Fixing the Internet's Auto-Immune Problem
summary
Argues that vague laws produce an “auto‑immune” response that prosecutes good‑faith researchers, citing a Canadian case exposing 285 accounts and ambiguous Copyright and Criminal Code interpretations that can turn accidental findings into criminal risk. Proposes a concrete fix: a bilateral safe‑harbor framework implemented as Disclose.io directory plus copy‑paste policy text that defines explicit scope, rewards, and official contacts, requires timely responses, involves pro bono attorneys, and is already adoptable by programs to reduce legal risk and speed remediation.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (7)
- 0:00Introduction
- 2:19Kelly Dunham case impact
- 6:12Legal risks for researchers
- 8:19Need for standardized safe harbor
- 9:43Disclose.io framework explained
- 13:18Disclose.io in Canada
- 14:04How to participate
related talks
50mThe Big Chill: Legal Landmines that Stifle Security Research and How to Disarm Them
55mCybersecurity as Realpolitik
25mEverything Old Is New Again: Legal Restrictions on...
27mHacker Rights
41mThe Internet Isn’t What We Fight FOR, It’s What We Fight WITH
36mKeynote: We Deserve Rights
42mThe CCEL and the Thin Line Between Cyber Defence and Pre-emption…
27mJavaScript, Cyber-abuse and the Illusion of Privacy