> Interestingly, they just updated their ToS [1] to force arbitration [2], and moved from Canada to NY (which my lawyers were happy about that second part).
....I don't see the connection between their change in ToS to mandate arbitration & the bug itself. There's no direct equivalency between the two.
On a personal note, I'm more neutral on arbitrations as a concept: They help facilitate faster legal resolutions in an environment where the time & cost overhead is purely human-derived. It often takes months, if not years, to form an impartial jury, a judge that's available to review the case, and for all relevant evidence to enter under the case's purview.
Also, the website that was cited in your previous comment doesn't provide any justifications for the claims made in their list. It simply states 10 reasons with no expansion into details/reasoning on the last 9 reasons. The first reason alone gives a tautologically-derived justification to its statement.
As noted in other comments [0], part of the reason why people use Tailscale instead of just wireguard or headscale is that they think they they have a throat to choke. The arbitration clause has the potential to make things more difficult in that regard.
> As noted in other comments [0], part of the reason why people use Tailscale instead of just wireguard or headscale is that they think they they have a throat to choke. The arbitration clause has the potential to make things more difficult in that regard.
>>> This seems pretty bad. I was pretty leery of Tailscale having too much control over my network when I tested it out and now seeing this security notification reinforces my decision to use vanilla WireGuard and Nebula for my home and datacenter use cases.
>> People mostly seem to pay for these products so that they can blame a third party if things go wrong.
> Ding, ding, ding! A lot of security/compliance folks like to pay money for scapegoats. It certainly helps with job security. Worst case scenario? Find another vendor.
-------
The Oracle/Dropbox model of 'here's someone to blame, just pay us for that' is a reasonable business strategy in an environment where the business in question wants as little involvement in the development of a product/service that they rely on: They just want the features that are being advertised, and are willing to pay for its siloed-off development. The actual proceedings of the potential arbitration in the future don't matter as much as the name on the sheet that they can rely on for blame/support.
-------
-------
>> They help facilitate faster legal resolutions
> Faster is not always better.
-------
Faster legal resolutions are better when the alternative is having to wait for months/years on a judgement.
The only scenario wherein arbitration loses out is in a constructed system where:
1) There are always impartial juries with the relevant subject matter knowledge to draw from for a given case
2) There are enough judges that there are effectively no wait times between being assigned a judge & getting a legal case resolved
In such a scenario, the bottleneck would exist in the discovery phase of the legal case, which can be resolved by mandating ALL conversations & interactions between the two entities be immediately submitted within a given time limit, whether directly, indirectly, or as part of a larger group.
> The Oracle/Dropbox model of 'here's someone to blame, just pay us for that' is a reasonable business strategy in an environment where the business in question wants as little involvement in the development of a product/service that they rely on: They just want the features that are being advertised, and are willing to pay for its siloed-off development. The actual proceedings of the potential arbitration in the future don't matter as much as the name on the sheet that they can rely on for blame/support.
Yup, that's why I'm a paying customer of Tailscale (biz tier).
....I don't see the connection between their change in ToS to mandate arbitration & the bug itself. There's no direct equivalency between the two.
On a personal note, I'm more neutral on arbitrations as a concept: They help facilitate faster legal resolutions in an environment where the time & cost overhead is purely human-derived. It often takes months, if not years, to form an impartial jury, a judge that's available to review the case, and for all relevant evidence to enter under the case's purview.
Also, the website that was cited in your previous comment doesn't provide any justifications for the claims made in their list. It simply states 10 reasons with no expansion into details/reasoning on the last 9 reasons. The first reason alone gives a tautologically-derived justification to its statement.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34358004
https://fairarbitrationnow.org/ten-reasons-why-arbitration-s...
Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20230117064553/https://fairarbit...