It violates Title 18 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) of US Federal Law. You cannot distribute anything that can steal passwords to computers without permission from owners of said computers. It doesn't matter if there was a specific target or not. Furthermore, because Flight Simulator X is used to train pilots it triggers the interstate commerce clause of the law causing such actions to fall under federal jurisdiction.

That said FSLabs is located in Greece and the FBI might deem it unworthy to pursue in US court - however they could still work with Greek authorities for prosecution depending on Greek laws.

[EDIT] The FBI might not even care at all though. The worst penalty for something like this with minimal damage is 6 months in jail with a $1000 fine. A plea deal for first time offenders would likely drop it to a slap on the wrist.

Further, do they transfer this using only base64 like they do the pirate versions? Why is it, also, that if this is also the only information it collects from chrome, that it needs to collect from chrome in the first place? Yes, but if it were a physical product, we'd apply the same rules and then some, regardless. The idea is to make up what actually was lost, not what would've been. This further should bring up the question of whether or not we should apply the same rules to digital products that we apply to physical products, but that's a debate society is long overdue in having.

Off-disc DRM/Copy Protection... Still DRM but annoying checks of some obscure check, requiring to give some answer to 'what's the 3rd word on page 101' or 'what is the weight of ship of xyz' or even ultima with asking questions of geometry of the world.

Certainly they are implemented in just slightly annoying ways.

Meanwhile, i actually took a course on law. It was through higshchool, but at least it was a course on law. 90% of it involved holdovers that we (americans) still have revolving around British Common Law.

That said, "argument from authority" is a logical fallacy. Even if I had a law degree, if I were wrong, i wouldbe wrong. Truth doesn't care about degrees. The same thing is to be said about his claims that we don't have law degrees (maybe some of us do, but because of the logical fallacy or potentially losing their license, they have to keep their mouths shut about their degree [My girlfriend is an LPN and, because of her license, she was obligated to answer a certain way about a mental heatlh survey she took for the local school]).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts0XG6qDIco

Right, and, as i said, argument form authority is still a known logical fallacy. I'd love to hear the RWarehall, but i get this feeling mine are still way above his, despite not really having any.

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

African or European Swallow?

I don't know that.

https://makeagif.com/gif/monty-python-and-the-holy-grail-the-bridge-of-death-6tzcHH

Sounds like violating the privacy of your citizens isn't taken as seriously over there than I would have expected, but still, I wouldn't willingly take any trips over the pond if I were in the developer's shoes.

Anyways, I never had any wish to see these developers in jail over this, just as long as it is clear that the legislators will adjust the privacy protection laws to make sure that such leniency is far less likely if anyone else is stupid enough to try something similar in the future.

No, i picked it up, i just wanted to clarify for 3rd parties, especially the main event.
Failed to display. =(

I knew what it was, but i just wanted to see it! ='(

You should also take a closer look at that law you quoted....
Not a single clause applies at all to this case.

They are not knowingly accessing protected governmental computers and they did not have "intent to defraud".

And this is what I'm saying about most such laws. There are multiple components in order to be guilty by them and in terms of malware laws, I'd venture to guess that most of them require both distribution of the malware AND an intent to defraud or do harm.

The second half of that, the developer is clearly not guilty of.

I'm not a lawyer, but have taken a couple law courses in college and have had occasion to use Westlaw in law libraries for research. I have also had to wade through too much legalese including carefully pouring through certain sections of the CFR to make certain the methods and practices of a past employer remained within the ever changing federal regulations governing our industry.

I appreciate the link regarding dumb criminals, but the point I was making is that in none of those cases do I see a court refunding the money spent to the defrauded buyer. So for a pirate to claim their privacy was somehow damaged and want compensation after illegally downloading copyright material and expect to win in court, it's pretty unlikely.

Just as it's unlikely any developer is going to be charged for hacking or malware without trying to steal money or do damage. (Primarily because most statutes are going to require fraud or damage).

Which was my point all along. The clickbait article and vast majority of the comments claiming "laws violated in every country" And sued into oblivion are being quite overblown. In fact, I haven't run across a law they have clearly violated.