And thereby accomplishing what, exactly? There is still merit, albeit not from a material wealth standpoint, for doing the right thing for the right reasons.
And thereby accomplishing what, exactly? There is still merit, albeit not from a material wealth standpoint, for doing the right thing for the right reasons.
But in the grand scheme of things, does it even punish the tech giants? They have so many claws in a users life, and in the case of apple, your only other choice is google or a bunch of shady oems.
At the end of the day the only people who pay for it are users themselves, their data is comprised and irreversibly out there
That sounds like a good enough reason to report these bugs for someone with morals.
You can likely rely on a good majority of people to do the right thing when it isn't for or against their interests in any substantial way.
I'm not sure the amount of people that will do the right thing when it's not in their best interests by some small but noticeable amount.
I'm also not sure the amount of people that will do the right thing when it's vastly against their best interests, but it's bound to be far less that the prior group, and I suspect it's way below a majority.
The point isn't that these people aren't doing the "right thing", it's that these programs are designed to align doing the right thing with the best interests of the researchers, so noting that we might get more results that are not in the best interests of society at large or the company in question if they don't hold up to what they agreed to is not only a valid observation, it's the likely outcome if we're to expect these programs exist for a reason.
To put this in perspective, say you find a suitcase with a million dollars in it. You can turn it in, or you can keep it for yourself. If there's no real expectation you'll get anything if you turn it in, how does the reasoning go in your head? What if you know you'll get 10% for finding it and turning it in? What if you live in abject poverty? What if you have $60k worth of medical bills for a family member to pay off?
...$$$$?
By that logic, a grocery store giving away everything for free is the right thing to do. Doesn't lead to anything sustainable though.
Actual weapons our government sold to Saudi and other's.
Selling a zero day would probably fall under a weapons clause.
Most zerodays are probably not bought by china to spy on dissidents, they are more like knives. On the contrary, when we sell bombs to Saudis we can be 95% sure they will be used in Yemen.
https://theoutline.com/post/8610/united-states-russia-whatab...
There seems to be the strange wordview where ordinary joe must be morally impeccable but its corporate leadership can be as immoral as they come.
Like the richer you are, the less rules you have to follow. Surelly it should be the other way round?