3 ms·

Everyone signed their terms of use: https://www.crowdstrike.com/software-terms-of-use/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/software-terms-of-use/ Section 6.1: THERE I

by aeyes 2y ago

Everyone signed their terms of use: https://www.crowdstrike.com/software-terms-of-use/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/software-terms-of-use/ Section 6.1: THERE IS NO WARRANTY THAT THE SOFTWARE OR ANY OTHER CROWDSTRIKE OFFERINGS WILL BE ERROR FREE, OR THAT THEY WILL OPERATE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR WILL FULFILL ANY OF SOFTWARE USER’S PARTICULAR PURPOSES OR NEEDS. THE SOFTWARE AND ALL OTHER CROWDSTRIKE OFFERINGS ARE NOT FAULT-TOLERANT AND ARE NOT DESIGNED OR INTENDED FOR USE IN ANY HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENT REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE OR OPERATION. NEITHER THE SOFTWARE OR ANY OTHER CROWDSTRIKE OFFERINGS ARE FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION, NUCLEAR FACILITIES, COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, WEAPONS SYSTEMS, DIRECT OR INDIRECT LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, OR ANY APPLICATION OR INSTALLATION WHERE FAILURE COULD RESULT IN DEATH, SEVERE PHYSICAL INJURY, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE. SOFTWARE USER AGREES THAT IT IS SOFTWARE USER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE SAFE USE OF SOFTWARE AND ANY OTHER CROWDSTRIKE OFFERING IN SUCH APPLICATIONS AND INSTALLATIONS.

swat535 2y ago
Parent is taking about deaths. You can’t use terms of service limited iability regarding to death and TOD is not law.. I’m pretty sure it can be’litigated. You can’t just say I am not responsible for death or injury and skip all regulatory requirements for safety critical systems
- rpeden 2y ago
  It seems potentially tricky because they didn't just say they're not responsible for death or injury. They essentially got the customer to accept a contract that says the software isn't designed for use in systems where failure could cause death, and that the customer accepts responsibility for using it appropriately. I agree this whole incident was a massive blunder by CrowdStrike, but I'm not sure it makes sense to hold them liable for damage caused by customers using the product in a places they explicitly agreed not to use it in. In those cases, I think the organization that installed CrowdStrike's software in inappropriate places bears a lot of responsibility for the outcome, and their failure to understand the TOS they agreed to doesn't mean it's not a legally binding contract. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
- Grimblewald 2y ago
  Perhaps, but it specifically says you should not use it for things like airtraffic control or where life and limb are on the line. If you use a rope to climb, when specifically warned that the rope should not be used for climbing, then can we hold the rope manufacturer resoonsible if someone climbs with the rope and dies when they fall?
  - gkuhl21 2y ago
    Your rope climber sounds troubled. I'm not sure the analogy holds. If the rope climber is the same person who purchased the rope, then they get a Darwin award! Otherwise need more detail: is the rope on loan? What's the licensing structure of the rope? Is the license still attached to the rope somehow?
  - mrinterweb 2y ago
    If all the ropes the company sold got an update that caused all the ropes to break around the same time, and people were injured and property was damaged, I would think the rope company would be liable. Is the position that CrowdStrike should not be used on anything important because their software can not be trusted? I mean, that's where I'm at now, and I bet many others feel the same.

by aeyes 2y ago

swat535 2y ago

Parent is taking about deaths. You can’t use terms of service limited iability regarding to death and TOD is not law.. I’m pretty sure it can be’litigated. You can’t just say I am not responsible for death or injury and skip all regulatory requirements for safety critical systems

rpeden 2y ago
It seems potentially tricky because they didn't just say they're not responsible for death or injury. They essentially got the customer to accept a contract that says the software isn't designed for use in systems where failure could cause death, and that the customer accepts responsibility for using it appropriately. I agree this whole incident was a massive blunder by CrowdStrike, but I'm not sure it makes sense to hold them liable for damage caused by customers using the product in a places they explicitly agreed not to use it in. In those cases, I think the organization that installed CrowdStrike's software in inappropriate places bears a lot of responsibility for the outcome, and their failure to understand the TOS they agreed to doesn't mean it's not a legally binding contract. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Grimblewald 2y ago
Perhaps, but it specifically says you should not use it for things like airtraffic control or where life and limb are on the line. If you use a rope to climb, when specifically warned that the rope should not be used for climbing, then can we hold the rope manufacturer resoonsible if someone climbs with the rope and dies when they fall?
- gkuhl21 2y ago
  Your rope climber sounds troubled. I'm not sure the analogy holds. If the rope climber is the same person who purchased the rope, then they get a Darwin award! Otherwise need more detail: is the rope on loan? What's the licensing structure of the rope? Is the license still attached to the rope somehow?
- mrinterweb 2y ago
  If all the ropes the company sold got an update that caused all the ropes to break around the same time, and people were injured and property was damaged, I would think the rope company would be liable. Is the position that CrowdStrike should not be used on anything important because their software can not be trusted? I mean, that's where I'm at now, and I bet many others feel the same.