4 ms·
A software license has never been a protection against malicious criminal activity. They'd have to prove that the "feature" had a legitimate non-nefarious purp
by gowld 3y ago
A software license has never been a protection against malicious criminal activity. They'd have to prove that the "feature" had a legitimate non-nefarious purpose, or was accidental, neither of which apply here.
- infamouscow 3y agoIn the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Apologies for having to be obnoxious about it, but it deserves repeating. If you take a approach of presumed guilty where the accused have to prove their innocence: you have a problem. You'd have a very difficult time proving your innocence after being accused of a crime. Anyone can accuse you of a murder that happened at 2am, and your alibi of being asleep won't cut it. Remember, in this bizarro world, it's presumed you are already guilty. You need to convince the prosector and jury you didn't commit the crime. Even if you had 4K night vision video of you sleeping in your bed, it probably won't persuade anyone because the prosecutor will say you pre-recorded the video to deceive a jury, and since you're presumed guilty, it makes sense for you to manufacture evidence in your defense. This is why guilty until proven innocent is genuinely stupid.
- account42 3y agoProven here is not in the same sense of a mathematical proof. "But your honor, technically you can't prove my client was going to use this exploit carefully hidden behind layers of obfuscation for malicious intent" is not a legal defense.