The precious is mine!
Smash the nasty appes for stealing my precious!
Facebook and its Irish subsidiary on Thursday announced the filing of a lawsuit in Portugal against two people for allegedly scraping Facebook profile data and other browser info using malicious Chrome extensions. "Using the business name 'Oink And Stuff,' the defendants developed browser extensions and made them available on …
C'mon, intent is important. I would strongly recommend nobody else smokes and drinks as much as I do, but that doesn't mean I'm likely/able to quit.
It's a 100 years since the first magician sawed a person in half as a stage trick, so I googled that last week. I would strongly recommend you search for 'sawing a lady in half' rather than 'sawing a person in half'. The former is cute, misogynist but harmless. The latter is disturbing.
And using a subsidiary based in Ireland. I mean, we have to list all the countries that have nothing to do with Portugal so we can get the full effect of the "Why?" feeling. Maybe they've got servers there or something? Facebook's going to have to provide a good reason when the courts start to read their complaint.
> Its latest gambit includes more comprehensive privacy disclosures
...Not worth the electrons they are written with: Their only reason to be is so Google can deflect responsibility and say "It's the devs, they lied to us! We're the victims here!".
The Real-World equivalent would be like declaring that all persons with criminal intent should wear a large, bright orange hat. You can bet they will, indeed. All of them. After all, what does a criminal have if not his honesty and honor...
I'd expect the court will be able to decide if they can take the case based on the legal standing of Facebook and the defendant in their jurisdiction and if any penalties can be enforced. The UK has a number of specialist courts which commonly rule on cases where neither party has local presence but can show a link between the case and the UK. Liable cases being the most commonly known about so long as it can be shown the people in the UK would have seen the relevant material, eg published on the internet.
My understanding is that Softpedia merely "certifies" that the software that you download is free from viruses. Their site harks back to the days before Sourceforge when people downloaded shareware packages from dodgy sites, where popular software was re-packaged with added trojans. Well people still do that, though there are now better alternatives.
So the seal of approval from Softpedia that the download is free from third-party malware is meaningless here, when the software is nothing but malware in the first place.
Faecebook does harm to people and to society, people who willingly choose to be on faecebook have tacitly accepted to be victims of that kind of malware that faecebook provides to society.
The malware that oink provides does not differ much from the malware faecebook provides, if one is allowed the the other should be allowed too, the facts should by themselves be more than enough to render the whole case moot, malware of that kind is legit on faecebook because people have accepetd to be spyed on.
The malware oink provides does not differ from the malware faecebook provides, if faecebok are alowed to do it then oink should be allowed too.