Those who establish, support and tolerate that system should be as directly exposed to its consequences as practicable. It is good for them to see these stories and feel the consequences of their decisions.

Incentives matter. When you get to make decisions that impact others, but not feel any of the costs associated with that, you do not have the correct incentives. I hope the staff of FDA read this and can’t sleep tonight. We can hope they feel some emotional pain, even if it is only some small subset of the pain they have and continue to cause to others.

FDA delenda est.

The team _will_ find out, and then instead of contributing to the success of the business in earnest, they’ll be doing stupid things like maximizing their changesets or racing for “easy” large changes like deleting a module.

It doesn’t matter whether those values do or do not correlate with reality (IMO, if they do, it is for relatively junior engineers only). If you give off the smell of measuring people like that, you will ruin any collaborative team environment and you risk never being able to recover that.

There’s a good chance you’ll chase away excellent engineers with this sort of low-effort metrics management too.

I'm definitely not a lawyer and I live nowhere near the Bay Area, but by my reading of most of these laws, this is illegal. I realize we often interpret these issues differently depending on who they effect, but this sounds like an open-and-shut case of discrimination to me.

As was common for 80s software textbooks, this was nicknamed for the distinctive image on the cover.

But (and now your edit clarifies that this indeed was your point), perhaps your point is just how difficult it would be to automatically disambiguate nicknames in diverse communities like StackExchange.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compilers:_Principles,_Techniq...

The other comments have already expressed why that is the case - but in summary, there is no security flaw coherently expressed here, Excel is possibly the right tool for the job (it saves tens of thousands of dollars of custom software development through government acquisition programs) and the editorialism in the title was unnecessary and further hurt the credibility of the "point."

The entire problem manifests from calling this lane keeping mechanism "Autopilot." Tesla should be prohibited from using that language until they have achieved a provably safer self-driving level 3+.

The problem is exacerbated by Musk's aggressive marketing-driven language. Saying things like we're two years out from full self-driving (first said in 2015) and the driver was warned to put his hands on the steering wheel (15 minutes prior to the crash) makes Musk look like he is plainly the bad guy and attempting to be misleading.

"Provably safe" probably means some sort of acceptance testing -- a blend of NTSB-operated obstacle course (with regression tests and the like) and real world exposure.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17249504

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

The fact is, it is the organization who published "personally identifiable information" on the public internet who should be punished - and, in any case, criminal law is not the tool to do it. The kid who incremented a number in a URL to download that information is not the bad guy. What if the kid was not Canadian? Are you going to try to extradite a Russian national over accessing information on a public web server?

When a server announces to the world that it can answer HTTP requests, making a reasonable number of HTTP requests is, to me and most technologists I know, authorization (and thus, should be seen as with colour of right or non-fraudulent). The fact those HTTP requests released data he was apparently not entitled to is a security issue, a bug, a problem to be paid for by the actor who manages the HTTP server, not a problem of law. Unfortunately, this section of law has not been used often enough to clarify to me the interpretation of those words.

Here are some follow on questions:

- Why was there "personal information" in FOI releases? Surely a FOI release was intended for the public, as that is the intent of the act. Who's fault is it that there was undesired information in the releases?

- How do we get this law changed? As the law is written, it hangs on the words "fraudulently and without colour of right" - the rest of the clause is incoherent babble of a 1985 technophobe.

[0] https://cippic.ca/

[1] https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Andy-F...

[2] https://nslegislature.ca/members

[3] http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/contact/index.html

[4] http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_00279.html

Of course, you also need to trust your hardware.