http://web.archive.org/web/20210704022108/https://github.com...
Also he seems to have somewhat of a Guerilla mindset, based on this:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/16/resident-of-nyc-home-with-susp...
While it's not enough to generate a stable income, faker.js has received over $20k in donations through Open Collective. It's more than most other projects -- but I guess nowhere near what one could get if a big corporation wanted to sponsor the continued development of the project.
I see "charged," not "convicted" in that article.
Real world: Innocent until proven guilty.
Internet: Always guilty, because justice doesn't scale.
Also if you absolutely can't live without the immature thrill of mixing explosives with your bare hands, at least don't do it in a residential neighborhood.
But also seems to relate it to a pretty insane conspiracy theory that Ghislaine Maxwell was involved in the death of Aaron Swartz, almost entirely based on the debunked theory that an account on Reddit named "MaxwellHill" was hers.
Seems like he was just flailing wildly.
I assume by "debunked" you are referring to the Vice article, which offered nothing beyond name-calling of the people investigating the theory, and ended with "u/MaxwellHill did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent through Reddit."[0]
An example of a relevant fact might be that vice.com was the most popular domain among all the links submitted to Reddit by the user MaxwellHill.[1]
It's also worth pointing out that another Reddit mod tried to debunk the theory by claiming that they knew MaxwellHill and that he was a Malaysian man, but this claim started to look suspicious when people found that MaxwellHill had mentioned he/she had "visited" Malaysia before (which is not something one typically says about one's home country).[2]
[0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3zbaj/incoherent-conspiracy...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/hoqheb/vice_pub...
[2] https://rareddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/hoopdf/why_is_vic...
The point is there's been no strong evidence, so it's a huge leap to then decide this is a solid basis for "Aaron Swartz was killed because Ghislaine Maxwell was tight with the Reddit staff and he got wind of her child trafficking".
Firstly, I'm not impressed by the (lack of) probability calculations. The article concedes that the Reddit user and Ghislaine are both born in December, which has, let's say, a 1 in 12 chance, and also says that there are "hundreds of thousands" of Maxwells in the world, so let's say 800,000 out of 8 billion, or 1 in 10,000. So the chance of these two details both coinciding is 1 in 120,000.
On the other hand, there are apparently 430 million active monthly users on Reddit, so we should expect there to be some December Maxwells in there, but considering the user's interests (US politics) and their use of British English spelling and phrases[0], I think the number of non-Ghislaine accounts with all these attributes would be very low.
So the fact that this Reddit user posts consistently for 14 years and then abruptly stops posting (publicly) right at the time of Ghislaine's arrest does seem statistically improbable. The debunker would have us believe that the account is still active sending private messages and posting in private subreddits (and no doubt has a girlfriend who lives in Canada), but if they're happy to have their activity disclosed like that, why wouldn't they also post publicly saying "I'm not Ghislaine you idiots!" or respond to the Vice journalist, for that matter?
Is it really that hard to imagine that influential people on Reddit would fake screenshots of post-arrest MaxwellHill activity to try to distance themselves from the actions of a notorious criminal? Do we just have to take these screenshots at face value, despite all the incentive to fake them, and the fact that a mod has already been caught out in a lie about whether MaxwellHill lived in or visited Malaysia?
The debunker also claims that someone trying to hide their identity (by falsely claiming to be male) wouldn't be so stupid as to use their actual name as part of their username, but obviously the motivation to hide what you are doing changes over time. When MaxwellHill was first registered, it probably seemed anonymous enough (there are "hundreds of thousands" of Maxwells in the world, after all), but over time, as the account became more influential (and Ghislaine got involved in more and more shady activities, and gave away more and more clues about her identity from her posts) she would develop a need to throw people off the trail by dropping some false biographic details.
I won't go into more details about the stylometry and contents of MaxwellHill's posts, as that is more subjective, but I will end by saying there is nothing contradictory about Ghislaine as a Redditor making negative comments about Trump (which is implied but not cited by the debunker) but Ghislaine in person bragging to someone about being a friend of Trump. It's possible that she hates Trump's current politics, but got on fine with him in a social setting 20 years ago, for example. In fact I suspect that one of her greatest talents is being able to seem friendly and trustworthy to powerful people whose actions she doesn't fully agree with.
[0] https://www.rareddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/hnfx0r/not_co...
He doesn't charge for it.
(Yes, it's his code. No, it isn't legal to maliciously add an infinite-loop to a library that you know is used by other companies. The license adds some liability protection, but it's not so simple.)
IMO this was not the most graceful way to make the point, but at the end of the day it's his project, his code. If you want the expectation of it always working, then pay him. Don't bitch and moan that the old man giving out free bread on the steps isn't here this morning.
I understand the sentiment, but why chose MIT license then?
GPL would be the right choice if one wants to stop companies profiting from free work without giving anything back.
I'm not judging the author here, but on one hand I understand the frustration, on the other hand the package probably owes its popularity in part to its very permissive license.
Anyway, a fork maintained by the companies that use the package would still be a better outcome than keep working for them for free (or remove the package entirely).
Internal changes aren't going to be detectable, so it feels like the best you can hope for is that they don't want the maintenance burden of a patch set on top of your project. At that point it's not much different than MIT.
That said, AGPL would scare off most companies :p
The whole "contributing to open source" while effectively saying "I think open source should not exist and is rip of" makes no sense in world where literally nothing forces you to create open source.
Um, what?
Could you cite an source for this? Because I got a impression that it "isn't legal" which mean it is not illegal based on your comment. I would assuming you are referring to USA Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
OK, but should cloud providers similarly be held accountable for screwing their customers through negligent acts - to come full circle, like pulling these updates without doing any checks or QC?
The issue we're discussing here is based on 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) (note the last digit) and "authorized access" is not mentioned there at all. This section deals with damage and not access.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-ends-long...
Edit: Note that I'm seeing this the same as a virus, not the same as a data-extraction hack.
It is on the person using code to do due diligence to ensure that any code pulled down in an update is good to utilize. You're seeing an implicit obligation where there has never been one.
In general, most just have the integrity, empathy and detachment to not do what he did, however, any programmer/developer who doesn't have a checklist item of "audit that code" before updates is committing an aggriegious breach of professional ethics;as this is the exact circumstance that everyone should be on the lookout for.
Everyone here assuming there is an obligation on Marak's part to continue to provide an interface in a non-molested form for their convenience are part of the problem. You should have mirrored, or paid the man.
For fucks sake, people need to pin dependencies to a known good version at the very least.
He knew how npm works and he knew the implication of adding that code is that hundreds of libraries and production systems would automatically upgrade and install it.
In fact, the whole point of what he did was to introduce the code into production environments.
<no hands raised>
How can we claim he did anything to production if no one will admit they're dumb enough to push this latest version without testing it?
The commit is here as far as i know, not deleted: https://github.com/Marak/colors.js/commit/074a0f8ed0c31c35d1...
Not one person is obligated to keep your crap working except you. This has really outed all the people who really should know better.
tbis ismt a bomb in a box its his project car you copied without any warranty or.gurantee of stability.
That's different to criminal liability.
I think it's a refuge for distressed people. Some belief that unconnected terrible events are somehow all controlled and "part of the plan".
I still don't get it and likely never will, but it at least aligns with anecdotal cases I've experienced of seemingly normal people going a bit off.
[0] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/epistemic-minor-league...
plays along on the conspiracies as long it benefits him and shows him in good light
his psychopathy is a level beyond those of conspiracy believers
If you want a logical rebuttal, you have to make a logical argument, and not
> At least 70-80% of 'conspiracy theories' are true. Yes, even many of the 'crazy' ones.
For instance if someone says they were abducted by aliens (from space), but they also say that COVID was designed by Gates and Fauci when they were roommates at Princeton to depopulate the world [1], and that Betty White was using Hollywood to promote the vast secret satanist pedophile network that traffics millions of US children each year, while her sister Barbara Bush did similar in the government, all at the behest of their father the satanist Aleister Crowley [2], and that in early January 2021 the military arrested Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, Democratic governors, Fauci, Gates, etc and took them to Gitmo where they were tried and executed, and restored Trump to the Presidency but are using robots and actors to make it look like all those dead people are still running things because they don't want to tip off the people running the underground adrenochrome harvesting operations until the children have been rescued [3], I'm not going to take their alien abduction seriously.
If on the other hand Neil deGrasse Tyson said he was abducted by aliens I'd take it seriously. I wouldn't necessarily believe he was actually abducted by aliens, but I'd believe there was a high probability that he had a good reason to believe he was, and that would be something worth investigating.
[1] Yes, there are people who believe that, and yes, they really say it was at Princeton even though neither of them went to Princeton.
[2] That started appearing on fringe sites shortly after Betty White's recent death.
[3] Another real conspiracy theory.
Those other things all involve belief in things they have been told but have not personally experienced. The alien abduction claim would be a claim that they have personally experienced alien abduction.
I'm not trying to describe someone who has a few odd beliefs, especially if they know they are a bit odd and can entertain good arguments.
I'm trying to describe where someone descends into the whole web of inter-related beliefs and accepts them with a religious determination, resisting even the suggestion they could be wrong.
Seems like he had series of odd statements around the same time: liberty, Aaron Schwarts and some such.
Overall it sounded to me more like breakdown then anything else.
https://abc7ny.com/suspicious-package-queens-astoria-fire/64...
Interesting. Shouldn't they also block access to the repositories? Oh right, that would hurt their other users. This makes it clear who thinks they own code and who works for them for free.
It certainly isn't "his code" anyway. Many people contributed to it with the good-faith belief that he would not use it as a Trojan horse.
In a way, it is kinda sad that this behavior drives him away from the financial security he so seemed to crave. "Yes I just caused your dev team to do hotfixes during the weekend and cost you XYZ dollars in downtime, can I have a senior dev position now plz" is not a very convincing line when interviewing.
GitHub gets the right to close their hand while Marak doesn't.
We have a right to basic safety even in situations we aren't paying for things. That extends to the digital world. You can't put malware in your open-source project without a giant disclaimer "THIS IS MALWARE. USE ONLY FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES" or something like that
sourceforge?
GitHub Post: https://archive.fo/9fwGz
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25032105&p=2
That doesn't make it not a dick move. But let's not pretend they still had permission to remote load directly from his repo. If I own a personal storage facility and I decide to demolish it, and I say months in advance for everyone to take their stuff out and store it somewhere else, and then I demolish it and people lose their property... the harmed individuals are not faultless.
Would the professional and responsible thing to do be to announce a cut-off date explicitly and make very clear that Bad Things were going to happen if you didn't stop relying on him? Yes, 100%, and I have a low opinion of him for not doing so.
However, while what he did was bad, it isn't quite as bad, in my opinion, as people are making it out to be.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/privacy-ubuntu-1210-am...
He can do whatever he wants with his codes. It didn't means that private companies have to accept that due to liabilities. He is using an private company platform to publish his code which could make the company liable for him. By removing or suspending his account, the liability will be minimized and shift it to the developer. If the private company keep it in their system and widely available for distribution, other companies that got hit by this malicious code could have a standing to sue the hosting private company for allowing the code to be published. Imagine thousand companies have a lawsuit against the hosting company. So the hosting private company don't want to be liable for this and shutting off the account is their best interest to keep the liability off on them.
That is the difference. In Google case, Google completely ban on all of their services to those banned users. If they are banned in Gmail, then likely they are banned from Play Store, Workspace, Google Drive, etc (entire Google ecosystem). In this case, Microsoft didn't banned this developers from their other services, it only the developer's GitHub account is suspended without affecting other services that the developers are using.
On his Twitter Marak is claiming [1] that GitHub/NPM have suspended his account, which is an interesting move, but I guessing that that's the only tool available to prevent further "sabotage".
[1] https://twitter.com/marak/status/1479200803948830724