In article <4AE87B4B-B83A-43D5-92B1-7CD475AC9495@xxxxxxxxx> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Apropos this very long thread, here’s an article about a lawsuit filed against GitHub for the Capital >One break. The article states that the plaintiffs have their facts muddled, but there’s a good chance >that somewhere along the way, there will be a lawsuit that will win, leading to unpredictable changes. >This is not an argument to NOT use GH, but rather to simply not abandon our core methods so that we can >survive that eventuality. I read the complaint. If I were Github, I would reply that this suit against them is totally barred by 47 USC 230(a)(c)(1), and ask the court to award costs and sanction the lawyers. (That's the (in)famous Communication Decency Act, for people who haven't been following along.) They may have a plausible case against Capital One for negligence, but suits against online services for hosting third party content are specifically barred by the CDA, there is a mountain of case law saying that the law means what it says, and I would have grave doubts about the competence of a lawyer in this field who doesn't know that. Usually suits like this have some sort of hand wave claiming that CDA doesn't apply, but this one doesn't even mention it. I'm not denying that something bad might happen to Github sometime but this is not the path that badness is likely to take. R's, John
