I believe that we should not use flags or close votes to enforce content that is legitimately on topic, yet has potential ethical or moral issues involved.

Create a unterminable process in Windows

I am going to be perfectly honest here, I don't believe him that he is not trying to create a piece of malware or do something malicious.

On the other hand though, I am intrigued and fascinated about the ingenuity of Evil Software Developers. The more we understand how Evil Software Development works then the better equipped we are to combat such negative activity. The community as a whole is richer for having such content.

So what do you believe, do you consider questions where the OP is coming from an unethical or immoral place are justified in being closed as Not Constructive, or do you believe we have no right to judge others content by their morality?

share
2  
    
I'm really uncertain about this, however I'm pretty sure having such things shared through SE opens SE up to a variety of legal concerns if the OP were to go and commit an illegal act and it was tracked back to him being told how on here.. Does SE proper not have a clear stance on this due to such concerns? –  Jimmy Hoffa Feb 15 '13 at 19:09
    
@JimmyHoffa This could happen for something that is directly harmful (e.g. discussing how to attack a specific site). Not for general discussion about tools. SE proper does have a clear stance, since they allowed a site about firearms (which shut down due to a lack of activity, not due to concerns about the subject matter). –  Gilles Feb 15 '13 at 19:57
3  
1  
@JimmyHoffa - there's a difference between discussing conceptual attacks and actually providing the attack code. "Good" security starts with a solid understanding of how the attacks can occur. Given the wide diversity of potential attacks, knowing which vectors are the most serious is beneficial in defending yourself. –  GlenH7 Feb 15 '13 at 20:38
1  
@JimmyHoffa - Actually, Gilles said it a lot better in his answer here: meta.security.stackexchange.com/a/904 –  GlenH7 Feb 15 '13 at 20:41
    
@GlenH7 there's a great comment on his answer meta.security.stackexchange.com/questions/903/#comment1363_904 which says basically what I am concerned about, I think there needs to be a line not to be crossed- but I have no idea where that line belongs. –  Jimmy Hoffa Feb 15 '13 at 21:08
2  
I for one voted to close as NARQ because of the text I read in rev 1: "I want to create a application in VB6 which blah-blah. Is it possible to create one and how to create one." I didn't care (and still don't) if this text is OT or whatever else. Stuff that reads gimmecodez = NARQ, "cannot be reasonably answered in its current form", we're not a code factory here –  gnat Feb 15 '13 at 22:43
1  
@gnat Post that as an answer, so I can upvote it (properly). That's the actual problem with the question. Also: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/8136650#8136650 –  Yannis Rizos Feb 16 '13 at 12:40
    
@YannisRizos here you go: re-posted as answer –  gnat Feb 16 '13 at 14:26

4 Answers 4

Morality aside, I believe that this question is off topic for P.SE.

The digging into the specifics of an implementation that are not theoretical/conceptual (How to write the squares of numbers without variables in Java to demonstrate functional programming concepts) would best be on Stack Overflow.

The specifics of the investigation on the security aspects (all of circumventing, identifying programs that have circumvented, and circumventing the circumvention) of a particular operating system seems more appropriate for Security.SE.


With respect to the actual code itself, this starts getting into a realm of legality that likely should be answered by, well I don't see anyone on the SE team that appears to have a legal backing on the title.

Ask "what happens when SE is hosting code for exploiting holes in XYZ" where XYZ is any of Java, Windows Security, etc...

If someone posted the code to the java applet security hole in CodeReview.SE asking how to improve it... what then?

share
2  
Based upon the edits maple_shaft put in, I think it's on-topic. Discussing the concepts surrounding an interminable process are most certainly on-topic. Actually writing the code to do so? Meh, not so much. –  GlenH7 Feb 15 '13 at 20:30
1  
That may be, and it does look better now (though the "What are some strategies" makes me think it moved more in the direction of "not constructive). That said, he reposted on Security.SE (which I think is on topic) and now discussing in comments of an answer various applications that have unkillable processes (something that would likely take a fair bit of time to explain what is going on). –  MichaelT Feb 15 '13 at 20:45

I would not judge content based on it's potential moral or ethical uses

The more we know about security loopholes, the more secure we can build our applications. Consider for example, the exact same question asked, but with the purpose of preventing such security loopholes in the first place. Then the moral/ethical argument would no longer be there, and you'll still get the exact same answers.

In addition, the OP is very correct with his comment that "when you learn cyber hacking and various exploits, it is not necessary you wants to be a black hat hacker". In fact, the US government plans to dramatically increase the size of their cyber security department, and plan on hiring many more "hackers" in the future.

Also as a side note related to that specific question, I recently wrote up an answer to a MSO question about effective ways to guide new users so they have a higher chance of becoming a contributing member of the SE communities, and one of the points there was to "Assume the best about the user, and not the worst"

The question you posted as an example is the exact sort of case I was referring to. By assuming the worst about the person (that they are only asking to create malware), you are presenting the OP with a very unfriendly welcome to the site, and it is unlikely they will stick around.

In contrast, if you assume the best (that they are merely a curious student like they say they are), they are much more likely to listen to what you say, and may potentially become a contributing member to the community in the future.

share
1  
So, are you nominating? –  Robert Harvey Feb 19 '13 at 20:53
    
@RobertHarvey No. I meant what I said in my profile about being done with this site because of it's current direction and moderation style. A moderator is elected to help with exceptions the community can't handle, not to make big sweeping changes to the site or to push their point of view of the site onto the community. Why on earth would I want to be moderator here if I disagree with the site's direction? Besides, I'd probably get kicked off the mod team fairly fast if I had the ability to undelete and reopen with a single vote. :) –  Rachel Feb 20 '13 at 13:36
    
Technically speaking, it wasn't the moderators who made the scope change; it was SE corporate. But, as you wish. –  Robert Harvey Feb 20 '13 at 15:30
    
@RobertHarvey Yes, I didn't mean to make it sound like I thought the current or past moderators were changing the site according to their ideals. I meant that I'd be a terrible moderator here since I never agreed with the changes to the site, and I'd still be pushing to change things and would be very liberal with my reopen and undelete votes :) –  Rachel Feb 20 '13 at 15:43

I for one voted to close as NARQ because of the text I read in rev 1:

I want to create a application in VB6 which blah-blah. Is it possible to create one and how to create one.

You see, I didn't care (and still don't) if the blah blah part is OT or whatever else.

Stuff like that reads gimmecodez / do my research and means NARQ, "cannot be reasonably answered in its current form", we're not a code / research factory here.

share

This question is strong on Security.SE, if we have it open in programmers in exactly the same form, it's cross posting.

There is a germ of potential for this being a constructive question for programmers, but not in its current form; it is asking for specifically technical information and is cross post.

Like you've said ethical/moral questions are constructive and interesting, but if such a question isn't a good question, it'll get closed.

share

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .