[shubhamjain]

How about a moral obligation? Honestly, it sounds like if a taxi driver returns a bag full of cash to the owner, it is perfectlly alright if they just say "Thank you" and walk him to the road. Legally: nothing wrong, morally: being a greedy asshole.

[lmm]

Frankly if a taxi driver bitched on his blog about someone doing that I'd be saying the same thing. It's nice when someone gives you a reward for doing the right thing. But you shouldn't act like you're entitled to it, because you're not.

[Semaphor]

> But you shouldn't act like you're entitled to it, because you're not.

Depends where you are. In Germany you are entitled to a finder's fee by law (in the case of the taxi only if the value is > 50€ and only 2.5% instead of the normal 5%)

[kbenson]

That's an interesting point of view. I consider it being a greedy asshole when you feel entitled to a reward for doing the right thing.

[iwwr]

It should absolutely be in the interest of companies to reward security researchers who find flaws in their systems. Otherwise, they will be screwed by the less scrupulous.

[kbenson]

We are talking about different things. Sure it's in the company's best interest, just as it is in the interest of someone that loses their wallet to offer a reward. That said, when nothing is offered up front (possibly because the problem is unknown), to feel entitled to a reward and disgruntled when one isn't offered is not what I would call "moral" behavior, as brought up farther up-thread.

It's moral when you do it because it's obviously the right thing for everyone involved. When there's money involved, that's something else.

[pyre]

Just because you're complaining doesn't mean you feel entitled. If someone is rude to me and I complain about it, and I expressing that I feel entitled to have non-rude interactions with this person? If I post a negative book review am I feeling entitled to a good book?

[kbenson]

But is it rude for someone to not monetarily reward you for doing something good? That's what I was replying to up-thread. To feel you deserve compensation for a good deed when there was no prior agreement as such is indeed entitlement.

This thread hasn't really been about the article for a while. It's been about someone feeling that people that don't reward for good deeds are greedy assholes, which I think sets a bad precedent. If you want to incentivize fine, but let's not confuse that with what the right thing to do is.

How about a moral obligation? Honestly, it sounds like if a taxi driver returns a bag full of cash to the owner, it is perfectlly alright if they just say "Thank you" and walk him to the road. Legally: nothing wrong, morally: being a greedy asshole.

Edit: Fixed truncated second paragraph.

[shiven]

Clearly, you are being sarcastic!

If not, I am amazed by your naïveté.

[tantalor]

That's a false analogy. Taxi drivers are obligated to return lost property, but nobody is obligated to report bugs. That's why you create an incentive to report, i.e., the bug bounty.

"Taxi drivers and owners must return property they find in a taxicab." - http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/passenger/sub_lost_prop_inq...

[shubhamjain]

Aye! Its not a perfect analogy but I was pointing out why people should reward the guy if he didn't exploit the situation in a wrong way. In this case, it was the whole source available to him. Albeit, he was more or less inclined to report the bug but what if he hadn't and probably sold it somewhere? why shouldn't the company reward for his effort.

[balls187]

Morally: A good deed is it's own reward.

Further: Money doesn't have any owners. Only spenders.