Publicly publishing an exploit is so obviously First Amendment-protected activity that it’s almost tempting to want a test case.
It would be an interesting case if the defendant had good representation.
A true popcorn case if this would go to court. Would cause lot of governments to think about their backend choices.
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2022/06/what-counts-as-good-fait...
Skimmed the article. Not seeing it support your claim.
"Congress shall make no laws ... "
The first amendment bars the *government* from infringing on your free speech. It has zero standing or bearing on private citizens or corporations.
Which is why people crowing about it on social media or universities are completely oblivious to the fact that these organizations have absolutely zero responsibility to enable your free speech.
This is a first amendment issue.
This is what happens when you jump the gun and publish without doing any research. The author needs to lookup how the CFAA works. Now, yesterday, and a decade ago, you couldn't just drop some exploit and walk away rambling about your rights. Dumpster fire takes are everywhere online.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#C...
Maybe you should look up who the author is.
GitHub, dead!
Windows, dead!
Xbox, dead!
Now security analysts blacklisted for disclosuring vulnerabilities.
Wait until the big players decide to ditch Microsoft altogether, I mean, why help when you are penalized for it??
With Microsoft doing so many things wrong, and users migrating to Linux because even Windows softwares have become evil, and security analysts jumping ship, let me tell ya, Copilot or even Mythos won't save you. AI is as good as the data it was trained on while humans adapt on the fly.
Boy oh boy, Microsoft started a war they cannot afford to loose, and yet they already lost.
This isn't "fixing the problem" at all. It's the opposite of fixing the problem.
The words "'s stance on zero day exploits" are unnecessary in the above sentence.
