Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish • Hacker News Board

Re: Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish

#231

Post by Lawtonfogle » Tue, May 12, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #207

hurin wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would the criminal charges be? Not a lawyer but quoting from the document. COMPLAINT FOR: 1) VIOLATION OF COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq.); 2) VIOLATION OF FEDERAL WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq.); 3) VIOLATION OF THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.); 4) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA INVASION OF PRIVACY ACT, PENAL CODE §§ 631, 637.2; 5) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUS.…

Thanks, though I'm a little suspicious when I see this: 2) VIOLATION OF FEDERAL WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq.); 3) VIOLATION OF THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.); You'd think one or the other, no? (AFAIK Superfish didn't touch anything even remotely covered by SCA). This looks like classic "all of the torts" shotgun filing. Which makes sense for a civil case, but it's not much of a gu…

>Which makes sense for a civil case, but it's not much of a guide as to what criminal cases would be viable.

But that is the guide book for criminal proceedings against individuals. The prosecutor dog piles on every single charge they can and then offers a scaled down plea bargain.

Re: Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish

#232

Post by Lawtonfogle » Tue, May 12, 2015, 5:05 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #127

a3n wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would seem to be a violation of the DMCA, as it is software preinstalled to allow the eventual side-stepping of the end-user's security measures (using an HTTPS-capable browser). "It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A... EDIT: Considering the huge number of victi…

Does superfish circumvent copyright media protection? Not really. It's a huge stretch to call https a form of drm.

As big of a stretch as punishing teachers changing question answers under RICO?

Re: Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish

#233

Post by SamReidHughes » Tue, May 12, 2015, 10:04 PM UTC

walterbell wrote: post #229

SamReidHughes wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP didn't buy a Thinkpad.

Yes, the GP said: > "I always heard good things about Lenovo, but the late delivery, SuperFish, and hardware issues are enough to make me avoid the company like the plague." "Good things about Lenovo" are usually in reference to the Thinkpad brand. The GP's hardware issues are unrelated to the historical reputation of the Thinkpad brand.

And they're unrelated to the present status of the Thinkpad brand, because we're talking about an Ideapad.

Re: Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish

#234

Post by walterbell » Tue, May 12, 2015, 10:43 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #233

walterbell wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the GP said: > "I always heard good things about Lenovo, but the late delivery, SuperFish, and hardware issues are enough to make me avoid the company like the plague." "Good things about Lenovo" are usually in reference to the Thinkpad brand. The GP's hardware issues are unrelated to the historical reputation of the Thinkpad brand.

And they're unrelated to the present status of the Thinkpad brand, because we're talking about an Ideapad.

The GP made an assessment ("hardware issues are enough to make me avoid the company like the plague") of the entire Lenovo brand, which includes the Thinkpad brand.

Re: Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish

#235

Post by superfished » Wed, May 13, 2015, 12:15 AM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #233

walterbell wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the GP said: > "I always heard good things about Lenovo, but the late delivery, SuperFish, and hardware issues are enough to make me avoid the company like the plague." "Good things about Lenovo" are usually in reference to the Thinkpad brand. The GP's hardware issues are unrelated to the historical reputation of the Thinkpad brand.

And they're unrelated to the present status of the Thinkpad brand, because we're talking about an Ideapad.

For me, the reputation of the Thinkpad extended to Lenovo itself as a company. Until this thread, I didn't realize I had an Ideapad instead of a Thinkpad. Now, this might make me come off as a poorly informed consumer, and I'll admit to that if you like. However, it was the reputation of the Thinkpad brand that made me make this purchase, and I am now suspect of all of Lenovo's brands.

Re: Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish

#236

Post by rosser » Wed, May 13, 2015, 8:23 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #149

rosser wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who trots out Liebeck v. McDonald's as an example of a "bad" lawsuit is just demonstrating that they're operating from a position based more on opinion than fact. Liebeck sued McDonald's for actual costs of her medical treatment. McDonald's refused to pay for her injuries or admit fault. The jury awarded the massive punitive damages ($160,000 in actual damages and $2.7M in punitive) of their own volition, beca…

You have made a common mistake. You have pattern matched what I said to commonly said things that you have an opinion on, and then have proceeded to respond on the belief that I said something that I did not say. I never stated an opinion either way on whether this was a bad lawsuit. My statement was that it was a lawsuit launched without the cooperation of the company. Which is definitely true in that case. That sai…

While I won't deny not having given your comment as careful a reading as I perhaps could have, my motivation in posting my own had more to do with staving off a torrent of follow-ups that all came from the place of "opinions over facts" that I decried than it did criticism of your position.

My apologies for my ambiguity. I could have been far clearer about what I was trying to say, and my motivations for having said it.

Re: Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish

#237

Post by svalorzen » Wed, May 13, 2015, 1:27 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #230

btilly wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have made a common mistake. You have pattern matched what I said to commonly said things that you have an opinion on, and then have proceeded to respond on the belief that I said something that I did not say. I never stated an opinion either way on whether this was a bad lawsuit. My statement was that it was a lawsuit launched without the cooperation of the company. Which is definitely true in that case. That sai…

>You have made a common mistake. You have pattern matched what I said to commonly said things that you have an opinion on, and then have proceeded to respond on the belief that I said something that I did not say. I wouldn't call this a mistake. It is a very accurate heuristic not just in this particular case but in online discussions in general. There will be errors, but deploying a heuristic instead of a perfect al…

So you won't bother reading what other people are saying, and instead will resort to spewing retorts based on your preconceived notions of what other people are stating? You must be a fun person to discuss with.

I'd say actually reading may be a better approach rather than to use an heuristic.

Re: Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish

#238

Post by Lawtonfogle » Wed, May 13, 2015, 3:06 PM UTC

svalorzen wrote: post #237

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You have made a common mistake. You have pattern matched what I said to commonly said things that you have an opinion on, and then have proceeded to respond on the belief that I said something that I did not say. I wouldn't call this a mistake. It is a very accurate heuristic not just in this particular case but in online discussions in general. There will be errors, but deploying a heuristic instead of a perfect al…

So you won't bother reading what other people are saying, and instead will resort to spewing retorts based on your preconceived notions of what other people are stating? You must be a fun person to discuss with. I'd say actually reading may be a better approach rather than to use an heuristic .

>So you won't bother reading what other people are saying

Perhaps you should read what I wrote then, because what I wrote was about a heuristic to identify intentions based on what was read. Would you suggest that in face to face discussions body language should ignored when it disagrees with what a person says?

Re: Class action lawsuit filed against Lenovo over Superfish

#239

Post by GFischer » Wed, May 13, 2015, 4:50 PM UTC

rosser wrote: post #236

btilly wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have made a common mistake. You have pattern matched what I said to commonly said things that you have an opinion on, and then have proceeded to respond on the belief that I said something that I did not say. I never stated an opinion either way on whether this was a bad lawsuit. My statement was that it was a lawsuit launched without the cooperation of the company. Which is definitely true in that case. That sai…

While I won't deny not having given your comment as careful a reading as I perhaps could have, my motivation in posting my own had more to do with staving off a torrent of follow-ups that all came from the place of "opinions over facts" that I decried than it did criticism of your position. My apologies for my ambiguity. I could have been far clearer about what I was trying to say, and my motivations for having said…

I wanted to single out your comment as an example of a gracious apology and what I presume is the desired level of discourse at the Hacker News community.

I see both parts of the discussion are among the older members of HN, glad to see they're setting a good example :)