oh where oh where did my webcrawler go. we used to have such fun surfing together. sure it wasn't that accurate, but the random links never got boring.
How much is the warning of it having dangerous materials aboard meant to protect us and how much is it meant to keep people from being too inquisitive about the top secret spy satellite?
Furthermore, what sort of liability applies for a rogue space satellite if it crashes into your house? I'm sure the government will pay for it just to keep the media at bay, but still, an interesting tort question. I'd assume the government would be strictly liable.
-TwoHundredOK
So given the choice of the possibility ending up being in prison for crimes I didn't commit but was forced to confess through torture or not having Grand Theft Auto V... I'll go with the choice that causes me and the rest of the citizens
So given the choice between voting for a loss in freedom of liberty you will vote for a loss in freedom of liberty?
Doesn't sound like much of a choice. I'd vote third-party.
Newsreporter: And so with two weeks left in the campaign, the question on everyone's mind is, who will be the president of Earth? Jack Johnson or bitter rival John Jackson. Two terrific candidates, Morbo?
Morbo: All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo.
If it's a question of scope of their powers, that makes sense. Your point about water utilities is also duly noted.
I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the seeming double standard, however, when comparing cable to the last two. For electricity, in Virginia at least, you can only buy through Virginia Power (that I am aware of). For "heating" you CAN switch your heating system, but wouldn't that be more akin to the difference between dial-up/dsl and cable? If you want one option over the other, you'd have to go through just one company. Again, I guess it's a moot point, since they don't fall under the FCC, but it seems odd to have these two standards. You may ONLY buy electricity through this one company, but we don't like that you have to buy cable ONLY through this one other company.
I would be the first one to applaud the break-up of the cable-company monopolies. They seem to make the companies, at least Comcast which I have had experience with, cocky to the point of not caring about customer service, pricing, or competition in general. However, I am having difficulty seeing how the FCC can advocate for the end (or at least modifications) to this monopoly, while allowing heating, water, and electric utility companies to maintain theirs. Is there a differentiation that I am missing?
It certainly might be enforced, however there is ample ground to make it unenforceable as well. First and foremost, if it's TOO conspicuous, such that a reasonable person wouldn't see it, then it probably wouldn't be a contract based on previous cases dealing with shrink-wrap licenses. Secondly, such a contract has no consideration. There is nothing of value passing between both parties which would make it binding (a valid contract must have offer, acceptance, and consideration). Even if you argue that the employer gains something valuable by the information (which I think is a bit of a stretch), the poster gains nothing. Even if even if you get the courts to go along with that, they still might find on public policy that such a contract is unenforceable. Imagine the flood of litigation if people could sue other people for reading their blogs? Besides that, it just doesn't make sense to publish something and then tell people not to read it. I think it would be a hard sell.
The discussion about Trespass and Trespass to Chattel, however, deals with Torts (civil litigation for harms) not for contracts. But yes, I don't think it could work via Contract law either.
Heres an idea: People could post legal terms of service on their social networing pages declaring that employers and prospective employers are forbidden from looking at or copying from the pages. Such terms would be like No Trespassing signs on land.
Traditionally, tortious trespass is trespass, regardless of whether or not there is a sign. Now, it's not trespass if you're thrown on to the private property, or if you run there to take cover from an act of god. But if you are wandering around and merely don't know that it's someone else's property, then you are liable. Of course, tort law varies from state to state. But the general upshot is that a "no trespassing" sign doesn't do much.
Secondly, as mentioned previously, some consider that this might fall under "trespass to chattel." I can't remember the case offhand, but there was a case where IBM attempted to sue a disaffected employee who had been e-mailing current employees. They tried to sue for trespass to chattel, arguing that the e-mail was trespassing on their computers, this failed, however, since trespass to chattel generally requires damage to be done. There was no damage done to the computer from the e-mail, only to the workers' productivity. I imagine similar reasoning could be used to negate any such claims then.
To get back to the point, you are suggesting some sort of electronic shrink-wrap license that binds employers to not use information from a social networking site towards hiring practices. I'm not sure if there's some precedent that would endorse this idea, but my own gut feeling is that it would fail. There isn't an adequate public policy reason to disallow companies from using social network information (in fact, there may be incentive for companies TO do such a thing, to reduce their hiring of 'troublesome' workers). Secondly, since people are willingly volunteering this information to the public at large, it would be hard to argue that one special class of people is not allowed to view or use that information. It's kind of backwards compared to most other privacy issues, where people giving information to a specific class of people are trying to PREVENT the general public from viewing/using it.
And ethically, I, speaking personally now, see nothing wrong with denying someone a job based on information that they have willingly submitted to others. If they had broadcast something on tv that made them less 'hire-able,' the law certainly wouldn't protect it. Therefore, if it's your prerogative to post pictures of you drinking yourself into oblivion or complaining about your awkwardness at social functions, I think it's perfectly reasonable for an employer to deny you a position based on that information. Now, of course, if they deny it to you because of your race, creed, etc. then that would be unfair according to our laws. That, however, is already protected regardless of if you post it on the internet or not. So I am not seeing the reasoning behind not holding people accountable for their own actions here.
P.S. This is just my response to the points you have brought up. The main point of contention from Kerr, that of giving up anonymity in favor of having the government 'safeguard' and be 'responsible' for our private data, I find to be completely ridiculous. Our government should not play the part of some wizened patriarch. It is here to enhance our ability to organize (economically and militarily). It should be a moderator, not a bully.
Regardless of the size of the company, the legal principles should remain the same. Making exceptions because of a sad story is a quick way towards bad law.
If there is significant market confusion, it probably should be brought to a court case, never mind who is david and who is goliath.
This reminds me a little bit of the rash of i-products that came out after the iPod became successful. Items like the iTrip and the iSpeakers took the design style of the iPod, coupled with the letter I, and sought to piggyback on their sales. I'm not sure if they ever had a deal with Apple to link their products like that, but the simple outcome was that a lot of people, at least that I knew, bought those products thinking that they were official Apple products and not third-party vendors. They weren't terrible products, but there was still market confusion, which I guess is the point here.
There are 55 million people who consider themselves Republicans. I doubt that all of them agree to your colorful characterization of them. I doubt that, were you to provide a voting record of all Republicans, you would see a significant trend that indicates the level of statist Nazism you accuse them of. In short, I'll reiterate your opening salvo, "Insightful my ass." Across the board condemnations and wanton disregard of nuances... well, I guess I AM on an internet message board... still, I had hoped for better.
Why are there 2 private organizations that run how governement works in the USA? That's crap and very few people see it.
Maybe I just run with the 'wrong' crowds, but I think almost every person I've ever met has complained about the fact that a third-party candidate can't win. People know about the problem, they just don't know what to do about it. They're too scared for the most part to vote for something other than D or R because it will likely not matter. Hell, I don't know how to fix it and vote according to the same reasoning.
I wish, at least, there were four parties though:
Liberal Social Issues/Liberal Economic Issues
Liberal Social Issues/Conservative Economic Issues
Conservative Social Issues/Liberal Economic Issues
Conservative Social Issues/ Conservative Economic Issues.
That way I could vote to lower taxes WITHOUT voting for torture and censorship. But they'll never do it because if one of them splits up (say Rs split into those for gay marriage and pro choice and Rs that are against) essentially it'll just hand the election to the Ds. It's bloc voting and you can't get around it unless everybody splits at once.
ESSENTIALLY, I think what I'm saying is that it's a monopoly, but I DON'T think anti-trust laws apply to elections (though it seems like they should...right?). Free internet for the first senator to bring THAT up in Congress...
They have to do something though. People get a little cocky about the US, but we weren't exactly big shots a hundred years ago and in another hundred (50, 20, 5..) years a lot could go wrong. Nations need to adapt and change. You can't just keep building up frustration and diverting it with a new scapegoat enemy every few years.
Cheers to the US, let's hope you make some wise decisions to admit your faults in the next few years. You can only repaint something so many times before it begins to rot inside.
Where did they obtain this allegedly confidential document? If it was leaked, could it have been done exactly for this kind of publicity on internet message boards? And, even if it is authentic, just because these are their policies does not mean that this is how things are handled within the company.
Also, it disturbs me that Comcast, an ISP, would use pixelated graphics for its in-house confidential handbooks.
Also also, to wit, hiding in anonymity (as other posters have suggested) can only work for so long. To do so is to rely on the inadequacy of their aggregating technology. What/.er would bet on the inadequacy of technology? We must protect our privacy now, otherwise we will condone a world where we lose our rights to it.
I'm an Ohio resident and am fairly pleased with what Ted has done so far
Not including the mismanagement of 7.3% of Ohio resdients' social security numbers, I'm assuming? As another Ohio resident, that kind of irked me, personally.
Besides that, I'm not sure that turning over broadband control to the state will yield much more than what we have now: a practically monopolistic and poorly run set of services with proprietary infrastructures.
All that being said, if Mr. Strickland doesn't fall into any of the obvious traps one would associate with this type of scheme, it could be quite amazing. I doubt anyone over there wants to fight that much though, seems more like an effort to be seen as being "contemporary," or "up to date with the times."
Slashdot Mirror
can't you just require more oversight through regulations? why must an industry be de-privatized?
oh where oh where did my webcrawler go. we used to have such fun surfing together. sure it wasn't that accurate, but the random links never got boring.
How much is the warning of it having dangerous materials aboard meant to protect us and how much is it meant to keep people from being too inquisitive about the top secret spy satellite?
Furthermore, what sort of liability applies for a rogue space satellite if it crashes into your house? I'm sure the government will pay for it just to keep the media at bay, but still, an interesting tort question. I'd assume the government would be strictly liable. -TwoHundredOK
So given the choice between voting for a loss in freedom of liberty you will vote for a loss in freedom of liberty?
Doesn't sound like much of a choice. I'd vote third-party.
Newsreporter: And so with two weeks left in the campaign, the question on everyone's mind is, who will be the president of Earth? Jack Johnson or bitter rival John Jackson. Two terrific candidates, Morbo?
Morbo: All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo.
Like in that movie K-Pax ... oh wait.
If it's a question of scope of their powers, that makes sense. Your point about water utilities is also duly noted.
I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the seeming double standard, however, when comparing cable to the last two. For electricity, in Virginia at least, you can only buy through Virginia Power (that I am aware of). For "heating" you CAN switch your heating system, but wouldn't that be more akin to the difference between dial-up/dsl and cable? If you want one option over the other, you'd have to go through just one company. Again, I guess it's a moot point, since they don't fall under the FCC, but it seems odd to have these two standards. You may ONLY buy electricity through this one company, but we don't like that you have to buy cable ONLY through this one other company.
I would be the first one to applaud the break-up of the cable-company monopolies. They seem to make the companies, at least Comcast which I have had experience with, cocky to the point of not caring about customer service, pricing, or competition in general. However, I am having difficulty seeing how the FCC can advocate for the end (or at least modifications) to this monopoly, while allowing heating, water, and electric utility companies to maintain theirs. Is there a differentiation that I am missing?
It certainly might be enforced, however there is ample ground to make it unenforceable as well. First and foremost, if it's TOO conspicuous, such that a reasonable person wouldn't see it, then it probably wouldn't be a contract based on previous cases dealing with shrink-wrap licenses. Secondly, such a contract has no consideration. There is nothing of value passing between both parties which would make it binding (a valid contract must have offer, acceptance, and consideration). Even if you argue that the employer gains something valuable by the information (which I think is a bit of a stretch), the poster gains nothing. Even if even if you get the courts to go along with that, they still might find on public policy that such a contract is unenforceable. Imagine the flood of litigation if people could sue other people for reading their blogs? Besides that, it just doesn't make sense to publish something and then tell people not to read it. I think it would be a hard sell.
The discussion about Trespass and Trespass to Chattel, however, deals with Torts (civil litigation for harms) not for contracts. But yes, I don't think it could work via Contract law either.
Traditionally, tortious trespass is trespass, regardless of whether or not there is a sign. Now, it's not trespass if you're thrown on to the private property, or if you run there to take cover from an act of god. But if you are wandering around and merely don't know that it's someone else's property, then you are liable. Of course, tort law varies from state to state. But the general upshot is that a "no trespassing" sign doesn't do much.
Secondly, as mentioned previously, some consider that this might fall under "trespass to chattel." I can't remember the case offhand, but there was a case where IBM attempted to sue a disaffected employee who had been e-mailing current employees. They tried to sue for trespass to chattel, arguing that the e-mail was trespassing on their computers, this failed, however, since trespass to chattel generally requires damage to be done. There was no damage done to the computer from the e-mail, only to the workers' productivity. I imagine similar reasoning could be used to negate any such claims then.
To get back to the point, you are suggesting some sort of electronic shrink-wrap license that binds employers to not use information from a social networking site towards hiring practices. I'm not sure if there's some precedent that would endorse this idea, but my own gut feeling is that it would fail. There isn't an adequate public policy reason to disallow companies from using social network information (in fact, there may be incentive for companies TO do such a thing, to reduce their hiring of 'troublesome' workers). Secondly, since people are willingly volunteering this information to the public at large, it would be hard to argue that one special class of people is not allowed to view or use that information. It's kind of backwards compared to most other privacy issues, where people giving information to a specific class of people are trying to PREVENT the general public from viewing/using it.
And ethically, I, speaking personally now, see nothing wrong with denying someone a job based on information that they have willingly submitted to others. If they had broadcast something on tv that made them less 'hire-able,' the law certainly wouldn't protect it. Therefore, if it's your prerogative to post pictures of you drinking yourself into oblivion or complaining about your awkwardness at social functions, I think it's perfectly reasonable for an employer to deny you a position based on that information. Now, of course, if they deny it to you because of your race, creed, etc. then that would be unfair according to our laws. That, however, is already protected regardless of if you post it on the internet or not. So I am not seeing the reasoning behind not holding people accountable for their own actions here.
P.S. This is just my response to the points you have brought up. The main point of contention from Kerr, that of giving up anonymity in favor of having the government 'safeguard' and be 'responsible' for our private data, I find to be completely ridiculous. Our government should not play the part of some wizened patriarch. It is here to enhance our ability to organize (economically and militarily). It should be a moderator, not a bully.
Regardless of the size of the company, the legal principles should remain the same. Making exceptions because of a sad story is a quick way towards bad law. If there is significant market confusion, it probably should be brought to a court case, never mind who is david and who is goliath.
This reminds me a little bit of the rash of i-products that came out after the iPod became successful. Items like the iTrip and the iSpeakers took the design style of the iPod, coupled with the letter I, and sought to piggyback on their sales. I'm not sure if they ever had a deal with Apple to link their products like that, but the simple outcome was that a lot of people, at least that I knew, bought those products thinking that they were official Apple products and not third-party vendors. They weren't terrible products, but there was still market confusion, which I guess is the point here.
There are 55 million people who consider themselves Republicans. I doubt that all of them agree to your colorful characterization of them. I doubt that, were you to provide a voting record of all Republicans, you would see a significant trend that indicates the level of statist Nazism you accuse them of. In short, I'll reiterate your opening salvo, "Insightful my ass." Across the board condemnations and wanton disregard of nuances... well, I guess I AM on an internet message board... still, I had hoped for better.
Maybe I just run with the 'wrong' crowds, but I think almost every person I've ever met has complained about the fact that a third-party candidate can't win. People know about the problem, they just don't know what to do about it. They're too scared for the most part to vote for something other than D or R because it will likely not matter. Hell, I don't know how to fix it and vote according to the same reasoning.
I wish, at least, there were four parties though:
Liberal Social Issues/Liberal Economic Issues
Liberal Social Issues/Conservative Economic Issues
Conservative Social Issues/Liberal Economic Issues
Conservative Social Issues/ Conservative Economic Issues.
That way I could vote to lower taxes WITHOUT voting for torture and censorship. But they'll never do it because if one of them splits up (say Rs split into those for gay marriage and pro choice and Rs that are against) essentially it'll just hand the election to the Ds. It's bloc voting and you can't get around it unless everybody splits at once.
ESSENTIALLY, I think what I'm saying is that it's a monopoly, but I DON'T think anti-trust laws apply to elections (though it seems like they should...right?). Free internet for the first senator to bring THAT up in Congress...
They have to do something though. People get a little cocky about the US, but we weren't exactly big shots a hundred years ago and in another hundred (50, 20, 5..) years a lot could go wrong. Nations need to adapt and change. You can't just keep building up frustration and diverting it with a new scapegoat enemy every few years.
Cheers to the US, let's hope you make some wise decisions to admit your faults in the next few years. You can only repaint something so many times before it begins to rot inside.
Where did they obtain this allegedly confidential document? If it was leaked, could it have been done exactly for this kind of publicity on internet message boards? And, even if it is authentic, just because these are their policies does not mean that this is how things are handled within the company. Also, it disturbs me that Comcast, an ISP, would use pixelated graphics for its in-house confidential handbooks. Also also, to wit, hiding in anonymity (as other posters have suggested) can only work for so long. To do so is to rely on the inadequacy of their aggregating technology. What /.er would bet on the inadequacy of technology? We must protect our privacy now, otherwise we will condone a world where we lose our rights to it.