71–80 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make it sound like it's a matter of academic freedom. It is not. Do you or do you not think that it should be acceptable to use language like "d4mn j3ws" in an academic forum?
Sticks and Stones [1]? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones
So what's next? Get these people fired from their jobs for having unapproved ideas? Also, who decides what is or is not toxic?
You make it sound like it's a matter of academic freedom. It is not. Do you or do you not think that it should be acceptable to use language like "d4mn j3ws" in an academic forum?
Should that sort of language be "acceptable?"
Well, I find it absurdly distasteful.
But clearly it's acceptable to some people.
Outside of the bounds of legality, you don't get to decide what is or is not acceptable for other people when it comes to speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intent matters. Both the police and kidnappers restrain people and lock them in rooms. Are they both criminals? Revealing people for their toxic behavior is in no way the same as toxic people doxxing others purely for what those other people believe.
Basically everybody who doxes thinks they have some ends that justify the means. That kind of mentality is toxic because every dirtbag uses it.
AIUI, doxxing requires either publishing a subject's days or taking action against the subject. The authors of this paper day they have no intention of doing so. It's mild.
How do they define “toxic?” A list of naughty words? Strange topic of research for an economist.
No, it's more than just words. Would you want to participate in a profession where roughly 50% of your colleagues go behind your back to spew outright hatred at your ethnic group? Do you think you have a right to know about such behavior? Here's a direct quote the paper has from EJMR: "And America lost its war against blks. [...] At least until we resolve to final solution" Do you have any empathy at all for those on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean the publicly posted IP address post link? That's not hacking.
That's sorta like saying that running JTR on password hashes doesn't amount to hacking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Black vs white hat is "did you break this and then use it to . That is a very narrow interpretation of "black hat". I think mainstream take is that black hat includes many legal but ethically dubious actions. Maybe you would call it "grey hat", I don't know. But publishing vulnerability without a responsible disclosure can be considered unethical. > But responsible vs irresponsible disclosure is not a question of "…
> But publishing vulnerability without a responsible disclosure can be considered unethical. Yes, there is debate on that, and there are arguments on either side. But given ejmr went 12 years without changing their "anonymization" scheme, and then changed it a short time prior to an article being published that demonstrated the scheme was broken, I think it's reasonable to presume ejmr was notified prior to publicati…
False on many levels and dangerous belief.
You are never ever fully anonymous writing online. It all depends on how difficult it is and how determined the threat.
Everything you post can be correlated with your other writing and online activity (even if you fake the style), ISP subpoenaed and tor nodes compromised. But most people are sorta anonymous because no one bothers to go through the trouble.
this is rly awful "research". ederer prob got bullied on there and got mad, cause he has a reputation as a bitch. more importantly, ejmr has been important in uncovering multiple cases of research fraud (including one of the literal damn authors, this is some vindictive ass bs) and is the best source for actual unfiltered info on opinions of econ departments. includes important info like info abt people's political b…
> this is rly awful "research". ederer prob got bullied on there and got mad, cause he has a reputation as a bitch. No. Also name calling, while commenting on something you clearly don't understand is not a good look. EJMR claimed to be anonymous. It was not, and what they were doing skipped the most absolutely trivial of steps for actual anonymization. The only difference between this week and last week, is that now…
1. report it like a good person
2. exploit it and dump the whole damn list of hashes
1 is research. 2 is blackhat shit. i agree the anonymization was bad, i agree rolling your own crypto is dumb, i'm arguing by addressing it the way he did, ederer is (consciously) attempting to break the valid role of anonymity and introduce a chilling effect.
there is a big difference between reporting a bug and using a rack of a100s to crack and hold info, with the subtle undercurrent that it could be released.
there's an obvious conflict here. ederer et al. don't like ejmr, so instead of looking to actually help, they went after something totally outside their usual just to be dicks about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Blaming the person who found out how terrible EJMR's "anonymization" was, is classic shooting the messenger. Found out! They had an enemy: a small forum that they did not control. They looked for ways to screw it. This isn't some good-natured happenstance, they targeted someone they didn't like so they could screw them. The result, the point, wasn't, "Hey, security is important, kids, let me highlight your errors" i…
Dude, you're hiding behind an explicitly anonymous account throwing random personal attacks at people. I literally had not heard about ejmr until this week. Direct your anger at ejmr, they're the people who made bogus claims about anonymity while using tools they lack the most basic understanding of. It also does not matter if it was some kind of personal "I hate this forum" or "I hate the creator". ejmr's anonymizat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make it sound like it's a matter of academic freedom. It is not. Do you or do you not think that it should be acceptable to use language like "d4mn j3ws" in an academic forum?
IIRC this is a private forum frequented by academics, not an academic forum. That is an important distinction. Should that sort of language be "acceptable?" Well, I find it absurdly distasteful. But clearly it's acceptable to some people. Outside of the bounds of legality, you don't get to decide what is or is not acceptable for other people when it comes to speech.