undefined

points

by acoustics7 hours ago |

comments

by rtsam7 hours ago|

[-]

I think that is the idea. They shouldn't exist without a prompt mitigation path.

In other words, if you can't deal with the false positives in a timely manner. You SHOULD be liable for the damages.

I can't build a budget car put together in an unsafe manner. Then complain I can't compete due to all the peoples cars crashing and blowing up and suing me.

by kevin_thibedeau7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

You document your claims with concrete evidence of fraud. That will be your libel defense. No evidence means you bear the full responsibility of a fuckup.

by acoustics6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

At internet scale, this would roughly be equivalent to not doing any warning or detection at all.

Scalable systems need to use heuristics to catch threats. Needing concrete evidence in every case means that an enormously higher amount of malicious resources will not be flagged.

There is a policy argument as to the right balance of concerns here. But there is a clear trade-off to make.

by pocksuppet1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Then that heuristic is your evidence in court. If it's a good heuristic, you win the case. If it's a bad heuristic, you lose the case.

"Your Honor, we banned this person's website because his web page contained the word 'bitcoin' more than 5 times" will not hold up.

"Your Honor, we banned this person's website because it contains a bitcoin miner script. See, here is the script, and it matches the hash value found in these other attacks" hopefully holds up.

by donmcronald2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> Needing concrete evidence in every case means that an enormously higher amount of malicious resources will not be flagged.

Giving everyone a fair trial just doesn't scale. It costs too much.