As long as there are people living in poverty, the idea that your child could be earning money instead of being in school becomes a very, very interesting prospect.
As long as there are people living in poverty, the idea that your child becoming educated is the single best thing one can do to get out of poverty instead of working in a sweatshop, becomes a very, very interesting prospect.
Actually, the justice department is required to prosecute all crimes that come to their attention, whether the crime is "popular", or not.
No it isn't. Unless you don't think that Amnesty International's (among others') complaints about GW Bush's admitting to international war crimes has any merits.
Umm most American's voted to re-elect [Bush]. We are very OK with it.
This is why the electoral college is a good idea when it comes to the office of the presidency.
I never understood this single-minded obsession with one office when I daresay that the vast majority of people couldn't even tell you who their local and state representatives are (on a non-national level).
BTW just to clarify this, there is no TOS violation. The judge overrides the TOS.
Thank you for being polite and patient.
One further question then which I still can't quite comprehend: how can a judge interfere with a third-party contract? Or is a contract significantly (i.e., legally) different from a TOS agreement?
It just seems that it would possibly create an undue hardship on the 'innocent'/uninvolved third party.
Once Facebook knows, or has reason to believe the account was ordered open by a judge they can't interfere with the evidence gathering. They don't need to be given notice by a court, spoliation is criminal. Everyone in the country is forbidden from destroying likely evidence for every case in the country intentionally.
It would. An admin who then erased the accounts after having received this notice would be committing a crime, potentially. Even hearing it from a 3rd party, would be notice. "Likely" is all that is needed to meet the criteria for the crime, you don't need to know for sure.
Alright, I'll concede the point as you are making fair points I can't refute properly.:)
I agree it is a lousy collection procedure. But most likely one of the two sides suggested it and the other didn't disagree. Had one side raised the potentially for tampering, the judge would have likely used another method. The judge isn't responsible for best practice the attorneys are.
Again, I agree with you except that it sounds like you're saying that FB would be held legally liable for following it's own TOS without being given legal notice. I'm saying that the parties involved were ordered to give over their passwords. According to the TOS they both agreed to, doing this would potentially get them kicked off of FB. The judge gave no orders or anything directly to FB, so FB never received legal notice, therefore booting the couple because of TOS violations would not be considered spoilation.
That's how I see it, anyway. This is why the judge should have followed regular discovery procedures in the first place. The judge would have gotten the information and had the parties present it just like they would have with all the other evidence requested AND as a bonus, there never would have even been a hint of a TOS violation.
My analogy is that it's the same thing as if the judge ordered the parties to exchange debit card PINs and had them go to a local ATM and print out the account information. Sure, I guess it could be done that way, but why bother when there is already a perfectly acceptable method of getting the information in the first place?
I agree as long as FB was given legal notice and in this case, it was not.
I'm not sure that even if the parties involved sent PM's to FB admins that they had to give up their passwords to each other, that that would constitute legal notice. I don't know how that sort of thing works with the FB chain of command, but I suppose an admin could shoot it up to their legal department to clarify the point.
My position on this subject is that the judge should have simply ordered the parties to submit either an electronic or printed form of their FB (and other) pages rather than this rather odd method of trading passwords. I think the idea of evidence tampering by the other party is too great a risk. So even if people deride the TOS as irrelevant, I still think that the judge went out on a limb and did not follow standard discovery procedures.
There was no warrant issued. A judge said that two persons had to exchange passwords so the other can fish for possible evidence.
The order did not include FB nor was FB given legal notice of impending action. A warrant or judge's order still needs to be specific to the parties involved so I'm having difficulty agreeing with your conclusion, though I do agree with your points regarding destruction of evidence or spoilation.
Facebook is obligated not to destroy evidence that a court is likely to express interest in. So once there is an order Facebook must preserve the evidence.
Yes, if FB has been put on legal notice, which in this case, it has not. So FB does not have an obligation to preserve 'likely interesting' evidence.
In this case, it does. The judge is essentially forcing these people to break the TOS. It would be similar to the judge telling a married couple to break the terms of the lease of an apartment, say, and you all expect the leasing agency to not hold them accountable for the breach?
And why would you think it's better to bring the US down to third-world poverty levels rather than trying to stay a first-world economic base? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of "the real world".
When are we going to start requiring congressmen to take basic economics before serving office?
I used to think like this too. The fact that our current president is supposedly a Constitutional scholar really puts the lie to the idea that basic economics and Constitutional knowledge are in any way supportive of what they actually do once in office.
"... and in other news, the virtual body of Slashdot poster msuave was found today behind a virtual dumpster and is missing his virtual head. Msuave was quoted as saying, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" and it was later discovered that he could not come up with the four hamburger repayment schedule, but only had three burgers on him.
I could really care less about the porn thing (barring a few exceptions which I won't elaborate on here) but I'm really interested in the news about their being connected to password hacking.
The cynic part of me says that it's illegal, they broke the law, and nothing will be done to prosecute them.
The eternal wellspring of hope I have says that they'll be convicted by several countries of international computer crimes and sentenced to twenty years, just because.
In the 70s there was some speculation on flywheels for energy storage. High energy density, even higher power density (charge and discharge can be *very* fast) and some designs (called "superflywheels" and made with carbon fiber
The superflywheel was one of the best-kept secrets of the 70's as a matter of fact, issued only to African-American undercover crime fighters. They acted like ordinary Cadillacs until the passcode was said aloud ("Smoke these honky motherfuckers!") and then the engine would kick in like Black Dynamite.
Just remember that if you look at the microwave long enough, it ends up looking back at you. On the plus side, you do end up with tasty, tasty burritos though.
"The game of sabacc used a deck of seventy-six cards featuring sixty numbered cards divided into four suits, and two copies of eight special cards. Each player is dealt several cards which make up their hand, usually between two and five, depending on the set of rules in play at the table. The cards themselves are small, electronic devices with a display panel covering the surface of one side; this panel is capable of shifting the displayed suit and value of each card when told to do so by the computer running the game, or when a player has the option to manually shuffle the card's value. In this fashion, a player can receive new cards of any possible suit or rank without actually having to take new cards from the deck itself."
Slashdot Mirror
It depends.
See how long it takes before you can get them to admit they directly profit from "alternative medicine" (quackery.)
Exactly. One of my favorite quotes is, "What do you call 'alternative medicine' that actually works?" "Medicine."
As long as there are people living in poverty, the idea that your child could be earning money instead of being in school becomes a very, very interesting prospect.
As long as there are people living in poverty, the idea that your child becoming educated is the single best thing one can do to get out of poverty instead of working in a sweatshop, becomes a very, very interesting prospect.
It is more of a So What. The BioFuel Truck can travel at 155MPH so what.
This is Boise, Idaho we're talking about.
I'm just surprised the thing could make it past sixty what with the requisite naked woman silhouette mudflaps and beer keg in the back...
Actually, the justice department is required to prosecute all crimes that come to their attention, whether the crime is "popular", or not.
No it isn't. Unless you don't think that Amnesty International's (among others') complaints about GW Bush's admitting to international war crimes has any merits.
Umm most American's voted to re-elect [Bush]. We are very OK with it.
This is why the electoral college is a good idea when it comes to the office of the presidency.
I never understood this single-minded obsession with one office when I daresay that the vast majority of people couldn't even tell you who their local and state representatives are (on a non-national level).
BTW just to clarify this, there is no TOS violation. The judge overrides the TOS.
Thank you for being polite and patient.
One further question then which I still can't quite comprehend: how can a judge interfere with a third-party contract? Or is a contract significantly (i.e., legally) different from a TOS agreement?
It just seems that it would possibly create an undue hardship on the 'innocent'/uninvolved third party.
Once Facebook knows, or has reason to believe the account was ordered open by a judge they can't interfere with the evidence gathering. They don't need to be given notice by a court, spoliation is criminal. Everyone in the country is forbidden from destroying likely evidence for every case in the country intentionally.
It would. An admin who then erased the accounts after having received this notice would be committing a crime, potentially. Even hearing it from a 3rd party, would be notice. "Likely" is all that is needed to meet the criteria for the crime, you don't need to know for sure.
Alright, I'll concede the point as you are making fair points I can't refute properly. :)
I agree it is a lousy collection procedure. But most likely one of the two sides suggested it and the other didn't disagree. Had one side raised the potentially for tampering, the judge would have likely used another method. The judge isn't responsible for best practice the attorneys are.
True enough!
Again, I agree with you except that it sounds like you're saying that FB would be held legally liable for following it's own TOS without being given legal notice. I'm saying that the parties involved were ordered to give over their passwords. According to the TOS they both agreed to, doing this would potentially get them kicked off of FB. The judge gave no orders or anything directly to FB, so FB never received legal notice, therefore booting the couple because of TOS violations would not be considered spoilation.
That's how I see it, anyway. This is why the judge should have followed regular discovery procedures in the first place. The judge would have gotten the information and had the parties present it just like they would have with all the other evidence requested AND as a bonus, there never would have even been a hint of a TOS violation.
My analogy is that it's the same thing as if the judge ordered the parties to exchange debit card PINs and had them go to a local ATM and print out the account information. Sure, I guess it could be done that way, but why bother when there is already a perfectly acceptable method of getting the information in the first place?
I agree as long as FB was given legal notice and in this case, it was not.
I'm not sure that even if the parties involved sent PM's to FB admins that they had to give up their passwords to each other, that that would constitute legal notice. I don't know how that sort of thing works with the FB chain of command, but I suppose an admin could shoot it up to their legal department to clarify the point.
My position on this subject is that the judge should have simply ordered the parties to submit either an electronic or printed form of their FB (and other) pages rather than this rather odd method of trading passwords. I think the idea of evidence tampering by the other party is too great a risk. So even if people deride the TOS as irrelevant, I still think that the judge went out on a limb and did not follow standard discovery procedures.
There was no warrant issued. A judge said that two persons had to exchange passwords so the other can fish for possible evidence.
The order did not include FB nor was FB given legal notice of impending action. A warrant or judge's order still needs to be specific to the parties involved so I'm having difficulty agreeing with your conclusion, though I do agree with your points regarding destruction of evidence or spoilation.
Facebook is obligated not to destroy evidence that a court is likely to express interest in. So once there is an order Facebook must preserve the evidence.
Yes, if FB has been put on legal notice, which in this case, it has not. So FB does not have an obligation to preserve 'likely interesting' evidence.
Facebook can't remove anything having to do with those accounts once a judge has indicated the there is interest in them for a trial.
Facebook was never put on legal notice by the judge so it doesn't apply.
Yeah, like the TOS supersedes a judge's orders.
In this case, it does. The judge is essentially forcing these people to break the TOS. It would be similar to the judge telling a married couple to break the terms of the lease of an apartment, say, and you all expect the leasing agency to not hold them accountable for the breach?
Are you a lawyer? I doubt it. I'm not either, but anyone should know that courts do have special powers to collect evidence.
Yes, courts do have this power, but it does not apply to any third party that happens to be involved.
Why is the US labor less valuable?
And why would you think it's better to bring the US down to third-world poverty levels rather than trying to stay a first-world economic base? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of "the real world".
When are we going to start requiring congressmen to take basic economics before serving office?
I used to think like this too. The fact that our current president is supposedly a Constitutional scholar really puts the lie to the idea that basic economics and Constitutional knowledge are in any way supportive of what they actually do once in office.
"... and in other news, the virtual body of Slashdot poster msuave was found today behind a virtual dumpster and is missing his virtual head. Msuave was quoted as saying, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" and it was later discovered that he could not come up with the four hamburger repayment schedule, but only had three burgers on him.
McDonald's has declined to comment."
and those seeking to prevent their company from appearing on a .xxx website
Where at "microsoft.xxx" the truthful comment that their servers constantly go down on you, brings on an entirely new and unintended meaning...
I could really care less about the porn thing (barring a few exceptions which I won't elaborate on here) but I'm really interested in the news about their being connected to password hacking.
The cynic part of me says that it's illegal, they broke the law, and nothing will be done to prosecute them.
The eternal wellspring of hope I have says that they'll be convicted by several countries of international computer crimes and sentenced to twenty years, just because.
In the 70s there was some speculation on flywheels for energy storage. High energy density, even higher power density (charge and discharge can be *very* fast) and some designs (called "superflywheels" and made with carbon fiber
The superflywheel was one of the best-kept secrets of the 70's as a matter of fact, issued only to African-American undercover crime fighters. They acted like ordinary Cadillacs until the passcode was said aloud ("Smoke these honky motherfuckers!") and then the engine would kick in like Black Dynamite.
BOOM baby! Awwww yeah!
I was just teasing. :)
microwave oven, I'm looking at you.
Just remember that if you look at the microwave long enough, it ends up looking back at you. On the plus side, you do end up with tasty, tasty burritos though.
MMmmmmm... existential burrito.....
heh, where I come from they were called 'Chinese Burns'!
You're from India then, I take?
Dude, this is /.
The game you should have mentioned is sabacc
"The game of sabacc used a deck of seventy-six cards featuring sixty numbered cards divided into four suits, and two copies of eight special cards. Each player is dealt several cards which make up their hand, usually between two and five, depending on the set of rules in play at the table. The cards themselves are small, electronic devices with a display panel covering the surface of one side; this panel is capable of shifting the displayed suit and value of each card when told to do so by the computer running the game, or when a player has the option to manually shuffle the card's value. In this fashion, a player can receive new cards of any possible suit or rank without actually having to take new cards from the deck itself."