Slashdot Mirror

Are you fucking kiding me. i know you know how to google. but here are just a few.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-event...

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/...\

https://arstechnica.com/securi...

I remember when people on slashdot knew how not to be fucking morons and look for information if they wanted to learn something. people like you make me sick.

Ever heard of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act? Per federal statute, if you provide a full warranty at all, you are not allowed to require servicing only at dealer facilities. If the warrantor disclaims coverage due to alleged improper parts or servicing, even self servicing, he must prove that the outside servicing actually caused damage.

Think of the big breaches, which I tracked until about five years ago... In the Zappos breach, hackers broke into their system and stole their database. They didnt guess passwords, just stole them.
In May 2005, GMail was hacked... via JavaScript, exposing contacts, personal data without cracking (or exposing) passwords.
When CardSystems Solutions (a payment processor) was hacked and 40 million credit card numbers stolen, it was by SQL Injection. Fust full names, addresses and passwords exposed without any password guessing.
TJX (TJ Maxx, a retailer) lost 45 million credit card records in a hack... by unprotected WiFi and unencrypted records.
Google's AdWords system by surrupticious files being installed. User passwords were stolen.
About ten years ago, Internet Explorer (yeah, I know...) facilitated look-alike sites to steal Hotmail (Microsoft), GMail and Yahoo passwords... but complexity or guessing were not the issue.
When Epsilon Data Management was hacked, it wasn't via guessed passwords, but they were stolen, compromisingcustomer accounts on Citibank, Chase, Target, Walgreen and Best Buy.
LinkedIn, the professional networking site, had six million passwords cracked-and-leaked in June 2012. The process was an attack on the server storage encryption, not on password strength.

The stupid thing was, when Zappos was hacked (again, not via password theft), they then decided to impose stringent password requirements. Amazon doesn't have such stringent requirements, so just for ease I've switched most of the purchases (about four a year) I used to do from Zappos over to Amazon.

Approving mergers generally falls under the purview of the FTC (see merger review).

The only reason the FCC came up is due to the fact that the two companies may have had to transfer FCC licenses as part of the deal. Since it appears no transferal is taking place, the FCC is not involved.

Uber's own ad campaigns bend over backwards to emphasize that this is supposed to be a side gig to make some extra money.

Uber was just this week fined $20M by the FTC for doing the exact opposite of what you're saying, so pardon me if I don't believe anything you've just said. They were overstating median incomes by as much as $29,000/year, advertising unlimited mileage for leases that didn't actually have unlimited mileage, and advertising that their leases were lower-cost than their competitors (which wasn't true in the least). The FTC found that in some markets, only around 10% of the drivers were making as much as the "median" incomes that Uber was advertising.

So while I do generally agree that the world doesn't owe anyone anything, I'll add the caveat that companies are obligated to not make fraudulent claims, which is exactly what Uber is being fined for having done.

Some criminal cases have already been successfully carried out.

Strictly speaking, they didn't steal anything. The company just looked the other way when other people were stealing. The only money they made off this was probably just small amounts per wire transfer - this adds up, of course, but I'd be surprised if it totaled $586M.

The specific agents who conspired to help people get away with it were convicted, per that article. So not really "turning a blind eye".

Did you read the actual complaint? Your questions are mainly answered there.

"The law is clear about robocalls," says one FTC executive. "If a telemarketer doesn't have consumers' written permission, it's illegal to make these calls."

I'll believe you when you cut out the exemptions for politicians, banks, carriers, and charities. It's right there in your list of exemptions.

So my neghborhood supermarket is anti-trust because it chooses to sell Coca Cola but not RC Cola?

No, it's antitrust because while you can go to a different supermarket to buy your RC Cola, Apple maintains a monopoly on storefronts for app purchases. Contrast that with their major competitor, Google/Andoid, where one can get apps from Amazon and many others. It's antitrust because there is no competitive market available to developers - they're forced to pay whatever fees Apple dictates in order to sell their apps to the end user. That drives up consumer costs.

https://www.ftc.gov/iot-home-i... When the Federal Trade Commission plans to award $25k to whomever can prevent wifi device hacking, it's not as simple as a don't give the device your wifi password. There's sooooo many things to exploit these days in networking. Honestly, they'll probably force an Internet connection or void the warranty or do like what HP did and release a firmware update to make older devices stop working or prevent out-of-company parts from working. Twitter & Tumblr (command line stuff) @ theouterlinux http://www.theouterlinux.com/

Submit it! (after March 1st).

I liked this part near the bottom of the rules (12 f.)
"The Sponsor reserves the right to amend the terms and conditions of the official rules at any time, including the rights or obligations of the Contestants and the Sponsor.

So kids, Hurry and send in your multi-million dollar product in good working order and we'll give you a pittance and introduce you to the civil legal system!

The FTC isn't trying to appoint itself arbiter of the IoT, this is just a standard Truth in Advertising case. The problem isn't that the devices weren't secure, it's that they weren't secure but D-Link's marketing said they were. If D-Link hadn't made misleading claims like "advanced network security" when promoting products that shipped with backdoors, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not entirely. Count 1 in the complaint basically argues that D-Link "failed to take reasonable steps to secure
the software for their routers and IP cameras" and that this failure, in the circumstances, amounts to an unfair act or practice under the FTC Act. So, this part at least has *nothing* to do truthfulness and instead is about what is is fair to the consumer (and not overly burdensome to D-Link) under the circumstances. FTC has done this sort of thing before w/regard to data privacy/security and web security, but I am not sure they have done it with regard to protecting, not data exactly, but access to specific consumer electronics.

  It is interesting. I don't know what I think yet. One one hand, regulation is rife with issues. On the other hand, I *see the value* in baseline requirements if done right (big 'if') - especially for stuff that consumers are generally bad at evaluating or detecting. Like secret hard-coded logins : /

This is exactly what I'm worried about. Having "guest/guest" hardcoded is ridiculous but I'm not sure I like the idea of the government deciding what is and is not secure enough.

The FTC isn't trying to appoint itself arbiter of the IoT, this is just a standard Truth in Advertising case. The problem isn't that the devices weren't secure, it's that they weren't secure but D-Link's marketing said they were. If D-Link hadn't made misleading claims like "advanced network security" when promoting products that shipped with backdoors, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The link to the Press Release is current (December 2016) but in the press release is a link to the actual settlement which is dated 2014....

This is just using and not disclosing this practice: https://www.ftc.gov/system/fil...

FTC statement

Until all competing products do the same thing. Then all you're left with is complaints. And make no mistake, if this is determined to be a success (or at least not a big disaster) then its almost certain the rest of the industry will follow suit, sooner or later.

If you're that concerned about this, complain: https://www.ftc.gov/. Venting on Slashdot is a waste of time.

Heh. I actually reported one of these to the appropriate two websites earlier this week, and when I read the headline I was like "well, that was fast" :-). Then I found another on my voicemail. So... apparently not the same ones. Well, maybe they are clearing the foreign competition away to allow domestic conmen to prosper under an anticipated Trump administration.

I guess I misunderstood TFA. Didn't FTC hold a $50,000 challenge in 2013 and award a prize?

I immediately attempted to set this up at my house but of course ATT didn't implement the third party ring feature which is the central requirement. Funny thing...

Oh well. We have an answering machine, anyone who calls is welcome to use it. All the phones have their ringers off. We get about 20 calls a day, and about 2 messages a week. I wonder who all the other calls are from?

With mine I got the best results going through the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau as far as getting a response out of the company. Granted my state attorney general's office was very helpful to me as well. The only thing I got from the state department of commerce was a notification that they had opened an investigation into the debt collector but they are also the body in my state the regulates debt collectors so that should make life difficult for the debt collector.

I would have thought that you could have really put the screws to the debt collector as I believe that once they are notified in writing, especially with a cease and desist from an attorney, that if they do contact you the debt becomes legally uncollectable and you can basically tell the to piss off and sue for harassment at that point.

Personally I hate these companies as they are all dumb as fucking rocks as I frequently get called by debt collectors trying to collect credit card debt from the previous owner of my house who hasn't lived there for almost 14 years. Most are polite enough when I tell them they have lived there in 13 years but one would think that by checking the public records they would see they don't fucking live there. Those tend to be the reputable ones and they don't hide their identity on the phone. The somewhat questionable ones that insist I am lying to them I tell them that if they ever contact me again I will sue them for harassment as is my right as I am not the person they are looking for, and then there was the really shit ball one that I went full on scorched earth on.

I think the appropriate action is to invoke the Antitrust Laws of the Federal Trade Commission and indict both the companies and lawmakers who approved the monopolies.

The NSA can tap every phone in the country, but they can't find Rachel from cardholder services.

Not true. The FTC has shut down over a dozen companies over this. The problem is that there are many scammers running copycat scams and it's nearly impossible to catch them all.

I can confirm this.

About 10 years ago when I switched phone carriers (didn't port my number, not sure if that was even a thing yet), I got assigned a phone number that had previously belonged to someone who may have had debt. I was getting calls morning noon and night from a collection agency named Luebke Baker, looking for the guy who had the number before me. No amount of "you've got the wrong fucking number" made any difference, they kept on calling, always spoofing different numbers from different area codes, sometimes a dozen calls a day.

I got fed up and went through the FCC complaint process. I don't know how it works now, but at the time, they had a web form that required an intense level of detail and took a long time to fill out. I submitted it. About a month later, I got an envelope in the mail from the FCC. It contained a printed copy of my complaint form, about 15 sheets of paper worth, with a letter saying they found no violation of anything and I was welcome to submit another complaint if I wanted.

Thanks and no thanks, I had Sprint change my phone number. Luebke Baker eventually got fined by the FTC instead of the FCC, I guess I should have sent my complaint there instead.

There is a web page at the FTC dedicated to dealing with them -- What’s the deal with “Rachel from Card Services”? Your top 3 questions answered.

It appears that it should be the responsibility of both parties (emphasis mine),

The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. [...] The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.

Maybe it comes down to how they define "bloggers" and "celebrities," or the FTC just decided to exercise its case-by-case discretion and go after the party that seems to be the instigator in this situtation.

No. Because GamerGhazi is built on a tissue of lies. And worse, they paid virtually no attention to this particular scandal, adding even more proof that it was mostly about the gaters' misogyny.

Look at you, still clinging desperately to the "mysogyny and harrassment" narrative and trying to ignore what GG accomplished.

Gamergate campaigned to inform the FTC of this kind of unethical behavior, and the FTC got involved as far back as December 2014 in direct response to Gamergate pressure, and Gawker was forced update their disclosure policy (and tons of articles that were then clearly in violation). And the FTC also updated their disclosure guidelines several times, including last summer (guess who was running an ethics campaign asking for exactly that?):
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/38gocf/ethics_major_ftc_update_the_ftc_has_updated_their/

The section of the FTC's website that deals with disclosures was updated late last month:

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic...

Some of this new guidance directly reflects the language and particulars of the concerns GamerGate asked the FTC to address.

"Is "affiliate link" by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a "buy now" button?"

Consumers might not understand that "affiliate link" means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a "buy now" button would not be adequate

Does this guidance about affiliate links apply to links in my product reviews on someone else’s website, to my user comments, and to my tweets?

Yes, the same guidance applies anytime you endorse a product and get paid through affiliate links.

The revised webpage contains a great deal more language that needs to be analyzed but these two examples in particular reflect specific complaints GamerGate had about how Gawker Media handle their affiliate link disclosures. I know of no other group of people who were vocally complaining about this specific practice to the FTC. In addition, the FTC emails from my previous posts confirm that, yes, the FTC tailored part of their new guidance because of frequent complaints sent by GamerGate.

If you read further, there is specific language about requiring Let's-Players to disclose as well. And then there are the many, many sites that have updated their ethics policies. It's shameful that you will lie about an entire group of people because you and the press want to pretend that GG isn't the driving force behind all this ethics reform.

P.S. /r/GamerGhazi is an anti-Gamergate cesspool, so of course it is based on lies. But you already knew that.

P.P.S. Yes, Gamergate paid plenty of attention to this scandal. You did know that it was leaked by TotalBiscuit (during a time period when anti-GG was relentlessly shitting on him), right?

You've already been told that you're ignorant on this issue, you don't need to repeat yourself. We're already quite aware.

Besides you do need to learn to distinguish between accessing a database owned by a company, and a product owned by a consumer.

and something that interferes with a controlled driving experience. We can just put stuff in the cars like an force limp home mode if you don't have the dealer use there software to reset the oil change counter.

Been there, done that..

Seems like the FCC Endorsement rules ought to apply? https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic...

It is the same deal in the United States.

FTC: Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered? A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn’t order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.

However, in the US, nothing really stops an unscrupulous vendor from choosing to ding your credit, requiring you to pursue them in court if you want to have that damage compensated for..... By the time the legal forces come together to levy consequences against the vendor, they will have finished their short-term operation, they'll be out of business, gone, and the $$$ / capital to pursue will be knowhere to be seen.

It's one of my favorite and most useful apps. But just recently it has asked for access to my microphone to update. There is no conceivable reason it should need that, so I have blocked said update and will continue to do so. If it stops working eventually, then so be it. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Hell - flashlight apps need total access to everything today.

"Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges against Goldenshores Technologies, LLC, and its owner, Erik Geidl. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company created a popular flashlight app for Android devices that the FTC charged deceived consumers with a privacy policy that did not reflect the app’s use of personal data and presented consumers with a false choice on whether to share their information." https://www.ftc.gov/news-event...

Do not take the Guardian and the Center for Digital Democracy at their word.

Read the guidance contained in the second link of the summary. Specifically, read: "Who is covered by COPPA" here.

The Rule applies to operators of commercial websites and online services directed to children under the age of 13 that collect personal information. In addition, it applies to operators of sites and online services geared toward general audiences when they have "actual knowledge" they are collecting information from children under 13.
* * *
The Rule doesn't require operators of sites or services directed to general audiences to investigate the ages of its users. However, asking for or otherwise collecting information that establishes that a visitor is under 13 triggers COPPA compliance.

This is a general audience device and service, full stop. I don't have one, so I cannot say whether they even permit the associated account to be set up by a child 13 or under, or allow multiple user accounts with accounts for children 13 or under, but if I were to purchase one, set it up with my Amazon (or Google, for their device) account, and allow everyone in the house to use the device under that account, there would be no violation of COPPA.

The targeting and "actual knowledge" requirements cannot be deemed fulfilled simply because an advertisement shows a child and the service knows that children might be using the service.

FTA:

"Khaliah Barnes, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), believes that by showing pre-teenage children using voice-activated AI devices, Amazon, Google and Apple are admitting their services are aimed at youngsters."

No, that is a general audience that happens to include children. Targeting children requires a service aspect specifically directed to children.

Notice that the one thing the article does not say is that the FTC has opened an investigation. Merely that the CDD "[is] going to recommend to the FTC that they give industry guidance of how the internet of things and COPPA should work together."

Very little to see here, then...

A company is offering a service. If you don't want the service, don't buy it. You do not have right to internet access... in this country.

If you want such a right, then vote for it, wait with the poor little me baby whining at Slashdot.

But you do have a right under the antitrust laws to prevent a company from unreasonably tying the sale of one product or service to another.

We already voted for that right. Starting way back in 1890.

Here is a rough investigation I did...

First, you need to read the court document from TFA -- https://www.ftc.gov/system/fil... -- and you would find out that the issue occurred in or around 2012.

quotes from the document

Amazon has received many complaints from adults who were surprised to find themselves charged for in-app purchases made by children

In March 2012, Amazon introduced a password prompt feature for in-app charges of $20 or more. (...) This initial step did not include charges below $20 or charges that, in combination, exceeded $20.

In August 2012, the FTC notified Amazon that it was investigating its in-app billing practices. ...

In October 2012, Amazon released software entitled Kindle FreeTime, which allowed parents to control tablet usage by children in a variety of ways. ...

In May 2013, Amazon added a password requirement for all first-time in-app purchases on Kindle Fire tablets. ...

In June 2013, Amazon changed the configuration of the AppStore so that the words “In-App Purchasing” would appear on an app’s description page:

To date, Kindle devices of the “First Generation,” for which software updates are no longer available, enable customers to make in-app purchases of $1 or less without authorization via entry of a password.

That said, when was the link you posted was up for the search? Would any parents need to search BEFORE they give a Kindle to their kids? If they need to, what make them think they need to? Not everyone has the same level of thought to predict what will happen in the future, so they need to find a way to prevent the situation.

Anyway, I checked online with a website which archive a lot of web page. The first date it recorded the page you mentioned is on July 11, 2014 -- http://web.archive.org/web/201... -- which is quite late compared to the time the issue had firstly occurred. See what I am going?

In conclusion, no one should be SJW and said it is every parents' fault. I am sure there are some who are at fault, but I believe majority are suffered because Amazon didn't try to properly solve the issue. Or Amazon was incompetent in solving the issue. Who knows?

Do you update it every few years as the numbers expire?

Once a number is in the do-not-call list, the registration never expires unless the number becomes disconnected and assigned to someone else, or you ask for it to be removed.

and there is almost no way to tell if something labeled "Non-GMO" really is,

If the difference between a GMO and non-GMO food product is undetectable, then what exactly is the issue with GMO food, again?

The truth is, people are ALREADY suing food producers over claims of "natural" and "non-GMO" (here, and here.) It must be possible to detect, and there are enough rabid anti-GMO and anti-corporate people to fund all the testing that anyone could desire.

Don't hold your breath on the FTC doing anything.

Huh? Truth in advertising laws are their jurisdiction, and they've gone after businesses before. You can even look online for enforcement actions.

It's not that the reviews were "fake," it's that they were done for compensation (in the form of free books that she could then resell) without overtly saying so, which the FTC considers deceptive.

So, uh, isn't DICE violating FTC regs by publishing this shite without disclosing that they've been PAID by UBER to endorse their service???

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#how/

As an identity theft victim, let me say that "no credit card or banking data was stolen" means nothing. With name, address, SSN, and birth date compromised (as well as driver's license and passport numbers), anyone can now open new lines of credit in the names of any of the 15 million people whose information was accessed. And the two years of "credit monitoring" will do almost nothing. Fraud alerts won't either - those are voluntary.

My recommendation if you are one of the 15 million people is to freeze your credit. This will stop ANYONE from opening a new line of credit under your name unless you first thaw your credit file. It's a royal pain in the rear when you need to do things like refinance a loan, but it's better than having a collections agency banging down your door because you owe $5,000 on a credit card that "you" opened.

It's actually quite simple for this entire problem to go away. O nevermind that would require people to live within their means. Carry on with this fuckin fake consumer credit economy. I for one don't have a dog in the fight. I opted out in 2007 by simply stopping paying and using credit cards. Yes I have an awful credit score and don't care. Steal my identity and get a $500.00 credit line. I stopped using or caring.

As an identity theft victim, let me say that "no credit card or banking data was stolen" means nothing. With name, address, SSN, and birth date compromised (as well as driver's license and passport numbers), anyone can now open new lines of credit in the names of any of the 15 million people whose information was accessed. And the two years of "credit monitoring" will do almost nothing. Fraud alerts won't either - those are voluntary.

My recommendation if you are one of the 15 million people is to freeze your credit. This will stop ANYONE from opening a new line of credit under your name unless you first thaw your credit file. It's a royal pain in the rear when you need to do things like refinance a loan, but it's better than having a collections agency banging down your door because you owe $5,000 on a credit card that "you" opened.

Amazon is free to produce their own app for Chromecast or Apple TV. This is probably more an issue where they want to push people into buying their own devices instead of Apple or Android devices.

Furthermore, Amazon does not have a fundamental right to refuse to sell anything it wants. Certain refusals similar to this one are outlawed (see here). According to the FTC's website there, if a company is refusing to provide a product in a strategy to acquire or maintain a monopoly, then it's illegal. I don't know whether this applies in this case (IANAL), but it certainly is a practice that harms consumers, and therefore should be outlawed.

You don't have to but an AppleTV or Chromecast from Amazon, nor do they have a "Monopoly" on streaming devices nor streaming services.

IANAL but this sounds douchebaggish; but IMHO, it falls far short of either COI or Monoplistic behavior.

Amazon is free to produce their own app for Chromecast or Apple TV. This is probably more an issue where they want to push people into buying their own devices instead of Apple or Android devices.

Furthermore, Amazon does not have a fundamental right to refuse to sell anything it wants. Certain refusals similar to this one are outlawed (see here). According to the FTC's website there, if a company is refusing to provide a product in a strategy to acquire or maintain a monopoly, then it's illegal. I don't know whether this applies in this case (IANAL), but it certainly is a practice that harms consumers, and therefore should be outlawed.

Communists don't believe in free speech?

Shocking.

It's not that binary. The United States has its own truth in advertising laws that, in my personal opinion, are beneficial at both the federal and state level. Slashdot readers are free to go the Libertarian route and claim the free market would alleviate these issues on its own or perhaps point out how downright pedantic it can be at times. But the truth of the matter is that, as a consumer, we only have so many hours in a day to decide which of the thousands of products we consume in a year we should spend our money on. So it does come down to federal guidelines for what is "Grade A" or "Organic" or "Green" when there is a label espousing these properties and there are consumers paying a premium for this notion. Without those guidelines those words will mean absolutely nothing and there will be no way to tell where your product was made, how much cadmium it has in it or whether it is the end result of spewing carbon into the atmosphere. Without similar laws, you wouldn't be able to trust the nutritional information at the grocery store. Is it free speech to claim that my potato chips cure cancer and lead to weight loss no matter how many of them you eat? People will know that I'm lying? Cigarettes used to sooth sore throats. Trans fats used to taste awesome.

Speech used by an individual to express ideas is free speech. Advertisements -- especially advertisements representing a very large organization -- are not. Corporations should not have the same rights individuals have and I feel that free speech is one of those clear cut distinctions. There is a long history of consumer protection everywhere in the world -- learn about your own country's struggles with it. It's not a simple issue and advertisement should not be regarded as free speech.

Communists don't believe in free speech?

Shocking.

It's not that binary. The United States has its own truth in advertising laws that, in my personal opinion, are beneficial at both the federal and state level. Slashdot readers are free to go the Libertarian route and claim the free market would alleviate these issues on its own or perhaps point out how downright pedantic it can be at times. But the truth of the matter is that, as a consumer, we only have so many hours in a day to decide which of the thousands of products we consume in a year we should spend our money on. So it does come down to federal guidelines for what is "Grade A" or "Organic" or "Green" when there is a label espousing these properties and there are consumers paying a premium for this notion. Without those guidelines those words will mean absolutely nothing and there will be no way to tell where your product was made, how much cadmium it has in it or whether it is the end result of spewing carbon into the atmosphere. Without similar laws, you wouldn't be able to trust the nutritional information at the grocery store. Is it free speech to claim that my potato chips cure cancer and lead to weight loss no matter how many of them you eat? People will know that I'm lying? Cigarettes used to sooth sore throats. Trans fats used to taste awesome.

Speech used by an individual to express ideas is free speech. Advertisements -- especially advertisements representing a very large organization -- are not. Corporations should not have the same rights individuals have and I feel that free speech is one of those clear cut distinctions. There is a long history of consumer protection everywhere in the world -- learn about your own country's struggles with it. It's not a simple issue and advertisement should not be regarded as free speech.

The section of the FTC's website that deals with disclosures was updated late last month:

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic...

Some of this new guidance directly reflects the language and particulars of the concerns GamerGate asked the FTC to address.

"Is “affiliate link” by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a “buy now” button?"

Consumers might not understand that “affiliate link” means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a “buy now” button would not be adequate

Does this guidance about affiliate links apply to links in my product reviews on someone else’s website, to my user comments, and to my tweets?

Yes, the same guidance applies anytime you endorse a product and get paid through affiliate links.

The revised webpage contains a great deal more language that needs to be analyzed but these two examples in particular reflect specific complaints GamerGate had about how Gawker Media handle their affiliate link disclosures. I know of no other group of people who were vocally complaining about this specific practice to the FTC. In addition, the FTC emails from my previous posts confirm that, yes, the FTC tailored part of their new guidance because of frequent complaints sent by GamerGate.

And then there are the many, many sites that have updated their ethics policies. It's shameful that you will lie about an entire group of people because you and the press want to pretend that GG isn't the driving force behind all this ethics reform.

If GG had only focused on issues like this, i for one would be cheering them on. But GG didn't come into existence when, for example, Jeff Gerstmann was fired under pressure from a game developer whose game he reviewed poorly, way back in 2007.

OK, try this. Go discuss Gertsmann's firing (or any other AAA corruption) on a bunch of game/tech news websites' forums or article comments and see if the discussion is censored on almost EVERY one of them.

Now try to discuss Nathan Grayson or Patricia Hernandez and see how much censorship and pure venom you encounter, by contrast.

Also notice that Gertsmann's firing was somehow not subject to a week-long, industry-wide news blackout in hopes it would go away. And that the people reporting on it weren't called harassers or mysogynists or terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from the criticism.

It is the behavior of the press that is the difference. The long-running popularity of Gamergate is the response to the gaming press's cover up of journalistic corruption and long-running smear campaign against gamers. None of the media's lies can ever change that fact.

P.S. AAA review "agreements" (for youtubers, etc.) similar to these were publicized by Totalbiscuit (a major pro-Gamergate guy) a year ago, long before the journalists caught on. GG has nothing against exposing AAA nor indie corruption.

They didn't erupt int

The actual order (probably not linked in the article because why would you do that?)

How so? What specifically is being mismanaged?

Construction (specifically in unsafe locations near the coast on fault lines), operation, maintenance, waste disposal (they're throwing away a lot of free energy there), cost overruns and funds unaccounted for. Pretty much the entire thing. We handed the entire business to used car salesmen, and so we need to fix it!

If you want to advertise to your customers that you're GMO free, knock yourself out.

Really now?[pdf] Yeah, I guess, with enough lawyers you can do anything. (luckily that case went the right way)

Your post reads like a industry press release.

Quote: "The company I am at is trying to go to windows only."

Title of story: "Windows 10 Home Updates To Be Automatic and Mandatory"

Translation: Microsoft will have COMPLETE control of all your company's Windows computers, at ALL times they are operating and connected to the internet.

Guesses: Microsoft is not subject to anti-monopoly laws because the company has allowed secret agencies of the U.S. federal government to have access to all its customer's computers.

That's just a guess. Any other guesses?