undefined | Better HN

0 pointsLegionMammal9781y ago0 comments

Which process ensures that the company should actually care in the slightest about an uncharitable blog post or two, especially when its motivations are opaque enough that the lack of payment might be chalked up to "there's a good reason for that"?

If the cost of an uncharitable blog post is less than the cost of paying out the bounty, then a company would still be incentivized to find as many reasons to reject a payout as possible, as long as future reporters still believe they have a good chance of receiving a payout (e.g., if they believe they can sideskirt any rejection reasons).

0 comments

tptacek1y ago

The cost of an uncharitable blog post is massively more than the price of a bounty, like, it's not even close. The cost of an uncharitable blog post is potentially unbounded (as in: not many people in a large tech company would know how to put a ceiling on the cost), and the cost of a bounty, even a high one, is more or less chump change.

Another in my long-running dramatic series "businesses pay spectacularly more for determinism and predictability than nerds like us account for".

LegionMammal978OP1y ago

> The cost of an uncharitable blog post is potentially unbounded (as in: not many people in a large tech company would know how to put a ceiling on the cost), and the cost of a bounty, even a high one, is more or less chump change.

Look up "apple bug bounty" on Google, or any other search engine of your choice, and you'll find absolutely no shortage of people complaining of issues with the program. If these complaints each cost Apple a bajillion dollars, then why haven't they shut down their program already?

Or, if almost all of those complaints are just from the reporter being dumb, then how are potential future reporters (who would care about the company's prospenity to pay) supposed to find actual meaningful complaints among the noise?

I don't think that sporadic blog posts are nearly as powerful as you're making them out to me: my intuition tells me that the company can usually ignore them safely, short of them making front-page news.

tptacek1y ago

Look, I believe you, but people complain about all these bounty programs, some of which I know to have been extraordinarily well managed, and usually when you get to the bottom of those complaints it comes down to a misapprehension the researchers have about what the bounty program is doing and what its internal constraints are. I acknowledge that another possibility is that the bounty program itself isn't performing well; that is a possibility (I have no actual knowledge about this particular case!)

The only thing here I'm going to push back on, and forcefully, is the idea that bounty programs have an incentive to stiff researchers. They do not. I cannot emphasize enough how "not real money" these sums are. Bounty program operators, the people staffing these programs, don't get measured on how few bounties they pay out.

2 more replies

saagarjha1y ago

Companies are not set up to accurately and effectively gauge the impact of intangible costs to themselves.

tptacek1y ago

Exactly, which is why intangible costs will tend to be overpriced compared to risks with low cost ceilings, like "paying out an extra bounty".

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

tptacek1y ago

Another in my long-running dramatic series "businesses pay spectacularly more for determinism and predictability than nerds like us account for".

LegionMammal978OP1y ago

tptacek1y ago

2 more replies

saagarjha1y ago

Companies are not set up to accurately and effectively gauge the impact of intangible costs to themselves.

tptacek1y ago

Exactly, which is why intangible costs will tend to be overpriced compared to risks with low cost ceilings, like "paying out an extra bounty".

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse