4 ms·
> It's only a matter of time before Nordic decides to block this method as well. Maaaybe. The public statement from them sounds like it was legal whining abou
by mst 5y ago
> It's only a matter of time before Nordic decides to block this method as well.
Maaaybe.
The public statement from them sounds like it was legal whining about liability issues, and if that's actually true (which, well) then if it has to be sufficiently intentional on your part that may be sufficient for them to leave well alone.
Certainly worth preparing for that not being the case though.
- IshKebab 5y agoYeah or that's just the excuse they use to justify blocking access so more people subscribe to their services.
- mst 5y agoThat's what "if that's actually true" was about, yes.
- seanp2k2 5y agoIANAL, but are there any actual cases where someone or a class successfully sued a company for using their product off-label in such a way? This kind of stuff seems to me like how schools no longer permit students to go out for lunch, citing liability that they almost assuredly never had in the first place.
- pc86 5y agoI can at least see the argument that tapping the screen a couple times in a certain pattern might not be sufficient, but having to generate a code is. I think it's a ridiculous argument, but I wouldn't be even remotely shocked that some octogenarian judge who doesn't own a cell phone is convinced by it.
- mst 5y agoRight, and legal departments kind of exist to avoid that sort of ridiculous argument fucking over their employers. I don't endorse the argument -logically- at all, but if it's "legal being (justifiably) paranoid" then while as I said preparing for that not being it is still worthwhile, the extent to which they'll chase down workarounds may have limits nonetheless.