Source? I saw they said: http://help.census.abs.gov.au/...

i.e. no security issue. Their systems got overloaded, melted down, and flagged an alert for a possible issue that didn't exist, so they shut it down.

My first part was a little bit tongue in cheek. half a million to a company that specialises in such should have been enough but clearly wasn't.
However you seem to be harping on the security of the data - There was no "security breach" - No one got access to their systems. They simply got overloaded (blew up a router, etc) and shut it down because it simply wasn't robust enough. But zero security issues. Keeping a server up and running and able to support a predictive load is one thing, security of data is another thing entirely. Those responsible for the server being able to handle the traffic have nothing whatsoever to do with those ensuring the security of the data.
Then again, don't trust anyone to keep any data secure and you'll be better off. Government requires we submit this data - and it can - so either fill it out and suck it up, pay the fine, or leave the country, but never assume perfect security.

Nothing, aside for that it's a distributed attempt to get service, not denial attempt, so probably even more effective at clogging the system. They spent about AU$400,000 on load testing (Should've been more than enough). They don't want to admit this was wasted money, and their IT guy said "With this many people trying to fill it out at once it's just like a DDOS attack!" so they've just gone with it.

Then he should focus on bringing Saudi Arabia down... oh, they're richer than he is. Next best tantrum target? Oh, that newspaper who reported a fact. He sure stomped that journalist down.

Gawker did nothing deserving of this. They did not "ruin average peoples lives". Sure, that sex tape was not something I needed or even wanted to see, (I actually still haven't seen it, don't need to, reading about it is enough for me) ... but a news company gets hold of a sex tape of a celebrity, I expect they feel that they have information the public will view (and they were right). It's not like they planted hidden camera's in Hogan's bedroom. This is standard news cycle stuff. This is not the exclusive domain of Gawker. Punishment - well, figure out who posted the story, charge them, fine the company (a reasonable amount, not hundreds of millions) and carry on, like in every other similar situation... but no, Thiel has more money than god (does god have money?) and money is power, as demonstrated. With how he has gone with Gawker, I'm curious who he'll go for next, and how that goes down. Might not be such an easily disparaged target next time.

No, you stated there is a walled garden, defined roughly what that meant (which I think is an argument as to why it is a disadvantage) then acted like it was the opposite.

You said something, in a reply to my post, but it was some rhetoric, and didn't clarify anything at all to me.

I'm a little fuzzy on how allowing further tuning below the company level is a disadvantage, as opposed to the walled garden....

You'd be dead right.... if it weren't "opt-in" - You agree to the ToS when you buy the game. No different to getting a drivers licence - When you get one you're suddenly liable for a lot more than you would otherwise have been. If you don't want to have to follow the road rules then - yup - you don't drive, noone is forcing you to. Noone is forcing you to buy a software product and agree to how you use it.
It's common practice to require a signed agreement in order to receive (usually limited) access to something, be it a game, data used in running a business, or anything.
Every other business gets a legal recourse, but because this is 'just a game' they shouldn't have one?

p.s. (not advocating this at all, but I think it's better than the current system blizzard is using)
( snipped from: http://www.mapsofworld.com/spo... )
Punishment for Athletes in ancient Summer Games
In the ancient Summer Games, there were rules for every game contested for. Those who cheated or violated the rules were disqualified from the contest. Along with the contestant, the trainer and the sponsoring city-state were also fined.

Cheaters could be punished by whipping or levying heavy fines on them. The money from these fines was used to construct bronze statues of Zeus. These statues were placed along the tunnel that leads to the stadium. Each statue's inscription told the cautionary tale of the offense. The athletes walked past these statues as a reminder of the importance of obeying the rules.

Well, lets say you walk into a police station.
You decide that you want to go behind their desk, and hop on their computer, access their internal systems, find out where your ex is living, whatever.
Well, while the police station is there for you to visit and place complaints at, etc, and the computer systems hold the data that makes this possible, it's protected data, and you're not allowed to look at it like that or use it that way.

What bossland is accessing is protected code. They are reading it out of the memory, modifying it, and then using that to render an interface showing that hidden information.

An alternate example:
Think of blizzard as the olympic committee (they exist, right?). They have set up the olympic games (overwatch) and people can enter and compete by buying tickets. As I'm using the olympics as my example I trust you're generally familiar with the sort of rules and agreements a competitor must agree to.
Bossland would be the shady 'doctor' that hangs around at the contestant entrance selling performance enhancing drugs. (And unfortunately these drugs don't have any foolproof detection rate).

Three things can happen here.
1) run the shady doctor off - throw him in jail, ideally. (what would happen if this were real world)
2) cancel the games - if you can't have a level playing field, there's no point to the competition. (this seems to be what many here think would be the best solution - 'it's not illegal, you can't do anything about it')
I'm in favour of working through the legal system to try to reach (1) - This in reality means law reform, probably, or enhanced trade agreements (and we all know how those go) So I totally get that it's no easy path, but I far prefer it to option 2.

I never claimed bossland has broken any laws.... where did I do that? Unless I was pointing out that they've broken US laws in which case I was also acknowledging that they don't operate out of the US.) The legal system is decades behind this sort of issue.
It's already pretty clear bossland is going to try to just ignore it, they've been doing that for years. But I don't care what bossland _do_ I care about what the courts do. What bossland 'does' has no relevance here.

And of course you are thankful that people in one country can't be punished for their offences to another country. You're a lawyer.
It's that kind of attitude that leads to all our international wars - When you can't prosecute someone for stealing your IP/whatever and costing you money, well, what's left to you? Funny how that works, isn't it?
If Blizzard fail to shut down bosslands activity this way, I'd expect them to sue the german government itself, and progress from there.

Still unclear? are we talking about black market drug companies, or not?

Yup, and what's in that protected memory they decrypt and modify? Oh, yeah, game code. It's a bit complicated, funnily enough, but that's what the courts are there to decide. You've made it clear you don't know what you're talking about already, however :)

No, I've been saying all along that bossland is wrong, that the legal system isn't capable of handling international intellectual property rights, and that Bliz has just cause to take them to court and establish a precedent.
You seem to think that Blizzard has no merit, period, and should let bossland do as they please. It's laughable, but now I know you're apparently a lawyer, I see why you're on this path

Now it comes clear, you have a lawyers mind.
As for my logic, I'm still waiting for you to illustrate a single flaw in it, however now I know you're a lawyer I understand that you merely obfuscate what you don't understand, and are trying to jam your personal ideas of what it should be onto it. I can't criticise you for it really, it's what works in the courtroom.
It also explains why you're continuing to fight a losing argument even when you are wildly unqualified :)

You keep making statements like this.... I know it's a good court tactic, but this is a forum and you're going to have to back up your statements with something. I know you won't, because you can't, but it'd be nice if you at least tried :)

It's going to be a tough road regardless. As for if Bossland has broken any laws, clearly they have, they just are outside of those laws jurisdiction (as those laws were created in and for a time where this kind of predatory business practices weren't even conceived)
Fortunately it doesn't matter that it's going to be tough (btw, you're a lawyer, how many "easy" cases like this do you come across? I'd have figured they're all tough, regardless of if laws are broken or not) cause this kind of thing is part of doing business, and Blizz has some good lawyers. So good on them, lets hope that there's justice at the end (wait, you're a lawyer, justice isn't relevant to you)

Indeed they do, and that's where it gets complicated (how can you not realise this as a lawyer?!?) - if bossland was only doing business with german citizens and hacking german made games, then no worries, let germany sort it out, but bossland is doing business internationally, and hacking foreign software.
You still think that just because they're in germany they should get a free pass?

Totally relevant as an example of what one country can do to another if they piss it off. But of course you'll focus on the reason for that particular embargo and claim that negates relevance, no surprise there, keep on with your misdirection :)

I was projecting my ignorance of software development and hacking onto you? Is that what you mean? Or merely pointing out what you confirmed with the above reply: You don't know about software, you're a lawyer. What you care about is what can be argued in court to protect your clients, regardless of truth or fairness. (See how when I make statements I qualify them with logic and reasoning (which you don't need to agree with, but can't even provide your own) - try it out, we might get somewhere. So far all you've done is bluster and say "no that's wrong", please try to add something next time, you're not giving me much to work with here)

Oh, you're dead on the lawsuit details are smoky at best, but I see that as part of the legal system as a whole, and in particular an archaic legal system trying to solve problems in a world of international digital goods and services that are traded and sold between such legal systems, etc... There's more gymnastics required than I have the patience or inclination to unravel :P
And yeah, the judge on this is going to need to be very careful what precedent is set, however i think it's pretty clear that there's a problem here, and I would love to think that there's the possibility of a good precedent being set here, one that protects creators and their creations from this sort of abuse, in the international community. (But odds are it won't)

Yup, and they will continue to do so as they detect them, and they change their patterns, etc.... It's a neverending battle.
But that's not a 100% solution, and Bliz has put a lot of effort into this game and wants it to be the best it can be, so they're also pursuing other avenues, like trying to end the battle legally.
But the law hasn't caught up with the interconnected world, else bossland would never have dared to attempt profiting off them (and us, if you're a paying customer of overwatch or the other games they have done similar things to) this way in the first place. So it'll be interesting to see the outcome of the case.

There's a lot of interesting discussions about how global connectivity and digital goods and services will be continually at odds with a non-global authority to govern it.
Meanwhile, Blizz will continue to pursue whatever avenues are available to it both in the US and the EU (and wherever else they do business)

OK, are we still talking about black market drug companies or not? Changing your version of the definition does indeed rended my issue with black market drug companies moot. Congratulations.

Did you even google "Watchover Tyrant" to see what it actually does or how it works? It's an overlay, it reads from the RAM used by the game on the user's local system and draws a graphical overlay on top of the game; it doesn't control the player or enhance the player's health, armor, or weapons in any way. It's literally just a graphical overlay. It doesn't use Blizzard's servers in any way, nor does it use "private methods of access", it simply reads (and doesn't write) game RAM. It's questionable whether this violates the ToS in any way, as Overwatch and WoW have the same ToS and similar add-ons for WoW exist with Blizzard's blessing. Where Blizzard draws the line is writing to game RAM, injecting mouse or keyboard commands into the game (though some macro add-ons exist, which do this with Blizzard's blessing) or communicating with the game servers directly. Even if it is, in fact, a ToS violation, that's not a legal or civil matter and Blizzard's recourse is to terminate the offending account(s). Again, if your point does, in fact, stand, it is not supported by this argument.

I did check out the site, and also read about the suit, etc... the program access overwatches protected game code through methoes explicitly prohibited mbyt the licencing agreement to generate their overlay. Blizzard draws the line where they please. Hell, they have the right to ban you if you don't use any cheating software at all, if you want to get technical. They can ban you for taking advantage of an unintended feature, i.e. abusing a bug. And they define what a bug is, as it's their code and only they know it's intent (though they're pretty crystal clear on their intent)
Regardless my point stands.

Projection of what? You keep making these little comments, but never offer any substance to them.