Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

lore.kernel.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 384 posts

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#141

Post by ddingus »

Igelau wrote: post #57
haswell wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they could have really helped themselves by being humble and truly apologetic. Simple things like: - "We are sorry for the harm we caused" instead of "We're sorry for any harm we caused" - Not trying to explain their actions in the first paragraph of the apology! I think most folks are aware of their intent by now, and leading with yet another explanation just makes the whole thing feel disingenuous - Avoid s…

> hallmarks of a non-apology Is that a thing? Like there's some non-apology Bingo card you can fill out? I don't see a connection between the criteria you listed and genuine-vs-false contrition. You may perceive these things one way, but ultimately you can't know the minds of others well enough to tell if they are sincere or not about anything. You don't get to just declare yourself the arbiter of their feelings beca…

Does the difficulty of knowing others not put something like this in the court of opinion?

I would expect it to be there and would minimize attempts to marginalize my apology with direct, precise, and inclusive language.

For every word created or omitted to those ends, the number of negative comments will be reduced.

Fact is people take it how they take it and feel what they feel.

There really is no "can't" in any of that.

...which is why the consistent feedback to those ends is here in the discussion.

How else is this to be done and be meaningful, not easily gamed?

Serious question.

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#142

Post by ddingus »

Covzire wrote: post #10
CharlesW wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just about to post: "This is a great apology." Context is everything, of course. I think you're right that it's tainted by the fact that they absolutely did not have a choice, and coming from people who've deceived the same tribes they're now trying to apologize to.

And what of the merits? If the previous 190 patches were indeed legitimate it strikes me as overly vengeful to pull them in a "punish the son for the sins of the father and the father for the sins of the son" kind of way.

The developers likely see a systemic problem, not just this group. That very significantly expands their scope of action.

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#143

Post by [deleted] »

cdrini wrote: post #135
juliansimioni wrote: post #91

This apology fails from the 5th word: "We sincerely apologize for any harm..." While there are other requirements, a sincere apology cannot in any way entertain doubt about the fact that there WAS harm. Truly acknowledging the harm done is foundational to a real apology, and most of us (myself included) end up sneaking in weasel words or phrases like this. Psychologically, its nice for the apologizer, since it allows…

This interpretation looks flawed. You discredit the entire message based on a single word--a very general word whose meaning you pinned to a definition which results in the most negative interpretation--and you also ignore the fact that they explicitly state the damage it caused in the same paragraph. To clarify: I'm not arguing this is a good or bad apology; just that the justification provided here looks flawed. Hu…

[deleted]

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#144

Post by ddingus »

Igelau wrote: post #51
haswell wrote: post #2

I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is written like an apology they know they must write . It does not come across as apologetic. It comes across as rationalization veiled as an apology, and it doesn't sit well with me. I hope I'm just being overly sensitive here.

Social media insanity has greatly reduced our capacity to accept public apologies at face value. There is always a seething mob that is ready to question the sincerity of the apology once there are no more demands left to be made.

Not really.

Well constructed apologies are hard to seethe over.

This one could be better.

Many, myself included, believe it should have been.

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#145

Post by plussed_reader »

cdrini wrote: post #135
juliansimioni wrote: post #91

This apology fails from the 5th word: "We sincerely apologize for any harm..." While there are other requirements, a sincere apology cannot in any way entertain doubt about the fact that there WAS harm. Truly acknowledging the harm done is foundational to a real apology, and most of us (myself included) end up sneaking in weasel words or phrases like this. Psychologically, its nice for the apologizer, since it allows…

This interpretation looks flawed. You discredit the entire message based on a single word--a very general word whose meaning you pinned to a definition which results in the most negative interpretation--and you also ignore the fact that they explicitly state the damage it caused in the same paragraph. To clarify: I'm not arguing this is a good or bad apology; just that the justification provided here looks flawed. Hu…

If this was a transcript of a spoken apology I might be of your train of thought, but this was a composed letter looked over by (ostensibly) multiple folks. The wording was a choice.

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#146

Post by ddingus »

cgriswald wrote: post #62
haswell wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their opening statement has the most classic of all non-apology tactics: "We're sorry for any harm we caused". Maybe this wasn't their intent, but this is one of the oldest "say the words without having to mean anything" tactics in the book. It's like telling your partner "I'm sorry if I hurt you". No, you hurt them. Apologize for hurting them.

An apology should be for actions taken, not for how the other party felt about it. Acknowledging those feelings is important, but taking credit for those feelings takes agency away from the other person.

That loss is accountability in action.

Agency returns as trust does.

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#147

Post by genmud »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #32

Does the response of the Linux community seem like the response of some corporations when security vulnerabilities are disclosed? In each case, a vulnerability was disclosed. With Linux being used everywhere you can be sure intelligence services etc are likely sending in bad patches. If the Linux kernel requires only patchers with good intentions, and doesn’t have other means of catching this stuff, we are screwed.

Everyone knows that happens. The issue is that these are presumably university funded researchers who intentionally tried to introduce vulnerabilities into the Linux kernel without working with the maintainers. It is fine to perform experiments like this, with permission. I think people are upset because there is a moral, ethical and social obligation expected from academia to not intentionally do shit like this.

They then published a paper and thought that this was acceptable behavior from a research/ethical standpoint.

Re: Open letter from researchers involved in the “hypocrite commit” debacle

#150

Post by nuclearnice1 »

genmud wrote: post #139
nuclearnice1 wrote: post #117

I agree with this post > Unless the researchers are lying (which I've not seen a clear indication of), the 190 patches you have selected here are nothing more than collateral damage while you are completely missing the supposed patch submission addresses from which the malicious patches were sent! This all really sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to thier posting. I have to say, I think it's the wrong reaction to have…

If someone, or in this case a set of affiliated someones, have proven to do malicious or ethically questionable things, trust has to be earned. The risk of letting things stay without extensive verification is not worth it and I definitely don't consider this a kneejerk reaction given the potential perception risks.

Hypocrite patches came from Gmail.

Banned umn mail.

Because that’s going to reduce risk?

Post reply on HN