Slashdot Mirror
Grindr Harassment Victim Asks: Are Tech Companies Immune From Product Liablity Laws? (nbcnews.com)
Why is Grindr being sued by Matthew Herrick, an aspiring actor working in a restaurant in New York? "His former partner created fake profiles on the app to impersonate Herrick and then direct men to show up at Herrick's home and the restaurant where he worked asking for sex, sometimes more than a dozen times per day."
But 14 police reports later, Herrick's lawsuit is now arguing that all tech companies should face greater accountability for what happens on their platforms, reports NBC News: His lawsuit alleges that the software developers who write code for Grindr have been negligent, producing an app that's defective in its design and that is "fundamentally unsafe" and "unreasonably dangerous" -- echoing language that's more typically used in lawsuits about, say, a faulty kitchen appliance or a defective car part. If successful, the lawsuit could bring about a significant legal change to the risks tech companies face for what happens on their platforms, adding to growing public and political pressure for change. "This is a case about a company abdicating responsibility for a dangerous product it released into the stream of commerce," his lawsuit argues, adding: "Grindr's inaction enables the weaponization of its products and services...."
In court, Grindr is relying on the more sweeping defense allowed by the 1996 law known as the Communications Decency Act. The act's Section 230 has been interpreted by courts to immunize internet services from liability for content posted online by third parties -- whether ex-boyfriends or otherwise. That immunity, though, is subject to a raging debate about whether social media companies and other tech firms should be so free to introduce products without much forethought about the hazards they could create.... Herrick's case has drawn interest from the tech industry, its supporters and its critics who see his lawsuit as a test for a possible new legal theory for holding tech firms to account.
"When you make a manufacturer effectively immune, it means that the consequences will be borne by the user," said Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. But should tech companies face product liability laws normally reserved for appliances? "As people have started to purchase more information-related items, we have to reconsider how we classify those things," argues Christopher Robinette, a law professor at Widener University.
If Herrick's suit is successful, NBC reports it "could reshape consumers' relationship with software, alter speech protections online and put pressure on Silicon Valley to find flaws in products before introducing them to the world." But what do Slashdot's readers think?
Should tech companies be immune from product liability laws?
But 14 police reports later, Herrick's lawsuit is now arguing that all tech companies should face greater accountability for what happens on their platforms, reports NBC News: His lawsuit alleges that the software developers who write code for Grindr have been negligent, producing an app that's defective in its design and that is "fundamentally unsafe" and "unreasonably dangerous" -- echoing language that's more typically used in lawsuits about, say, a faulty kitchen appliance or a defective car part. If successful, the lawsuit could bring about a significant legal change to the risks tech companies face for what happens on their platforms, adding to growing public and political pressure for change. "This is a case about a company abdicating responsibility for a dangerous product it released into the stream of commerce," his lawsuit argues, adding: "Grindr's inaction enables the weaponization of its products and services...."
In court, Grindr is relying on the more sweeping defense allowed by the 1996 law known as the Communications Decency Act. The act's Section 230 has been interpreted by courts to immunize internet services from liability for content posted online by third parties -- whether ex-boyfriends or otherwise. That immunity, though, is subject to a raging debate about whether social media companies and other tech firms should be so free to introduce products without much forethought about the hazards they could create.... Herrick's case has drawn interest from the tech industry, its supporters and its critics who see his lawsuit as a test for a possible new legal theory for holding tech firms to account.
"When you make a manufacturer effectively immune, it means that the consequences will be borne by the user," said Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. But should tech companies face product liability laws normally reserved for appliances? "As people have started to purchase more information-related items, we have to reconsider how we classify those things," argues Christopher Robinette, a law professor at Widener University.
If Herrick's suit is successful, NBC reports it "could reshape consumers' relationship with software, alter speech protections online and put pressure on Silicon Valley to find flaws in products before introducing them to the world." But what do Slashdot's readers think?
Should tech companies be immune from product liability laws?
I understand why the plaintiff is upset. But the person to be upset at is his harasser. There'd be no lawsuit if this was being done in the newspaper classified ads, or on a bulletin board. It wouldn't be possible to confirm that a picture sent in by someone over the internet is actually the sender. The correct person to sue is his harasser. Possibly even look into prosecution (I would be shocked if this didn't go into criminal harassment).
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The Internet is global, and any platform built on it is going to reach millions, if not billions, of people. If we pass laws that require companies to police their users, we will simply lose the platforms. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and liability? Why aren't the harassers arrested and charged? Why is Grindr the villain in this suit?
(I know there are people here who would love to see the more popular platforms disappear, but that's just petty jealousy and elitism talking.)
This is on the bottom of things to be upset about on the internet.
This is standard harassment, covered by a multitude of laws in every state, and federally.
--
The Internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow. -- Bill Gates
Should a manufacturer of kitchen knives be immune for the use of such knives by terrorists?
WHat about the plants who produced the steel the knives are made from?
Of the farmer, who produced the food the steelworkers ate?
It is a people defect and the company making the product does not make the people.
This is about as silly as suing the phone company for harassment phone calls, just transferred to the Internet.
I do realize the whole thing is a problem, but the only ways known to the human race to fix these people are far, far worse than these people. Hence some amount of unpleasant folks has to be tolerated. If they get extreme (credible death threats, stalking, swatting, etc.) law enforcement usually can do something though. But below that level? Forget it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
After all, they made seeing the harassment possible! ...
And whoever made the streets that allowed those guys to get there!
And the computer maker of anyone who used it to harass anyone
What happened to suing the one who actually committed the crime??
Even if he needed Grindr to tell him who it was, he could force them in the process of the lawsuit.
What is this idiotic attitude coming from? Looking for a substitute scapegoat.
So either we turn off everything, Or we punish the ones doing the abusing....
Police should generally stop trying to shove its responsibilities onto third parties. If they need a higher budget to do their job properly because the Internet is a big place, they should get it! (The companies are gonna pay for it [with consumer money] anyway.)
Can you sue the union that built your car for the accident?
How else is EditorDavid going to Ask? More? Headline? Questions?
Oh wait, there would be no money in that......
No, they should not be immune from product liability laws. Yes, they should be immune from user missuse.
They should pay through the nose for the data leak last year as this is a failure of a product. Similar all the other services and software vendors which fail at data security at even basic levels.
Software resilience is as good as customers are willing to pay for. If you want aerospace-level robustness in your software, you better be prepared to pay a *lot* for it. And don't expect rapid change either.
So sure, bring on those court cases. But you know who's going to pay for it in the end...?
And services can't have product liability.
There should have been no need to get a restraining order to remvoe the profiles. (why yes I did read (scan) the article).
Yes grinder should do more, but only on the logical side. Steps says like.
1. User reports abuse of him on a profile he did not set up.
2. User p[rooves they are who they say they are (photo id and webcam you know like many sites ask for).
3. They either delete the profile or reset the password and let the real user do it.
4. They make sure no accounts pertaining to this person can be set up without authority from the real user.
Yes some of these will require extra effort but it is something that needs to be done to stop wasting police and court times with things that should be resolvable without their need.
Yes for continued action maybe a restraining order on the actual creator of these polive profiles is a good idea. However if setting the profiles was slightly harder then many would not bother. Yes the idiot is wholely responsible for the harasement, but Grindr is also criminal in action by allowing it to go on multiple times and requireing more than simple proof you are who you are to take it down and stop it happening again.
Hiding behind a law to stop you doing simple things is disgusting. But we get back to the old palce of apparently needing special laws for the internet. No we do not. Being on the internet does not make something new. And this was not the indented outcome of the law anyway. Just argued by corrupt lawers becuase the internet is confusing to us and let's hold it up on a pedastel as something different so we can make money a second time.
+----------------- | What is the question!
By experiencing vile vengeful violence. Conveniently excused as "justice", of course. Cause if you can write down that something they did is wrong, then your violent crime instantly becomes "justified".
Most laws are there to prevent abuse. We do hold people responsible if they sell alcohol to minors or sell guns without a license. When there's a problem that is deemed serious enough, an exploit that is dangerous enough, we have laws to take care of that.
If a person throws a rock at another person and injures them, the rock is not sued, the person who throws the rock is sued. If a third person had fabricated the rock, let's say out of concrete, then that third person is not liable, because, for one thing, they have no reasonable way to prevent the main offending party from throwing the rock.
For example, suppose a person were walking up some steps and slipped and injured themselves. It turns out, it was icey, and the person who owns the steps did not put salt on them (a reasonable precaution), in which case the owners of the steps would be responsible, as they have the reasonable ability to prevent an injury, which it is reasonable to expect might happen in icey conditions, and did not do so.
Let us extend that to the internet web site. How can a dating site reasonably protect people from misuse? If there were a reasonable standard to guarantee people's identity through the website then the website could be considered negligent if they did not implement that reasonable and common standard. There currently exists no such reasonable and common was to guarantee a person's identity online, and so the website has no obligation to protect from fraudulent use.
I don't think that Grindr should be held accountable for defects in the software, but it should be made accountable for running a service which enabled the harassment and not coming to the person's aid.
It's perfectly fine to have bugs and design flaws, it's something that happens because developers are humans and prone to make mistakes and not think of all consequences. A developer shouldn't be held legally responsible for a bug. However, a social service shouldn't be exempt from consequences. Law enforcement should be given a means to enforce laws on a social network.
Someone is mad. Someone else has money. Clearly they must be guilty because only the person or corporation with money can make the mad person rich. Therefore, you sue the company. Not because they are guilty of something but because you want to trade being mad for being rich.
In this case, the harasser, who is obviously the guilty party, is likely not as rich so gets a pass on the lawsuit asking for a pile of money.
What, exactly, does he want them to do?
Every once in a while, we hear plans to hold programmers to a higher level of accountability. That's just fine. Let's do that. Don't expect to like the price increase. It'll take more time. It'll take more insurance. It'll take more qualified programmers.
Just imagine that in order to avoid lawsuits, Grindr requires you to provide legal ID and sign a document to confirm registration. Practically speaking, confirm that you are gay and promiscuous. Of course in that case they would also have to require your legal name, personal details and non-anonymized photo. Now imagine Grindr has a data leak (probability of that happening ~100%). Or a bug on their website shows your legal name to visitors. Or law enforcement in your country that persecutes gay/promiscuous people (e.g. the USA with SESTA/FOSTA) forces them to silently give them your data.
And here I was hoping that finally "tech companies" would start being held liable for writing such crappy code that we're all expected to engage in substantial effort* to constantly update them or risk being hacked and told how it's our fault. No, this is current issue is just some bullshit no different than someone positing a fraudulent classified in a widely published newspaper. The only thing the newspaper (or Grindr) need be responsible for is when the subpoena comes to provide as much information that they have on the asshole committing the fraud so the government can seek prosecution of said asshole. Get back to me when said asshole exploited a security bug in Grindr that allowed him to bypass checks, read/write posts he wasn't supposed to, read passwords, etc; we need more tech companies prosecuted for allowing that level of bullshit that regularly happens.
* Updating one program is easy. Updating every app on every device you own can literally take hours, and the alternative is to what? Every time you start a device expect to have to wait up to 30 minutes with updates, multiple reboots, and still a lot of manual work (especially on Windows)? Then there's Android where if one package is massive it'll fail to install even if you have 2-3x its supposed storage requirements because apparently the stars aren't aligned properly; then there's all the effort to try to shuffle things around if it decided to put some of itself in storage A instead of B meaning other updates won't install. Requiring daily or even monthly updates or facing blame as an individual for the constant fuck ups of tech companies is beyond absurd.
Until you get a Google Chrome EFast (based on "OpenSORES" open code used to create malware of it) https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=...
* It goes BOTH ways...
APK
P.S.=> That's the big WHY of why I never opened any code I did to the public - crap like EFast, happens... apk
Case closed
Why hasn't the police done anything yet?
My suggestion: A law that first, Mr. X should always have completely unrestricted rights to access any information about any accounts created in the name of X (after going through appropriate steps to identify himself, and with protection against 10,000 Joe Smith's accessing each other's accounts. But in this case, Matthew Herrick should, after showing his passport and an affidavit of his employer that he is the only Matthew Herrick working at that restaurant, complete rights to any account of anyone claiming to be Matthew Herrick working at this restaurant.
And the second step, a law that signing up requires giving information that identifies the person signing up - with laws protecting this information unless the supposed owner (Matthew Herrick in this case) demands that the information will be made available.
I bet there are some guys here with clever ideas to make this work.
Women are completely nuts when doing revenge of ex-. Similarly my ex create multiple fake facebook profiles.
Is it out of question proving who is the original creator of the profiles, and putting her sorry ass in jail for quite a while?
All software should be held legally liable. Wisdom BEFORE technology.
Maybe he should look at his own community as being the problem. I don't see how he thinks it's OK to try to damage a massive number of systems and other communities when his problems are internal to his own.
Manufacturing is mad because their products can actually hurt people and they have to deal with it.
Tech is like, ok blame the glued down sheet of paper for driving you crazy (even though you aren't really crazy you are just doing this to try to control).
FUD - fear uncertainty and doubt - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
This is Linux going into cars, hello meta layer.
... and Grindr is immune to product liability by way of data breach.
The best way to win is to not play.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
put pressure on Silicon Valley ... "
Because that's where all software is written and controlled, obviously.
My question is what basic controls?
I get the whole thing about deactivating the fake accounts. Grindr being unwilling to move fast on that issue is a dick move on their part. I get the court order, and that seems like the right response to that part of it.
The whole point of Grindr seems to be anonymous hookups for gay dudes. Does he want to force them to de-anonymize everyone? Would he be satisfied with just being able to easily and quickly report the abusive accounts? Does he want to be able to issue DMCA takedown notices (one of his harms is copyright infringement, presumable over a profile photo)? The suit talks about using image recognition and prohibiting proxy use. That doesn't seem like what a court would call a "narrowly tailored" response.
I would hope that he could go to the police and file charges against the ex-boyfriend. If there are threats of violence (as described in the suit) the cops should be able to get a court order for access records looking for IP addresses. Maybe the cops don't take harassment claims among the gay community seriously in his jurisdiction?
Also, a huge part of the claims of the case is that Grindr's geo-location service is a central part of the problem. I don't see how that's part of the problem if the stalker guy is using fake accounts. Wouldn't the geo-location match the strangers to the stalker's phone? These guys are being directed to his home and workplace, though.
I get that the dude is upset. That makes perfect sense to me. It just seems like he's suing the deepest pocket rather than pursuing the source of the problem. Except for the bullshit about not closing the fake accounts, I don't see what he wants Grindr to do to prevent this from happening without negatively impacting all of the other users (and a quick google search says there's a lot of dudes using that service).
So, that was my question. Details, details.
Faggot
We gotta push back hard against this crap, and we meed to make the internet bulletproof against all authority through ad hoc networking that can't be shut down without destroying the whole planet.
So if I write my ex-girlfriend's phone number on a bathroom wall, "total slut, call for a good time, etc.", which third-party is liable?
The phone company, for facilitating the calls people make to her?
The owners of the bathroom, for not constantly scrubbing their walls?
The makers of Sharpie, who made the tool I used for the offending inscription?
This is stupid, and reeks of "it's on a computer, so it's different".
Also, the question asked at the end of this article is a loaded one. Of course there shouldn't be immunity for product liability in software, if Equifax taught us anything we need more regulations in that regard, not less. But at the same time, product liability laws should not be twisted and reinterpreted in such a way as to give this idiot a means of forcing tech companies to throw money into a fire in an attempt to accomplish what's basically an impossible task -- getting rid of trolls on the Internet.
This isn't actually an issue of product liability, that's just how the plaintiff is spinning the case. The obvious offender in this situation is the ex-boyfriend, who is abusing a tool and a service in a way that's probably in violation of Grindr's own TOS.
You've done better? Prove it... Let's see code YOU did ALL BY YOURSELF, ok?? Never will happen. My code's excellent & 100k++ users think so.
* Nobody really gives a crap what YOU or "your kind" in UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous JEALOUS "Lil' Jowie" mere "ne'er-do-well" DO-NOTHINGS like you say - mainly because all you DO is "chatter", & nothing more (which any moron can do).
APK
P.S.=> All YOU are is BULLSHIT TALK & spouting back what others have LONG BEFORE YOU (prove otherwise & show us a good program you wrote all by yourself - again - never EVER will happen (I've challenged you that TONS OF TIMES & You always, ALWAYS did a "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!", lol))... apk
> If a company acknowledges potential liability ... I would imagine the company would be in a much stronger position to defend against claims.
When they say "never talk to the police", they mean you. You should never talk to cops if you are ever suspected of anything.
>Imagine a merchant who sells knives and the clerk explains to each customer how the knife can hurt them. Is that company likely to be liable for a knife injury? I seriously doubt it.
Plaintiffs attorney is going to ask, in as many different ways as they can get away with, "so you knew this was a particularly dangerous knife, so much so that you felt the need to warn customers that you were selling a particularly dangerous product, yet you sold it anyway, knowing it was a dangerous product?"
The company's defense to a product liability claim is to try to convince the judge or jury that the product is not particularly dangerous. Grindr would say it's no more dangerous than a newspaper, as other commenters have said here.
Morally should Grindr do some things to improve safety? Perhaps so. That's a different discussion. Does admitting liability help you in court? No way.
He should be suing the person creating the fake accounts.
They must have far less money though.
I would have all sorts of gay publications and items (free or billable later) sent a prankee's workplace. Fun times.
They love bending over and getting a hard dick shoved into their rectums, so why is he complaining?
Gun makers appear to be liable in some cases. Why can't tech companies be held responsible
What if I sneak in and write it again as soon as they leak?
Because that's what fucking happen. Grindr deleted the accounts and the stalker just created more accounts.
LOL! You're STALKING me you freak & as I knew you can't prove? You 'criticize' but you can't create anything of worth (I do though).
* Go away weirdo...
APK
P.S.=> It takes "$" to raise suit stupid - you know - what a TROLL LOSER like you that lives under a bridge with junkies & bums don't have... apk
It's disgusting that there are people out there that think they are justified in using violence against Grindr via the use of government because some third party wrong'd them.
We have bigger problems than this and such problems should be solved through voluntary interactions rather than the use of violence against a third party who was not involved in the harassment.
The governments are stealing people's wealth via so many different means (70-90% of your wealth is stolen depending on where you live) and then not even providing the services for which the socialists use to justify governments existence or otherwise doing a poor and inefficient job thereof. Thus depriving everybody of good education, health care, security, etc. By socialist I mean pretty much everybody because there are probably fewer than 3% of the US population which isn't leaning socialist and voting for people who will redistribute wealth. The US supreme court has repeatedly ruled the police have no obligation to protect you.
> once they've warned you, you're liable, not them.
Are you sure about that?
https://slashdot.org/story/344...
Slight difference between $289 and $289 million.
Remove anonymity from the internet and make all actions auditable.
If you know you will be caught for being a tool, maybe you'll think twice about being a tool.
Go well
Sorry retarded bitch Alexander Peter Kowalski, you are just a loser who is too dumb to realize you got stomped long ago.
Here is a chronicle of your bitch ass getting beaten on your port filtering statements.
Here is another one where your got beaten hard because you can't back up anything you say. This was about how you claim your shitware can block all hosts in a domain, which it can't.
Then there is your claim that the Chinese copied you but you admit that at best all you have is wild ass speculation and can't offer any real proof or even actual evidence to support yourself.
How about the list of experts you claim support your statements, none of which actually support your work and have been shown to actually be saying things different from what you stated they were.
Maybe instead you can tell us about your "success" where a project rejected your stupid simplistic idea or maybe threaten to sue someone again because you are a insecure little man who is washed up and never amounted to anything.
I am shocked, shocked that anything untoward could happen with an app designed to connect people for anonymous sex!
Any site like Grindr should have a boilerplate disclaimer advising against engaging a person in a captive environment (school, work or place else a person could get slapped for sexual harassment.) Anyone who makes inappropriate advances in such a space should suffer legal consequences, especially if it could be proven they were responding to a spam post.
Are car companies liable for your former partmer putting sugar in the fuel tank of your car?
Is the phone company responsible for spam calls and threatening calls from your ex?
Was the postal service responsible for the Unabomber's actions?
IDK, these questions seem pretty simple to respond to with a font size 64 bold italic *NO*
practically all newspapers publish photos on ads if you pay them money for doing it.
they might not publish a full color ad for "YO! I WANT SOME GAY SEX!" though - well, maybe a magazine for gay men looking for gay men would do that.
because hey. that's what the app is about anyways.
look, there's a lot of product liability that tech companies should have, like patching flaws in the software. those are product flaws, they should be fixed.
or when companies just decide to willy nilly _change_ the product without asking the guy who bought it 6 months prior.
this is not however a product liability thing in any way or form in the way that it is presented. besides, what does he expect them to do? stop posting gay sex offers? I mean that's apparently what he wants them to do. or just buckets of money. do you know how easy it would be to extract money with faked fake personals from facebook, grinder, tinder and whatever if that were the case?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
If the product doesn't provide what you want, don't use it and go start your own service.
It's not big Brothers job to survey and police language.
How the hell has society sunk this low? Asking to be enslaved? Companies are not friends.
What? Product liability laws are not designed to protect you from other people misusing a product. If someone strangles me with a telephone cord, are the telephone manufacturers liable?
See subject & https://news.slashdot.org/comm... (my program won't allow that error)
CHINA did copy what I did LONG BEFORE THEM https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... & dates prove I did hardcodes vs. DNS fails I stopped 1st LONG before China.
I never threatened to sue Thor SCHMUCK - I only said I'd speak to an attorney & I did who advised I go thru their removal process & I did, then CA falling apart proved my point selling off the antivirus they had that did a FALSE POSITIVE they rescinded to NO THREAT on an old program of mine.
* You LOSE, deluded liar & on ALL grounds + every "example" you tried, lol!
APK
P.S.=> You're a HUMAN FAIL... apk
This will not happen if a real ID is required to register.
They want a product that lets users upload information seen by others? And they want it to be immune from people being assholes? Sorry, those two things are mutually exclusive.
The party at fault is the crazy ex. Sue him and get your damages. Possibly lock him up for fraud, maybe personal identity theft. If you think "Well there's no way the courts will do anything to an ex-lover being an asshole", then the problem is with the courts, not the tech.
Sorry Alexander Peter Kowalski you just proved you are a retarded bitch.
You repeated yourself on a statement that I already address.
Then you keep on failing to provide any actual proof or even evidence.
They you whine some more and fail to refute anything that was said.
So you just can't stop failing.
1.) My program stops portfilter erroneous entries in hosts https://news.slashdot.org/comm... 2.) China did hardcodes in hosts LONG after me imitating me https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... "Time is on my side" (Rolling Stones) 3.) /. users & security pros state the value of hosts for getting users more speed/security/reliability/anonymity 4.) I never threatened to sue Thor SCHMUCK - I only said I'd speak to an attorney & I did who advised I go thru their removal process & I did, then CA falling apart proved my point selling off the antivirus they had that did a FALSE POSITIVE they rescinded to NO THREAT on an old program of mine, period.
* Your LIES & attempts @ "twisting" FACTS failed vs. https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> All the "evidence" I NEED is facts which I provided that BLEW YOUR BULLSHIT AWAY w/ ease... apk
How fucking dumb are you?
1. This statement of yours was already covered and addressed in the chronicling of your statements on port filtering.
2. Again you fail to provide anything other than wild speculation, no evidence, no proof.
3. You got torn to shreds and can't actually refute what I said
4. You lie, he posted your e-mail where you said you would sue if he didn't do things:
& if it is not removed by they, I am suing for libel
Sorry you must really love proving to everyone how much of a retarded bitch you are. Facts are stuborn things and just because you don't like them and your entire reputation was built upon the lies you tell about hosts doesn't mean if you keep repeating those lies they will eventually become true. Find some real facts and real evidence and maybe someone will stop mocking you.
You can't change facts: My program stops portfilter errors https://news.slashdot.org/comm... & I did hardcoded favorite sites in hosts LONG BEFORE China http://theregister.co.uk/2017/... (2001 for me in a program & LONG BEFORE IT in the 90's manually). Time IS ON MY SIDE (Rolling Stones) & the rest spoke for me (registered /.ers like/use my program, NOT YOUR non-existent "notthereware" (lmao) & is easily verified vs. your bullshit. Especially the THOR SCHMUCK crap (I never threatened to sue Thor SCHMUCK - I only said I'd speak to an attorney & I did who advised I go thru their removal process & I did, then CA falling apart proved my point selling off the antivirus they had that did a FALSE POSITIVE they rescinded to NO THREAT on an old program of mine, period).
* What have YOU ever done that was worth a damn? NOTHING (lol)...
APK
P.S.=> All you do is STALK me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts & lie + libel me - some "accomplishment" (if your goal is to FAIL then you are successful in it - lol, you've VERY GOOD @ FAILING you know (especially vs. me))... apk
Got is shit for brains. All you can do is repeat your previously torn apart statements, disproved theories, and outright lies. No one questioned if you or the Chinese did it first only the part where you say they copied you. Only you brought your shit program into the port filtering discussion and it was chronicled as such. There was one of your e-mail posted where you clearly stated you were going to sue that I quoted. You really need to learn how to read and write too. Maybe your father can beat some sense into you as it obviously didn't do it enough when you were a child. If you post your same bullshit again it will be understood that you have nothing and concede everything. This also happens to include trying to deflect, change the subject or demand that others prove they can do bullshit work like yours.
1.) I never had to sue Thor SCHMUCK - CA rescinded their FALSE POSITIVE error, sold off their shitty antivirus & I said I'd speak to an attorney & I did who advised I go thru their removal process & I won.
2.) China did hosts hardcodes after me http://theregister.co.uk/2017/... IMITATING ME & "Time is on my side" (Rolling Stones)
3.) /. users & security pros state the value of hosts for getting users more speed/security/reliability/anonymity listed here (enumerated as "Registered /.ers reviews") https://it.slashdot.org/commen...
4.) Security pros galore + /.ers praise the layered security efficacy of hosts quoted here https://it.slashdot.org/commen...
5.) My program stops portfilter in hosts https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
APK
P.S.=> You've PROVEN you PROJECT you're a RETARD that can't DENY FACTS I just blew you AWAY w/ easily, lol... apk
Sorry retarded bitch Alexander Peter Kowalski you actually proved my point. You decided to repeat all the same bullshit that was previously debunked. You provided no new facts or evidence to counter anything that I had previously said. Then you try to lie to yourself by claiming that you won in an effort to make yourself fell better. Maybe you can repeat yourself a few more times hoping that those statements might not be bullshit this time.
See subject & answer the question w/ specifics vs. STALKING me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous (like the pussy liar you are)?
APK
P.S.=> No links, just state your cases w/ examples point by point so I can DISMANTLE YOU easily as always... apk