3 ms·
> In the 6 years since, has there been a followup that shows that this malfunction was intentional, i.e. not a bug? Why assume it's a bug? That should be for t
by deogeo 7y ago
> In the 6 years since, has there been a followup that shows that this malfunction was intentional, i.e. not a bug?
Why assume it's a bug? That should be for them to prove. And why would there be a follow-up if they never get prosecuted in the first place? Follow up by who?
> And any documents that describe the intended malbehavior?
Selling devices that betray their owners isn't enough - they'd have to also be incompetent enough to create documents that is what they intended?
Just what kind of insane standard of proof do you require for a prosecution to start (not convict, start)?
- danso 7y ago> Just what kind of insane standard of proof do you require for a prosecution to start (not convict, start)? Cite the relevant criminal statute.
- deogeo 7y agoI already have, in the very first post.
- danso 7y agoSo are you going to cite the specific section, or are you avoiding it because you don't want to talk about the parts that say "knowingly and with intent"?
- deogeo 7y agoThey knowingly and with intent implemented spying functionality, and knowingly and with intent made a button that claims to turn it off. The only part they might not have done knowingly and with intent is the part where that button does nothing. Now they're free to argue that was a bug, but they should do so in court - just how much benefit of the doubt do you think they should get before a prosecution is launched? If there's a murder, do you just assume it was in self-defense, without any evidence offered to that effect?