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).
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.
> They help facilitate faster legal resolutions
Faster is not always better.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34421555