On the site, that would equate to being approved for security information by others. I think that's not the kind of thing we'd want.I agree.
I'm saying that if you do not know the intent, then it's your job to ask if you're going to be concerned about how it's used.I agree.
Who will continue to answer questions related to security issues when they will be held responsible -- even if it's only by their peers and no legal body -- for the questioner's intent? If fewer people answer, where will that knowledge go?Very good questions. I don't think we should feel responsible for knowing the asker's intent. I do think we should feel responsible for trying to find it out when it's in question and to use our best judgement in assessing what we learn. If perlmonks were the only or a major place people got knowledge on security I would be more inclined to support the "answer almost anyone almost any time" approach.
In reply to Re^5: Information sharing
by jZed
in thread Information sharing
by dragonchild
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |