charonn0

You can choose to take offense, but that doesn't imply that offense was given.

One of the problems with the original law is that it failed to distinguish between open source projects and closed source products. If anything this amendment should make the law less objectionable, not more.

If the judge's order was AI slop then presumably it wouldn't withstand an appeal. So one is left wondering why they didn't appeal it in the first place. Why file a whole separate lawsuit? That's going to be even lengthier and more expensive than an appeal.

In fact, a successful appeal might have helped a subsequent lawsuit against the judge since questions like "was AI used?" would have already been litigated. Instead they filed a new lawsuit where those questions won't even be considered until the immunity question is addressed.

It seems like a very strange legal strategy, particularly since from what I can tell the plaintiff is himself an experienced lawyer.

As far as I can tell, the use of AI is alleged but not proven, as the case is dismissed without deciding that point.

I'm talking about bandwidth; connection speed.

The streaming stick in the article turns off its proxying feature while the user is actually streaming because the proxying feature consumes enough bandwidth to degrade streaming quality.

In other words, whenever the proxying feature is active every other device sharing the connection will suffer degraded performance.

Even if the user never notices, they're still worse off. They're still paying for bandwidth that someone else is using for profit. Money is flowing out of the user's pocket and into the pocket of the proxy operator. That makes the proxy operator a thief who is stealing from the user, and without even the Robin Hood-esque cover of defrauding ad networks.

>> rent the user’s Internet connection out to strangers.

> Harm to the user: none^

Well, they are losing some of their bandwidth. They might not notice, but something which is rightfully theirs is being taken without consent.

"Royal Executioner" is a job. "Bioweapon engineer" is a job. "Baby seal clubber" is a job. I could go on.

No. "Intentionally", "willfully", or "knowingly" are prerequisite states of mind for crimes defined by the CFAA.

How long before an agent steals their human tester's nude photos and extorts them for the answer key?

It seems like bug hunting might be the one area where AI is actually making the world a better place.

> Count Binface

I did not expect this to be a real person. Is he with the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly And Looking Stupid party?

The "More" button changes to a "Stop" button when clicked.

And run the whole thing in DOSBox.