Didn't we have a ruling recently saying that things like this were not a violation of the CFAA?
“I am altering the deal. Pray that I don’t alter it any further…”
That'd be what the CSPU said. The legislature responded with:
"Your alteration is invalid."
It's not like the troll at all. Scriber is like a traditional platform: up-front about the fees it charges, and about what it supplies for that fee. Selling content requires two basic things beyond a supply of content (which the creator handles): the platform to deliver that content to the buyer, and the service needed by the platform to handle payment processing. Those two things are what Scriber supplies in return for a fixed fee per transaction (which would be a subscriber-month since each subscriber is being charged once per month for that month's content). Like platform services like AWS or Linode they simply supply the platform to the creator and leave the creator front-and-center on the resulting site. Compare that to OnlyFans or Patreon which put the platform front-and-center and make the creators appear subordinate to it. OnlyFans and Patreon also charge fees as a percentage of the price charged to the customer, making their money off the value the creator is providing to the customer. Scriber with it's fixed fee is making it's money off the value it provides to the creator, independent of what the creator is charging the customer.
If another company comes up with an alternative to Scriber, the creator could up and move to the new platform without any really visible change to their customers. At worst they'd have to have customers re-enter their payment information if Scriber didn't allow for transferring payment information to another service.
Oh, and for any argument that complex electronics can't be expected to last that long, bear in mind that the average lifespan of the x86 PCs I build is 12-15 years before they start suffering failures of non-upgradable components. The most common reason I replace cel phones is inability to get replacement batteries when the existing ones fail, followed by physical damage to the screen (which should be repairable, but usually the new screen costs almost as much as a complete new phone would) or the USB port (same deal). I've yet to have one die because the electronics or screen actually failed other than because of physical damage. So yes, you absolutely can expect complex electronics to last a lot longer than the manufacturers would like them to.
Maybe it might help if proponents of the bill bring up the story about the John Deere dealer flatly refusing to repair a John Deere tractor, and counter the lobbyists with the demand that if the manufacturer gets to be the only source of repairs then the manufacturer has to take on a legal obligation to repair any in-service device. They don't have to do it under warranty, but they can't refuse a repair request for any reason other than refusal to pay by the customer. And "in-service" means just exactly that: the device was in service before the repair was requested. The manufacturer's supported lifetime is irrelevant, only whether the customer was using it or not. Alternatively, the in-service lifetime can be determined by the expected time-to-failure of the actual electronics. Not the time until the manufacturer considers them obsolete, the time until they can be expected to start physically failing. Replaceable components like batteries don't count against that lifetime since they're expected to be replaced during the usable lifespan of the device (if the manufacturer designs the device so replaceable components can't actually be replaced that's the manufacturer's problem, not the customer's).
Alternatively, if they don't want to take on the responsibilities of having a monopoly on repair then they can give up that monopoly.
“If there are tweets that are wrong and bad, those should be either deleted or made invisible, and a suspension, a temporary suspension is appropriate but not a permanent ban.”
So, Elon's saying he's solved the traveling salesman problem and proven P = NP?
It sounds like a case of legal definitions here, and the judge is going with the legal definition of "profession" rather than the common definition (I'm not sure whether the law in question specifies which definition is in use).
By the legal definition, "software engineer" isn't a profession in the same sense as "civil engineer", "anesthesiologist" or the like. There's a lot of other differences, but one of the key ones is that a civil engineer is held legally responsible for his work: if he signs off on plans for a structure and that structure fails, he's on the hook for any errors. "Law enforcement" wouldn't be a profession in that sense either, given the clear bad behavior and lack of accountability seen there.
If I were appealing, I'd look at the language of the law for any hint as to the definition of "profession" and whether it supported the legalistic definition the judge used or the more common definition most people would use when talking about what job you were in.
Why would they lose money? Disney keeps all the revenue, all they lose is $1-2B in bond debt, the cost of maintaining roads, waterways etc., the cost of operating emergency services, and they even get a lower property tax rate out of the deal. Looks to me like Disney makes out like a bandit on this deal. The only ones that might have to close up shop are the counties involved. I wonder what happens to responsibility for that bond debt if the counties declare bankruptcy?
Am I free to go?
This was true way back in the BBS days. We had people always complaining that the moderators were out to get them, that the BBS or the network was specifically targeting them or their viewpoint. And always when you looked back at what got them suspended or banned, it was that they were being jackasses.
The difference was that on the BBS networks moderation was always done in public. When you were moderated and action taken, the message(s) that caused it were always referenced and were available for anyone to look at. If you wanted to dispute/appeal the decision, you had to do it in a forum that was open to everyone to view. You wouldn't believe how many of the complainers refused to dispute the decision knowing that the very first thing that'd be posted in response to their dispute was their own words quoted from the messages that caused the decision and it'd be blatantly obvious from that that the decision was correct and they deserved what they got (or worse, many of the forum participants were of the opinion that the moderators had more patience than a saint when it came to the problem cases).
Maybe that's what platforms should do from now on. When eg. a Twitter user gets banned, there's an account where a thread gets opened for their ban quoting the tweet(s) that got them banned and a statement of which policies those tweets violated. Make it easy to pull their complaints about being censored into the context of not only what they actually said but of everyone else being "censored" for the same thing.
I think the FBI should've requested the CVE when they notified WatchGuard. Maybe knowing that their customers will know they're hiding the problem will motivate them to stop hiding the problem.
I think the outcome would've been the same: the child still intended to touch him, that he didn't touch exactly where he intended doesn't make the touch unintentional. It also crosses with another principle, that the transgressor has to take their victim as they are, not as the transgressor thought them to be. That the other kid was so fragile that a touch that wouldn't've bothered any other kid would kill him is the defendant's problem and can't be handwaved away. I think the intent behind both these principles is the same: to reinforce that you aren't supposed to commit the tort at all, even if you think it won't hurt anyone.
I can't help but think maybe attempts to ameliorate the most disproportionate consequences of those principles is misguided. How many cases of sexual assault have occurred because the men involved (and it's usually men) thought it was fine because the women weren't actually hurt by a little groping?
Whether this tactic is acceptable or not should be an open-and-shut question. It's the same question as asking "Should the police be able to, without any warrants, cordon off several blocks around a crime scene, round up everybody within the cordon (even those not out in a public area) and haul them down to the station for questioning?". Because that's exactly what the cops are asking to do with geofence "warrants".
And, sometimes, that means banning trolls, assholes, and hate mongers… rather than pretending that’s what makes a site useful.
That becomes a problem when trolls, assholes and hate mongers are your primary target demographic. That type absolutely hates it when they're the overwhelming majority, because then they have no targets to go after and with no targets the site's no fun for them. There is no solution to this that'd be acceptable to Trump and his supporters.
Cutting the populace off though just helps Putin. Outside information is the biggest threat to his control, and cutting off Internet access to the whole of Russia will do more than he ever could to insure the Russian people don't get outside information. It won't bother the oligarchs or the government one bit, they can afford to bypass the blocks or just plain have their own networks independent of the Internet they can use. Getting the populace to rise up and revolt is a hard sell, because the government controls the Red Army and the soldiers have even less outside information and are more indoctrinated than the general population so more willing to go along with orders.
The financial sanctions, though, those will have an effect. They hit the oligarchs right where it hurts: the pocketbook. Hurt them enough, and they'll decide that Putin needs to step back and let someone else run things "due to concerns about his health" (ie. if he doesn't he risks coming down with a sudden case of heavy-metal poisoning).
Internet infrastructure like DNS should never be managed based on politics. The various platforms and organizations may or may not be completely neutral, but they should be non-political. Managing things based on politics is exactly what governments like Russia and China want, exactly what groups like the alt-right want, and I prefer an Internet that has no part of that.
Note that hard-wired sensors are vulnerable to the same kind of attack. For a window sensor, for example, the intruder can cut an opening in the glass and either sever the connecting wire or jumper across the sensor (depending on the alarm system) and open the window without the system detecting it. Very few alarm systems have interior motion sensors, which would be harder to deal with, because of problems with false alarms.