big_surprise

Right, I got that. I guess I meant to say- start young. Provide a compelling alternative to ad-driven consumerism... Otherwise, it seems that you're just talking about creating another new corporation with an more compelling (even if nonsensical) reason to adopt.

  So the question is how do we democratize that?

Commenter wtracy has already linked to the FSF's list of High Priority Free Software Projects... From there, look into what they have to say about free wifi (and in particular, but not limited to the OrangeMesh package): http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/free-software...

If a convincing case could be made that the benefits to National Security outweigh the costs to the copyright cartels, I'd be willing to bet that young secondary-schoolers would have a blast with a decently designed curriculum that includes a working student-to-student mesh-network as one of its goals.

As it turns out, the world is not as full of enemies as they say. Additionally, most symmetric actors generally also like to avoid their own downfall.

It's not meant to be funny, and if you don't have the time to read it and understand the context, well then -- it wasn't meant for you

Scene: FDA officials appearance at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (Subcommittee on Health)

Representative 1: We've been following this antibacterial resistance case closely for a few years now. Every year, a greater number of my constituents have related to me the story of how they lost a loved-one due to MSRA - and staph infection, as I understand, isn't even the only thing that this, uhh, the resistance to bacteria dru--err- medications. So, as you know, we've asked you here today to better understand how we can plan to solve this looming crisis. What have you got for us?

FDA1: Well, generally speaking, we've been working with a number of the same antibiotics that have been in use for many decades now. Their effectiveness has been continuously diminishing since the first introduction of each antibiotic. The general consensus here at the FDA is, we need to encourage the development and mass production of multiple new drugs to combat the inevitable growing resistance.

REP2: And what is it that you mean by inevitable?

FDA2: If I may field this question - what my colleague is referring to here is the fact that long-term exposure to specific antibiotics necessarily results in resistance to the same.

REP3: So, you're talkin' about evolution here, right? Just so we're all on the same page.

(Indistinguishable snickering throughout the room)

FDA2: Ye-- That's one way to describe it.

REP2: So what exactly is it that you need from us to enact your plan?

FDA1: Well, that's why we came to you. You see, it's not a very lucrative business opportunity -- developing a new antibiotic. Our custo-- your constituents would have to buckle their belts a little, because we need at least $30 million more for our budget to be pumped into early research in the university system.

(The whole crowd erupts in laughter!)

REP1: Hahahaha! Tax reallocations in this political climate! Don't get me started... But we did tell you to give us your pie in the sky ideas first, so what else do you have for us today?

FDA3: The abuse of antibiotics in the livestock industry is not onl--

REP2: Oh no... We've been through this before. How else are we going to get chickens big enough to feed the world?

FDA1: Well, there's an other option too. We could stop using antibacterial soaps more than necessary in hospitals, which as you know, are the hotbeds of new infe--

REP1: Let me stop you right there. Do you even have any idea as to how much we spent on the last - washing your hands saves lives - campaign? If our const-- your patients knew that you were just washing your hands with regular soap, do yo-- no. Not even an option. We don't want to call you here again for this same issue next year.

FDA4: What if we just banned them for personal use? No one would be negatively affected, and it would appear to be a decisive action to solve the problem.

REP1: That does sound reasonable... Any objections from the committee?

REP4: No, I don't have any soap manufacturers in my state-- hahaaha

REP1: Then a voiced vote shall suffice. All those in favor

I feel the same about you.

Perhaps so... As long as you recognize that your work is inherently dual-use (it has effects beyond your initial intent), and you don't intentionally hide that fact from yourself or others, then I have no problem with what you do.

No. By my logic, you are better off not doing vulnerability research in your spare time if you have to worry about the legal ramifications of your actions.

The ethical conundrums are unavoidable, and those calculations are indeed difficult.

The legal consequences are artifice, and by agreeing to those (while ignoring externalities and not going public), you are likely putting others at risk.

Then you misunderstood your own logical conclusion...

You said (and I quote):

  Can't I just flip this around on you and say
  you have an ethical obligation to spend some
  of your time looking for vulnerabilities?

No. No, you can't. Unless you could convince me that my Dwarf Fortress skills have a similar magnitude of real-world affect as the vulnerabilities I've discovered on my own and decided to pocket for one reason or another.

You assume that your own research machine can't be compromised, nor are the communication channels of the organization at fault.

So, it won't be fixed.

Hopefully only one or two people know about the same flaw you found...

Oh, but you would know ahead of time if concrete physical harm could possibly come to the victim of an accident?

Well good for you! You should probably be in charge of defending all infosec research, since apparently you can't be hacked.

You'll be depressed too... Once the transhumanists are successful in their plot to rule the entire planet, while they constantly insist on using "Homo Sapien Sapiens" as a colloquial derogatory term for "those intellectually-challenged violent brutes" ;)