In this case, there was a warrant and the established precedent of the Third Party Doctrine, which hopefully the court reigns in.
Blows my mind how courts haven't done anything about the networks of license plate readers tracking everyone's locations into a historical searchable database with poor access controls, which have neither of those qualifiers.
It's unreasonable to expect that the government agency responsible for passports, identity cards, and visas to not hold valuable data on people. Likewise it's pretty uncontroversial to believe that the data should be secured.
What's always controversial is how many resources or tax dollars to throw at securing the data or how responsible to hold the politicians and leaders who didn't fund securing the data in the first place.
In this specific case, the LLM security hype has been focused at the code unit level, where context can be kept small. Which is apparent in Mozilla's claims of we can handle all the defects in the code.
But gives that time old lesson not losing track of the forest for the trees, even if you have a nifty branch scanner.
John Oliver had a recent segment on prediction markets that had some insightful thoughts on the game that prediction markets are playing in marketing their services as betting and winning money to consumers, but promising that it's hedging and financial instruments to regulators.
And a standard notice, it's John Oliver who is pretty open their political bias. So there are some comments on how Don Jr is a "special advisor" for Polymarket. But most of the segment is pretty insightful regardless of political leaning.
These included extreme heat pushing ozone levels higher in many central states as well as an unprecedented blanket of smoke from wildfires in Canada that drove levels of ozone and particle pollution higher in dozens of central and eastern states.
The Canadian wildfires were massive news.
Because it's "too good" at finding vulnerabilities, so big projects need head starts. Like Mozilla is claiming that it'll eventually be able to find all their defects.
As far as reverse engineering and clean room legality goes, we even got to see that play out with Google and Oracle duking it out. LLMs just reduce the barrier, add a layer of insulation, but also an extra question of how much of the "training data" is transformed.
But if you want truly ironic in this category, that's definitely the post-leak Claude Code clones. Anthropic has got to let it live otherwise they'll make an argument against using their tool.
Some will argue that what we do is exploitative, that we are extracting the ideas from open source while leaving behind the people who contributed them. To this I say: yes, that is a reasonably accurate description of our business model. It is also a reasonably accurate description of every company that has ever used open source software without contributing back, which is to say, virtually every company that has ever used open source software. We are simply being honest about it, and charging a fee for the privilege.
This service is provided "as is" without warranty. MalusCorp is not responsible for any legal consequences, moral implications, or late-night guilt spirals resulting from use of our services.
Do you guys know what you're doing, or are you just hacking?
