This makes it all sound like the guy helped create Vine, a service for posting short video clips. He then sold it off and the buyer eventually closed it. He's now deciding he wants to run Vine again so is launching a new video service hosting short clips.

I'd have thought the initial purchase of Vine would have included some sort of clause saying you can't just run off and create a competitor to the company you've just sold.

I use Feedly (free, I don't pay anything) and have yet to see any 'fake article' type injected entries.

Do you use an AdBlocker? I always will have either uBlock or AdBlock Plus depending on which device which may explain it. Although I also use the Feedly Android app and haven't seen anything there either.

What were these injected ads like?

I have an EX2 and tried the username and password on the 2.11.xx firmware and it didn't let me login.

I then read the actual original vulnerability release and you can't use the login details to sign into the UI, the username and password are hardcoded into a specific file that needs to be called via a HTTP(s) request. So you can just test this by attempting to login.

I think it's Apple nowadays. And they deserve it.
We realized we actually need Windows in order to have backdoors.

Meh..
Some people summed up my feelings about this site so perfectly well that I don't even have to say anything else or append anything.
BR
N

There's no attack like a bee attack..

Yeah the NY times article was scaremongering and partially wrong but the 'bad' thing Uber did here was break the Apple TOS which say developers should not be fingerprinting users devices.

You're supposed to be able to install an app, uninstall it and then the next time you install the same app the company has no idea it is a second installation.

Apple have tried to give each app a new unique udid, unlike the old days of iOS where everyone read the same UDID

Wow, very defensive. You aren't understanding this what so ever. So let's leave it at that :)

But you seem to have completely misread my question. I was making a point out of the summary stating it only had to be 'plausible'
I know full well about how an IP isn't concrete proof

I'm fully in agreement that an IP address proves nothing in a case like this. I merely wanted to question the (we've all agreed quite clearly wrong) summary.

I'm not sure why you are saying I'm wrong, I was questioning the summary. It seems to be the summary that was wrong.

Ah, that makes sense then.

Although it does mean that this sentence in the summary is simply wrong - "To prove direct infringement copyright holders merely have to make it "plausible" that a defendant, Thomas Gonzales in this case, is indeed the copyright infringer."

If it was true, it doesn't matter how many other peoples shared the internet connection.

Which is exactly why I repeated 'plausible' three times as my point is, lets bring out the car analogy, if Mr Johnson owns a car and that car is caught speeding by a speed camera. It is PLAUSIBLE that Mr Johnson was speeding as it is his car. It's entirely plausible. It doesn't mean it wasn't Mrs Johnson driving or Mr Johnson's kid. It may have been stolen and it wasn't anyone in the Johnson family. But it is definitely PLAUSIBLE that it was Mr Johnson.

Exactly the same applies in this case, if the only requirement is whether it is plausible, then surely the IP belongs to Gonzales' account with the ISP so it is plausible it was him.

As much as I disagree with the copyright system across the globe, and would be a hypocrite to say downloading is wrong.

Surely the judge has got it wrong here? If this sentence is true "To prove direct infringement copyright holders merely have to make it "plausible" that a defendant, Thomas Gonzales in this case, is indeed the copyright infringer." then the IP address linked to the defendant's contract with the ISP is surely "plausible"?

If the IDs weren't used by normal accounts and then later were used, Twitter surely has to have some involvement.