Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Woman Sues Yahoo for $3 Million
bigtallmofo writes "After notifying Yahoo that two member profiles about her were not authorized, Cecilia Barnes of Oregon is suing Yahoo for $3 million for failing to take down the profiles in a timely manner. The profiles allegedly set up by her ex-boyfriend contained nude photos of her along with her email address and work phone number. (Note: The member profiles have since been taken down by Yahoo)."
I think that portal-based adult groups will probably go "bye-bye" if they are viewed as a financial risk to the hosting site. Yahoo puts all of this webspace up without asking questions about the veracity of the information and then doesn't have the resources to properly police it. I'm sure MSN will drop theirs as well if this case goes against Yahoo.
I'm sure that this woman is not the first person who has had an ex-boyfriend/husband/lover post nude pictures of them on the net.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Enter somebody's name, find all known nude photographs of that person. Needn't even be celebrities.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Someone doesn't have a very high opinion of /.ers!
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
I tried it, They don't have either profile. No google cache either. :(
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
This might become the newest husband-wife scam to extort money out of large companies.
If he'd posted them there, they would still be circulating. See, a distributed, redundant architecture protects you from a single point of failure.
Deleted
Big fucking deal. You don't need to be of high moral virtue (whatever that might mean) to deserve sufficient privacy to keep private information off the net.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
From the article:
Barnes sent Yahoo a letter in January saying she did not create the profiles and wanted them removed. Additional attempts to get Yahoo to remove them in February and March did not get a response, the lawsuit claims.
So, basically, she's suing because Yahoo left the images up for three months after being contacted and asked to take them down. Considering her personal information went along the photos, not acting on the information in a timely fashion is pretty serious, because it helped prolong her harassment.
As for the boyfriend, he should probably be brought up on criminal charges.
Nothing comes up.
WAIT! Let me rephrase that!
(accidently clicks submit)
damn.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Everyone suggesting that anyone who got to these pictures share them is getting modded "Troll" but seriously now, how many people in here went straight for those pages and wanted to see them? People are (generally) hypocritical about things like this. They wouldn't want it to happen to them but they want to see it when it's someone else.
Asking for the pictures isn't being a Troll. It's being pretty much human. We're a species of voyuers for the most part.
And yes, I replied to this particular article just to make sure I could find the URL that the AC responding to it posted when I get home.
But at least I'm honest about it.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
The issues of who owns accounts, how they are handled when someone dies, and whether a host is responsible for verifying information in a public listing, have simply not yet been addressed, even though the web is 13 years old.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
http://forumpics.info/Yahoo-pics/
:)
Didn't get but the thumbnails, but they are good enought o see what's going on.
Pretty Pictures!
First this article
from a coffee maker states the recomended serving temperature is 75 degrees C (167 fahrenheit). The correct Brewing temperature is 185-195. But rather then nit-pick about temperature. Here's why McDonalds lost: ( Mcfacts snipped from a site, others collected elsewhere)
1: The injured women initially wanted $800 from McDonalds to pay for extra medical bills, to which McDonald's dismissed.
2. Evidence showed that McDonalds served their coffee so hot to save money. This let them get away with a cheaper grade of coffee and cut down on the number of free refills they had to give away. McDonalds executives testified that they thought it would be cheaper to pay claims and worker's compensation benefits to people burned by their coffee versus making any of these changes. (source http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm )
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
It all comes down to, if you are in the business of dealing with materials you know are hazerdous (as was proven in the case, McDonalds knew the coffee was hazerdous), you are responsible for selling such materials in a safe maner because the consumer expects you to do so. If you were "Battery Acid King" and sold sulphuric acid in open topped beverage glasses, people might assume you don't think its dangerous.
Heck, if she'd posted this to /. in the first place, we could have taken down Yahoo all by ourselves.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Get your facts from the court documents and findings. There was clear evidence of contributory negligence on the part of McDonald's, and the court punished them for it. Note also that the court found both parties responsible (that is, both Stella Liebeck and McDonald's), so your "no personal responsibility" spiel can go suck it, as far as this case is concerned.