Don't forget contact too. It was difficult to find contact information on some sites. I remember 10 years ago contact information are usually at the bottom of the main page or in the nav menu. Now, it took some soul searching to find it where they buried it in the submenu. Sometime I usually use Google Maps to get the address or phone number since some site don't make it easier to find it
I don't believe so because it is not nationally accredited. If the college are not nationally accredited, then it is highly likely that universities in Europe will not recognize WGU. Unless the institution have a formal agreement (Articulation Agreement) with WGU to transfer.
Did Microsoft completely banned this developer from their other services? To my understanding, the developer account is suspended from GitHub. He is not banned from other MS products.
That is the difference. In Google case, Google completely ban on all of their services to those banned users. If they are banned in Gmail, then likely they are banned from Play Store, Workspace, Google Drive, etc (entire Google ecosystem). In this case, Microsoft didn't banned this developers from their other services, it only the developer's GitHub account is suspended without affecting other services that the developers are using.
I agree with awinter-py, it will be tricky to use "without authorization" for this. The developer only published the code, that is up to other companies to verify the code and roll with it. If Company A installed the dependency, that could mean Company A "authorized" the code because they pulled the dependency to their system. So not sure how CFAA could protect this if the Company A proceed to download the code which in turn that the code are authorized. It is their responsibility to audit and verify the code before incorporating into their software.
> Well fuck them. It's his code, he should be able to do with it whatever he wants.
He can do whatever he wants with his codes. It didn't means that private companies have to accept that due to liabilities. He is using an private company platform to publish his code which could make the company liable for him. By removing or suspending his account, the liability will be minimized and shift it to the developer. If the private company keep it in their system and widely available for distribution, other companies that got hit by this malicious code could have a standing to sue the hosting private company for allowing the code to be published. Imagine thousand companies have a lawsuit against the hosting company. So the hosting private company don't want to be liable for this and shutting off the account is their best interest to keep the liability off on them.
> No, it isn't legal to maliciously add an infinite-loop to a library that you know is used by other companies.
Could you cite an source for this? Because I got a impression that it "isn't legal" which mean it is not illegal based on your comment. I would assuming you are referring to USA Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
The accountholder is required to show it, It is in Costco's terms and conditions.