If you sell information about a vulnerability to someone that you know specifically is going to use it to break the law, you are an accessory to that lawbreaking. Ask Stephen Watt how this plays out.
Please read my posts more carefully. Virtually every response is non-responsive to what I wrote:
I wrote: "unless you're dumb enough to ask questions about whom your selling to and have active knowledge you're assisting someone in breaking some law, selling to the black market is perfectly legal"
You wrote: "If you sell information about a vulnerability to someone that you know specifically is going to use it to break the law, you are an accessory to that lawbreaking"
That's the exact same thing.
You, likewise, didn't notice I was advocating for new statutes in a post above.
Someone gives you two kilos of cocaine, doesn’t tell you what’s in the box and tells you not to open it while you transport it across the border and when you get your the other side someone will pay you $20000.
You get caught by the DEA. Do you think it’s a valid defense “I didn’t ask what was in the box”?
Say the drug dealer you delivered it to got caught and then told authorities you delivered it to them, do you think you would have a valid defense?
Is that the right analogy? This sounds more like a free speech and free speech exceptions type of issue.
(Commenters keep moving the goalposts making for a complex thread where each node in the tree litigates a very different hypothetical situation. Ah HN!)
Similar to publishing say... the Anarchists Cookbook.
> unless you're dumb enough to ask questions about whom your selling to and have active knowledge you're assisting someone in breaking some law, selling to the black market is perfectly legal
This goes directly to the concept of “willful blindness”
