3 ms·

There needs to be accountability. I can't put out notices accusing random businesses of being scams without opening myself to some sort of libel or defamation

There needs to be accountability. I can't put out notices accusing random businesses of being scams without opening myself to some sort of libel or defamation lawsuit. The same should apply to security vendors that falsely mislabel other peoples' software as being malicious without good cause.

ameshkov 7y ago
I am not sure if an indie developer can afford doing that anyway.
- mooman219 7y ago
  This sounds like something the EFF could take to court and clear up the ambiguity in one case than hundreds of defamation cases
Nasrudith 7y ago
That is just silly from both a security standpoint and a libel and defamation standpoint. They are specifically heuristic algorithm based and by definition they aren't perfect but can actually keep up with the massive volumes and unknowns. It is /not/ random or capriciously applied even if outcomes are flawed which makes the comparison apples to hand grenades regardless of false positives. Even if their approach utterly sucked it wouldn't be libel or defamation any more than saying "Never trust a company which changes its name without the old name featuring sonething which becane obsolete." or "Any company with a rate of growth over 10% for ten consecutive quarters is probably a Ponzi Schene".
- TheCoelacanth 7y ago
  It is capriciously applied if they don't acknowledge the possibility of mistakes and have some way of dealing with them.
- snickerbockers 7y ago
  No, that's not how things work. You don't get to apply a defective algorithm to a problem, and then claim that you aren't responsible for the results since the algorithm that you created is defective. Google has a very high false-positive rate with this. Any time they make a statement about another entity which is demonstrably untrue and causes harm to somebody's reputation or prevents them from generating revenue, that is grounds for a defamation lawsuit. The fact that they have automated their defamation does not remove their culpability. It might also be a violation of anti-trust law since Google has its own software-delivery channels which are not subject to the same warnings. >Even if their approach utterly sucked it wouldn't be libel or defamation any more than saying "Never trust a company which changes its name without the old name featuring sonething which becane obsolete." or "Any company with a rate of growth over 10% for ten consecutive quarters is probably a Ponzi Schene". It's completely different because those statements are not made about specific entities, nor do they make specific accusations about any entities.

ameshkov 7y ago

I am not sure if an indie developer can afford doing that anyway.

mooman219 7y ago
This sounds like something the EFF could take to court and clear up the ambiguity in one case than hundreds of defamation cases

Nasrudith 7y ago

That is just silly from both a security standpoint and a libel and defamation standpoint. They are specifically heuristic algorithm based and by definition they aren't perfect but can actually keep up with the massive volumes and unknowns. It is /not/ random or capriciously applied even if outcomes are flawed which makes the comparison apples to hand grenades regardless of false positives. Even if their approach utterly sucked it wouldn't be libel or defamation any more than saying "Never trust a company which changes its name without the old name featuring sonething which becane obsolete." or "Any company with a rate of growth over 10% for ten consecutive quarters is probably a Ponzi Schene".

TheCoelacanth 7y ago
It is capriciously applied if they don't acknowledge the possibility of mistakes and have some way of dealing with them.
snickerbockers 7y ago
No, that's not how things work. You don't get to apply a defective algorithm to a problem, and then claim that you aren't responsible for the results since the algorithm that you created is defective. Google has a very high false-positive rate with this. Any time they make a statement about another entity which is demonstrably untrue and causes harm to somebody's reputation or prevents them from generating revenue, that is grounds for a defamation lawsuit. The fact that they have automated their defamation does not remove their culpability. It might also be a violation of anti-trust law since Google has its own software-delivery channels which are not subject to the same warnings. >Even if their approach utterly sucked it wouldn't be libel or defamation any more than saying "Never trust a company which changes its name without the old name featuring sonething which becane obsolete." or "Any company with a rate of growth over 10% for ten consecutive quarters is probably a Ponzi Schene". It's completely different because those statements are not made about specific entities, nor do they make specific accusations about any entities.