Probably better to say "assigned male at birth" -- I'm not genetically male, but everyone assumed I was until I got tested after transitioning. The best medically relevant definitions are "person on testosterone", "person on estrogen" etc. There is a lot of suspicion that things like estrogen/androgen receptor binding affinity play a big role in gender identity and brain development, and we haven't even scratched the surface of that level of genetics.
There is no medically or legally significant difference between "gender" and "sex". You can get the sex/gender (different states use different terms interchangeably) on your drivers' license and birth certificate changed.
Tbh there are so many things we can change at home already. This tiny pack of reusable straws(https://bit.ly/2nReQyG) has lasted my kids almost a year. Literally zero waste. Trump's the paper straws even! It's the little things..
What % of the military do you think will fight for the president? You only need enough weapons(dependent on that %) to create enough of a _mess_, to make it never worth pursuing.
As a reaction to a system where literally thousands of women's rape kits are not tested for years due to a combination of mismanagement, underfunding and understaffing, as well to structural issues such as male police officers not taking sexual assault accusations seriously or subjecting victims of assault to traumatizing questioning with no care about their mental well-being.
Back then, the status quo was "if you're a woman and you got raped, good luck getting justice".
It's still that way, no matter how you present. If you're a woman, good luck getting justice after going through the horror of an exam and a police report in which you have to relive that same experience and a trial in which you often have to face your assailant directly, reliving it yet again. If you're a man, good luck even having your initial report recorded in the official record and then receiving no support in dealing with the trauma and violation and then risk being outed and treated like you're a weak subhuman if you dare try to reach out for help. It's one hell of a sick joke all around.
Believe everyone when they say that they were assaulted, full stop. Everyone is entitled to compassion and care. In terms of making sure no one else is assaulted by the same person who assaulted them again? Collect all evidence, with all care, every single time, process it in a speedy manor and let the usual standards of criminal justice apply, as they always must. Anything less is a direct menace to society.
If you are not in a position of judgement or power, give all parties the benefit of the doubt -- accuser and accused -- and show compassion. Especially if they are personally right in front of you.
If you are in a position of judgement or power, like a reporter, a judge, a prosecutor, or a juror; then use a fair and impartial process.
There's a lot more to bots than just scraping... DDoS bots, bots that buy hot sneakers before the public gets a chance and drive up the price, bots that go credential stuffing, bots that play nasty tricks with airline seats ...
Not sure what "legitimate" means here? Legal? Running aggressive web crawlers is in many instances against the rules for consumer cloud servers. For example, AWS requires that you obey robots.txt if you run a crawler there. https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/repor...
In my experience a lot of bots seem to be running on hacked servers or through hacked/insecure proxies. I'd imagine tracking down the owner or someone upstream of those boxes could be effective in taking them offline.
What does that have to with my point? Bots used to purchase inventory (and that aren't otherwise commiting fraud by using stolen credit cards or something) are not malicious.
if a single bot controller can buy up an entire stock of limited items legitimately, that is malicious as that company is not longer able to meet the needs of their consumers. That's bad for the company.
If it's profitable for anyone to resell, that implies the company priced below the market price and there would be a shortage without scalpers. So the company is unable to meet the needs of its customers in any event. Scalpers just make it somewhat more efficient.
It is illegal if the website’s TOS for making a purchase prohibits the use of automated software.
It doesn't matter if it's legal, it matters if the website owner doesn't want x doing y on their site. A bot consistently not abiding by owners' intent is inheritly malicious.
Are they following the sneaker website's robots.txt while doing that? If not, they are probably violating the AWS terms regardless of whether you believe that activity is "malicious."
if they're running on AWS, which most crawlers are not
When I've run scraping software in the past I used DigitalOcean, which doesn't contain a requirement to abide by robots.txt. As far as I can tell it's both legal and consistent with their ToS to run a program that makes purchases on a website.
Then my question to you would be, is it possible for a "legitimate", robots.txt respecting scraper-bot (for a non-profit I'm helping for example) to get caught in CF's detector? If so, is there a way to detect that this is happening and an avenue to get unblocked?
> And the unwitting users who are part of the botnet have their resources, such as their home broadband connection, used without their consent or knowledge.
Perhaps I missed something, but doesn't this mean that a lot of homes and IoT devices that have been compromised will have increased CPU usage as a result of CF implementing the bad bot behaviour envisaged? In other words, the botnet owners won't care in the slightest about your response, but a lot of homes will suddenly get shoddy performance as their router grinds to a halt.
(Yes, of course it'd be best if every home and every IoT device were secure... but that's unrealistically optimistic)
>This type of attack hurts multiple targets as well: the ecommerce site has real frustrated users who can’t purchase the in demand item. The real users who are losing out on inventory to an attacker who is just there to skim off the largest profit possible. And the unwitting users who are part of the botnet have their resources, such as their home broadband connection, used without their consent or knowledge.
Have you run this by an economist? It's pretty basic economics that "scalping" increases consumer welfare, despite your cursory claim to the contrary.
If the IPs are part of a botnet, that's one thing. But the biggest residential IP network is luminati, which does have consent for their IPs.
All of the comments there either agree with me or are talking about non-economic factors. E.g. the first one explicitly says it's not about economic harm. The second says they're taking producer surplus, which is correct if you interpret that as potential surplus had the producers priced higher. The third one also explicitly points out that it's not being looked at from an economic perspective.
Assuming you're building on the LI<>HiQ case here, the ruling would only be applicable to a subset of cases (public, user-generated content, no authorization...).
Even before the ruling is overturned, we can't say scrapping is legal without applying some qualifying conditions.
