> 4% would obviously be a hit to Google or Facebook, but it wouldn't put them out of business.
The point is it would put them out of business if they continued to flout the law. They can't just break the law and keep paying fines. If they get fined, they'll quickly realise they need to make changes.
many reasonable architectures funnel the request body through multiple middlewares before it reaches the code that actually needs the password. there are so many places that request data can be logged in any reasonable system. this is completely ordinary. it's not like there's a special HTTP mechanism for transmitting passwords that keeps it out of the normal code flow. it's in the request. if you log requests, you're probably going to end up accidentally logging something you're not supposed to at some point.
> It makes no sense why BBC fee payers would want to be compelled to pay to have taxpayer-funded workers to make works which are so restrictively licensed.
Are you suggesting that I should instead be compelled to pay to allow a Neo-nazi to profit off my tax contributions?
I get it, you think noncommercial and moral use clauses are the worst thing ever. Your position is not as universal as you think it is.
Anarchists have been using these tactics for a long time, it’s not a new development as the media would have you believe.