The whole purpose of disclosure, what is it really? If you're Anti-Sec you believe that it's to feed the gears of the fear machine. Forcing companies to purchase expensive security equipment and hiring security professionals to configure and maintain and validate that the equipment is protecting them from legions of script kiddies.

The point for them is, the free and open exchange of ideas and knowledge is too dangerous, too risky. The wrong prying eyes are learning, well not learning, more like copying the works of the true "elite" hackers. For Anti-Sec, there should be no security community. No open and free exchange of ideas. It's ruining their fun on the internet apparently.

Do they have a point? Is there some validity in their logic?

On the surface, I'm kind of tempted to say yes. The information disseminated can be used for nefarious activities. It can make it much easier for someone to learn how to "hack" into a network or host illegally, or legally. There is a certain Orwellian ring to the notion that the security community essentially blackmailing corporations, governments and individuals into securing their equipment and selves on the internet. Lets face it conspiracy theories are fun sometimes, aren't they?

But what about the notion of free and open exchange of ideas and research? Isn't that the entire reason there are networks upon networks that are inter-networked? Isn't that why the very internet itself exists?

Without open source, there wouldn't be linux. There wouldn't be the abundance of security tools. There wouldn't be much of anything...just a few monolithic corporations controlling every aspect of every second you spent on the internet. That doesn't sound like fun to me.

In reality, doesn't the enabling of legions of script kiddies, albeit annoying, help to secure our information?

I don't know the answers, I'm just a mildly interested observer. Of course, these views in no way represent this website, host, or affiliated providers.