And yes, you MUST obey commands from the police. PERIOD. Even if they are wrong. Even if they are illegal. Your venue for fighting wrong is in the courts, not in the streets.

Not in a civilised country, that's the point. In the UK, the moment a police officer does anything illegal, they are no longer acting as a police officer. (The precedent was set when someone was found not guilty of "assault on a police officer" because the police officer was trespassing at the time.) Even if they are acting as a police officer, there's no general duty to obey their commands, they need a specific law which makes their specific command in those specific circumstances legally binding. We just don't treat policemen like second-rate gods in Europe.

(Also, "in the courts" is frequently "never", and it's just not healthy to have an instinct to start obeying without question the moment you hear "Police!" Questioning authority has to be instinctive to do it properly.)

One reason why I am never going to go to the US is the way that "non-compliance" can be mentioned in the same sentence as things like threats by so many people. Anyone who expects to be obeyed without question is a menace and should not be trusted with any sort of power or weapon.

Isn't there something fundamentally mad about a contract which requires a court to order people who aren't party to the contract to do something? "Make best efforts to prevent..." is something which could sensibly be part of a contract, but that wouldn't be relevant to a court action like this beyond explaining the motivation.

Report them to the police? I don't know if the laws where you are are different, but in the UK I'm pretty sure that counts as criminal damage, and it sounds like they will have done that to a lot of people.

Any time you see an advertisement on something of yours where being ad-supported wasn't an up-front part of the deal, the advertisers are trespassing against you. Avoid their products as a result. Make it very expensive for them to do this.

There's a difference between seeing crimes committed on TV and film, and seeing your co-workers, whom you have to be in the same building as, committing crimes

It's an even worse legal minefield than that. This has been established in one country, perhaps. But different legal systems may produce different results, and lots of software needs to be compliant in more than one country.

No, innocent people being found guilty is not the system working properly. I meant the thing I said, not some additional thing.

Even if the usernames did match, there would not be remotely enough evidence for a conviction. Proof in criminal cases is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt. "Someone might have hacked the account to do their nefarious deeds" would have been a reasxonable doubt. As would a software bug somewhere in the system. Complex systems cannot be assumed to be working perfectly. Starting such a prosecution without having been able to find any corroborating evidence is just hoping for the "he's accused of being a paedo, lock him up!" effect.

If plenty of people who probably did it are being found innocent, that's the system working as it's supposed to, since that "probably" means it wasn't provable beyond reasonable doubt.

If you're trying to respect copyright, you have a big problem that you have absolutely no idea whose code you're copying or what licenses it's available under. At least if it's from an LLM whose training data set is not publicised.

If it's the Google bot, maybe give it some alternative page which contains likely search terms but shuffles them and connects them with some sort of repeatable gibberish to poison the model?

It used to be that if someone hacks your website, they're criminally liable. But now there's an alternative threat of vast sums of money being spend running code which has a very low but nonzero probability of hacking your website, and if it happens, they can go "that wasn't my intention" and there won't be the mens rea for any prosecution. And this isn't going to be confined to website hacking. The question is how do we close this gap? Or does everyone just have to put up with these new risks?

Allow everyone to work. Simple, and also has the benefit of not being insanely authoritarian.

Don't give credit for failing less hard at basic competence than the average US police gang. Police officers who just blindly do what a computer tells them without checking everything properly still should not be allowed any kind of police powers.