While I was working at Earthlink in 1999, they had a similar clause and I had a similar thought.
Although not around a sex tape, I though about a computer virus released from my Earthlink corporate email account. If I sent it out the virus technically belonged to Earthlink and not me. However, after talking to a lawyer about it years later, he explained there is ways the corporation could get out of the clause.
I should be more clear. The scary thing is having malicious sites exploit the functionality. URI overflow attacks and Gifar attacks can be exploited at the website level. Exposing this functionality to the developers is unnecessary. If a developer wants to run as a native application, then they should. Not run as a chrome plugin pretending to be a native application.
The purpose of the article was to focus on why A]auto updating is beneficial from a security standpoint. I'm assuming the end user doesn't want their device compromised. They want security baked in.
I also agree that automatic updates don't make sense from an economic standpoint. But, users assume applications are secure when they purchase. It is up to the manufacturer or the developer to make sure the users of their applications and devices aren't being compromised because of their mistakes.
Does anyone else feel like every time they release a new version of Bootstrap it is never backwards compatible? I feel like lots of divs on my site need different classes than were used before.
A friend and I were discussing all the things we wish we knew when we raised our seed round. We thought a high-level guide would have helped us when we raised, so I decided to write it up. Thoughts/Comments?
I was having a hard time wrapping my head around liquidation preferences and how they work. I couldn't find a single page with examples of how they work, so I wrote up a reference for my own future use. I hope this helps some of you.