6 ms·

Regardless of the apology, Adobe should not be allowed to simply dismiss that they deleted user files. In effect, due to Adobe negligence, they have destroyed

Regardless of the apology, Adobe should not be allowed to simply dismiss that they deleted user files. In effect, due to Adobe negligence, they have destroyed user intellectual property. A signal and example needs to be made. Individual users can sue for damages -- lost value and opportunity -- illegal destruction of property. The computer fraud and abuse act could also be applied for criminal charges -- Adobe misused and misappropriated their access to customer data and systems. Arguing that it was a "mistake" and "we are sorry" does not correct the damage done. If Adobe makes such a fuss over protecting their IP, then they should not be surprised when their customers do so also. There is a potential for a class action here as well. And Adobe is very profitable -- some legal team representing this case, even if pro bono, will be/become quite rich. Moreover, telling people that they should have X, and Y, and Z, to protect themselves from the mistakes of rogue actors/apps, is simply a displacement of responsibility tactic. Just because something illegal/damaging was "done with a computer" does not mean it was "ok" and "an apology is enough" -- now pay us for our services you miserable worm/user!

bonoboTP 6y ago
Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS" and you accept it when you click that Accept button upon installation. And honestly, it's good this way. If you want to secure your photos, make backups yourself or sign a contract with some company that will guarantee something. But once they are liable and can be sued, the service will be astronomically expensive.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS" and you accept it when you click that Accept button upon installation. Those disclaimers often have far less legal effect than the text would suggest, because jurisdictions often limit the effect of warranty disclaimers by sellers, and also because of product liability laws which are distinct from warranty protection (though similar to the lay understanding of warranty protection.)
- flandry93 6y ago
  In proportion to the margin, the "service cost" is already astronomically expensive. Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc. The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "superceedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed. There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
- flandry93 6y ago
  In proportion to the margin, the "service cost" is already astronomically expensive. Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc. The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "supersedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed. There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
    If you want bulletproof software with guarantees (like the medical industry or aerospace or traffic light systems or banks) you'll get extremely conservative, boring old tech with no flashy new features all the time. If the cost for breakage is too high they just won't make any changes unless absolutely necessary. But the market has spoken and people prefer flashy new features and updates instead of boring railroad control-like software that is works the same way for decades. You can't have it both ways. If your data is important don't just store it on a single device. These photos were just stored on a single device that could break for any reason any day anyway. Unless Adobe can be shown to have been criminally negligent or intentionally malicious I don't think there's a case here but ianal.
    - ta17711771 6y ago
      > Unless Adobe can be shown to have been criminally negligent Not having multiple site backups isn't criminally negligent when running a paid cloud service?
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
- numpad0 6y ago
  > Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS" In practice it’s fine, IF, files in the users’ hands is the master, cloud is a copy and format used is some sort of open standards. Lets say I sent a mail, attachment got lost, but it’s a copy, besides it’s just a jpg, so send it again. Okay. These cloud SaaS offerings are different: they tries to make the cloud as master, in proprietary format. So local side is the xerox copy, and you have to go through complimentary conversion service to export the original if you sir insist, and they may cease access to the files on the cloud and copies on your computer but it’s somehow “your fault“ when they do that. That doesn’t work! Either they assume full responsibility for content they hold, or we hold every rights, as we did, as we should. I have multiple occasion where OneDrive thought it needs to steal my files from home directories, then change mind and don’t upload, but decides to reflect the reality that it’s not on the cloud. “Where are my files?” my ass you wiped another Desktop folder!
Animats 6y ago
This happened on the user's phone. The issue is at what point negligent authorized access becomes unauthorized access. "Exceeds authorized access" is a criminal charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. A contract cannot override criminal law. This is really complicated, see [1]. An EULA, though, might not be enough to get Adobe out of this. Especially if a third party, not a party to the EULA, owned the photo. If, for example, a news photographer for a newspaper had a photo lost, and the photographer, but not the employer, had agreed to the EULA, the newspaper might sue. This is an important point. If a third party who is not bound by the EULA suffers damages, they can sue for negligence. The EULA binds only those who have agreed to it. [1] https://shawnetuma.com/cyber-law-resources/what-does-cfaa-mean-and-why-should-i-care-a-primer-on-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-for-civil-litigators/#_Toc303337990 https://shawnetuma.com/cyber-law-resources/what-does-cfaa-me...
- Silhouette 6y ago
  A difficulty that has been pointed out on other forums is that after an unexpected delete bug that caused permanent data loss, during any subsequent legal action you may have no evidence to demonstrate what you have lost. If you do have a backup available from elsewhere to demonstrate the damage that was done to your device, you have also demonstrably limited that damage to a small inconvenience in having to restore the backup. I support the principle that having permission to install updates should not grant carte blanche to have those updates do anything no matter how harmful, and indeed I would be in favour of much stronger regulation of technology in this area. However, I'm not sure how much that would help if there isn't some mechanism for regulators to assess statutory/punitive damages in some form. Even then, there's no way for a regulator to fairly allocate any financial compensation available to users who were, or claim to have been, affected. We're effectively trying to create a deterrent rather than trying to compensate for actual losses here, and with something like lost personal work, you can never make good the damage just with money anyway.
  - petre 6y ago
    What if you have timestamped file metadata l, but not tge data, or checksumed IDS records? Would that qualify as sufficient evidence?

bonoboTP 6y ago

Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS" and you accept it when you click that Accept button upon installation. And honestly, it's good this way. If you want to secure your photos, make backups yourself or sign a contract with some company that will guarantee something. But once they are liable and can be sued, the service will be astronomically expensive.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS" and you accept it when you click that Accept button upon installation. Those disclaimers often have far less legal effect than the text would suggest, because jurisdictions often limit the effect of warranty disclaimers by sellers, and also because of product liability laws which are distinct from warranty protection (though similar to the lay understanding of warranty protection.)
flandry93 6y ago
In proportion to the margin, the "service cost" is already astronomically expensive. Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc. The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "superceedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed. There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
flandry93 6y ago
In proportion to the margin, the "service cost" is already astronomically expensive. Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc. The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "supersedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed. There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  If you want bulletproof software with guarantees (like the medical industry or aerospace or traffic light systems or banks) you'll get extremely conservative, boring old tech with no flashy new features all the time. If the cost for breakage is too high they just won't make any changes unless absolutely necessary. But the market has spoken and people prefer flashy new features and updates instead of boring railroad control-like software that is works the same way for decades. You can't have it both ways. If your data is important don't just store it on a single device. These photos were just stored on a single device that could break for any reason any day anyway. Unless Adobe can be shown to have been criminally negligent or intentionally malicious I don't think there's a case here but ianal.
  - ta17711771 6y ago
    > Unless Adobe can be shown to have been criminally negligent Not having multiple site backups isn't criminally negligent when running a paid cloud service?
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
numpad0 6y ago
> Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS" In practice it’s fine, IF, files in the users’ hands is the master, cloud is a copy and format used is some sort of open standards. Lets say I sent a mail, attachment got lost, but it’s a copy, besides it’s just a jpg, so send it again. Okay. These cloud SaaS offerings are different: they tries to make the cloud as master, in proprietary format. So local side is the xerox copy, and you have to go through complimentary conversion service to export the original if you sir insist, and they may cease access to the files on the cloud and copies on your computer but it’s somehow “your fault“ when they do that. That doesn’t work! Either they assume full responsibility for content they hold, or we hold every rights, as we did, as we should. I have multiple occasion where OneDrive thought it needs to steal my files from home directories, then change mind and don’t upload, but decides to reflect the reality that it’s not on the cloud. “Where are my files?” my ass you wiped another Desktop folder!

Animats 6y ago

This happened on the user's phone. The issue is at what point negligent authorized access becomes unauthorized access. "Exceeds authorized access" is a criminal charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. A contract cannot override criminal law. This is really complicated, see [1]. An EULA, though, might not be enough to get Adobe out of this. Especially if a third party, not a party to the EULA, owned the photo. If, for example, a news photographer for a newspaper had a photo lost, and the photographer, but not the employer, had agreed to the EULA, the newspaper might sue. This is an important point. If a third party who is not bound by the EULA suffers damages, they can sue for negligence. The EULA binds only those who have agreed to it. [1] https://shawnetuma.com/cyber-law-resources/what-does-cfaa-mean-and-why-should-i-care-a-primer-on-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-for-civil-litigators/#_Toc303337990 https://shawnetuma.com/cyber-law-resources/what-does-cfaa-me...

Silhouette 6y ago
A difficulty that has been pointed out on other forums is that after an unexpected delete bug that caused permanent data loss, during any subsequent legal action you may have no evidence to demonstrate what you have lost. If you do have a backup available from elsewhere to demonstrate the damage that was done to your device, you have also demonstrably limited that damage to a small inconvenience in having to restore the backup. I support the principle that having permission to install updates should not grant carte blanche to have those updates do anything no matter how harmful, and indeed I would be in favour of much stronger regulation of technology in this area. However, I'm not sure how much that would help if there isn't some mechanism for regulators to assess statutory/punitive damages in some form. Even then, there's no way for a regulator to fairly allocate any financial compensation available to users who were, or claim to have been, affected. We're effectively trying to create a deterrent rather than trying to compensate for actual losses here, and with something like lost personal work, you can never make good the damage just with money anyway.
- petre 6y ago
  What if you have timestamped file metadata l, but not tge data, or checksumed IDS records? Would that qualify as sufficient evidence?