3 ms·

DockerHub uses a company/product called "TrustArc: TRUSTe" and they have _exactly_ this method. The slowdown is intentional. People who come up with sort of tac

DockerHub uses a company/product called "TrustArc: TRUSTe" and they have _exactly_ this method. The slowdown is intentional. People who come up with sort of tactics and those who implement them should go to jail. It's beyond infuriating. I've decided to not upload my images to dockerhub because of this. Edit: jail time is not for anger obviously, but for intentionally swindling people. It'll be handled on a case by case bases obviously, but data is worth something, people who swindle you out of your data are like those who scam you in the street for your wallet, and as far as I know, there's jail time for that.

dsabanin 6y ago
Why jail? I think we should just execute them on the spot. /s
- strbean 6y ago
  Just like we do in the USA for the crime of 'suspicion of selling loose cigarettes'!
dimitrios1 6y ago
Causing you to get angry is all it takes to warrant justification for jail time in your eyes? I am thankful you aren't in charge of any lawmaking.
- this_was_posted 6y ago
  Jail might be a bit much, but giving them the maximum fine allowed under the GDPR seems quite reasonable to me. I'd even go so far as to try and transfer the debt to the individuals responsible if this causes the company to go bankrupt, as this is clearly malpractice.
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    > I'd even go so far as to try and transfer the debt to the individuals responsible if this causes the company to go bankrupt So who's liable in this scenario? Someone in the C suite? The coder monkey who implemented it? Someone in between? All of the above? Unless I'm mis-remembering, the maximum fine under GDPR is a % of the total revenue of the company, so depending on the size of the company, this could result in bankruptcy of any individuals deemed responsible too.
    - ginko 6y ago
      I'd say the stock owners.
      - oarsinsync 6y ago
        If the risk of investing is goes from (Value of your investment can drop to zero) and is now (Your entire personal fortune is at risk), what do you think is the outcome? Thinking 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 5 years. Or to put it another way, is causing another massive economic shock the correct response to a dark patterns on websites?
        dddeeerrr9999 6y ago
        The stock market is not the economy. All you are ultimately advocating for is keeping the exiting corrupt corporate leadership in charge and preventing market forces from replacing them with ethical leaders.
        munk-a 6y ago
        When you give someone money to do a thing you have responsibility about that thing. If someone is running a clearly illegal business (trafficing illegal drugs, humans) and you are aware of this and invest in their business then you become an accessory you are not immune to liability for crimes you were aware of before investing - you are immune to liability for actions taken without your knowledge (which is what we assume the great deal of actions taken by investees are). Causing another massive shock to the stock market is the correct response here because nearly everyone is engaged in behavior that harms society and should be stopped. Also, the market will recover and really isn't that important. If a small proportion of actors were engaged in this activity then getting an industry compact or other token gesture might be good enough to correct it.
- mszcz 6y ago
  This should be punishible by law, jailtime included. The intent of the law is to give the consumer a choice. What these companies are doing are trying to circumvent the law by making it extremely difficult and annoying to exercise that choice. Very similar to trying to cancel a spammy subscription (but that's not mandated by law, so)
- z_open 6y ago
  It seemed very clear to me from his comment that his justification didn't revolve around him getting angry personally, but the harm these features cause over time. With that being said, your post seems disingenuous. I personally don't believe in jail time for this, but very heavy fines certainly. People need to care about these issues.
- tobr 6y ago
  No, hurting others and breaking the law justifies jail time and causes anger.
- flattone 6y ago
  I mean... how much of the world do you want to feel like you married a sociopath (aka people who deliberately make the better option miserable), before someone can say 'lets disincentivise this behavior
- EamonnMR 6y ago
  I wonder if justice has improved over time because we've gotten better at tolerating things that make us angry, or because we've gotten better at not getting angry.
- c3534l 6y ago
  I'm guessing its more about knowingly and intentionally breaking the law bit, then that he was angry they were breaking the law.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Jail time is probably the only suitable enough deterrent for adtech nightmares. Fines are just treated as a cost of doing business expense, and doesn't directly even hurt the terrible people making these decisions. When someone commits a wrong, the punishment is in part based on the amount of harm. You might feel that adtech causes small harms, if you look at harm against an individual, but adtech folks harm billions of people, every single day. If you're Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, or Sergey Brin, no fine is large enough to make you regret your life choices. The only way to punish billionaires who get rich off harming others is to take away their time/freedom, the one thing they can't just buy back. As long as corporate CEOs can't get jailed, crime absolutely pays in this country.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ViViDboarder 6y ago
    Exactly. Facebook and Google have been fined in the past and it’s never amounted to anything for them. When they make more Money from engaging in bad behavior than the fine costs, it’s a law they’d be stupid not to break.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      Then make the fines double what they made from it.
  - drstewart 6y ago
    Most studies pretty clearly show that harsher punishments are not an effective deterrent.
    - bitlevel 6y ago
      That may be, but a threat of jail hanging over a director or CEO may make them take the correct course of action - effectively becoming the deterrent.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sebazzz 6y ago
> The slowdown is intentional. Yes, it appears to be. If you check the network tab of your browser, you see it makes about 8 requests. Then it waits for about 5-10 seconds and makes again 5 requests.
- blauditore 6y ago
  I think there should be some sort of public shaming for shady practices like this, so large companies like Oracle would seriously consider alternatives.
wutbrodo 6y ago
Since your edit seems to be taking the jail suggestion seriously: I think the data-money analogy isn't unreasonable, but you're overloading "swindle" pretty heavily here, in a way that defeats your point. Companies and people "swindle" others out of money all the time with dark patterns, and this predates computing by ten thousand years. Caveat emptor exists for a reason: the legal system is just too inflexible a tool to cram a person's view of "honesty in business" into. Defining "making one side of an option an iota more of a hassle than the other" as criminal is broad enough that you're pretty much guaranteed to catch many honest transactors too. The law is a really blunt instrument.
- baddox 6y ago
  There are certain patterns that are illegal though, and presumably have legal penalties (maybe not jail time, but presumably at least fines). False advertising is the obvious example. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to support strengthening the laws around these things.
- beshrkayali 6y ago
  I agree. I’m certainly taking it from my own point of view, and I might be overloading “swindle”. It’s probably a bad choice of a word here. It would have to be on case by case basis anyway, but even with the inflexibility of the system and the impossibility of jail time for every theft case, I think it would have to be at least an option when the intent on scamming for the purpose of selling the data (like those mailing lists) is clear.
- t-writescode 6y ago
  I’m not a lawyer. If memory serves me, the EU does not Operate on the same legal framework as the US, so the assumptions I hear here: that the exact letter of the law they’re suggesting is worrying, is not How it works in the EU. They also don’t use case law to define exactly how something will be dealt with. It’s a lot more fluid and ‘spirit of the law’y there. I think.
- yawpitch 6y ago
  We tend to forget that caveat venditor exists as well; it's perfectly valid for the consumer to respond with that blunt instrument if the seller pushes their swindling too far.

dsabanin 6y ago

Why jail? I think we should just execute them on the spot. /s

strbean 6y ago
Just like we do in the USA for the crime of 'suspicion of selling loose cigarettes'!

dimitrios1 6y ago

Causing you to get angry is all it takes to warrant justification for jail time in your eyes? I am thankful you aren't in charge of any lawmaking.

this_was_posted 6y ago
Jail might be a bit much, but giving them the maximum fine allowed under the GDPR seems quite reasonable to me. I'd even go so far as to try and transfer the debt to the individuals responsible if this causes the company to go bankrupt, as this is clearly malpractice.
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  > I'd even go so far as to try and transfer the debt to the individuals responsible if this causes the company to go bankrupt So who's liable in this scenario? Someone in the C suite? The coder monkey who implemented it? Someone in between? All of the above? Unless I'm mis-remembering, the maximum fine under GDPR is a % of the total revenue of the company, so depending on the size of the company, this could result in bankruptcy of any individuals deemed responsible too.
  - ginko 6y ago
    I'd say the stock owners.
    - oarsinsync 6y ago
      If the risk of investing is goes from (Value of your investment can drop to zero) and is now (Your entire personal fortune is at risk), what do you think is the outcome? Thinking 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 5 years. Or to put it another way, is causing another massive economic shock the correct response to a dark patterns on websites?
      - dddeeerrr9999 6y ago
        The stock market is not the economy. All you are ultimately advocating for is keeping the exiting corrupt corporate leadership in charge and preventing market forces from replacing them with ethical leaders.
      - munk-a 6y ago
        When you give someone money to do a thing you have responsibility about that thing. If someone is running a clearly illegal business (trafficing illegal drugs, humans) and you are aware of this and invest in their business then you become an accessory you are not immune to liability for crimes you were aware of before investing - you are immune to liability for actions taken without your knowledge (which is what we assume the great deal of actions taken by investees are). Causing another massive shock to the stock market is the correct response here because nearly everyone is engaged in behavior that harms society and should be stopped. Also, the market will recover and really isn't that important. If a small proportion of actors were engaged in this activity then getting an industry compact or other token gesture might be good enough to correct it.
mszcz 6y ago
This should be punishible by law, jailtime included. The intent of the law is to give the consumer a choice. What these companies are doing are trying to circumvent the law by making it extremely difficult and annoying to exercise that choice. Very similar to trying to cancel a spammy subscription (but that's not mandated by law, so)
z_open 6y ago
It seemed very clear to me from his comment that his justification didn't revolve around him getting angry personally, but the harm these features cause over time. With that being said, your post seems disingenuous. I personally don't believe in jail time for this, but very heavy fines certainly. People need to care about these issues.
tobr 6y ago
No, hurting others and breaking the law justifies jail time and causes anger.
flattone 6y ago
I mean... how much of the world do you want to feel like you married a sociopath (aka people who deliberately make the better option miserable), before someone can say 'lets disincentivise this behavior
EamonnMR 6y ago
I wonder if justice has improved over time because we've gotten better at tolerating things that make us angry, or because we've gotten better at not getting angry.
c3534l 6y ago
I'm guessing its more about knowingly and intentionally breaking the law bit, then that he was angry they were breaking the law.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Jail time is probably the only suitable enough deterrent for adtech nightmares. Fines are just treated as a cost of doing business expense, and doesn't directly even hurt the terrible people making these decisions. When someone commits a wrong, the punishment is in part based on the amount of harm. You might feel that adtech causes small harms, if you look at harm against an individual, but adtech folks harm billions of people, every single day. If you're Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, or Sergey Brin, no fine is large enough to make you regret your life choices. The only way to punish billionaires who get rich off harming others is to take away their time/freedom, the one thing they can't just buy back. As long as corporate CEOs can't get jailed, crime absolutely pays in this country.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Exactly. Facebook and Google have been fined in the past and it’s never amounted to anything for them. When they make more Money from engaging in bad behavior than the fine costs, it’s a law they’d be stupid not to break.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Then make the fines double what they made from it.
- drstewart 6y ago
  Most studies pretty clearly show that harsher punishments are not an effective deterrent.
  - bitlevel 6y ago
    That may be, but a threat of jail hanging over a director or CEO may make them take the correct course of action - effectively becoming the deterrent.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sebazzz 6y ago

> The slowdown is intentional. Yes, it appears to be. If you check the network tab of your browser, you see it makes about 8 requests. Then it waits for about 5-10 seconds and makes again 5 requests.

blauditore 6y ago
I think there should be some sort of public shaming for shady practices like this, so large companies like Oracle would seriously consider alternatives.

wutbrodo 6y ago

Since your edit seems to be taking the jail suggestion seriously: I think the data-money analogy isn't unreasonable, but you're overloading "swindle" pretty heavily here, in a way that defeats your point. Companies and people "swindle" others out of money all the time with dark patterns, and this predates computing by ten thousand years. Caveat emptor exists for a reason: the legal system is just too inflexible a tool to cram a person's view of "honesty in business" into. Defining "making one side of an option an iota more of a hassle than the other" as criminal is broad enough that you're pretty much guaranteed to catch many honest transactors too. The law is a really blunt instrument.

baddox 6y ago
There are certain patterns that are illegal though, and presumably have legal penalties (maybe not jail time, but presumably at least fines). False advertising is the obvious example. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to support strengthening the laws around these things.
beshrkayali 6y ago
I agree. I’m certainly taking it from my own point of view, and I might be overloading “swindle”. It’s probably a bad choice of a word here. It would have to be on case by case basis anyway, but even with the inflexibility of the system and the impossibility of jail time for every theft case, I think it would have to be at least an option when the intent on scamming for the purpose of selling the data (like those mailing lists) is clear.
t-writescode 6y ago
I’m not a lawyer. If memory serves me, the EU does not Operate on the same legal framework as the US, so the assumptions I hear here: that the exact letter of the law they’re suggesting is worrying, is not How it works in the EU. They also don’t use case law to define exactly how something will be dealt with. It’s a lot more fluid and ‘spirit of the law’y there. I think.
yawpitch 6y ago
We tend to forget that caveat venditor exists as well; it's perfectly valid for the consumer to respond with that blunt instrument if the seller pushes their swindling too far.