This situation isn't the same as a protection racket. In a protection racket, it's the racketeers themselves that hurt you when you don't pay.

In this case, lawyers are more like mercenaries. Yes, you can pay them for protection, as you can a racketeer. The differences are that they don't come to you demanding money, and if you don't pay they won't turn around and hurt you, nor will anybody they're directly working with.

Some other lawyers may cause you grief; however, they will be working on behalf of some other party, not the lawyers you didn't hire.

You could argue that the legal system as a whole is a racket, but that's a different sense of the word.

1) You really shouldn't have an open conversation about knowledge that can easily kill people.

2) I'm pretty sure that communication isn't the problem, the problem is that he want's to pressure them into fixing their mess, and that is exactly the point where things get messy from a legal perspective. I can hardly imagine a legal system in which a situation like this would be unproblematic.

"an open conversation about knowledge that can easily kill people"

This phrase and the article contain the same fallacy ( ("disclosing 0days when they can kill people"). I may be accused of semantic quibbling here, but I think it is important to state the issues clearly and accurately.

Information cannot kill anyone, nor exert any effects at all, ever. It is not causal. Actions using the information may be enabled by knowledge of the information, but they are human choices and not automatic.

This is not merely a matter of careless expression that does not affect the argument. In fact the fallacy is not only, or not exactly supposing that knowledge is causal, but rather in eliding the whole articulation of what happens between the revealing or acquisition of knowledge and the action that may or may not use it in some way.

The situation has a common element with the gun control issue: if someone has a gun, violence is easier, and this may be considered bad, but it does not excuse conflating the shooter's action with someone else's conduct of merely allowing that person to have a gun. It does not shift any responsibility from a competent adult actor to someone who merely allows a gun to be available.

Note also that the gun-possessor, or the person newly armed with knowledge, need not act on it at all, and those who confuse things by missing these distinctions manage to avoid the fallacy in those cases.

> 1) You really shouldn't have an open conversation about knowledge that can easily kill people.

You mean like guns, toxins, and martial arts?

sigh. This will get boring quite fast because a sizable portion of people participating in threads like that find the idea revolting that actions can have, you know, consequences, but what the heck...

If you would find a recipe for a toxin that is deadly, untraceable and can be mixed together from common household items by a talented 14 year old, it's probably a bad fucking idea to post that to 4chan. The same goes for hypothetical weapon blue prints or martial arts techniques that would allow to kill with a microscopic risk.

>If you would find a recipe for a toxin that is deadly, untraceable and can be mixed together from common household items by a talented 14 year old, it's probably a bad fucking idea to post that to 4chan.

Does this count as a straw man argument? Wouldn't the actual scenario would be more like disseminating the information that a deadly toxin that is deadly, untraceable, and can be mixed together from common ingredients exists, not the recipe itself.

Well, that depends on whether he dropped the actual exploit, or just talked about it. Which was the original question.

This is an extensively amended and much weaker claim than your first.

Don't forget vehicles, diseases, sudden deceleration, falls, drops and darwin award winning behaviour.

It's important that people be aware of the risks they face, and seeking to silence that conversation is not helpful. If anything, it will create an environment where any perpetators might go unpunished because it's just implausible they did what they did.

>1) You really shouldn't have an open conversation about >knowledge that can easily kill people. I can easily kill someone with a rock. Just hit in the head, repeatedly. Why that should be a secret?