FTA:

"About: ... We use the term graffiti for our work since we are storing data in a way that non-network participants may regard as unsightly or unwanted vandalism. ..."

"Update: ... It was never our intention to maliciously deface sites, ..."

I don't blame them for changing their tune once they came under fire, but I'm surprised that they have both statements on the page at once. Or am I somehow seeing a contradiction where none exists?

I ask the same questions (not really, but the intent) of the traffic tickets I have gotten here in Colorado. They say "If you mail us a check to make this go away, we'll drop 2 points off of the infraction. In doing so, you are pleading guilty and get rid of varous rights. However, if you choose to challenge this in court, this deal is off the table and we guarantee that all points will be assessed. (Unless you win.)"

I *guess* it's legal to do this. Heck, if it was monetary, I'd even support it as reasonable. ("If you come to court, it costs us $60 to run the trial, and you have to pay that additional fee if you lose. But if you pay in advance you basically get $60 off.") But this bribery with points reductions seems wrong.

In my last case, they even changed it from a speeding ticket to a "defective vehicle" ticket (which my car is definitely not) in order to justify the points drop and (unwritten) to help with car insurance costs.

Bribing citizens to give up their right to go to court, by promising to help protect their record for insurance costs, feels really wrong.