But the advertisers can still be held responsible if they use the trademarked brand without the right to do so.
Only if they use the trademark in a way that misleads consumers into believing the ad is somehow related to the trademark. You are generally fine using someone else's trademarks so long as there is no confusion over what the ad is for.
It depends on the nature of the application. But I'd start trying to make the application less reliant on error messages to begin with.
Some error messages reflect some external dependency that can't be satisfied. Try to convert some of those error messages to "Please wait while I keep retrying, click here to cancel" messages, which then become "I'm still trying. If you think something's broken, call the helpdesk at ___". Don't interrupt the user with an error message, just try again for them. Bonus points if your retry mechanism can fall back to different systems or systems in different regions.
Some types of error messages don't even need an error message, you just need to change the UI to highlight a mistake the user made. Field validation errors, for instance, should just point out the broken fields and maybe add a blurb of text about what's a legal value there.
Some types of error messages can be worked around, or aren't really important in the grand scheme of things. If the users probably aren't going to care that something didn't work, don't bother them about it. Make the error easily discoverable if they need to investigate why their externally-hosted images didn't appear, but there's no reason this needs to be an error message popping up in their face.
All of these, plus the truly exceptional errors like crashes, should be logged to local disk, and also to a server on the network. It should be possible for you to pull up all of the problems a user is having, when they call you, or even be proactive and notice a lot of people are having the same problems doing X. You could even have monitoring in place that watched for clusters of the same errors, and send out pages to your technicians before users even have a chance to call you.
There is a difference between using a picture taken from a webcam, and using the webcam itself. The statements are not inconsistent.
If you interpret the school's statements in the manner that you do, students could use the webcams to document any number of school infractions, on school property, hold the resulting pictures up to school officials, and go "neener-neener! you can't discipline us!" I don't think your interpretation is likely.
The litigation that wouldn't have existed if they had come clean from the beginning?
In my eyes, they did. They clearly and unambiguously said that the school never uses the webcams to monitor or discipline students. They just haven't discussed any specifics about this kid's case, which seems, to me, to be perfectly reasonable.
We know the picture had to come into existence SOMEHOW
There are many ways the picture could have come into existence. The student could have taken it himself. The student could have taken it inadvertently.
and had to SOMEHOW end up in the principal's possession.
The laptop was school property, so it would be perfectly reasonable for them to search it if they suspected something inappropriate was on it. If the image was already on the laptop, this search would have found it.
The student and his parents had to SOMEHOW come to know there was software on the laptop that could remotely activate the camera.
The student denies taking the snapshot, and if we assume for a moment he's being truthful, the next logical question to ask is, "How else could the image have been taken?" If that question were asked of the right person, the existence of the webcam feature in the anti-theft software would have come out at that time.
We know that for some reason the school has chosen not to offer this perfectly reasonable explanation you seem to think exists despite considerable public pressure (not to mention FBI and the DA) that would go away in an instant if they did.
The school announced that they could not discuss any specifics of this case. This seems reasonable given the pending litigation.
You're still assuming that the student's allegations are fact. The truth is that we don't know where the image came from. All we know is that the student apparently denies taking it, and the school installs anti-theft software on their laptops (as one might expect), and that anti-theft software has the means to remotely activate the webcam (as most consumers of anti-theft software demand).
Unless the image was placed on the laptop by someone other than the school, and the school decided to search the laptop (it being school property and all). If the laptop is intended for school purposes only, and they inform the students that the laptop will be searched, it seems both legal and moral for them to conduct such a search and if they find inappropriate use of school property, it seems reasonable for them to have a talk with the student about it.
Though there are plenty of "ifs" in this chain of events, my point is that there are plenty of ways to fill the gaps in our knowledge about this event that don't end up with a conspiracy to commit criminal stupidity.
The school came out and said they could not discuss details of this case. They did come out and say that the anti-theft software was not (ab)used in this manner.
I'm not suggesting (nor have I read anything suggesting) that the webcam aspect was the sole means of recovering stolen laptops. I rather suspect the remote activation of the webcam is part of a larger anti-theft software package, such as the one I linked. My point is that the webcam can be a valuable part of the recovery process, which means most, if not all, anti-theft packages will include that feature. Therefore, it should be completely unsurprising that it's installed on laptops in situations like this, where schools are distributing thousands of these to students.
Because it was embarrassing? Because it was an opportunity for the student to deflect the attention back onto the school? You're looking for a rational explanation for a teen's possibly impulsive behavior?
Kids lie all the time, and once they do so impulsively, and it results in their parents starting a freakin' class action lawsuit, it's really really hard for the kid to turn around and admit he made it up.
There's also the possibility he took the snapshot inadvertently, with webcam software he didn't know how to use.
Of course, this is all speculation, but I don't believe this is as open-and-shut as you think. Let the investigation play out.
You replied to my post, but I think you overlooked that I'm suggesting that they discovered the image on the laptop, already taken by someone else.
Obviously, if they remotely activated the webcam (as the suit alleges), that's a big problem with all sorts of legal consequences. But that's not what I'm talking about.
Why? They get tipped off that he's doing something improper. They search his laptop (it being school property) and the images stored on it. They find one that seems to show him doing something improper (maybe "improper behavior" generally, or just abusing the school laptop). They print it out and show it to him. He backpedals.
"Are you doing X?" "No." "Here's a picture of you doing X." "That's not me!" "It is you, this is your room. You took this." "No I didn't! You must have been spying on me!"
How would the student know that webcams can be remotely activated?
Maybe he didn't, initially, and after claiming to everyone that he didn't take the picture, someone asked, "Well, is it even possible for the school to take a snapshot without his knowledge?" And, technically, the answer is yes. "Well that must be how it happened!!"
They claim they never once turned on the software unless a laptop was reported stolen. Yet if they did in fact punish a student for in-home behavior on a non-stolen laptop, then they're clearly caught in a lie.
Only if the only way they could have gotten this photograph is if they used the anti-theft software. There are plenty of other ways they could have gotten this image. Maybe the student took it himself (maybe unintentially), and stored it on the laptop? The school could then have found it through a search of the laptop's files. (The laptop is school property, remember.)
It's not their problem that students are taking photos of themselves (allegedly) abusing drugs and storing or distributing those photos on school laptops? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the school may want to choose to police how school property is used.
Again, we don't have all of the facts. My point is that there are perfectly plausible ways to fill the holes in our knowledge that make this a non-story.
You seem to be blurring facts with allegations. The news is most certainly not reporting that the camera was activated by the school. The news is reporting that the student alleges that the camera was activated by the school.
If you accept the student's claims as fact, then yes, the school should have logs and should be able to produce evidence of a theft, so as to justify the use of the anti-theft software in this manner. But all of this hinges on the assumption that the student's version of events (and his theory that the only way the image could have gotten there is if the school had done it remotely) is true and accurate.
If the student took the picture an emailed it to his friends we would not have this case.
Why not? Someone's account of the event is wrong, right? Maybe the student didn't want to admit that he took the snapshot himself? Maybe he was stoned and didn't remember it? Maybe he doesn't know how to use some piece of webcam software he installed, and he had it take a snapshot inadvertently. So he tells his parents, "I didn't take that snapshot, honest!" What does a rationally-minded parent do next? Look for alternate explanations. The image had to get there somehow. Maybe the school has a way to remotely take snapshots? Let's ask them. The rest is history.
The administration would say "we received this information from an email from another student/teacher/parent."
The school came out and said they could not comment at all on this case. So that could be why you haven't heard them say this.
but it looks like the safeguards were not followed
Allegedly.
This isn't sensationalism, this is a real problem.
This is a real problem only if you accept the student's account over the school's, and I'm not prepared to do that yet.
Remote webcam activation is a pretty standard feature of anti-theft software. The idea is to locate the laptop (via network connections, whatever), and identify the thief (webcam snapshots). The two goals work together. Check these stories out: http://www.orbicule.com/undercover/mac/nc.html
The school claims they found the snapshot on the laptop. The laptop is school property and it seems perfectly reasonable that a search of the laptop revealed the photo. We don't have all of the facts.
Maybe the student didn't want to admit that he took the snapshot?
Mom: Then how did the picture get taken? Kid: I don't know, maybe they did it remotely! Mom (to school): Is it possible for you to take snapshots remotely? School: Err, well actually, we do have this security software... Mom: I'm calling my lawyer.
The remote webcam activation is a pretty standard feature of anti-theft software.
I've used biometric scanners like this in the past. Whatever it stores to recognize your fingerprint never leaves the machine. I don't know if that's what's going on here, but it seems perfectly reasonable.
1. Learn how to use source code repositories (including branching, merging, and resolving conflicts), and how organizations do releases 2. Learn how to do code reviews, and how to adapt to local practices and style guides. 3. Learn how to be flexible. 4. Be humble.
Self-taught programmers frequently develop and religiously stick to their own favorite practices, code formatting, programming languages, IDEs, etc. When you're part of a team, though, your code needs to be readable, understandable and maintainable by other members of the team. This means learning how to be flexible and work effectively outside of your favorite language/environment. Some of this you can get by participating in some open source projects, and active participation in open source projects is something I look for on resumes when a candidate seems to be self-taught.
An article says the "incriminating" image was taken off of the hard drive of the laptop. Any school administrators invading students privacy by snooping through their laptops deserve what they're going to get out of all of this.
But consider: The laptops had anti-theft security software installed on them. This seems perfectly reasonable when you're distributing laptops to thousands of kids. Any decent anti-theft software (e.g. Undercover for the Mac) will have a feature to remotely enable the webcam so as to take snapshots to try and identify the thief. In many cases the anti-theft software can only be activated by the company providing the service, in response to a declaration that the laptop was stolen.
Is it possible that these two things are completely unrelated? How do we know that the school activated this software so as to spy on the student? If the image was sufficiently embarrassing, and the student took the snapshot himself, maybe he'd prefer to just let everyone believe that the school did it covertly? Snooping through files is certainly wrong, but actually remotely activating the webcam so as to snoop on the kids is just so absurdly wrong that I cannot imagine anyone doing this and believing they're in the right.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if they use the trademark in a way that misleads consumers into believing the ad is somehow related to the trademark. You are generally fine using someone else's trademarks so long as there is no confusion over what the ad is for.
It depends on the nature of the application. But I'd start trying to make the application less reliant on error messages to begin with.
Some error messages reflect some external dependency that can't be satisfied. Try to convert some of those error messages to "Please wait while I keep retrying, click here to cancel" messages, which then become "I'm still trying. If you think something's broken, call the helpdesk at ___". Don't interrupt the user with an error message, just try again for them. Bonus points if your retry mechanism can fall back to different systems or systems in different regions.
Some types of error messages don't even need an error message, you just need to change the UI to highlight a mistake the user made. Field validation errors, for instance, should just point out the broken fields and maybe add a blurb of text about what's a legal value there.
Some types of error messages can be worked around, or aren't really important in the grand scheme of things. If the users probably aren't going to care that something didn't work, don't bother them about it. Make the error easily discoverable if they need to investigate why their externally-hosted images didn't appear, but there's no reason this needs to be an error message popping up in their face.
All of these, plus the truly exceptional errors like crashes, should be logged to local disk, and also to a server on the network. It should be possible for you to pull up all of the problems a user is having, when they call you, or even be proactive and notice a lot of people are having the same problems doing X. You could even have monitoring in place that watched for clusters of the same errors, and send out pages to your technicians before users even have a chance to call you.
There is a difference between using a picture taken from a webcam, and using the webcam itself. The statements are not inconsistent.
If you interpret the school's statements in the manner that you do, students could use the webcams to document any number of school infractions, on school property, hold the resulting pictures up to school officials, and go "neener-neener! you can't discipline us!" I don't think your interpretation is likely.
The litigation that wouldn't have existed if they had come clean from the beginning?
In my eyes, they did. They clearly and unambiguously said that the school never uses the webcams to monitor or discipline students. They just haven't discussed any specifics about this kid's case, which seems, to me, to be perfectly reasonable.
We know the picture had to come into existence SOMEHOW
There are many ways the picture could have come into existence. The student could have taken it himself. The student could have taken it inadvertently.
and had to SOMEHOW end up in the principal's possession.
The laptop was school property, so it would be perfectly reasonable for them to search it if they suspected something inappropriate was on it. If the image was already on the laptop, this search would have found it.
The student and his parents had to SOMEHOW come to know there was software on the laptop that could remotely activate the camera.
The student denies taking the snapshot, and if we assume for a moment he's being truthful, the next logical question to ask is, "How else could the image have been taken?" If that question were asked of the right person, the existence of the webcam feature in the anti-theft software would have come out at that time.
We know that for some reason the school has chosen not to offer this perfectly reasonable explanation you seem to think exists despite considerable public pressure (not to mention FBI and the DA) that would go away in an instant if they did.
The school announced that they could not discuss any specifics of this case. This seems reasonable given the pending litigation.
You're still assuming that the student's allegations are fact. The truth is that we don't know where the image came from. All we know is that the student apparently denies taking it, and the school installs anti-theft software on their laptops (as one might expect), and that anti-theft software has the means to remotely activate the webcam (as most consumers of anti-theft software demand).
Unless the image was placed on the laptop by someone other than the school, and the school decided to search the laptop (it being school property and all). If the laptop is intended for school purposes only, and they inform the students that the laptop will be searched, it seems both legal and moral for them to conduct such a search and if they find inappropriate use of school property, it seems reasonable for them to have a talk with the student about it.
Though there are plenty of "ifs" in this chain of events, my point is that there are plenty of ways to fill the gaps in our knowledge about this event that don't end up with a conspiracy to commit criminal stupidity.
The school came out and said they could not discuss details of this case. They did come out and say that the anti-theft software was not (ab)used in this manner.
I'm not suggesting (nor have I read anything suggesting) that the webcam aspect was the sole means of recovering stolen laptops. I rather suspect the remote activation of the webcam is part of a larger anti-theft software package, such as the one I linked. My point is that the webcam can be a valuable part of the recovery process, which means most, if not all, anti-theft packages will include that feature. Therefore, it should be completely unsurprising that it's installed on laptops in situations like this, where schools are distributing thousands of these to students.
Because it was embarrassing? Because it was an opportunity for the student to deflect the attention back onto the school? You're looking for a rational explanation for a teen's possibly impulsive behavior?
Kids lie all the time, and once they do so impulsively, and it results in their parents starting a freakin' class action lawsuit, it's really really hard for the kid to turn around and admit he made it up.
There's also the possibility he took the snapshot inadvertently, with webcam software he didn't know how to use.
Of course, this is all speculation, but I don't believe this is as open-and-shut as you think. Let the investigation play out.
You replied to my post, but I think you overlooked that I'm suggesting that they discovered the image on the laptop, already taken by someone else.
Obviously, if they remotely activated the webcam (as the suit alleges), that's a big problem with all sorts of legal consequences. But that's not what I'm talking about.
Why? They get tipped off that he's doing something improper. They search his laptop (it being school property) and the images stored on it. They find one that seems to show him doing something improper (maybe "improper behavior" generally, or just abusing the school laptop). They print it out and show it to him. He backpedals.
"Are you doing X?"
"No."
"Here's a picture of you doing X."
"That's not me!"
"It is you, this is your room. You took this."
"No I didn't! You must have been spying on me!"
Deflection's a viable strategy for a teenager.
How would the student know that webcams can be remotely activated?
Maybe he didn't, initially, and after claiming to everyone that he didn't take the picture, someone asked, "Well, is it even possible for the school to take a snapshot without his knowledge?" And, technically, the answer is yes. "Well that must be how it happened!!"
They claim they never once turned on the software unless a laptop was reported stolen. Yet if they did in fact punish a student for in-home behavior on a non-stolen laptop, then they're clearly caught in a lie.
Only if the only way they could have gotten this photograph is if they used the anti-theft software. There are plenty of other ways they could have gotten this image. Maybe the student took it himself (maybe unintentially), and stored it on the laptop? The school could then have found it through a search of the laptop's files. (The laptop is school property, remember.)
It's not their problem that students are taking photos of themselves (allegedly) abusing drugs and storing or distributing those photos on school laptops? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the school may want to choose to police how school property is used.
Again, we don't have all of the facts. My point is that there are perfectly plausible ways to fill the holes in our knowledge that make this a non-story.
You seem to be blurring facts with allegations. The news is most certainly not reporting that the camera was activated by the school. The news is reporting that the student alleges that the camera was activated by the school.
If you accept the student's claims as fact, then yes, the school should have logs and should be able to produce evidence of a theft, so as to justify the use of the anti-theft software in this manner. But all of this hinges on the assumption that the student's version of events (and his theory that the only way the image could have gotten there is if the school had done it remotely) is true and accurate.
If the student took the picture an emailed it to his friends we would not have this case.
Why not? Someone's account of the event is wrong, right? Maybe the student didn't want to admit that he took the snapshot himself? Maybe he was stoned and didn't remember it? Maybe he doesn't know how to use some piece of webcam software he installed, and he had it take a snapshot inadvertently. So he tells his parents, "I didn't take that snapshot, honest!" What does a rationally-minded parent do next? Look for alternate explanations. The image had to get there somehow. Maybe the school has a way to remotely take snapshots? Let's ask them. The rest is history.
The administration would say "we received this information from an email from another student/teacher/parent."
The school came out and said they could not comment at all on this case. So that could be why you haven't heard them say this.
but it looks like the safeguards were not followed
Allegedly.
This isn't sensationalism, this is a real problem.
This is a real problem only if you accept the student's account over the school's, and I'm not prepared to do that yet.
School's are FAMOUS for long strings of abysmally unintelligent decisions.
Ergo, the school must have made an abysmally unintelligent decision this time as well? There seems to be a logical fallacy in your argument.
Remote webcam activation is a pretty standard feature of anti-theft software. The idea is to locate the laptop (via network connections, whatever), and identify the thief (webcam snapshots). The two goals work together. Check these stories out: http://www.orbicule.com/undercover/mac/nc.html
The school claims they found the snapshot on the laptop. The laptop is school property and it seems perfectly reasonable that a search of the laptop revealed the photo. We don't have all of the facts.
Maybe the student didn't want to admit that he took the snapshot?
Mom: Then how did the picture get taken?
Kid: I don't know, maybe they did it remotely!
Mom (to school): Is it possible for you to take snapshots remotely?
School: Err, well actually, we do have this security software...
Mom: I'm calling my lawyer.
The remote webcam activation is a pretty standard feature of anti-theft software.
The media is just reporting what the student said. Someone is lying here, right? Why are you assuming that it's the school and not the student?
I've used biometric scanners like this in the past. Whatever it stores to recognize your fingerprint never leaves the machine. I don't know if that's what's going on here, but it seems perfectly reasonable.
1. Learn how to use source code repositories (including branching, merging, and resolving conflicts), and how organizations do releases
2. Learn how to do code reviews, and how to adapt to local practices and style guides.
3. Learn how to be flexible.
4. Be humble.
Self-taught programmers frequently develop and religiously stick to their own favorite practices, code formatting, programming languages, IDEs, etc. When you're part of a team, though, your code needs to be readable, understandable and maintainable by other members of the team. This means learning how to be flexible and work effectively outside of your favorite language/environment. Some of this you can get by participating in some open source projects, and active participation in open source projects is something I look for on resumes when a candidate seems to be self-taught.
An article says the "incriminating" image was taken off of the hard drive of the laptop. Any school administrators invading students privacy by snooping through their laptops deserve what they're going to get out of all of this.
But consider: The laptops had anti-theft security software installed on them. This seems perfectly reasonable when you're distributing laptops to thousands of kids. Any decent anti-theft software (e.g. Undercover for the Mac) will have a feature to remotely enable the webcam so as to take snapshots to try and identify the thief. In many cases the anti-theft software can only be activated by the company providing the service, in response to a declaration that the laptop was stolen.
Is it possible that these two things are completely unrelated? How do we know that the school activated this software so as to spy on the student? If the image was sufficiently embarrassing, and the student took the snapshot himself, maybe he'd prefer to just let everyone believe that the school did it covertly? Snooping through files is certainly wrong, but actually remotely activating the webcam so as to snoop on the kids is just so absurdly wrong that I cannot imagine anyone doing this and believing they're in the right.