There is no proof that the LEO or the general public was in imminent danger. So your argument doesn't pass the search and seizure test. They'd need a warrant, which I think they probably could've gotten in an hour, two tops. None of this 11 hour bullshit.
Well, most likely the people they talked to were all so far down the food chain that they didn't dare do anything because "But it was the Secret Service and they..." will still get you fired from most call centers (although if the particular incident gains enough media attention they might wait a few weeks to fire you to avoid bad PR).
/Mikael (who worked in tech support right after college)
Which is why you immediately escalate to a senior or MOD. I have worked in two separate call centers and there were policies in place to escalate calls from LEOs.
You make it seem more high-tech and complicated than it really is. As someone who's worked for call centers for both banks and ISPs, it's generally a matter of the cop faxing a warrant/court order to the companies' legal department or to a manager on duty. You make it sound like they have a crack team of zany techs who jump into action whenever a tag team is needed between the LEO and a customer service department. But then again, I smell sitcom!
Your logical fallacy here is that you forget about the richly paid attorneys who work for Verizon who's sole job it is of navigating Verizon out of any sort of legal mess they might get involved in. Yes, it's possible they could lose a court case, but not before costing the city/state/feds a lot of money in court fees.
I'm assuming this was a cellular provider you worked for, right? And this is what is wrong with our wireless industry. I worked tech for a broadband ISP that also provided VOIP services, and we as normal techs could reprovision any of the equipment on our own for situations such as this. While to the letter of the law, Verizon is covered, I do think this points to a bigger problem: the culture of the wireless industry and their ream it up your ass mentality on everything and stick to the rules we set no matter what, and I mean NO MATTER WHAT.
Yeah, that is probably the most confusing part. Whether I agreed with Verizon's right to make the request, if I was a family member or the cop, I'd just pay the $20 to get the ball rolling, rather than worry about this guy turning up dead somewhere. I guess our economy is really in bad shape if $20 is an outrageous fee. If the cop paid the $20, he could have just had the department bill the family afterwards. Emergency services already do this with Ambulance rides.
You're the one who needs to be flamed, not the guy you responded to. He was being the voice of reason, and his suggestion was valid. If there was legislation in place to compel a provider to give access to a LEO in the event of an emergency (we'll assume that the LEO provided a warrant for such access, as this is the only way to do so and keep everyone at least remotely honest), then there would be no hassle over a bill, be it $20 or $20,000. They'd turn on the service, perform the requested search, and then turn it off. Hell, they probably have the technology to do so without the dude even being able to make a call other than 911.
Bankruptcy is a legitimate tool used to emerge from a position of financial ruin and recover in an attempt to continue to be able to do business. It is not a tool used for punishment, and what you suggest is not only wrong, it's illegal and unconstitutional. If the government tried that bullshit, I would hope that Verizon would sue the shit out of them, and I'm sure they would win.
Or instead of overreacting and wanting to crack skulls, perhaps this is an instance where Congress can do some good (because really, have they done much good lately?)
I think it would be prudent to have a law that requires cellular providers to provide tracking information if a warrant is issued. Then, the Sherrif's department could have contacted the DA's office, who could've called a judge, who could've signed a warrant and had it faxed to Verizon. This whole process would take less time than bitching back and forth insisting that they help track the guy down or trying to pay the guy's bill while the CSR insists they have to be on the account to pay it, or whatever bogus reason caused them to "try and figure out a way to pay the guy's bill."
Put your money where your mouth is. That is, give parents a tax credit for being involved in activities such as the PTA, After school activities (soccer moms, etc), and enrolling and completing parent/kid activities. Obviously, the big question would be, how do you show that they did/did not do the said activities. I don't profess to have a perfect solution, but getting some sort of documentation from the school and it being notarized would be the simplest solution IMO. As I said, you will never get every parent to give a damn and be involved, but people love tax credits and this could be one way to encourage involvement.
My solution with my own son is even easier. Keep him outside as often as possible, doing as many outdoor activities as possible. Don't give the kiddos any time to play video games.
Haven't you heard? If California fixes their budget woes, they risk losing the bailout money they got from the Federal Government. That would be a catastrophe!
California is home to some great, absolutely outstanding public servants, eh? Not saying that my home state has perfect angels serving me and other citizens of Florida, but I'm sure glad we don't have the likes of Yee and Pelosi to worry about. I will say though, Cali does have the Governator as Governor, who could be sent back in time to kill either Yee or Pelosi and change the future.
Agreed 100%. The real problem is parenting, which won't be solved simply by any sort of legislation. It will be solved by local and state governments doing real things to encourage parents to give a damn about their kids lives, and unfortunately, it won't work in 100% of the cases even if the governments (both local and state, this isn't a federal issue) did their due diligence. There will always be some dickhead parents and some jacked up kids.
They have violent video games in Japan, yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence. Modify the gun laws.
Not trying to be the grammar police, but that sentence makes no sense. Assuming I understand the point you are trying to make, it should read:
Japanese teens have violent video games, yet the Japanese teens are not prone to committing violence with guns. We need to modify the gun laws in the US.
Disclaimer - I'm against modifying the gun laws in the US, as it leads to a slippery slope towards an outright ban on guns. I am just trying to reform your thoughts into coherent sentence structure.
If it made money it is successful. Since it did not fail, it is successful.
He said if it did not fail, it must be successful. If I remember correctly from college logic classes, that would be referred to as an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. In plain English, it's a logical fallacy.
Enlighten me to the definition of success. As the parent said, this device is being marketed as a portable gaming system and without the aid of Google, most people discussing this article wouldn't even be aware of it's existence. And really, I have not seen data that shows in any way that it has been a "success." What are the costs of production versus the price? What are the overhead costs of the company? I couldn't even find pricing on their website, so I'm not sure how anyone can call it successful.
Considering how long they've been selling them, I'd say 60,000 units is not what I'd call a critical success. Perhaps they are above the break even point, but a success? Let's lay off the koolaid.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a question for you. If there is no sim card in the phone, how do they know what phone to track?
It took 11 god damn hours. Do you really think he was that worried about just paying the $20 and finding the guy if it took 11 hours to do so?
Or more accurately, you calling 911 and the cell provider tracking your phone are two different things.
There is no proof that the LEO or the general public was in imminent danger. So your argument doesn't pass the search and seizure test. They'd need a warrant, which I think they probably could've gotten in an hour, two tops. None of this 11 hour bullshit.
Well, most likely the people they talked to were all so far down the food chain that they didn't dare do anything because "But it was the Secret Service and they..." will still get you fired from most call centers (although if the particular incident gains enough media attention they might wait a few weeks to fire you to avoid bad PR).
/Mikael (who worked in tech support right after college)
Which is why you immediately escalate to a senior or MOD. I have worked in two separate call centers and there were policies in place to escalate calls from LEOs.
You make it seem more high-tech and complicated than it really is. As someone who's worked for call centers for both banks and ISPs, it's generally a matter of the cop faxing a warrant/court order to the companies' legal department or to a manager on duty. You make it sound like they have a crack team of zany techs who jump into action whenever a tag team is needed between the LEO and a customer service department. But then again, I smell sitcom!
Your logical fallacy here is that you forget about the richly paid attorneys who work for Verizon who's sole job it is of navigating Verizon out of any sort of legal mess they might get involved in. Yes, it's possible they could lose a court case, but not before costing the city/state/feds a lot of money in court fees.
I'm assuming this was a cellular provider you worked for, right? And this is what is wrong with our wireless industry. I worked tech for a broadband ISP that also provided VOIP services, and we as normal techs could reprovision any of the equipment on our own for situations such as this. While to the letter of the law, Verizon is covered, I do think this points to a bigger problem: the culture of the wireless industry and their ream it up your ass mentality on everything and stick to the rules we set no matter what, and I mean NO MATTER WHAT.
Yeah, that is probably the most confusing part. Whether I agreed with Verizon's right to make the request, if I was a family member or the cop, I'd just pay the $20 to get the ball rolling, rather than worry about this guy turning up dead somewhere. I guess our economy is really in bad shape if $20 is an outrageous fee. If the cop paid the $20, he could have just had the department bill the family afterwards. Emergency services already do this with Ambulance rides.
You're the one who needs to be flamed, not the guy you responded to. He was being the voice of reason, and his suggestion was valid. If there was legislation in place to compel a provider to give access to a LEO in the event of an emergency (we'll assume that the LEO provided a warrant for such access, as this is the only way to do so and keep everyone at least remotely honest), then there would be no hassle over a bill, be it $20 or $20,000. They'd turn on the service, perform the requested search, and then turn it off. Hell, they probably have the technology to do so without the dude even being able to make a call other than 911.
Bankruptcy is a legitimate tool used to emerge from a position of financial ruin and recover in an attempt to continue to be able to do business. It is not a tool used for punishment, and what you suggest is not only wrong, it's illegal and unconstitutional. If the government tried that bullshit, I would hope that Verizon would sue the shit out of them, and I'm sure they would win.
Or instead of overreacting and wanting to crack skulls, perhaps this is an instance where Congress can do some good (because really, have they done much good lately?)
I think it would be prudent to have a law that requires cellular providers to provide tracking information if a warrant is issued. Then, the Sherrif's department could have contacted the DA's office, who could've called a judge, who could've signed a warrant and had it faxed to Verizon. This whole process would take less time than bitching back and forth insisting that they help track the guy down or trying to pay the guy's bill while the CSR insists they have to be on the account to pay it, or whatever bogus reason caused them to "try and figure out a way to pay the guy's bill."
because soccer sucks...subsidize baseball and football instead.
Put your money where your mouth is. That is, give parents a tax credit for being involved in activities such as the PTA, After school activities (soccer moms, etc), and enrolling and completing parent/kid activities. Obviously, the big question would be, how do you show that they did/did not do the said activities. I don't profess to have a perfect solution, but getting some sort of documentation from the school and it being notarized would be the simplest solution IMO. As I said, you will never get every parent to give a damn and be involved, but people love tax credits and this could be one way to encourage involvement.
My solution with my own son is even easier. Keep him outside as often as possible, doing as many outdoor activities as possible. Don't give the kiddos any time to play video games.
Haven't you heard? If California fixes their budget woes, they risk losing the bailout money they got from the Federal Government. That would be a catastrophe!
California is home to some great, absolutely outstanding public servants, eh? Not saying that my home state has perfect angels serving me and other citizens of Florida, but I'm sure glad we don't have the likes of Yee and Pelosi to worry about. I will say though, Cali does have the Governator as Governor, who could be sent back in time to kill either Yee or Pelosi and change the future.
Agreed 100%. The real problem is parenting, which won't be solved simply by any sort of legislation. It will be solved by local and state governments doing real things to encourage parents to give a damn about their kids lives, and unfortunately, it won't work in 100% of the cases even if the governments (both local and state, this isn't a federal issue) did their due diligence. There will always be some dickhead parents and some jacked up kids.
They have violent video games in Japan, yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence. Modify the gun laws.
Not trying to be the grammar police, but that sentence makes no sense. Assuming I understand the point you are trying to make, it should read:
Japanese teens have violent video games, yet the Japanese teens are not prone to committing violence with guns. We need to modify the gun laws in the US.
Disclaimer - I'm against modifying the gun laws in the US, as it leads to a slippery slope towards an outright ban on guns. I am just trying to reform your thoughts into coherent sentence structure.
No, actually he just said if. And I quote:
If it made money it is successful. Since it did not fail, it is successful.
He said if it did not fail, it must be successful. If I remember correctly from college logic classes, that would be referred to as an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. In plain English, it's a logical fallacy.
Well if I'm smart enough to know that 1 unit would not produce an adequate profit, then yes, I must be some kind of genius. Thanks for noticing.
Enlighten me to the definition of success. As the parent said, this device is being marketed as a portable gaming system and without the aid of Google, most people discussing this article wouldn't even be aware of it's existence. And really, I have not seen data that shows in any way that it has been a "success." What are the costs of production versus the price? What are the overhead costs of the company? I couldn't even find pricing on their website, so I'm not sure how anyone can call it successful.
Considering how long they've been selling them, I'd say 60,000 units is not what I'd call a critical success. Perhaps they are above the break even point, but a success? Let's lay off the koolaid.
If they sold 1 unit, I can guarantee you they would not have made enough profit to call it a success.
60,000 units would be a bad day for the Nintendo DS.