somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> At different times, you said

> "No good deed goes unpunished."

  That's not the same thing as "his deed should have been rewarded".

> "Finding a security weakness and then *not* exploiting it for your own
> selfish purposes but instead reporting the weakness so that they will
> patch it justifies it."

  Still nothing about rewards.

> "Basically the situation is that the sysadmins *benefited* from the
> hacking, and as a reward, the university sues the person who performed
> the hacking."

  Sarcasm. Doesn't mean "they should have rewarded him with something
positive".

> If there's sarcasm, and there seems to be, it's in the opposite direction
> (ie directed at the expense of the university administration, for their
> "mishandling" of the situation).

  What I meant was that IMO the lawsuit was probably an exaggeration.

> It's of course possible that I'm reading it
> all wrong and you in fact believe that the hacker did a bad thing

  No, you said that in my opinion "the hacker should have been rewarded
instead". I never said anything like that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message