddriver View Post
    Clearly, the context of my post was referencing the supposed upholders of "ethics", and the distance between their words and actions, but even more importantly - claimed and deduced from the outcome motivations, curious to why you'd decide to twist it orthogonality, especially in light of the fact you haven't offered anything better than words yourself.

    Likely it is that same reason why you misidentify realism for "extreme cynicism", or confuse "being a realist" with "being interested in begin a realist". Or attention to detail with extreme, counter-productive internationalism. Or vagueness for genericity...

    It is a tendency with you at this point, those are a bit too many to be attributed to coincidence.

    Being interested into being anything ... is a paradox. Technically, you can't be interested into being something you are not, because you don't really know what it is unless you are it. At best, you can be interested in being what you believe being a realist is. But your belief about realism doesn't strike as realistic, and belief itself is kind of an opposite to realism. Yours are words of someone who does not acknowledge reality as it is, the reason for which is either mental or intellectual insufficiency, usually a combination of both. So you are stuck at the shallow end, with all the realist wannabes that like the decoration of pretending to be it, but are afraid of the deep dark coldness of diving in.

    And I mean the deep dark coldness of the ocean metaphor I used, not that those are intrinsics of being a realist. The sun is equally bright and warm to those that believe it to be a divine entity as it is to those that know it is a ball of gas. I am clarifying since... you know... you tend to take out of context and misunderstand everything that doesn't suit you.
    Do you really think all this sophistry accomplishes anything? It seems to me just a tactic of misdirection, to divert the discussion when your logical arguments have run out of gas. You seem to get onto these tangents frequently, which naturally leads to suspicion. You could avoid that by just staying on topic.

    In any case, it looks to me like a waste of time. Maybe that's my "intellectual insufficiency" speaking, but if you can't make a compelling case to us "realist wannabes, stuck at the shallow end", maybe it's because you don't actually have one.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    We've got a "cancel culture" and a "virtue signalling". Can I get a "woke mob"? I mean, enforcing consequences for using the kernel as an unwilling lab rat clearly makes one part of the woke mob.

    Leave a comment:


  • ddriver
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Well, all we have is your words...
    Clearly, the context of my post was referencing the supposed upholders of "ethics", and the distance between their words and actions, but even more importantly - claimed and deduced from the outcome motivations, curious to why you'd decide to twist it orthogonality, especially in light of the fact you haven't offered anything better than words yourself.

    Likely it is that same reason why you misidentify realism for "extreme cynicism", or confuse "being a realist" with "being interested in begin a realist". Or attention to detail with extreme, counter-productive internationalism. Or vagueness for genericity...

    It is a tendency with you at this point, those are a bit too many to be attributed to coincidence.

    Being interested into being anything ... is a paradox. Technically, you can't be interested into being something you are not, because you don't really know what it is unless you are it. At best, you can be interested in being what you believe being a realist is. But your belief about realism doesn't strike as realistic, and belief itself is kind of an opposite to realism. Yours are words of someone who does not acknowledge reality as it is, the reason for which is either mental or intellectual insufficiency, usually a combination of both. So you are stuck at the shallow end, with all the realist wannabes that like the decoration of pretending to be it, but are afraid of the deep dark coldness of diving in.

    And I mean the deep dark coldness of the ocean metaphor I used, not that those are intrinsics of being a realist. The sun is equally bright and warm to those that believe it to be a divine entity as it is to those that know it is a ball of gas. I am clarifying since... you know... you tend to take out of context and misunderstand everything that doesn't suit you.

    Originally posted by ferry View Post
    Yes, that is exactly right. Moral leadership works top down. I wouldn't be surprised if the research started during a period while US moral leadership was weaker then normal (that has had farther repercussions then just this research, even in my country NL it appears now that our government believed that lying was just creating alternate truths).
    Yes, precisely, it is all Trump's fault.

    They should ban Trump from contributing to linux and get it over with, problem solved.
    Last edited by ddriver; 25 April 2021, 07:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by slightEdge View Post
    The University...
    • owned up to its mistakes
    • had no problem being called out
    • apologized
    • promised to do better
    • identified what it learned for the experience
    If my child or younger siblings took responsibility like this, I would consider the healing process to be in motion.
    If they exclaimed "cancel culture", I would not.
    The University and the people within are not children obviously. Hopefully, the main point is not lost.
    All of that is positive, but I believe we still don't have an explanation of how this was allowed to happen, in the first place. They said there's an investigation, and hopefully they'll provide some insight into that and into what concrete changes are being made to prevent similar missteps being made, in the future. They really need to do more than just: "sorry, we promise we'll do better."

    Then, there's the question of the paper & presentation being completely withdrawn.

    Leave a comment:


  • ferry
    replied
    Originally posted by ddriver View Post

    Universities are not daycare centers. Nobody should expect any institution to scrutinize each and every action of each and every of members. There is supposed to be personal accountability at the final stage before each and every action is committed.

    Because if we follow that chain of logic, if the universities are responsible for what students do, then the ministry of education is responsible for what universities do, and the government is responsible for what the ministry of education does. So it is really the government's fault, see?
    Yes, that is exactly right. Moral leadership works top down. I wouldn't be surprised if the research started during a period while US moral leadership was weaker then normal (that has had farther repercussions then just this research, even in my country NL it appears now that our government believed that lying was just creating alternate truths).

    That's why we fire or put on trial entire boards of directors when somebody in the organization purposely damages society.

    In this case, the university has a reputation and it's the responsibility of the universities leadership to protect that.

    Leave a comment:


  • slightEdge
    replied
    Originally posted by slightEdge View Post

    What is the difference between "cancel culture" and holding a subject accountable?
    Did I just answer my own question when I wonder if someone is a "rebel" or "wanna be" when someone's cause is freedom of speech?

    hmmm.... let me think about this.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X