In this case, both ethics and the law are murky.

Pretty excellent alignment, for once?

Let’s add a clause to all OSS licenses:

“…comes as-is, without warranties and without any commitment for future work. Complaints will get your feature request deprioritised, may get you banned, and will look silly to any potential employer googling your name”.

Also, let’s make it a meme to call out unreasonable behaviour: stop Jigar-Kumaring!

Perhaps the situation would improve if it were easier/more normalised to offer to pay the core developer to fix the bug that affects you. If that were the case, it would boil down to put up or shut up.

This wouldn't be entirely without downside though, as there could be a risk that the project ends up getting steered by whoever has the most money, which may be at odds with what the broader community gets from the project. That's difficult to avoid whenever Open Source developers get paid, unfortunately. If it were limited to bug-fixes I think the risk would be slim. I'm not sure if any projects have tried this.

It’s not “luck”. They specifically look for such a donor.

This procedure was first used about a decade ago in Germany.

Prices have little to do with costs, and absolutely nothing to do with a minor issue such as local regulations of architectural standards.

Not sure what the downvotes are for. Pricing capabilities at volume have surpassed the period where prices are affected by business costs.

Three of the five factors used by a corporation like McDonald's to mandate the maximum price are oriented toward the kinds of advantages you get by maintaining a presence, regardless of a boutique facade. Only one (bundle pricing) is even indirectly related to cost.

Yeah, I thought it's going to be some ridiculous building, but it looks very generic. I doubt it would be any harder than fitting a McD in some plazas/department stores.

“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

(https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t...)

No, they’re just making stuff up.

Not proven by facts in evidence! The FBI prioritizes (in theory) successful prosecution. It’s entirely possible that there are agents watching the guy while a judge processes a warrant.

Follow up for posterity: the arrest affidavit is public. The FBI had the guy’s name and location on the 12th, one day before The NY Times article.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.255...

It's also entirely possible that it's a coincidence and they just want to talk to him to see if he may know who may have leaked the documents.

They should be able to track his e-mail and his access and already know whether or not he accessed the documents directly.

I'd assume they're not concerned about further leaks from this individual A.) if they've already identified him and have been monitoring him, and B.) he realizes the gravity of his situation and is spooked, resulting in him not leaking anything else since this story blew up.

It would be on other bodies (correct me if I'm wrong) to review and adjust the internal practices around the handling of confidential documents, and how this can be prevented moving forward.

Edit: Aaaaaaand he's in custody.

So once the suspect is identified, do you:

1. Swoop in and arrest them immediately

Or 2. Do comprehensive physical and electronic surveillance for say 24-72 hours to see if they try to get in contact with foreign nationals, and investigate whether they have a "dead man's switch" to release more documents?

Option 2 makes more sense to me. When cleaning this situation up it will be essential to know what he leaked and who he leaked it to. Unfortunately the NYT and Bellingcat may have forced law enforcement to move prematurely. That or friendly media got a tipoff to establish the desired narrative while the government does the "no comment during an active investigation" line.

This is incredibly drastic data.

2-4y of life expectancy is typically an even greater discrepancy is morbidity. So if you die 3y earlier and are 'morbid'/ have life affecting illness for another 2y - you've basically halved the average enjoyable period of retirement for most people. I'd say that's quite drastic.

Please read something. Preferably section 230, which is short. Alternatively something entirely different, as long as that keeps you occupied.