3 ms·

If an Uber Eats driver poisons your food en route from McDonalds, then McDonalds is criminally negligent? I mean, I understand HTTPS is industry best practice

• NegativeLatency 2y ago
  All analogies are flawed but this feels a bit more like the tamper proof labels on products, the antivirus company threw some chicken in a produce bag, and called it good. At this point a lot of antivirus software is just useless or actively harmful.
  • yborg 2y ago
    Avast actually had a trojan horse product whose main purpose was collecting browsing history for sale to data brokers ... that you paid a subscription fee for. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/ftc-order-will-ban-avast-selling-browsing-data-advertising-purposes-require-it-pay-165-million-over https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/...
• lupusreal 2y ago
  > I understand HTTPS is industry best practice Right. Unlike your McDonalds example, there is already an industry standard solution to this problem. The software ""engineers"" who neglected to implement it should be found criminally negligent for the harm they caused to their users. I know this is an unpopular suggestion on HN because code monkeys want all the glory of the "engineer" job title without any of the responsibility.
  • robocat 2y ago
    > The software ""engineers"" should be found criminally negligent Software goes across borders. Perhaps you also think negligent software "engineers" should be extradited or rendered across jurisdictions? Apart from the fact that Engineer does not have to imply either certified or licenced (the words you should be using if you know anything).