Actually, the issue is much worse than just the admin being able to read intercepted https traffic. These proxies make it possible for other rogue middlemen on the path to read the traffic too.
They most certainly do not, unless the proxy is somehow losing confidentiality of the private keys corresponding to the issued certificates. But keeping key material confidential is a core responsibility of IT, across the board:-)
Indeed, as the corporate man-in-the-middle proxy is the only one to "see" the server's certificate, either he can blanket deny certificates that don't validate (such as self-signed, but with a fingerprint known and checked by end user), or blanket allow any certificate no matter how dodgy (seems to be the default behavior of most of these proxies)
Sure. A misconfigured proxy is Really Bad(TM). A properly configured proxy would not relay traffic unless the remote was verified. This is also core basic responsibilities of an IT department to configure stuff according to best practice.
Btw, a similar issue exists with those mobile apps that ask for your email password (social media, push notifiers, etc.): not only can the app's developer read and abuse your email, but so can everybody else who sits between the app developer's datacenter and your mail server, because typically these don't verifiy certificates before blurting your password over the line.
This isn't an issue with the mobile apps, it's an issue with boneheaded configuration on the backend not to verify TLS. This is basically a problem with any application ever deployed if it's set to ignore important security requirements.
If you want at least some trust, you either have to BE the CA (like with my own servers), or meet and get to know the person *personally*. Everything else is just hearsay, and of comparable trustworthiness to whatever you receive when you send out an unencrypted HTTP request to a random unknown domain.
How do you go to the grocery store? Surely you don't believe that unless you personally milked the cow, you can't know that it's milk and of comparable trustworthiness to any white liquid you find in a random container, right? When people say that milk is inspected by the (fallible) FDA/USDA, do you scoff at their "argument from authority"? I mean, at some point in your life you must have had to accept that there are imperfect systems that nevertheless work reasonably well and that have means for self-correcting errors when they do happen. The vast majority of milk sold in the US is milk, and it's reasonable to trust the milk from a reputable grocery store even if you don't personally know who milked it.
I mean, there's plenty of legitimate criticism and improvements to be made about the state of CAs. It ain't perfect, but trust-nihilism isn't even close to a reasonable alternative.
All of this is pointless as long as we encourage corp IT firewall admins to completely break https with their MitM proxies that use fake wildcard certs and bogus CAs as part of a GP push.
It's not "breaking" HTTPs, any more that distributed authorized_keys "break" SSH. The owner of Group Policy on a machine has (by definition) the authority to set HTTPs policies, read files, spy on the screen and plant furry porn in your home directory. That's literally what it means to be in group policy.
As I see it, the IT admins should be absolutely transparent with employees that all content touching the machine is subject to being recorded and have clear policies on whose approvals are necessary to go read the logs.
The 4.8 GHz processor clock speed, which Apple quotes for the 15-inch MacBook Pro, is a 'best case' processor speed that's only achieved in short bursts when your computer requests it, subject to a number of conditions.
Indeed, this is quite accurate. For use cases that only peg the CPU for a minute at a time (for instance, incremental compilation of a large software project), this is great -- in fact the turbo is significantly higher than the nominal clock speed of the CPU, essentially allowing it to 'save/borrow' TDP from the past and future in order to deliver snappier instantaneous performance.
On the other hand, for use cases that peg the CPU for minutes at a time (for instance, encoding a long video, clean build of a huge project), turbo gets you no benefit and you are limited by the steady-state TDP.
So which is more important? Honestly, I think everyone will have to look at their own use-case and decide. For a lot of folks, they don't often exercise the latter use case and might be fine with lower steady-state performance. Others might not.
Nintendo is actually one of the better ones for popular games from their back catalog for modern consoles. This is a far cry different from a publisher that has gone out of business or who longer sells the old titles.
If your operating system was programmed well, the IO call writing to the USB drive would not return until all write buffers were flushed, would not permit large write buffers to a USB drive -and- nothing else would attempt to write the USB drive in the background.
It's not a matter of 'programmed well', it's a matter of which sync/ordering semantics are specified and documented. Your claim is similar to saying that a hot dog is not cooked well because it's not an omelette.
Filesystems are generally specified as being async/non-atomic (modulo some syscalls like sync/fsync) and so well-written userland code will assume this. If you want different semantics, you can specify others -- there is a sync option in fstab, and various journaling/cache options for EXT and other filesystems. Alternatively, you can use SQL or some other abstraction layer that provides a even stricter set of guarantees.
Knowing the right tool for the job is essential, and the first step is reading the documentation on the tool to see what it does and does not promise to do.
[ And, as a side note, it's not clear that the "right" set of specifications for a USB drive is either sync/async. First of all, the bus by which a drive is connected is only tangentially related. Second, it's the application layer, not the transport layer that determines the constraints. For instance, if you were using a USB RAID to work with video files, async would likely be the right option as sync filesystem semantics are unnecessary to the application and could constrain performance. ]
I don't know about Sweden, but in the US you can't run the statute of limitations by being a fugitive from justice.
At least here in the US, once charges are filed, there is no further statute of limitations. The accused can get the charges dismissed if the trial is unreasonably delayed[1] through no fault of their own, but in this case it seems plausible that the lack of speedy trial has to do with the defendant.
[1] See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) for a more full discussion
This is an awesome setup (I'm rocking it right now), but it's always been a lot more expensive than a desktop + laptop setup for a lot less performance.
Post-Jobs Apple doesn't seem to understand how pros work.
Just because they chose to de-emphasize what pros want doesn't mean they don't understand it.
As I see it, they can:
Make a non-pro laptop that compromises things that pros want
Make a pro laptop that compromises things that non-pros want
Make a hybrid laptop that compromises things from both sides
Build both laptops at the same time, spreading engineering effort out over more products in the lineup
Is there enough of a market for professional laptops versus regular folks that it makes sense to do (2) or even (3)? This is basically just a question of projected sales numbers, right?
I really don't see how you can jump from a choice of market focus to a lack of understanding of the market. Are you asserting that there are millions of untapped sales here?
My understanding from the US (in a past life as a photography geek) was that once you take a picture from a legal vantage point, both property rights and copyright vest in the photographer.
Well, a lot of judges that have looked into the issue for many hours have disagreed with that. The question went back and forth to the DC Circuit 3 or 4 times and was about to go en banc when the Trump FCC started backtracking on it.
But in any event, what harm could it do to for Congress to reiterate it in plain and unambiguous language so clear than that even the most diehard supporter/opponent of NN would have to concede controls.
That is to say, taking notice of the fact that there is a non-frivolous lawsuit on the question of "does the FCC have authority to do X" (esp: if the lawsuit has been bouncing around a while), Congress might jump in and say "Yes definitely X" or "No, definitely !X" if for no other reason than being assured of having their intent control the outcome.
Just curious, is there a Canadian law or precedent that states that a third party cannot take and use a photograph from a public vantage point?
My understanding from the 'photographer's rights" talk I heard decades ago (it's a bit hazy though) was that Canada was quite comparable to the US in terms of where you were allowed to take pictures from.
Exactly. We are obviously entitled to privacy (via anti-tapping laws) when conducting a conversation over a public phone network, so I fail to see why we shouldn't expect privacy in other contexts.
Except that most of those anti-tapping laws come from Congress as opposed to being mandated by the Fourth Amendment.
In fact, the entire premise of the Stored Communications Act is that Congress passed a law granting more protection[1] to third-party-stored data like emails than the courts had afforded it under the Constitution.
Which is actually supposed to be how shit works. The Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling. It's supposed to represent the absolute bare minimum of rights that can never be taken away, not the maximum extent of protection.
[1] At the same time as enabling those protections, however, the SCA did mandate that third parties turn over the data once the procedural protects kicked in. In effect, it took a system where third parties could voluntarily turn your emails over to the government with no court supervision into a system where it is illegal for the third party to turn your emails over without a court order and mandatory for them to turn it over when the government does have a court order.
That was sort of the 'grand compromise' of the SCA -- increased requirement for the government to go to court combined with increased powers of the court's orders. Not a bad deal, all in all.
What do you mean by "open to an argument"? This is a deeply ambiguous phrase.
I'm sure he would be open to an argument, because it's a judge's job to listen to each party's claims before deciding the case. But that's trivial to the point of meaninglessness.
If you mean, however, that he's been sympathetic to the argument, that's entirely nonsense because no litigant has ever taken that position and so he had no opportunity to even hear that claim. That doesn't make it right or wrong, it just means the issue never came up.
[ And the reason it never came up is that, up till now, the main argument has been about the scope of delegated powers to the FCC and whether their actions comply the APA. ]
Please find the exact clause and wording in the Constitution where it grants the government the right to tell a private company what it can and cannot distribute to customers voluntarily consuming its services. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
This is quite silly. The Constitution undoubtedly gives Congress the right to regulate ISPs that are engaging in interstate commerce. Congress could pass a law mandating Net Neutrality and directing an appropriate agency (likely the FCC) to draft rules to enforce it. Congress could also pass a law specifically saying that no agency has the authority to create such a rule.
Guess what. Congress did fucking neither. That's all we needed, a simple up or down from the one body that has final goddamned authority. Instead, they remained silent and so we have to parse the content of laws from previous decades instead of having a clear and concise national policy from a legislative body that's suppose to make policy.
The anger at judges and lawyers and agencies is valid but misplaced. The one body that could resolve the issue has gone out to lunch.
I mean, you were the one that decided on this analogy:-)
All that I really meant here was that Yelp has an interest in seeing the evidence that the post is libelous (which is may be!) and the opportunity to challenge it (or not, if they agree with the evidence).
And, as an added note, there is a process in the courts for adding a non-party to a case by serving them notice. Basically, you send them a formal letter with something like "hey, this case materially impacts your interests, deets included". That's literally it.
Of course you don't get to keep the car. What you do get is notice a chance to challenge the finding in court that it is stolen.
Let me adjust you analogy to what actually happened. Alice accuses Bob of stealing a car and selling it to Carol. Alice sues Bob, and Bob doesn't even show up in court to defend it. The court grants Alice summary judgment and declares the car stolen. Now Alice comes up to Carol and demands the car.
Carol disagrees with the conclusion, or at least she isn't sure and would like to see the factual basis for Alice's claim and, depending on her assessment of those facts, to challenge it in court. After all, at this point the court has not actually seen evidence or heard testimony -- they've seen only an untested pleading by Alice. Now, maybe Carol challenge it in court and loses, in which case she has to return the car. Or maybe she wins. Or maybe, given notice and the pleading, she decides not to challenge it because Alice's case is very strong. But we certainly don't know the outcome before she gets a chance to go to court.
So I guess, to summarize, Yelp might in fact lose in court. But that does not mean that they don't have the option to contest it. And so far there has been no adversarial proceeding declaring the speech libelous, just a default judgment based on an untested complaint.
The point is that the employer is required by a court order to take the employee's wages and remit them to the employee's creditor. The employer is a third party to the debt between the employee and creditor. It's really not at all different than ordering a defaming post be taken down - if anything, it's less of a burden.
Yes, I get that. But it doesn't implicate any core constitutional rights held by the employer.
Honestly, I think the following passage from Richard v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793, 798 (1996) is completely dispositive:
âoeâ[A person]. . . is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.â(TM) . . . This rule is part of our âdeep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court.â(TM)...
A judgment or decree among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them, but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings." Id., at 762; Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Ill. Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 329 (1971). â
There was a judgment of libel between the plaintiff and defendant. Yelp is not designated as a party and has not been made a party.
Finally, I don't get the huge deal here. It's not like Yelp gets a friggin veto over libel actions or some other magic button. The only thing they deserve is notice that the lawsuit is happening and the opportunity to be heard in court.
First, copyright and expression rights are not at all the same. The original author has granted Yelp the limited right to republish their work, just like I give/. the right to republish and distribute this comment.
Second, there is indeed considerable precedent in the US that the right to expressive speech protects the right of a publisher to re-publish the works of others. This includes Yelp. Here's some references:
Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205, 211 (1964) -- Holding that a bookstore had an independent right to challenge an obscenity finding
Richard v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793, 798 (1996) -- a person âoeâis not bound by a judgment in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.â(TM) . . . This rule is part of our âdeep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court.â(TM)â
Finally, we all know and agree that libel is not protected. But in this case there was no trial establishing this fact. The defendant never showed up and so the plaintiff got an order by default. This is not sufficient procedural protection to allow Yelp to be ordered to take it down. And this is literally all that's asked, that Yelp be given notice and opportunity to challenge the finding in court.
That is to say, the important thing here is that the right to expression yields to libel only in such case where the normal rules of due process are followed.
Not at all. Happens all the time when an employer is forced to garnish someone's wages. Removing a post is not an unreasonable burden on Yelp.
The employer garnishing wages is not taking any of his money, it's the employee's wages.
By contrast, forcing Yelp to remove content implicates their First Amendment rights to expressive speech.
That has its own remedy. Courts don't look lightly on perjury or abuse of process.
The issue is that there is no party before the court to represent this interest. The only people that were caught doing this were exposed by third parties acting on behalf of the public. And while I appreciate their dedication to righting a wrong, this is not a scalable way to ensure justice.
Our court system is just not set up to defend interests of parties not before the courts.
Slashdot Mirror
They most certainly do not, unless the proxy is somehow losing confidentiality of the private keys corresponding to the issued certificates. But keeping key material confidential is a core responsibility of IT, across the board :-)
Sure. A misconfigured proxy is Really Bad(TM). A properly configured proxy would not relay traffic unless the remote was verified. This is also core basic responsibilities of an IT department to configure stuff according to best practice.
This isn't an issue with the mobile apps, it's an issue with boneheaded configuration on the backend not to verify TLS. This is basically a problem with any application ever deployed if it's set to ignore important security requirements.
How do you go to the grocery store? Surely you don't believe that unless you personally milked the cow, you can't know that it's milk and of comparable trustworthiness to any white liquid you find in a random container, right? When people say that milk is inspected by the (fallible) FDA/USDA, do you scoff at their "argument from authority"? I mean, at some point in your life you must have had to accept that there are imperfect systems that nevertheless work reasonably well and that have means for self-correcting errors when they do happen. The vast majority of milk sold in the US is milk, and it's reasonable to trust the milk from a reputable grocery store even if you don't personally know who milked it.
I mean, there's plenty of legitimate criticism and improvements to be made about the state of CAs. It ain't perfect, but trust-nihilism isn't even close to a reasonable alternative.
It's not "breaking" HTTPs, any more that distributed authorized_keys "break" SSH. The owner of Group Policy on a machine has (by definition) the authority to set HTTPs policies, read files, spy on the screen and plant furry porn in your home directory. That's literally what it means to be in group policy.
As I see it, the IT admins should be absolutely transparent with employees that all content touching the machine is subject to being recorded and have clear policies on whose approvals are necessary to go read the logs.
Indeed, this is quite accurate. For use cases that only peg the CPU for a minute at a time (for instance, incremental compilation of a large software project), this is great -- in fact the turbo is significantly higher than the nominal clock speed of the CPU, essentially allowing it to 'save/borrow' TDP from the past and future in order to deliver snappier instantaneous performance.
On the other hand, for use cases that peg the CPU for minutes at a time (for instance, encoding a long video, clean build of a huge project), turbo gets you no benefit and you are limited by the steady-state TDP.
So which is more important? Honestly, I think everyone will have to look at their own use-case and decide. For a lot of folks, they don't often exercise the latter use case and might be fine with lower steady-state performance. Others might not.
Trademark law does not prevent people from talking about Zelda or Windows or Pepsi. Indeed, it would be quite counterproductive if it did.
What it does is prohibit you from marketing a product that could confuse customers. So no Melda video game, but a Melda soda would be a-ok.
Nintendo is actually one of the better ones for popular games from their back catalog for modern consoles. This is a far cry different from a publisher that has gone out of business or who longer sells the old titles.
It's not a matter of 'programmed well', it's a matter of which sync/ordering semantics are specified and documented. Your claim is similar to saying that a hot dog is not cooked well because it's not an omelette.
Filesystems are generally specified as being async/non-atomic (modulo some syscalls like sync/fsync) and so well-written userland code will assume this. If you want different semantics, you can specify others -- there is a sync option in fstab, and various journaling/cache options for EXT and other filesystems. Alternatively, you can use SQL or some other abstraction layer that provides a even stricter set of guarantees.
Knowing the right tool for the job is essential, and the first step is reading the documentation on the tool to see what it does and does not promise to do.
[ And, as a side note, it's not clear that the "right" set of specifications for a USB drive is either sync/async. First of all, the bus by which a drive is connected is only tangentially related. Second, it's the application layer, not the transport layer that determines the constraints. For instance, if you were using a USB RAID to work with video files, async would likely be the right option as sync filesystem semantics are unnecessary to the application and could constrain performance. ]
I don't know about Sweden, but in the US you can't run the statute of limitations by being a fugitive from justice.
At least here in the US, once charges are filed, there is no further statute of limitations. The accused can get the charges dismissed if the trial is unreasonably delayed[1] through no fault of their own, but in this case it seems plausible that the lack of speedy trial has to do with the defendant.
[1] See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) for a more full discussion
There are a lot of billion-dollar failures that show that you can burn money on a losing business model as well.
From whom? The family of the dead girl?
I understand it's tragic to be the guy driving the train, whether it's an accident or a suicide, but who exactly has wronged the driver in this case?
This is an awesome setup (I'm rocking it right now), but it's always been a lot more expensive than a desktop + laptop setup for a lot less performance.
Just because they chose to de-emphasize what pros want doesn't mean they don't understand it.
As I see it, they can:
Is there enough of a market for professional laptops versus regular folks that it makes sense to do (2) or even (3)? This is basically just a question of projected sales numbers, right?
I really don't see how you can jump from a choice of market focus to a lack of understanding of the market. Are you asserting that there are millions of untapped sales here?
My understanding from the US (in a past life as a photography geek) was that once you take a picture from a legal vantage point, both property rights and copyright vest in the photographer.
Well, a lot of judges that have looked into the issue for many hours have disagreed with that. The question went back and forth to the DC Circuit 3 or 4 times and was about to go en banc when the Trump FCC started backtracking on it.
But in any event, what harm could it do to for Congress to reiterate it in plain and unambiguous language so clear than that even the most diehard supporter/opponent of NN would have to concede controls.
That is to say, taking notice of the fact that there is a non-frivolous lawsuit on the question of "does the FCC have authority to do X" (esp: if the lawsuit has been bouncing around a while), Congress might jump in and say "Yes definitely X" or "No, definitely !X" if for no other reason than being assured of having their intent control the outcome.
Just curious, is there a Canadian law or precedent that states that a third party cannot take and use a photograph from a public vantage point?
My understanding from the 'photographer's rights" talk I heard decades ago (it's a bit hazy though) was that Canada was quite comparable to the US in terms of where you were allowed to take pictures from.
Except that most of those anti-tapping laws come from Congress as opposed to being mandated by the Fourth Amendment.
In fact, the entire premise of the Stored Communications Act is that Congress passed a law granting more protection[1] to third-party-stored data like emails than the courts had afforded it under the Constitution.
Which is actually supposed to be how shit works. The Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling. It's supposed to represent the absolute bare minimum of rights that can never be taken away, not the maximum extent of protection.
[1] At the same time as enabling those protections, however, the SCA did mandate that third parties turn over the data once the procedural protects kicked in. In effect, it took a system where third parties could voluntarily turn your emails over to the government with no court supervision into a system where it is illegal for the third party to turn your emails over without a court order and mandatory for them to turn it over when the government does have a court order.
That was sort of the 'grand compromise' of the SCA -- increased requirement for the government to go to court combined with increased powers of the court's orders. Not a bad deal, all in all.
What do you mean by "open to an argument"? This is a deeply ambiguous phrase.
I'm sure he would be open to an argument, because it's a judge's job to listen to each party's claims before deciding the case. But that's trivial to the point of meaninglessness.
If you mean, however, that he's been sympathetic to the argument, that's entirely nonsense because no litigant has ever taken that position and so he had no opportunity to even hear that claim. That doesn't make it right or wrong, it just means the issue never came up.
[ And the reason it never came up is that, up till now, the main argument has been about the scope of delegated powers to the FCC and whether their actions comply the APA. ]
This is quite silly. The Constitution undoubtedly gives Congress the right to regulate ISPs that are engaging in interstate commerce. Congress could pass a law mandating Net Neutrality and directing an appropriate agency (likely the FCC) to draft rules to enforce it. Congress could also pass a law specifically saying that no agency has the authority to create such a rule.
Guess what. Congress did fucking neither. That's all we needed, a simple up or down from the one body that has final goddamned authority. Instead, they remained silent and so we have to parse the content of laws from previous decades instead of having a clear and concise national policy from a legislative body that's suppose to make policy.
The anger at judges and lawyers and agencies is valid but misplaced. The one body that could resolve the issue has gone out to lunch.
All the major services use the cloud as an opaque data store for a client-encrypted blob.
Ah yes, the old "citing caselaw on topic" form of humor.
It's a very niche genre of comedy.
I mean, you were the one that decided on this analogy :-)
All that I really meant here was that Yelp has an interest in seeing the evidence that the post is libelous (which is may be!) and the opportunity to challenge it (or not, if they agree with the evidence).
And, as an added note, there is a process in the courts for adding a non-party to a case by serving them notice. Basically, you send them a formal letter with something like "hey, this case materially impacts your interests, deets included". That's literally it.
Of course you don't get to keep the car. What you do get is notice a chance to challenge the finding in court that it is stolen.
Let me adjust you analogy to what actually happened. Alice accuses Bob of stealing a car and selling it to Carol. Alice sues Bob, and Bob doesn't even show up in court to defend it. The court grants Alice summary judgment and declares the car stolen. Now Alice comes up to Carol and demands the car.
Carol disagrees with the conclusion, or at least she isn't sure and would like to see the factual basis for Alice's claim and, depending on her assessment of those facts, to challenge it in court. After all, at this point the court has not actually seen evidence or heard testimony -- they've seen only an untested pleading by Alice. Now, maybe Carol challenge it in court and loses, in which case she has to return the car. Or maybe she wins. Or maybe, given notice and the pleading, she decides not to challenge it because Alice's case is very strong. But we certainly don't know the outcome before she gets a chance to go to court.
So I guess, to summarize, Yelp might in fact lose in court. But that does not mean that they don't have the option to contest it. And so far there has been no adversarial proceeding declaring the speech libelous, just a default judgment based on an untested complaint.
Yes, I get that. But it doesn't implicate any core constitutional rights held by the employer.
Honestly, I think the following passage from Richard v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793, 798 (1996) is completely dispositive:
There was a judgment of libel between the plaintiff and defendant. Yelp is not designated as a party and has not been made a party.
Finally, I don't get the huge deal here. It's not like Yelp gets a friggin veto over libel actions or some other magic button. The only thing they deserve is notice that the lawsuit is happening and the opportunity to be heard in court.
Hi rude internet troll,
First, copyright and expression rights are not at all the same. The original author has granted Yelp the limited right to republish their work, just like I give /. the right to republish and distribute this comment.
Second, there is indeed considerable precedent in the US that the right to expressive speech protects the right of a publisher to re-publish the works of others. This includes Yelp. Here's some references:
Quantity of Copies of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205, 211 (1964) -- Holding that a bookstore had an independent right to challenge an obscenity finding
Richard v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793, 798 (1996) -- a person âoeâis not bound by a judgment in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.â(TM) . . . This rule is part of our âdeep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court.â(TM)â
Finally, we all know and agree that libel is not protected. But in this case there was no trial establishing this fact. The defendant never showed up and so the plaintiff got an order by default. This is not sufficient procedural protection to allow Yelp to be ordered to take it down. And this is literally all that's asked, that Yelp be given notice and opportunity to challenge the finding in court.
That is to say, the important thing here is that the right to expression yields to libel only in such case where the normal rules of due process are followed.
The employer garnishing wages is not taking any of his money, it's the employee's wages.
By contrast, forcing Yelp to remove content implicates their First Amendment rights to expressive speech.
The issue is that there is no party before the court to represent this interest. The only people that were caught doing this were exposed by third parties acting on behalf of the public. And while I appreciate their dedication to righting a wrong, this is not a scalable way to ensure justice.
Our court system is just not set up to defend interests of parties not before the courts.