Comment by avhception
7 hours ago
While I think the response was not well thought out, it's still a far cry from "proof of malicious intent".
7 hours ago
While I think the response was not well thought out, it's still a far cry from "proof of malicious intent".
We're not going to agree on that. The response is clearly there to point to a fig leaf instead of saying 'oh, oops, we will make this more obvious in the UI', the software is working as intended: as a way to gain access to more data.
Note that clipboard data can be just about anything and is a valuable dataset, more so if the source of the data isn't aware of being a source, besides, there is no history so you won't even know what you've lost.
[flagged]
[flagged]
He could have claimed lack of awareness until it was brought up. After that that excuse no longer holds.
2 replies →
> it's still a far cry from "proof of malicious intent"
Is the difference meaningful? It’s proof of a value set so different from the community’s as to merit the same response: expulsion.
We can't afford that level of benefit of the doubt for the people that are supposed to guard us from exactly this kind of bs.
Intent or not, that developer is a risk to the project.