HN user

dwardu

282 karma

[ my public key: https://keybase.io/dwardu; my proof: https://keybase.io/dwardu/sigs/aG5gU7eUL5jC6V0LfSSNp2utM96wStR1Gkxj8KUbMT0 ]

Posts5
Comments45
View on HN

Companies in Malta have to report these things to the police. Some university of malta student found a vulnerability in some software and they got instantly referred to the police rather than being tracked when they reported the issue.

Companies are doing their best to not reward people who diligently inform them about vulnerabilities.

Roc Camera 9 months ago

So once the company shuts down its servers we've got a lemon?

The article is clearly a virtue signal. If the person developing the solution doesnt want to pay for the .io domain, then so be it. They don't have to get the morality into it.

macOS Cursors 3 years ago

Ive got to say, i do miss those wacky times when you can customise your cursors in windows.

Well, aren't we all pawns of some narrative, it's something we all cannot deny. Neil believed in mainstream media so he made his move to "defend" the narrative as a tribal instinct. I think Neil should have invited Joe to a podcast to discuss his grievances, rather than just raise an ultimatum.

Showing an openness to discussion would have been so much better for his case.

Yes, for America there's the patriot act which removed your freedoms for safety. Even right now with corona, as controversial as it sounds, it is the question of freedom vs security.

Europe's sentiment is they want more security and are happy to give away their freedoms without a thought. Then you realise how important your freedom was to you when it's gone.

230 is getting no scoped, meaning no one will care about reforming it or even repealing it.

Section 230 is an internet legislation that gives social media companies a pass on their users actions. E.g. if CNN/Fox/BBC publishes something fake on their website, as a publisher they will be legally liable to what they publish. If a user on facebook posts something similar then facebook wont get in trouble because they are not regarded as the publishers. It was created to help boost social media site momentum during the Obama administration.

Now recently since facebook/twitter have been moving into becoming the arbiters of what is true and not which makes them publishers.

From a fairness point of view, why should these social media sites benefit from section 230 while traditional media doesn't?

EDIT: Added legality

If this is true, it’s really sad, I’ve read the whole thing. I had an experience, not as bad as yours but I know the feeling.

I really hope you will go public about this experience and share it, Apple aren’t the “virtuous” company as they pretend to be.