[tempest_]

Repo claims

> A single archive of public exploit PoCs and vulnerability research writeups. At the time I post these, none have been reported. Feel free to report them yourself and take credit for the CVE if handed out lulz. Please do not abuse these. I do this so to allure people into the field, and I've always found this is the most efficient way.

Which is roughly the definition of zero day. Whether the contents of the repo reflect the above claim is something else entirely.

[tyre]

> Please do not abuse these.

Reminds me of Jamie Wolf's joke about bestiality laws. Who are those for? What stops most people from bestiality is… not wanting to have sex with animals! For people who do want to, what, they won't because of… the law??

Who will this comment stop??

[GTP]

Well, it's a joke because the problem becomes apparent after you think a bit about it. The exact same reasonig can be applied to anything illegal, criminals are criminals because they don't respect the law, so you could try to say that laws are useless. Reality is, if something is illegal not only someone can be punished after the fact, but in some cases also preventive measures can be taken.

Regarding the comment, it isn't going to stop anyone. Most people will not do cybercrime because they're honest. Of the remaining, the risk of being sentenced to jail time will instead stop some people, even if not all of them.

[BoxFour]

Those seem like two different scenarios though, right?

The point of beastiality laws are to give society some recourse to punish people who abuse animals.

There was a very famous case back in Washington state back in the early 2000s where a group of men were sexually abusing horses. It was uncovered because one of them died, and the other could only be charged with trespassing because it wasn't illegal at the time to sexually abuse animals.

[jldl805]

The laws are to punish the act once discovered. Not to inhibit it, primarily. Which I suppose cuts down on the incidence of the act in the long run,

[ElFitz]

That’s one school of thought. Law as a tool to punish those who have committed a prohibited act, mostly reactive.

Others consider law a way of encoding the group’s existing rules and norms.

In that view, making something illegal or mandatory is not a prerequisite for punishment: it’s the actual main point.

The threat of punishment is meant for those not deterred from an act by the simple fact it is illegal (and the threat only works if enforced).

Others put it the other way around, and see law as social engineering, a way to shape the group, either through the encoding itself of the desired behaviours in law, or through deterrence. Or both. If what one is after is either power or legitimacy, they need compliance more than punishment (can’t rule once you’ve chopped everyone’s heads off, or once the mob has put yours on a spike).

It’s also sometimes used as coordination (which side of the road we drive on).

And there’s also law as dispute resolution (if your neighbour’s hen lays an egg in your garden, who does it belong to? Yes, it’s ridiculous. Yes, some places have one or more laws for that). Which, incidentally, both requires and provides legitimacy. Funny, that.

And probably many other kinds / points of view, with many different purposes, intents, and mechanisms.

Anyway, all that to say law is vast, fascinating, and utterly tedious. And apologies for the tangent.

[utopiah]

If it stops even just 1 person once, isn't it already worth it?

[seanclayton]

> Who are those for?

The people who want to see the people doing bestiality punished

[chaboud]

I don't want to "see" any of it...

[nostrademons]

The jury, maybe.

[PKop]

Either the fear of the consequences of breaking the law, or that the most effective way to reduce crime is to remove criminals from the population so over time these people being in jail or worse decreases the crime rate. They don't have to care about breaking laws in the abstract for the law, properly enforced, to reduce crime.