4 ms·
My big question here is: Why aren't companies being found criminally negligent with the CFAA when they force poison-pill "upgrades" that remove stated features
by noasaservice 5y ago
My big question here is:
Why aren't companies being found criminally negligent with the CFAA when they force poison-pill "upgrades" that remove stated features from the original device?
How is this functionally different than the crypt-ransomware we see in the news?
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoYou gave authorized access in the EULA. What we need is real penalties for contracts of adhesion.
- ncallaway 5y agoDo printers have an End User License Agreement? The last printer I bought, I was able to setup and print with, without (explicitly) agreeing to any license. Is the EULA part of a software install process?
- anonymousab 5y agoThere's usually a clause somewhere in small print where you agree to some massive EULA on some url through just the act of buying the product.
- b112 5y agoMany people buy printers in stores, still. Point of sale rules apply there. If even one person does this, then the parent's comment is valid.
- noasaservice 5y agoProve it.
- pbhjpbhj 5y agoSo as long as I send a target an email and they don't respond back that they refuse then I can do anything to them that was in that email - same level of "authorised". They probably looked at an email longer if it was actually opened.
- Igelau 5y agoIANAL, but contract or not, you find one government/protected computer that is connected to one of these things, and suddenly we're wading into 18 U.S.C. § 1030 territory: > (5) (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; A malicious driver that bricks the printer might meet that criteria. The access might be authorized, but the inflicted damage isn't.