If you have been around for any length of time you would know that the reason bug sharing with open source groups became a thing is that without a concern about exposure software companies seldom patched things.

This created opportunities for people to develop reputations based on the quality of their finds and eventually created the proof needed to develope things such as well established open source intelligence and companies that specialized in coordinating bug bounty programs, and decentralized pen testing groups.

If you cut off the ability to share with anyone but the vendor who created the bug and the government all the rest of it fails.

It is one thing to choose to put your efforts into free or open source efforts, it is another thing for the government to mandate that you only share with them and not with others (such as open source intelligence groups).

Why put you efforts toward finding vulnerabilities if you do not think that you can either profit from it or tell anyone about it?

Sure some may find interest in handing everything over to the government or keeping all your findings to yourself in a personal collection, but it is quite likely that neither will go far in paying your bills.

Whitney Merrill has been attempting to address this on Twitter, sadly it seems to be a thankless job.

https://twitter.com/wbm312/sta...

For those who are not aware, she is someone who has been working in the interest of privacy for quite some time.

They might not keep logs, but once someone takes over their environment that group can start logging whatever they would like.

I could imagine that the laughter that could come with the gas could lift one's mood.

If one could trigger giddiness and laughter in depressed people without the gas would you get a similar result? What if you brought in depressed people who were ticklish and ticked them with feathers, would they have similar results?

It is not known, at least not be the courts.

Snap does not announce what the “achievements” are. I gather that this is part of the gameaficaction factor designed to keep people engaged.

From what has been published, Snap has yet to confirm nor deny if this or a similar “achievement“ exist. It now that the case is allowed to move forward, I suspect it will come out in the discovery phase.

There is no argument made that Snap speed filter was the sole reason for the accident, they are arguing that it is a contributing factor as the stupid people seemed to believe that by going well over 100 mph they could earn an “achievement” from Snap.

The people who were in the car speeding and using Snap are dead. That seems like some level of responsibility was been taken.

The families want a hearing to look into some of the factors that led to their deaths. Perhaps changes can be made that might make it a bit less likely for others to suffer similar fates in the future.

If you read the appellate court ruling you will see that the plaintiff argues that the young people killed in the accident believed that a “achievement” would awarded by snap for having a submission with a recorded speed greater than 100 mph.

I do not know if there is an “achievement” for a posted filter image above 100 mph or not, but it makes sense that companies that are built in part on the stupidity of their users should be in part responsible when this stupidity has consequences.

If nothing else, the speed filter that recorded/noted speeds on public roads well in excess of legal limits was not a good idea. Which should allow the case to be heard by the court.

You are far more optimistic than I am.

I suspect that before people are kicked out the door they will be re-organized in a manner that will prevent them from getting any form of significant severance.

This does not by any means suggest that it is a good idea for anyone with a basic awareness of their surroundings to continue to work in there.

They should get the hell out why they still have the ability to choose their own path.

Why would anyone still be working at these places?

Why would anyone pay 5 billion for these dead assets?

The idea that this was the starting point for launching a big social media effort was bad when Verizon attempted. Now it is even more laughable.