People dumb enough to text while driving often end up wrapping their cars around stationary objects. I can't find any way to get this information in more than just word-bite style delivery without paying money for it.
The only issue are the criminal acts committed against her.
I would say someone here - someone representing the interests of the student and/or her family - has interests outside of "criminal acts". This settlement came from a civil court. If the family's true top interest was justice for "criminal acts" then they should have sought to press charges in a criminal court.
There should be charges leveled against the school officials and the sheriff.
As I understand, leveling criminal charges against someone in the US means that there will be an investigation and a trial, and the accused can take the trial as an opportunity to respond to the charges brought against them and/or face their accuser.
I say this not because I think you are opposed to justice and a fair trial but rather because some other people on slashdot (who we both converse with fairly often) very much are. As long as your idea of leveling charges means that there is an investigation and a trial, I am fine with that. As far as I have seen, we have basically seen only one side of this story so far. While the school agreeing to pay a settlement to the student implies admission of guilt, it does not prove guilt.
I would be fine with an investigation and a trial to determine if the law was broken, and by whom.
What's going on here? Are you trying to justify what they did?
No. In fact, I said it was heavy handed. My point is just that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy online. She errantly believed otherwise. It does not appear that she learned much from this, but that is a different matter.
particularly when you give that something to a for-profit company
So your medical company can broadcast you medical information all over the world?
They can sell it to whomever they want, just as facebook can sell your profile data to whomever they want.
Actually, if we are talking about your medical practitioner such as a PCP, they cannot legally sell your medical information to anyone. HIPPA prevents that.
I was referring more so to your insurance company (which thanks to the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 [aka "affordable care act", aka "obamacare"] you are now required to be a customer of) who has access to all of your records and the ability to do as they please with them.
We shouldn't really trust most 13-15 year olds to make intelligent, informed decisions most of the time.
And by having an expectation of privacy and/or ownership of what she wrote online, she made a very unintelligent and uninformed decision. What you post to facebook is not yours, it is the property of facebook. Not that it really matters one way or the other who owns it, as the important bit here is that once you release information online it is no longer your information, it is available for whoever has access to where you release it.
In reality even email is not private. Once you release something that way you have no control over where it goes after that.
The summary also says that she is now 15, implying that she was younger than that when this happened. At that age she has is a minor and has no legal standing to give them permission
By creating an account on facebook did she not enter into an agreement as a minor? If she has control over the account she has the right to dictate how it is used. It is no different from the school asking to view a notebook that she carries with her to school.
The school district needed to get the parent's permission before taking action and they learned a valuable lesson.
That's debatable. I won't disagree with a notion of it being heavy handed if all she did was say something mean about a school employee, but the expectation of privacy on the internet is generally ridiculous. If you want something to be kept private you should not post it to the internet or communicate it digitally in any manner. When you release information on to the internet it is no longer yours.
The bigger problem here though is that the student actually thought that what she posted on facebook was somehow actually private.
It's only viewably by her friends. Her friends may repeat it, but it's no different then telling something to a group of friends.
Except that it isn't. Facebook privacy is violated all the time. Messages that people post there assuming to be private end up elsewhere on a very regular basis. Even more so when things move from facebook to other places they can go verbatim, with exact records of what what written. This is not the same as saying something verbally where there is always the chance of the message being garbled along the way.
Once you release something on the internet
overly simplistic to the point of being meaningless. It really depends on many other details. My computer is ';on the internet' does that mean it doesn't have any privacy?
If you post something for people to read online, you have released any reasonable expectation of it being private. Just because slashdot says that I own this comment I am posting, I understand that anyone can come along, copy it, post is elsewhere, etc. They might or might not credit it to me. Facebook is not different in any important way. Just because they claim that some messages are private does not mean they are.
particularly when you give that something to a for-profit company
So your medical company can broadcast you medical information all over the world?
They can sell it to whomever they want, just as facebook can sell your profile data to whomever they want.
Learn to think complex thoughts, please.
I'm sorry to see that you struggled so mightily to comprehend what I wrote here. I'm also sorry to see you make yourself look so silly by ending your comment with such a childish insult that does not belong with the rest of what you said - and is refuted by the text that you thought you were replying to.
The summary said she gave them her password. That sounds like permission.
The bigger problem here though is that the student actually thought that what she posted on facebook was somehow actually private. Once you release something on the internet you no longer have control of it - particularly when you give that something to a for-profit company. If she wanted it to be private she should not have posted it online, anywhere.
Anything an individual does can only violate laws or standards, but never rights, only governments can violate rights
really? so when someone takes your private property off your person and destroys it in front of you, they are not violating your right to private property? you just tried to argue for private ownership of property, but now you say that is not a right?
or is it just that if they were doing it on order from your religion / government they would be doing it as a government agent and hence you could then describe them as fitting under your weird statement of
only governments can violate rights
nevermind the fact that your statement of
A right is protection from government abuse
makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. if that was the case then murdering someone or selling them into slavery would in no way be a violation of their rights.
I remember reading not too long ago about a particular HVAC manifold that is used for testing systems in the field. The original one had a specific setup and specific color scheme, and was made in the USA. Eventually a Chinese company started to copy it down to the last detail (in some cases including copying the name and model number) but produced a vastly inferior product in the process.
However because some people were acquiring these crappy copies believing them to be the real thing, sales of the original one plummeted. The company very nearly went out of business through no fault their own. Eventually they were able to find who was selling the bad copies and get them to stop doing so, which helped a lot but of course internationally the copyright laws are of quite nearly no significance.
There is a STEM shortage on the global economy. The rest of the world recognizes the importance in investing in these fields while the US continues to focus on making athletes and mediocre musicians for our children to idolize.
I hear various connotations of the conspiracy of the government (or other agents such as collaborations between big pharma and the AMA) preventing people from accessing treatments to protect the profits they get from expensive drugs all the time. Frankly considering how often people allege that I am the crazy one for not believing in it, I really expected the percentage of people buying into that conspiracy would be much higher.
Hell, that survey reports that conspiracy to be accepted at only around 37%. Last I heard more than 37% of the GOP believes President Obama was born on Mars to Atheist Muslim Hippie Fascist Leftist Anarchist Extremists.
Wow, let's all line up to bash the American car company...
(remember the $5 manufacturing cost they saved on each Pinto?)
The Pinto was 40 years ago. You conveniently overlooked the money they spent correcting that problem, and the fact that the Pinto has been out of production for a long time. That error didn't last the full run of the Pinto, for that matter.
But no, let's go ahead and line up to bash the American company. Need I remind you what the Japanese cars were like in the 1970s? Toyotas were barely able to reach freeway speed. Hondas were too small for a large segment of Americans (ie, people more than 6' tall) to drive comfortably. Both had rust problems galore. But yet they improved. Now people speak fondly of their Japanese cars. In the 1970s nobody would have believed that Toyota and Honda could some day make competitive luxury cars, yet now we have Lexus and Acura.
And if we look to South Korea, the turn around is even more dramatic (at least with regards to how quickly it happened). Hyundai from the 80s and 90s were utter garbage. They probably never should have been allowed on American freeways but we let them on anyways. They weren't reliable, comfortable, or safe. Yet now Hyundai and Kia are very competent little cars.
But yet we keep bashing Ford for what happened 40 years ago. If we did that to the Japanese and Korean cars they would have gone bankrupt years ago.
In case you haven't noticed, Ford Fusion has beat Toyota Camry in initial quality, best midsize, and car of the year more than once and from multiple reviewers. But yet obviously it is more important to remind people about what Ford did when Nixon was president.
I find it hard to believe that it couldn't be fixed by replacement cases.
If these are $15 each, it would cost more in time (for the retail employee to change the case for each one before it is sold) than the likely profit margin. It is likely cheaper for the manufacturer to destroy them.
Sure Zuckerberg is currently worth billions in theory. But if he were to try to cash out his stock options into actual money on Monday the market would react so swiftly and severely that the last shares he sells would be nearly worthless. And frankly, in another couple years, the company will likely be worthless regardless as they have no long term business plan beyond "acquire and sell users' information" - which is not a meaningful plan for growth.
I'm not sure if you mean that you actually threw it into the regular trash or not, but I'd like to point out that there are plenty of ways you can have old hard drives recycled. Every Best Buy retail location will accept old hard drives for recycling at no cost, and there are other places as well. They don't care what size / interface / etc, just take them up to customer service and they will happily take them. If you don't like Best Buy you can find other places to take them as well.
I expect you've heard this before, but e-waste really, really, does not belong in regular trash.
A quick check at one service which lists such large amounts, you would be looking at almost $20k/year to keep a single offsite copy of that.
Hopefully that will cause the poster to re-evaluate how much of what he has really is data, and how much really needs to be backed up. Does he really need to back up the entie series of Friends when he has it sitting on DVD already? What about the Rolling Stones box set, which is also sitting on the shelf? Sure, he spent a lot of time ripping all of those discs but does he have $20k worth of stuff to back up every year? You can buy a lot of movies and music for that much money.
I am willing to wager that on that 20TB array there was not more than 5GB worth of actual data. That can be backed up for almost nothing in comparison.
It sounds like your friend had 20TB of movies and music that he might - or might not - have had legitimate copies of elsewhere. I'm not defending the RIAA or anything here but it sounds to me that all your friend is out is time. If he had any legitimate data - of his own creation - he should have already been backing it up somewhere else.
I am convinced that the stories you speak of are flamebait designed to cause slashdotters to work themselves into a frenzy about how stupid and ignorant conservatives are. That is, the stories are basically strawmen of the efforts conservatives really support.
Are you referring to the obviously conservative-leaning stories that show up on the front page at least once a week, or the liberal-leaning front page stories that show up approximately never?
If you want an example of slashdot demonstrating a full-on conservative circle-jerk, I mentioned in a journal entry what an outright bald-faced lie and textbook example of conservative hyper-spin we saw in the front page article on the "Wii Suicide". Some cowardly bastard actually managed to get this bit of NRA whitewash straight on to the slashdot front page, where it whipped the conservative base into a frenzy. I know that story is quite old now but it is just one particularly egregious example of how far to the right slashdot has ventured. There are additional examples of slashdot catering to the conservative base on the front page at least once a week.
Are you saying that there are only 3 democrats
Amongst people who post comments on slashdot? Yeah, 3 is about right.
Slashdot Mirror
It said they were not in their database although was able to show me a full name during a search.
Well, then, I guess you've solved the mystery of where the former slashdot programmers ended up.
People dumb enough to text while driving often end up wrapping their cars around stationary objects. I can't find any way to get this information in more than just word-bite style delivery without paying money for it.
The only issue are the criminal acts committed against her.
I would say someone here - someone representing the interests of the student and/or her family - has interests outside of "criminal acts". This settlement came from a civil court. If the family's true top interest was justice for "criminal acts" then they should have sought to press charges in a criminal court.
There should be charges leveled against the school officials and the sheriff.
As I understand, leveling criminal charges against someone in the US means that there will be an investigation and a trial, and the accused can take the trial as an opportunity to respond to the charges brought against them and/or face their accuser.
I say this not because I think you are opposed to justice and a fair trial but rather because some other people on slashdot (who we both converse with fairly often) very much are. As long as your idea of leveling charges means that there is an investigation and a trial, I am fine with that. As far as I have seen, we have basically seen only one side of this story so far. While the school agreeing to pay a settlement to the student implies admission of guilt, it does not prove guilt.
I would be fine with an investigation and a trial to determine if the law was broken, and by whom.
What's going on here? Are you trying to justify what they did?
No. In fact, I said it was heavy handed. My point is just that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy online. She errantly believed otherwise. It does not appear that she learned much from this, but that is a different matter.
particularly when you give that something to a for-profit company
So your medical company can broadcast you medical information all over the world?
They can sell it to whomever they want, just as facebook can sell your profile data to whomever they want.
Actually, if we are talking about your medical practitioner such as a PCP, they cannot legally sell your medical information to anyone. HIPPA prevents that.
I was referring more so to your insurance company (which thanks to the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 [aka "affordable care act", aka "obamacare"] you are now required to be a customer of) who has access to all of your records and the ability to do as they please with them.
We shouldn't really trust most 13-15 year olds to make intelligent, informed decisions most of the time.
And by having an expectation of privacy and/or ownership of what she wrote online, she made a very unintelligent and uninformed decision. What you post to facebook is not yours, it is the property of facebook. Not that it really matters one way or the other who owns it, as the important bit here is that once you release information online it is no longer your information, it is available for whoever has access to where you release it.
In reality even email is not private. Once you release something that way you have no control over where it goes after that.
The summary also says that she is now 15, implying that she was younger than that when this happened. At that age she has is a minor and has no legal standing to give them permission
By creating an account on facebook did she not enter into an agreement as a minor? If she has control over the account she has the right to dictate how it is used. It is no different from the school asking to view a notebook that she carries with her to school.
The school district needed to get the parent's permission before taking action and they learned a valuable lesson.
That's debatable. I won't disagree with a notion of it being heavy handed if all she did was say something mean about a school employee, but the expectation of privacy on the internet is generally ridiculous. If you want something to be kept private you should not post it to the internet or communicate it digitally in any manner. When you release information on to the internet it is no longer yours.
The bigger problem here though is that the student actually thought that what she posted on facebook was somehow actually private.
It's only viewably by her friends. Her friends may repeat it, but it's no different then telling something to a group of friends.
Except that it isn't. Facebook privacy is violated all the time. Messages that people post there assuming to be private end up elsewhere on a very regular basis. Even more so when things move from facebook to other places they can go verbatim, with exact records of what what written. This is not the same as saying something verbally where there is always the chance of the message being garbled along the way.
Once you release something on the internet
overly simplistic to the point of being meaningless. It really depends on many other details. My computer is ';on the internet' does that mean it doesn't have any privacy?
If you post something for people to read online, you have released any reasonable expectation of it being private. Just because slashdot says that I own this comment I am posting, I understand that anyone can come along, copy it, post is elsewhere, etc. They might or might not credit it to me. Facebook is not different in any important way. Just because they claim that some messages are private does not mean they are.
particularly when you give that something to a for-profit company
So your medical company can broadcast you medical information all over the world?
They can sell it to whomever they want, just as facebook can sell your profile data to whomever they want.
Learn to think complex thoughts, please.
I'm sorry to see that you struggled so mightily to comprehend what I wrote here. I'm also sorry to see you make yourself look so silly by ending your comment with such a childish insult that does not belong with the rest of what you said - and is refuted by the text that you thought you were replying to.
The summary said she gave them her password. That sounds like permission.
The bigger problem here though is that the student actually thought that what she posted on facebook was somehow actually private. Once you release something on the internet you no longer have control of it - particularly when you give that something to a for-profit company. If she wanted it to be private she should not have posted it online, anywhere.
Anything an individual does can only violate laws or standards, but never rights, only governments can violate rights
really? so when someone takes your private property off your person and destroys it in front of you, they are not violating your right to private property? you just tried to argue for private ownership of property, but now you say that is not a right?
or is it just that if they were doing it on order from your religion / government they would be doing it as a government agent and hence you could then describe them as fitting under your weird statement of
only governments can violate rights
nevermind the fact that your statement of
A right is protection from government abuse
makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. if that was the case then murdering someone or selling them into slavery would in no way be a violation of their rights.
I was wondering how long it would be until we would start making tape measures in this country again.
I remember reading not too long ago about a particular HVAC manifold that is used for testing systems in the field. The original one had a specific setup and specific color scheme, and was made in the USA. Eventually a Chinese company started to copy it down to the last detail (in some cases including copying the name and model number) but produced a vastly inferior product in the process.
However because some people were acquiring these crappy copies believing them to be the real thing, sales of the original one plummeted. The company very nearly went out of business through no fault their own. Eventually they were able to find who was selling the bad copies and get them to stop doing so, which helped a lot but of course internationally the copyright laws are of quite nearly no significance.
I recall a certain Candidate Newt Gingrich wanted us to build a colony on the moon. I nomintate him to start the construction personally.
There is a STEM shortage on the global economy. The rest of the world recognizes the importance in investing in these fields while the US continues to focus on making athletes and mediocre musicians for our children to idolize.
I hear various connotations of the conspiracy of the government (or other agents such as collaborations between big pharma and the AMA) preventing people from accessing treatments to protect the profits they get from expensive drugs all the time. Frankly considering how often people allege that I am the crazy one for not believing in it, I really expected the percentage of people buying into that conspiracy would be much higher.
Hell, that survey reports that conspiracy to be accepted at only around 37%. Last I heard more than 37% of the GOP believes President Obama was born on Mars to Atheist Muslim Hippie Fascist Leftist Anarchist Extremists.
(remember the $5 manufacturing cost they saved on each Pinto?)
The Pinto was 40 years ago. You conveniently overlooked the money they spent correcting that problem, and the fact that the Pinto has been out of production for a long time. That error didn't last the full run of the Pinto, for that matter.
But no, let's go ahead and line up to bash the American company. Need I remind you what the Japanese cars were like in the 1970s? Toyotas were barely able to reach freeway speed. Hondas were too small for a large segment of Americans (ie, people more than 6' tall) to drive comfortably. Both had rust problems galore. But yet they improved. Now people speak fondly of their Japanese cars. In the 1970s nobody would have believed that Toyota and Honda could some day make competitive luxury cars, yet now we have Lexus and Acura.
And if we look to South Korea, the turn around is even more dramatic (at least with regards to how quickly it happened). Hyundai from the 80s and 90s were utter garbage. They probably never should have been allowed on American freeways but we let them on anyways. They weren't reliable, comfortable, or safe. Yet now Hyundai and Kia are very competent little cars.
But yet we keep bashing Ford for what happened 40 years ago. If we did that to the Japanese and Korean cars they would have gone bankrupt years ago.
In case you haven't noticed, Ford Fusion has beat Toyota Camry in initial quality, best midsize, and car of the year more than once and from multiple reviewers. But yet obviously it is more important to remind people about what Ford did when Nixon was president.
Remember kids, Ford owns Volvo (and Jaguar, and some others)
That was true about a decade ago. Ford sold Volvo to a Chinese company is 2010 and sold Jaguar to an Indian company in 2008.
So, when you hear "don't worry it won't photograph you", just keep that in mind.
Keep what in mind, then? That they used to own Volvo and Jaguar? I'm not sure how that is relevant.
I find it hard to believe that it couldn't be fixed by replacement cases.
If these are $15 each, it would cost more in time (for the retail employee to change the case for each one before it is sold) than the likely profit margin. It is likely cheaper for the manufacturer to destroy them.
I have purchased a significant number of games from GOG already, and play pretty well all of them on my Linux laptop in WINE.
Sure Zuckerberg is currently worth billions in theory. But if he were to try to cash out his stock options into actual money on Monday the market would react so swiftly and severely that the last shares he sells would be nearly worthless. And frankly, in another couple years, the company will likely be worthless regardless as they have no long term business plan beyond "acquire and sell users' information" - which is not a meaningful plan for growth.
and I put it in the trash.
I'm not sure if you mean that you actually threw it into the regular trash or not, but I'd like to point out that there are plenty of ways you can have old hard drives recycled. Every Best Buy retail location will accept old hard drives for recycling at no cost, and there are other places as well. They don't care what size / interface / etc, just take them up to customer service and they will happily take them. If you don't like Best Buy you can find other places to take them as well.
I expect you've heard this before, but e-waste really, really, does not belong in regular trash.
"Our users will happily beta-test this code, so there is no need to try it out in-house first"
A quick check at one service which lists such large amounts, you would be looking at almost $20k/year to keep a single offsite copy of that.
Hopefully that will cause the poster to re-evaluate how much of what he has really is data, and how much really needs to be backed up. Does he really need to back up the entie series of Friends when he has it sitting on DVD already? What about the Rolling Stones box set, which is also sitting on the shelf? Sure, he spent a lot of time ripping all of those discs but does he have $20k worth of stuff to back up every year? You can buy a lot of movies and music for that much money.
I am willing to wager that on that 20TB array there was not more than 5GB worth of actual data. That can be backed up for almost nothing in comparison.
It sounds like your friend had 20TB of movies and music that he might - or might not - have had legitimate copies of elsewhere. I'm not defending the RIAA or anything here but it sounds to me that all your friend is out is time. If he had any legitimate data - of his own creation - he should have already been backing it up somewhere else.
I am convinced that the stories you speak of are flamebait designed to cause slashdotters to work themselves into a frenzy about how stupid and ignorant conservatives are. That is, the stories are basically strawmen of the efforts conservatives really support.
Are you referring to the obviously conservative-leaning stories that show up on the front page at least once a week, or the liberal-leaning front page stories that show up approximately never?
If you want an example of slashdot demonstrating a full-on conservative circle-jerk, I mentioned in a journal entry what an outright bald-faced lie and textbook example of conservative hyper-spin we saw in the front page article on the "Wii Suicide". Some cowardly bastard actually managed to get this bit of NRA whitewash straight on to the slashdot front page, where it whipped the conservative base into a frenzy. I know that story is quite old now but it is just one particularly egregious example of how far to the right slashdot has ventured. There are additional examples of slashdot catering to the conservative base on the front page at least once a week.
Are you saying that there are only 3 democrats
Amongst people who post comments on slashdot? Yeah, 3 is about right.
or only 3 republicans
Hell there have been three republicans calling me names and lobbing false accusations at me on slashdot just this month (and the month is young!). I seldom even bother engaging the vast majority of them in discussion because they aren't worth my time but some of them have actually taken to following me around to lob baseless accusations at me, or writing journal entries about me, or writing journal entries about me and intentionally excluding me from discussion.