For the third time, we get it.
Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis
31–40 of 68 posts
Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis
#32I tend to disagree with the banks' assessment that it will undermine public confidence. The research gives the public one more piece of information to judge the risks for placing their money in a financial institution.
The banking sector as participants in a free market who frequently advocate for opening of more sectors of the economy to the free market (and rightly so) should be encouraging such research. The research gives consumers of banking services more accurate information to consider when deciding how accessible their money should be. Additional information allows consumers to make more informed choices regarding the trade offs between security and convenience. Banks could offer insurance to their customers to protect them against the risks while still keeping the benefits of increased convenience.
It's an opportunity for the banks to differentiate their services and cater to the needs of their customers. Yes, not having a PIN is less secure, but it's also more convenient, with proper positioning of their products banks should be able to offer tailored solutions that better address the needs of their customers.
Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis
#33Nice to see this sort of thing. I was worried it was extinct.
Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis
#34Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis
#35>Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin. This is a very elegant way of giving them the finger.
It's also a surprising appeal to authority logical fallacy. Those people don't work there anymore.
(not that I disagree with them that they shouldn't censor the findings)
Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis
#36>Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin. This is a very elegant way of giving them the finger.
It's also a surprising appeal to authority logical fallacy. Those people don't work there anymore. (not that I disagree with them that they shouldn't censor the findings)
it's browbeating, a cornerstone of academia
Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... because it documented a well-known flaw in the chip-and-PIN system... The author of the article at least believes that it is a well-known flaw so responsible disclosure isn't really applicable.
Well I think you hit the nail on the head, that the disclosure isn't responsible. I'm all for bringing the flaws in chip-and-pin to the public attention, however I find it distasteful that a leading university publishing the schematics of a device that can be used to commit fraud, receives so much applause for this community. I get the impression that this has captured the public mood of "sticking it to the bankers",…
"Responsible disclosure" is a term with a specific meaning in the field of security, using the term is not equivalent to agreeing with it's implied meaning.
In fact, many would argue that responsible disclosure is anything but, since it has the tendancy tp maximize the amount of time the public is at risk.
All of this is ignoring the fact that this paper wasnt even disclosure at al...
Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis
#38>Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin. This is a very elegant way of giving them the finger.
It's also a surprising appeal to authority logical fallacy. Those people don't work there anymore. (not that I disagree with them that they shouldn't censor the findings)
On the one hand, I don't want to feed the pedantry. On the other hand, it's only a logical fallacy if it fouls an argument. In this case, it's not being used (so far as I can see) in the course of a direct argument. Here's the whole sentence:
> Cambridge is the University of Erasmus, of Newton, and of Darwin; censoring writings that offend the powerful is offensive to our deepest values.
It's not part of a syllogism. It's the author's statement of core values (as he sees them) of Cambridge. It's part of an explanation for why he won't do something, not an attempt to prove that he shouldn't.
Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis
#39"we have no choice but to back him. That would hold even if we did not agree with the material!"
Reminds me of a Frankin quote: "Sir, I disagree with you, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
Re: Cambridge University refuses to censor student's thesis
#40First, he thrusts the knife in, then violently twists it -- "Accordingly I have authorised the thesis to be issued as a Computer Laboratory Technical Report. This will make it easier for people to find and to cite, and will ensure that its presence on our web site is permanent....". Classic.
The Brits often have such a way with words. Bless them.