If it's declared private, and protected as private under relevant TOS & municiple code, it shouldn't matter if it's on the internet or not.
Municipal code? Seriously come on. The TOS protects facebook (and lets them change it at will), not the user. Trying to take something like that to court would be a laughing stock.
From the TOS:
By posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
Simply put, it is no longer your data, they can do whatever they wish with it. By signing up you accept those terms.
Actually I think you'll find that Ron Paul (R, TX) seems to be one of the few representatives out there who fights for ideals and measured government rather than towing (toeing) a company line.
I'm familiar with him, and while he did vote against a hurricane relief bill then go on to claim credit for it, he does seem to be one of the better people in congress. Open secrets has his campaign funding primarily coming from out of state, so you have to wonder really how well he is representing his voters. He gets most of his money from financial/real estate groups and people, I haven't examined his voting record closely yet but I would be surprised to find him voting against any of their interests.
The problem is that even if one good person gets in, that person still have to think about their future. To do the good civic duty that all of them should strive for, they need warchests to make sure they stay in power (lest someone "bad" get in and undo the good they have tried to do). This means they need patrons, and patrons want results for their money. No matter if it is a corporation, a PAC, or a citizen, ANYONE wanting to get into congress needs them and their money. Getting votes is stage 2, first you must start up a campaign.
And of course, what happens after you leave congress? Can you fault them for wanting to make sure they have powerful friends who can get them cushy jobs?
All that said, I don't think there will be any reshaping of the internet. Not in any way that matters. Come on - we can't even fix email, and we know what most of the problems are. There are things I do/don't want to see happen, but I think everything will be work-aroundable.
There may not be a reshaping of the Internet, but there could very well be a reshaping of Verizon/BellSouth DSL & Comcast/Roadrunner Cable. For the vast majority of people in the US, that would amount to the same thing.
Perhaps he doesn't want his prospective employers (or people he doesn't know) seeing pictures of him drinking tequila and wearing a lampshade on his head.
Then it is really simple: Don't publish it on the internet. It is not like they broke into his house and went through his photo albums, they simply accessed what he put up for the world to see. I for one do not see why anyone with half a brain would trust facebook's privacy controls. They can decide to turn them all off tomorrow and you could not do shit about it.
How can a 'state agency' use the Patriot Act to subpoena a Facebook profile?"
Ummmm, like this:
State Agency: Facebook, under powers of the patriot act, we request that you give us access to your site. Failure to do so will be considered obstruction of justice and people will go to jail.
Facebook: No prob
Seriously, who in their right mind is going to stand up and be the test case for government powers this day and age, especially over something this stupid. Even if you win you will be labeled a terrorist sympathizer, unpatriotic, and have mounds of legal and financial problems. Not just the company, you personally.
And I'm sure there will be some responses of "vigilance is the price of liberty" and "we must stand up against this" and all that jazz, but YOU aren't putting your life, reputation, livelihood, and (if applicable) supported family on the line. Whining that other people don't do so for you is just cowardly in the extreme.
if-you-don't-want-it-published dept.
Boy is the the truth. Think people. Have an interview coming up? Why not delete the pictures you posted online of yourself doing bong hits? Don't blame facebook or even the patriot act for what is clearly your own stupidity. Why trust the access control mechanisms of facebook when most of corporate America cannot control access to financial data and the government cannot control access to classified information. What makes you think that tomorrow facebook will not say "screw private controls, we are opening up the whole thing for the world"? What are you going to do, demand your money back?
Yet it's safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace.
Congratulations, this is the single most useless comment in a/. writup this week. It is truly shocking that more Americans have heard about an issue that has existed many times longer longer than the word "cyberspace" than the recent goings on in congress related to the latter.
Yes, more people should be aware of and care about this, but this is a ridiculous way to word it. Also in the news, more people have opinions on school choice than IPv6 adoption. Shocking!
Back to the issue at hand. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that our elected representatives will have a say in this any more than any other issue. The reshaping of the internet will be done SOLELY by Microsoft, AT&T/SBC, Verizon, Google, Cisco, Amazon, Hollywood, and the usual suspects. They will be writing the laws and casting the votes. There is no reason to even pretend otherwise anymore. Sure they will be be doing this via proxy with the elected representatives, but those reps (almost without exception) have no clue what they are talking about and just repeat the talking points given to them by their corporate masters. These issues will be determined exclusively by how money and favors are allocated.
I know as Americans it feels better to pretend that corruption and corporate ownership are the exceptions in government, but to do so hurts as a nation. EVERY person currently in congress has been bought and sold to a special interest or company (no expections, don't even try to parade your favorite one out and claim them to be virtuous and pure, you are wrong). When it comes down to it, they will ALL vote they way they are told and the opinion of the voters matters not one bit.
Finkployd
Unable to understand that apples are not oranges
on
When Wikipedia Fails
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This is simply a case of people not being able to understand that wikipedia is not the exact same thing as Britannic. You have to look at the talk page, you have to hit a few revisions if you want to be comfortable about the accuracy of data. At times I have learned more reading the debate back and forth of two opposing viewpoints than the entry itself.
Unfortunately, people think in metaphors. Well, that is not so bad in itself, but people often seem unable to get beyond the metaphor and understand that some things are not exactly like anything they are familiar with. Case in point, how many people equate hacking into a website with breaking into a house? Or infringing on a copyright with stealing a car? This is just another case of people unable or unwilling to appreciate that wikipedia is unique and cannot be treated like a traditional encyclopedia.
It is a sad state of affairs, but I see no way out of it. As long as the government can claim "We're at war, some rights are abridged" and just say "Whale Biologist!" whenever they're caught breaking the laws they are sworn to uphold...these things will continue to happen.
Very nice, I didn't think it was possible to slip in a Futurama reference in this discussion, but you pulled it off:)
I hate to get all "Dune Universe" on this one, but honestly the only way to even attempt to ensure the human race's survival is by scattering. Long term we will probably destroy ourselves somehow, but if we do not have all of our eggs in one basket (all of our population on on planet) there is a chance we will continue. Plagues have wiped out civilizations in the past and not affected the whole world because those civilizations were isolated. We are no longer really isolated and a plague could kill us all. We also possess weapons capable of killing us all, and no shortage of leaders willing to use them.
Going to the stars will not solve our problems, but it will (hopefully) compartmentalize our problems and keep a critical failure from destroying everyone.
I bought APPL at $16 and thought I was quite the savvy trader when I sold it at $35. I think it was right about the time it hit the upper $70s and split I realized I was an idiot (an idiot who doubled his investment, but still an idiot)
I'm not referring to restitution, I'm all for that. I'm against punitive damages in this case. It hurts the community more than anything. A better solution would be to force the PD to clean house and remove the officers who engaged in this and their superiors who pressed these bogus charges when confronted with the evidence.
As for there being no other way to punish a company, you can send it's employees to jail
That is punishing the employee, which of course should be done if an employee breaks the law. It does not mean the employee will be fired.
you can dissolve them
True, but that is terminal and not something that could be done to the PD.
I'm assuming you mean revoking their corporate charter and dissolving them. That almost never happens (but frankly should, the limited liability and tax breaks companies get should mean they are held to a higher standard as well).
you can take their products off of the market, you can demand alterations to their products, and you can limit the sorts of business practices they may engage in.
Those are requests. If they refuse what does the law back them up with? Fines. Ultimately it all comes down to fines or termination of the corporation. You cannot tell a company to fire problematic employees (like could be done with a police department).
No, the reason you fine companies is because that is the only way to punish it. It is a limited liability organization and the law cannot tell it to fire people who break the law. The police department is a different story.
Officers support each other, so does the DA and local government. They are out fighting the good fight against domestic terrorism, and this guy is just a troublemaker trying to take them down. Just you wait and see.
The kind of crap has basically always happened, the internet is allowing us to find out about it more.
No, what needs done is the man to be cleared of all charges (and have them removed from his record) and the police officers involved fired. Not put on paid leave, not given a stern talking too, thrown out onto the street fired. They are given public trust and police powers and are held to a higher standard. I want to see more police officers outright fired without second chances when abuses like this occur. The level power they are given comes with responsibility, and abuse of that is unforgivable in a just society.
I agree the police department should not be fined though, that just hurts the taxpayers. The problem is not the department, it is a few people in it that should no longer be there (including the jokers who trumped up the bogus felony charge).
Heads must roll, from the top down, and a penalty MUST be levied that will wound the police force for years to come. THIS is not remotely tolorable.
I disagree, do NOT hurt the police force. Eliminate all of the officers involved, go as far up as is necessary and fire everyone. Bring in new people and fix the situation. You still need a police force, just not one made up of the current batch of incompetent dolts.
I have not gone that far but I did write my own weblog in c forgoing the use of any libraries (like cgic) to make sure I knew exactly how web apps communicate with browsers. I didn't have to but now that I am rewriting it as a java servlet I have a much better understanding of what is going on behind the scenes.
DIY is not always the answer, but in cases where the person is doing it for their own education I don't see a downside. There is also a compelling reason to do it for administration scripts were you will be responsible for fixing anything that breaks.
And your attitude might be appropriate if those were the actions being taken by the university - banning copyright infringement and using the network for blatantly non-academic uses - but they aren't. A student athlete could be using Facebook purely for classes and still run afoul of Kent's draconian policy.
This is true, and in my personal opinion they are going too far (I would be horrified if my school pulled something like this). However it is legal (despite the armchair constitutional scholars trying to make a weak case otherwise), and I can even understand their reasons for it.
Put yourself in the school's position for a second. They have had to deal with countless cease and desist orders and dmca takedowns based on actions of many students lately. And now demands (hopefully in legal warrant form) from police to identify people based on their facebook profile because it seems there is a sizable population of university students who feel it is perfectly safe to engage in drug dealing and bragging about crimes (with photo evidence) on face book. Ignoring for a second what this indicates about the student's themselves, the University is now faced with dealing with the added legal overhead and administrative overhead of dealing with all of this. Now we see lawyers going after Myspace and other social networks for aiding in crimes, and looking at the legal landscape today I would be shocked if they were not successful. It is only a hop skip and a jump to also try to implicate the university (big money) in the case of facebook, they provided the infrastructure to access it, they might very well be culpable.
Now before you say "but they are a common carrier, they are not responsible for what goes over their wires", that is not really true anymore. The government made it perfectly clear that University's WOULD be held accountable for rampant filesharing unless they did something about it. Suddenly schools cannot sign up with Napster fast enough and begin blocking p2p left and right. The threat that they may someday be accountable for what people do over their network is growing and is perceived as real.
All of this headache, grief, and overhead because they wanted to provide a network for the purposes of education and research. They see things like facebook, myspace, limewire, bearshare, and the like and see a ton of their workload (legally, network admin, and whatnot) being devoted to services that are not affiliated with the university, and have nothing do to with education or research and think "life would be so much easier on us if we just blocked that". I don't agree with it, but I sure as heck understand the thinking and can sympathize.
Small potatoes compared to the tens of millions student athletes bring to top universities like Kent in broadcasting fees, ticket sales and merchandising. Students whom, I might add, don't receive a cut of the aforementioned fees, tickets and broadcasting, and are prohibited by the NCAA from holding jobs while playing for the school, so ask yourself again who's really getting the better end of the deal.
Kent is clearly getting the better deal, but the students are entering into the system willingly and gratefully. And because as you mention, there is tens of millions of dollars at stake how stupid would Kent have to be to happily let the very athletes they are paying (in the form of scholarships) publicly embarrass them and hurt their reputation and recruitment efforts. They all see what is happening and Duke and thinking they are only a facebook-aided rape away from that.
So here are their options, (a) monitor the athletes on a case by case basis and try to make objective decisions based on each case, or (b) say fuck it and block everyone to be safe. I really can't fault them for taking the easy way out of a problem they had no hand in creating. Sad but on the internet just as in meatspace a few assholes can easily ruin it for everyone.
When you have tens of thousands of students attracting warrants, c&d orders, and DMCA notices like rotting garbage attracts flies, it because really annoying to deal with. I don't agree with that Kent State is doing, but I can sympathize with where they are.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's declared private, and protected as private under relevant TOS & municiple code, it shouldn't matter if it's on the internet or not.
Municipal code? Seriously come on. The TOS protects facebook (and lets them change it at will), not the user. Trying to take something like that to court would be a laughing stock.
From the TOS:
By posting Member Content to any part of the Web site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, perform, display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such information and content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such information and content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
Simply put, it is no longer your data, they can do whatever they wish with it. By signing up you accept those terms.
Finkployd
Actually I think you'll find that Ron Paul (R, TX) seems to be one of the few representatives out there who fights for ideals and measured government rather than towing (toeing) a company line.
I'm familiar with him, and while he did vote against a hurricane relief bill then go on to claim credit for it, he does seem to be one of the better people in congress. Open secrets has his campaign funding primarily coming from out of state, so you have to wonder really how well he is representing his voters. He gets most of his money from financial/real estate groups and people, I haven't examined his voting record closely yet but I would be surprised to find him voting against any of their interests.
The problem is that even if one good person gets in, that person still have to think about their future. To do the good civic duty that all of them should strive for, they need warchests to make sure they stay in power (lest someone "bad" get in and undo the good they have tried to do). This means they need patrons, and patrons want results for their money. No matter if it is a corporation, a PAC, or a citizen, ANYONE wanting to get into congress needs them and their money. Getting votes is stage 2, first you must start up a campaign.
And of course, what happens after you leave congress? Can you fault them for wanting to make sure they have powerful friends who can get them cushy jobs?
Finkployd
All that said, I don't think there will be any reshaping of the internet. Not in any way that matters. Come on - we can't even fix email, and we know what most of the problems are. There are things I do/don't want to see happen, but I think everything will be work-aroundable.
There may not be a reshaping of the Internet, but there could very well be a reshaping of Verizon/BellSouth DSL & Comcast/Roadrunner Cable. For the vast majority of people in the US, that would amount to the same thing.
Finkployd
Perhaps he doesn't want his prospective employers (or people he doesn't know) seeing pictures of him drinking tequila and wearing a lampshade on his head.
Then it is really simple: Don't publish it on the internet. It is not like they broke into his house and went through his photo albums, they simply accessed what he put up for the world to see. I for one do not see why anyone with half a brain would trust facebook's privacy controls. They can decide to turn them all off tomorrow and you could not do shit about it.
Finkployd
How can a 'state agency' use the Patriot Act to subpoena a Facebook profile?"
Ummmm, like this:
State Agency: Facebook, under powers of the patriot act, we request that you give us access to your site. Failure to do so will be considered obstruction of justice and people will go to jail.
Facebook: No prob
Seriously, who in their right mind is going to stand up and be the test case for government powers this day and age, especially over something this stupid. Even if you win you will be labeled a terrorist sympathizer, unpatriotic, and have mounds of legal and financial problems. Not just the company, you personally.
And I'm sure there will be some responses of "vigilance is the price of liberty" and "we must stand up against this" and all that jazz, but YOU aren't putting your life, reputation, livelihood, and (if applicable) supported family on the line. Whining that other people don't do so for you is just cowardly in the extreme.
if-you-don't-want-it-published dept.
Boy is the the truth. Think people. Have an interview coming up? Why not delete the pictures you posted online of yourself doing bong hits? Don't blame facebook or even the patriot act for what is clearly your own stupidity. Why trust the access control mechanisms of facebook when most of corporate America cannot control access to financial data and the government cannot control access to classified information. What makes you think that tomorrow facebook will not say "screw private controls, we are opening up the whole thing for the world"? What are you going to do, demand your money back?
Finkployd
Yet it's safe to say that far more Americans have heard about flag burning than the laws that may soon reshape cyberspace.
/. writup this week. It is truly shocking that more Americans have heard about an issue that has existed many times longer longer than the word "cyberspace" than the recent goings on in congress related to the latter.
Congratulations, this is the single most useless comment in a
Yes, more people should be aware of and care about this, but this is a ridiculous way to word it. Also in the news, more people have opinions on school choice than IPv6 adoption. Shocking!
Back to the issue at hand. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that our elected representatives will have a say in this any more than any other issue. The reshaping of the internet will be done SOLELY by Microsoft, AT&T/SBC, Verizon, Google, Cisco, Amazon, Hollywood, and the usual suspects. They will be writing the laws and casting the votes. There is no reason to even pretend otherwise anymore. Sure they will be be doing this via proxy with the elected representatives, but those reps (almost without exception) have no clue what they are talking about and just repeat the talking points given to them by their corporate masters. These issues will be determined exclusively by how money and favors are allocated.
I know as Americans it feels better to pretend that corruption and corporate ownership are the exceptions in government, but to do so hurts as a nation. EVERY person currently in congress has been bought and sold to a special interest or company (no expections, don't even try to parade your favorite one out and claim them to be virtuous and pure, you are wrong). When it comes down to it, they will ALL vote they way they are told and the opinion of the voters matters not one bit.
Finkployd
This is simply a case of people not being able to understand that wikipedia is not the exact same thing as Britannic. You have to look at the talk page, you have to hit a few revisions if you want to be comfortable about the accuracy of data. At times I have learned more reading the debate back and forth of two opposing viewpoints than the entry itself.
Unfortunately, people think in metaphors. Well, that is not so bad in itself, but people often seem unable to get beyond the metaphor and understand that some things are not exactly like anything they are familiar with. Case in point, how many people equate hacking into a website with breaking into a house? Or infringing on a copyright with stealing a car? This is just another case of people unable or unwilling to appreciate that wikipedia is unique and cannot be treated like a traditional encyclopedia.
Finkployd
It is a sad state of affairs, but I see no way out of it. As long as the government can claim "We're at war, some rights are abridged" and just say "Whale Biologist!" whenever they're caught breaking the laws they are sworn to uphold...these things will continue to happen.
:)
Very nice, I didn't think it was possible to slip in a Futurama reference in this discussion, but you pulled it off
Finkployd
I hate to get all "Dune Universe" on this one, but honestly the only way to even attempt to ensure the human race's survival is by scattering. Long term we will probably destroy ourselves somehow, but if we do not have all of our eggs in one basket (all of our population on on planet) there is a chance we will continue. Plagues have wiped out civilizations in the past and not affected the whole world because those civilizations were isolated. We are no longer really isolated and a plague could kill us all. We also possess weapons capable of killing us all, and no shortage of leaders willing to use them.
Going to the stars will not solve our problems, but it will (hopefully) compartmentalize our problems and keep a critical failure from destroying everyone.
Finkployd
Nope, I'm all about the Association of Partners for Public Lands. What are these computers you geeks keep droning on about? :)
My bad, that ticker symbol has always screwed me up.
Finkployd
I bought APPL at $16 and thought I was quite the savvy trader when I sold it at $35. I think it was right about the time it hit the upper $70s and split I realized I was an idiot (an idiot who doubled his investment, but still an idiot)
Finkployd
I'm not referring to restitution, I'm all for that. I'm against punitive damages in this case. It hurts the community more than anything. A better solution would be to force the PD to clean house and remove the officers who engaged in this and their superiors who pressed these bogus charges when confronted with the evidence.
As for there being no other way to punish a company, you can send it's employees to jail
That is punishing the employee, which of course should be done if an employee breaks the law. It does not mean the employee will be fired.
you can dissolve them
True, but that is terminal and not something that could be done to the PD.
I'm assuming you mean revoking their corporate charter and dissolving them. That almost never happens (but frankly should, the limited liability and tax breaks companies get should mean they are held to a higher standard as well).
you can take their products off of the market, you can demand alterations to their products, and you can limit the sorts of business practices they may engage in.
Those are requests. If they refuse what does the law back them up with? Fines. Ultimately it all comes down to fines or termination of the corporation. You cannot tell a company to fire problematic employees (like could be done with a police department).
Finkployd
No, the reason you fine companies is because that is the only way to punish it. It is a limited liability organization and the law cannot tell it to fire people who break the law. The police department is a different story.
Finkployd
We need to be much harder on police than regular citizens. With great power comes great responsibility, Peter Parker.
Finkployd
The correct answer will be: Zero.
Officers support each other, so does the DA and local government. They are out fighting the good fight against domestic terrorism, and this guy is just a troublemaker trying to take them down. Just you wait and see.
The kind of crap has basically always happened, the internet is allowing us to find out about it more.
Finkployd
No, what needs done is the man to be cleared of all charges (and have them removed from his record) and the police officers involved fired. Not put on paid leave, not given a stern talking too, thrown out onto the street fired. They are given public trust and police powers and are held to a higher standard. I want to see more police officers outright fired without second chances when abuses like this occur. The level power they are given comes with responsibility, and abuse of that is unforgivable in a just society.
I agree the police department should not be fined though, that just hurts the taxpayers. The problem is not the department, it is a few people in it that should no longer be there (including the jokers who trumped up the bogus felony charge).
Finkployd
Heads must roll, from the top down, and a penalty MUST be levied that will wound the police force for years to come. THIS is not remotely tolorable.
I disagree, do NOT hurt the police force. Eliminate all of the officers involved, go as far up as is necessary and fire everyone. Bring in new people and fix the situation. You still need a police force, just not one made up of the current batch of incompetent dolts.
Finkployd
I have not gone that far but I did write my own weblog in c forgoing the use of any libraries (like cgic) to make sure I knew exactly how web apps communicate with browsers. I didn't have to but now that I am rewriting it as a java servlet I have a much better understanding of what is going on behind the scenes.
DIY is not always the answer, but in cases where the person is doing it for their own education I don't see a downside. There is also a compelling reason to do it for administration scripts were you will be responsible for fixing anything that breaks.
Finkployd
Personally, I don't think you truly understand how a wheel works until you reinvent one :)
Finkployd
And your attitude might be appropriate if those were the actions being taken by the university - banning copyright infringement and using the network for blatantly non-academic uses - but they aren't. A student athlete could be using Facebook purely for classes and still run afoul of Kent's draconian policy.
This is true, and in my personal opinion they are going too far (I would be horrified if my school pulled something like this). However it is legal (despite the armchair constitutional scholars trying to make a weak case otherwise), and I can even understand their reasons for it.
Put yourself in the school's position for a second. They have had to deal with countless cease and desist orders and dmca takedowns based on actions of many students lately. And now demands (hopefully in legal warrant form) from police to identify people based on their facebook profile because it seems there is a sizable population of university students who feel it is perfectly safe to engage in drug dealing and bragging about crimes (with photo evidence) on face book. Ignoring for a second what this indicates about the student's themselves, the University is now faced with dealing with the added legal overhead and administrative overhead of dealing with all of this. Now we see lawyers going after Myspace and other social networks for aiding in crimes, and looking at the legal landscape today I would be shocked if they were not successful. It is only a hop skip and a jump to also try to implicate the university (big money) in the case of facebook, they provided the infrastructure to access it, they might very well be culpable.
Now before you say "but they are a common carrier, they are not responsible for what goes over their wires", that is not really true anymore. The government made it perfectly clear that University's WOULD be held accountable for rampant filesharing unless they did something about it. Suddenly schools cannot sign up with Napster fast enough and begin blocking p2p left and right. The threat that they may someday be accountable for what people do over their network is growing and is perceived as real.
All of this headache, grief, and overhead because they wanted to provide a network for the purposes of education and research. They see things like facebook, myspace, limewire, bearshare, and the like and see a ton of their workload (legally, network admin, and whatnot) being devoted to services that are not affiliated with the university, and have nothing do to with education or research and think "life would be so much easier on us if we just blocked that". I don't agree with it, but I sure as heck understand the thinking and can sympathize.
Small potatoes compared to the tens of millions student athletes bring to top universities like Kent in broadcasting fees, ticket sales and merchandising. Students whom, I might add, don't receive a cut of the aforementioned fees, tickets and broadcasting, and are prohibited by the NCAA from holding jobs while playing for the school, so ask yourself again who's really getting the better end of the deal.
Kent is clearly getting the better deal, but the students are entering into the system willingly and gratefully. And because as you mention, there is tens of millions of dollars at stake how stupid would Kent have to be to happily let the very athletes they are paying (in the form of scholarships) publicly embarrass them and hurt their reputation and recruitment efforts. They all see what is happening and Duke and thinking they are only a facebook-aided rape away from that.
So here are their options, (a) monitor the athletes on a case by case basis and try to make objective decisions based on each case, or (b) say fuck it and block everyone to be safe. I really can't fault them for taking the easy way out of a problem they had no hand in creating. Sad but on the internet just as in meatspace a few assholes can easily ruin it for everyone.
Finkployd
Or they ask Google
I remember it well, right around user 12903 is really started going downhill.
Finkployd
That is freaking GENIUS!
So it is basically like Myspace, but without pretending to be about music, friendship, clubs, etc.
There used to be general public websites like that, but I suspected they were used solely to get lists of valid email addresses for spamming purposes.
Finkployd
My understanding is that many employees just hire someone (student, whatever) at said university to log on and print out the profile in question.
I personally would never do that but what starving undergrad is going to turn down free money for 10 seconds of work?
Finkployd
When you have tens of thousands of students attracting warrants, c&d orders, and DMCA notices like rotting garbage attracts flies, it because really annoying to deal with. I don't agree with that Kent State is doing, but I can sympathize with where they are.
Finkployd