If these problem are really related to AT&T, then why do we Germans experience exact the same problem? Over here T-Online is the bad guy. To solve the problem, Blizzard even suggested to alter you MTU-rate for your dsl to 1400. I don't know how many people ever heard of a thing called MTU ever. (the common people, not the nerds here;-) ) Blizzard should ask themself why the whole IT ifrastructure are haveing problems with there product and if it is really the isp's fault.
Ugh. I don't know a damn thing about WoW's networking code (I have enough ways to waste what little free time I have), but I can make some guesses here about what's going on. If their packets have the do not fragment bit set, they could be relying upon a PMTU response packet to determine the maximum packet size to transmit data over the path from client to server (and back again). Some firewalls have a tendency to drop those PMTU response packets (which are just an ICMP destination unreachable). When that occurs, your options are to give up on trying not to fragment (which can be bad from a reliability and performance perspective), or set the MTU low enough on your host system that you slip through without needing the PMTU response. Its possible that they will make maximum packet size a configurable option in the game.
Its very hard to take someone seriously in a technical article when they write something like this:
Speed. Quite simply, a monolithic kernel like the one used in Linux or most of the other Open Source Unix clones is inherently two to three times faster for integer calculations than the Mach microkernel presently used in OS X 10.4.
The overhead of a microkernel isn't in integer calculations-its in task switching and system calls, and even that usually isn't too great. Bluntly put, if I have a program consisting of a loop that calculates some series of integer values, the only reason it would run slower on MacOSX than Windows on the same hardware is because of task switching, not because the OS somehow screws with integer math-that's all on the processor, not through a system call.
By offering direct download of a piece of software, the software creator can *cut out middleman* (e.g. distributor) like Fry's, BestBuy, Egghead...
Unless the carriers (Verizon, AT&T, etc) get their way with the plans to charge content providers for traffic carried over their networks to the end user. Then they just become the new middle man.
As a sort of old timer I've been doing computers for 25 years, I can tell you are mixing two issues: language design and application design.
I'm not entirely certain how you read this into what I said. I only mentioned languages and OS's to describe the practical experience industry veterans have. User applications, languages, and operating systems are three rather distinct problem domains, and the skills necessary to write one don't always transfer over to the other (I wouldn't necessarily expect a compiler developer to be a master UI developer, for example). The end user expectations are radically different as well-what I expect from a language's compiler is very different from what I expect from an email client.
The big difference today and before was that languages used to be much more diverse. Most languages today are compromise languages taking some of the features of the languages that were developed in the late 50's to late 70's and creating a mixture. Basically you get languages with the features of lisp written like fortran:).
This certainly has been a very interesting development in languages-I like having the ability to write simple, straight forward procedural code when appropriate, and at the same time be able to make use of dynamic typing, heavy object orientation, and the like when it is beneficial. Determining which is which takes experience and consideration, and I've worked on a few projects where folks went hard in one direction or the other (which I've seen generate some over complicated code bases with huge issues with circular dependencies that takes months or years to even reach a basic competency level).
Languages have complex functional definitions, recursion, dynamic typing... but people tend to write static typed, procedural code. The real innovation has been object orientation and every language has been influenced by it yet its not the core idea of any language in practice.
Object orientation is a great mental model for software development when applied appropriately. It doesn't give you the ability to solve problems you couldn't before, but it can make doing so easier than it was before, and applied well it helps to better encapsulate your code for maintenance and reuse. I've heard some OO adherants claim there is software you could never write before OO was introduced in mainstream languages-frankly, I've never bought that argument, it seems borne out of ignorance. If I had the time and energy I could probably write a full web browser in ASM as well, but its really not worth either to me, and an OO language just makes it easier.
If you want to see the interesting ideas that didn't win I'd look at stack based (postscript for example) and functional languages (haskall is still used a lot in academia). Of course lisp/scheme is always worth looking at. In the other extreme if you are kind of a Java guy, assembly and C are worth knowing. Understanding how hardware really works is always important and your programmers years ago either knew this very well or not really at all. Today we have better mixtures of low and high level.
The functional languages can be pretty intersting to use. I've never used one professionally, only out of curiosity, and they certainly are very powerful and capable. As for postscript, I've never looked at it too heavily, it never seemed to address a problem domain I was concerned about, so I have to claim total ignorance on that one.
As for application design I'm hard pressed to see how anything was better 25 years ago. I disagree with Woz 100% on this. I disagree with you that software was more feature poor back then. Back then the idea was single application interfaces. Emacs was a good example of this kind of environment. More mainstream wordperfect had a full menu driven shell and many people booted directly into Wordperfect (i.e. it was there OS interface). Similarly you had people who did everything inside of Lotus 1-2-3 (so for exampl
I've run into more than a few old timers who have been coding for longer than most of us have been alive (and I actively hunt them down and talk to them-they have a wealth of practical "been there done that" knowledge and don't tend to get caught up in the hype of the latest language or OS). Well written software in the past did a few things, but did them *very well* (versus poorly written software of the time which did almost nothing very badly). Today we're so feature happy that software tends to do many things...rather poorly. That's why you usually end up hearing these folks talking about software riddled with bugs and lacking in features. Its also the design philosophy that gave us the Unix tools we all know and love-they only do one thing, but they do it with competence. Look at what happened with web browsers-we went from just browsing web sites to browsing websites, reading newsgroups, sending/receiving email, and a billion other tasks when the browsers weren't even mature yet. Now most projects have reversed the trend and returned to a separate browser, news reader, and email client. I'd say the end result has given us far better tools (although the complexity of each one is daunting).
And what self respecting dominating species is going to want to go marching around, proudly declaring "We've invaded the dastardly people of planet Buffy, and its moon Tinkerbell!" I mean, come on, that doesn't sound so challenging-now planet Kirk, on the other hand...there you're after someone serious. Doesn't matter if they put up a fierce defense with fluffy pillows, you just took out someone strong and serious!
Name your planets fluffy names, and you're safe. Give your planet a serious name, and you're screwed-every bully is gonna invade just to prove he's grown up.
You call this guy a "Typical bureaucrat". Have you even read his bio? Have you even looked at his accademic credentials, let alone his prior professional experience? This guy isn't some mid level numb skull bureaucrat whose only redeaming quality is he knows the right color for his nose and he can shuffle paper like a champ-he's a fricking engineer who is quite willing to tell people that something was a complete was of time and energy. He's right, too-the shuttle should have been an X program research project run in parallel with the Apollo/Saturn program, not the only means of getting man into space for the last 25 years.
The article is thin on information because...well, its USA Today, not exactly a paper I look to when I want in depth technical information. I'd be very interested to hear an audio recording of the interview he gave, doubtless if the interviewer had half a clue a lot of very interesting information and opinions were offered.
Whether it's seat belts in cars, kids wearing helmets on bikes, or the severe risk-intolerance that afflicts our space program, we've become a society of cowards, insisting on safety above all.
I suppose you're one of those brave people who scoff when they ask you to wear your seat belt all the time on an airplane? Its wise to take all reasonable precautions for safety so we can pursue our interests. If you're against adopting a reasonable safety precaution in a hazardous activity because it might make you look like a coward, then frankly you're just putting yourself up for a Darwin Award. I'd much rather do the more exciting things, but take reasonable precautions so if something unfortunate should happen, I'll at least have a chance to try it again.
I'll probably get dinged for this by some well meaning type, but: a comment I've heard on doing computer business in China is that you'd better go big with your first sale, because odds are good its the only one you'll ever get. After that, they'll tear whatever you sold them apart, and either make their own or just steal it outright. I doubt that writing a package like Websense is beyond the software development skills of a few willing Chinese engineers.
Its possible their sale to China was fairly small, possibly even a pilot of a few thousand seats, and didn't produce a much larger follow up because there was a home grown substitute developed.
Either that or someone at Websense who still has a soul pointed out that doing business with China and having the blood of innocent lives on their hands might be bad for business here.
This is what I get for posting after a very long and hectic day. Fifth sentence should read:
China may not be a customer right now, but they certainly were in 2001-either that or Websense was so desperate for press coverage that they not only linked to an LA Times article claiming their software was purchased by the Chinese government and used by them, but contributed to said article as well.
You may want to apply a little lateral thinking to your research efforts next time. Go to the internet archive, or just follow this link. Read up. This was on their wbesite for quite some time, although it no longer is. China may not be a customer right now, but they certainly were in 2001-either that or Websense was so desperate for press coverage that they not only linked to an LA Times article claiming their software was purchased by the Chinese government and used by them, but linked to said article as well. Somehow, I really doubt that-I don't care how desperate you are for coverage, linking to an article making false claims that you sold your product to the chinese government to block anything, news or otherwise, shows a considerable lack of judgement.
Generally, I like Ebert's reviews-even when I think he's completely off base (the last Matrix film, the recent Star Wars flicks, Gladiator), he at least explains his reasoning well enough that I can understand why he gave the review he did. More than I can say for most reviewers...
The "emails" are not private property - they're not property in any sense - they're bits stored on a server, which happens to be the property of Yahoo!
By extension, you're saying that there is no property in the digital realm, just the hardware to run it. That's contrary to the very concepts of copyright, and is the argument used by many to justify the copying of content on the internet (I'm not interested in the long winded arguments about copying music and movies, I've heard it for years and I'm done with the discussion). The heirs have every right to attempt to obtain what belonged to their son on Yahoo's servers, just as they have every right to his other property.
If I were to apply your arguments to other property, then it would be necessary to vet all letters and other "embarassing" personal effects from someone's property before giving to the heirs. That is not something we can do, and it is not something that should ever be considered, even in the name of privacy.
The email service is not theirs
This is not about the email service-they are not seeking the right to send and receive emails via their son's Yahoo mail account. They are seeking access to the emails he kept, which are property, not a service.
They need to see a shrink.
No, they need to go to court and get something done about this, which they are doing. This is a question about the rights of the heir, not an issue for privacy advocacy dogma. If their son was alive, this would be a completely different discussion, and unless accessing his email account was a matter of life and death, I would fiercly oppose their attempts.
He's dead, the equation has changed.
Get over it.
No. You're a dogmatic privacy advocate who has taken up a poorly chosen cause in this case. That's fine. What happens here is not your right to decide, any more than it is mine. They're going to court. They have a good chance of arguing that they should have access to those emails, just as they have a right to all of their son's property. Contrary to another of your comments, Yahoo isn't going to charge them with a crime for attempting to access his email, they know that's a losing cause that will turn public opinion against them, and could very well end up costing them financially in an investor backlash.
So if you want to protect yourself, get WMDs, and get them fast.
*sigh* That's a really bad idea, too. If the US was at war with someone, and they actually used WMDs of any kind to defend themselves, the response would be devastating. Our official policy is to respond to WMD in kind-and that means breaking out our still significant nuclear weapons. Even if we chose not to use them, the response from the military, and the American people at large, would be devastating to say the least. Think of a demand for vengeance on a scale that would make the response to 9/11 look calm.
A lot of countries, even the ones who opposed the invasion of Iraq, believed they had WMDs. Why? Who knows-maybe they bought into our propaganda, maybe they had intelligence that said Iraq had the weapons, maybe they just plain didn't trust Saddam. I can understand two and three, one is just gullibility on the part of their intelligence services.
In other words you've decided to abandon the argument that they shouldn't be allowed to access the private property of their dead relative to argue they should be denied because of attempts to gain access to that property. I don't see how emails I personally own are in any way related to a vehicle owned by someone else I use as part of my job. One is my property, the other is someone elses, and obviously my heirs would have to return that property to its rightful owner after my death. This is about accessing the private property (in this case emails) of an individual.
I'd love to see Yahoo attempt to bring criminal charges against the family for attempting to hack their dead son's account. The would be walking into the full and rightful scorn of the public and press without a hope in hell of getting out of it, and any judge and jury worth their salt would laugh them out of court. This was not a malicious attempt to attack their network, this was an attempt to retrieve a piece of their dead son's life.
I know you probably think of this as a privacy advocasy case, and if their son was still alive it would be, but this is about the rights of the heirs to a dead man's property. Its not for us, or Yahoo, to say whether his family should be able to read his emails.
This has already been discussed elsewhere in the thread, but I'll respond anyway. If the account is the property of the deceased, then the heirs now own the account. It is not yet illegal to hack your own account.
Now for what's in the back of a LOT of people's minds - what if the father gets access to all the email and finds out something his son didn't want him to know - for example, that his son had a boyfriend?
I'm getting a little tired of reading this same argument in half the comments on this article. When this man died, his heirs (in this case his parents) took control of all of his property. By your argument, that should not be allowed because they might find love letters from a boyfriend in his personal effects. That's no different than finding such an email on his personal computer, or finding it on Yahoo's servers. What it comes down to here is if those emails are the personal property of the deceased (something that will doubtless be argued by the family's lawyer in court), then the heirs should have the right to access them. Its up to the family to decide if they want to read them or not, and noone else. None of us can decide what is the correct way for his family to deal with what has happened-grieving is a very individual, and personal, process.
I lost my brother suddenly and without warning last summer. He didn't have a will-he was 24, and at that age most people don't think about things like wills and estates. They have what they hope is the prime years of their lives ahead of them, and its a cruel thing when someone dies young and that future slips away. We found and read many of his emails-we couldn't get to his Yahoo accounts, for the same reason as this soldier's family. We found jokes he and his friends had passed around, school related emails-and emails to, from, and about girls. It gave us some comfort to have those, it helped us deal with the pain of losing him and remind us that except for his last hour, his life was a good and mainly happy one.
It's a bit like the usual thing about we see the sun as it was 8 seconds ago, and that what it is 'now' we will see in 8 seconds time.
Erm, um...its 8 minutes away (give or take, someone more pendantic can fix that). If the sun were suddenly 8 light seconds away, I think we'd be in a bit of pain here.
Clarke has been wheelchair bound for some time. Between post-polio syndrome and another disease whose name I'm not even going to bother to pronounce (info here. He is getting up there in years, though.
I'm very sorry. I lost my brother last summer as well. It isn't an easy thing to deal with, especially not this time of year.
He left himself logged into AIM before he went to work the last day. Luckily I was able to pull the entire buddy list and I used it to get in contact with his college and high school buddies. That was the only way I had to find them-I didn't know any of them before his death. It was the saddest and most surreal experience of my life, sitting at his computer seven hours after I found his body, clothes still wet from the river, trying to find his friends and tell them the worst had happened.
We tried to get into his Yahoo mail account, but they wouldn't budge-not even when we offered a copy of the death certificate. They were even more difficult than the bank and other financial institutions, and there wasn't even money involved. Very frustrating, and now its too late to get whatever emails may have been sitting in his account whe he died. Just one more piece of him gone we will never get back.
This situation needs to be changed-when someone dies, those who are left behind have every right to access whatever they can, including their email. Everything left behind, no matter how minor, becomes invaluable in holding onto the memories of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Very nicely trolled, sir! I raise my glass to you!
Ugh. I don't know a damn thing about WoW's networking code (I have enough ways to waste what little free time I have), but I can make some guesses here about what's going on. If their packets have the do not fragment bit set, they could be relying upon a PMTU response packet to determine the maximum packet size to transmit data over the path from client to server (and back again). Some firewalls have a tendency to drop those PMTU response packets (which are just an ICMP destination unreachable). When that occurs, your options are to give up on trying not to fragment (which can be bad from a reliability and performance perspective), or set the MTU low enough on your host system that you slip through without needing the PMTU response. Its possible that they will make maximum packet size a configurable option in the game.
Its very hard to take someone seriously in a technical article when they write something like this:
Speed. Quite simply, a monolithic kernel like the one used in Linux or most of the other Open Source Unix clones is inherently two to three times faster for integer calculations than the Mach microkernel presently used in OS X 10.4.
The overhead of a microkernel isn't in integer calculations-its in task switching and system calls, and even that usually isn't too great. Bluntly put, if I have a program consisting of a loop that calculates some series of integer values, the only reason it would run slower on MacOSX than Windows on the same hardware is because of task switching, not because the OS somehow screws with integer math-that's all on the processor, not through a system call.
GM is just not identified with slick sports cars. Yeah, they have one (the Pontiac Grand Prix), but it's certainly not a top seller.
Yeah, that Japanese made Corvette sure is putting GM to shame! Um...wait a minute...
By offering direct download of a piece of software, the software creator can *cut out middleman* (e.g. distributor) like Fry's, BestBuy, Egghead...
Unless the carriers (Verizon, AT&T, etc) get their way with the plans to charge content providers for traffic carried over their networks to the end user. Then they just become the new middle man.
As a sort of old timer I've been doing computers for 25 years, I can tell you are mixing two issues: language design and application design.
I'm not entirely certain how you read this into what I said. I only mentioned languages and OS's to describe the practical experience industry veterans have. User applications, languages, and operating systems are three rather distinct problem domains, and the skills necessary to write one don't always transfer over to the other (I wouldn't necessarily expect a compiler developer to be a master UI developer, for example). The end user expectations are radically different as well-what I expect from a language's compiler is very different from what I expect from an email client.
The big difference today and before was that languages used to be much more diverse. Most languages today are compromise languages taking some of the features of the languages that were developed in the late 50's to late 70's and creating a mixture. Basically you get languages with the features of lisp written like fortran :).
This certainly has been a very interesting development in languages-I like having the ability to write simple, straight forward procedural code when appropriate, and at the same time be able to make use of dynamic typing, heavy object orientation, and the like when it is beneficial. Determining which is which takes experience and consideration, and I've worked on a few projects where folks went hard in one direction or the other (which I've seen generate some over complicated code bases with huge issues with circular dependencies that takes months or years to even reach a basic competency level).
Languages have complex functional definitions, recursion, dynamic typing... but people tend to write static typed, procedural code. The real innovation has been object orientation and every language has been influenced by it yet its not the core idea of any language in practice.
Object orientation is a great mental model for software development when applied appropriately. It doesn't give you the ability to solve problems you couldn't before, but it can make doing so easier than it was before, and applied well it helps to better encapsulate your code for maintenance and reuse. I've heard some OO adherants claim there is software you could never write before OO was introduced in mainstream languages-frankly, I've never bought that argument, it seems borne out of ignorance. If I had the time and energy I could probably write a full web browser in ASM as well, but its really not worth either to me, and an OO language just makes it easier.
If you want to see the interesting ideas that didn't win I'd look at stack based (postscript for example) and functional languages (haskall is still used a lot in academia). Of course lisp/scheme is always worth looking at. In the other extreme if you are kind of a Java guy, assembly and C are worth knowing. Understanding how hardware really works is always important and your programmers years ago either knew this very well or not really at all. Today we have better mixtures of low and high level.
The functional languages can be pretty intersting to use. I've never used one professionally, only out of curiosity, and they certainly are very powerful and capable. As for postscript, I've never looked at it too heavily, it never seemed to address a problem domain I was concerned about, so I have to claim total ignorance on that one.
As for application design I'm hard pressed to see how anything was better 25 years ago. I disagree with Woz 100% on this. I disagree with you that software was more feature poor back then. Back then the idea was single application interfaces. Emacs was a good example of this kind of environment. More mainstream wordperfect had a full menu driven shell and many people booted directly into Wordperfect (i.e. it was there OS interface). Similarly you had people who did everything inside of Lotus 1-2-3 (so for exampl
I've run into more than a few old timers who have been coding for longer than most of us have been alive (and I actively hunt them down and talk to them-they have a wealth of practical "been there done that" knowledge and don't tend to get caught up in the hype of the latest language or OS). Well written software in the past did a few things, but did them *very well* (versus poorly written software of the time which did almost nothing very badly). Today we're so feature happy that software tends to do many things...rather poorly. That's why you usually end up hearing these folks talking about software riddled with bugs and lacking in features. Its also the design philosophy that gave us the Unix tools we all know and love-they only do one thing, but they do it with competence. Look at what happened with web browsers-we went from just browsing web sites to browsing websites, reading newsgroups, sending/receiving email, and a billion other tasks when the browsers weren't even mature yet. Now most projects have reversed the trend and returned to a separate browser, news reader, and email client. I'd say the end result has given us far better tools (although the complexity of each one is daunting).
And what self respecting dominating species is going to want to go marching around, proudly declaring "We've invaded the dastardly people of planet Buffy, and its moon Tinkerbell!" I mean, come on, that doesn't sound so challenging-now planet Kirk, on the other hand...there you're after someone serious. Doesn't matter if they put up a fierce defense with fluffy pillows, you just took out someone strong and serious!
Name your planets fluffy names, and you're safe. Give your planet a serious name, and you're screwed-every bully is gonna invade just to prove he's grown up.
You call this guy a "Typical bureaucrat". Have you even read his bio? Have you even looked at his accademic credentials, let alone his prior professional experience? This guy isn't some mid level numb skull bureaucrat whose only redeaming quality is he knows the right color for his nose and he can shuffle paper like a champ-he's a fricking engineer who is quite willing to tell people that something was a complete was of time and energy. He's right, too-the shuttle should have been an X program research project run in parallel with the Apollo/Saturn program, not the only means of getting man into space for the last 25 years.
The article is thin on information because...well, its USA Today, not exactly a paper I look to when I want in depth technical information. I'd be very interested to hear an audio recording of the interview he gave, doubtless if the interviewer had half a clue a lot of very interesting information and opinions were offered.
Whether it's seat belts in cars, kids wearing helmets on bikes, or the severe risk-intolerance that afflicts our space program, we've become a society of cowards, insisting on safety above all.
I suppose you're one of those brave people who scoff when they ask you to wear your seat belt all the time on an airplane? Its wise to take all reasonable precautions for safety so we can pursue our interests. If you're against adopting a reasonable safety precaution in a hazardous activity because it might make you look like a coward, then frankly you're just putting yourself up for a Darwin Award. I'd much rather do the more exciting things, but take reasonable precautions so if something unfortunate should happen, I'll at least have a chance to try it again.
I'll probably get dinged for this by some well meaning type, but: a comment I've heard on doing computer business in China is that you'd better go big with your first sale, because odds are good its the only one you'll ever get. After that, they'll tear whatever you sold them apart, and either make their own or just steal it outright. I doubt that writing a package like Websense is beyond the software development skills of a few willing Chinese engineers.
Its possible their sale to China was fairly small, possibly even a pilot of a few thousand seats, and didn't produce a much larger follow up because there was a home grown substitute developed.
Either that or someone at Websense who still has a soul pointed out that doing business with China and having the blood of innocent lives on their hands might be bad for business here.
China may not be a customer right now, but they certainly were in 2001-either that or Websense was so desperate for press coverage that they not only linked to an LA Times article claiming their software was purchased by the Chinese government and used by them, but contributed to said article as well.
You may want to apply a little lateral thinking to your research efforts next time. Go to the internet archive, or just follow this link. Read up. This was on their wbesite for quite some time, although it no longer is. China may not be a customer right now, but they certainly were in 2001-either that or Websense was so desperate for press coverage that they not only linked to an LA Times article claiming their software was purchased by the Chinese government and used by them, but linked to said article as well. Somehow, I really doubt that-I don't care how desperate you are for coverage, linking to an article making false claims that you sold your product to the chinese government to block anything, news or otherwise, shows a considerable lack of judgement.
Generally, I like Ebert's reviews-even when I think he's completely off base (the last Matrix film, the recent Star Wars flicks, Gladiator), he at least explains his reasoning well enough that I can understand why he gave the review he did. More than I can say for most reviewers...
I haven't read The Diamond Age yet (its on an ever growing list), but Clarke also had something like this in Fountains of Paradise.
That's what I was thinking. Holy crap, someone remembers WKRP!
I believe this Mac Mini is doomed for a **huge** success
Wow, what an interesting turn of phrase...that's the first time I've ever heard of something being doomed for success. Its a terribly positive fate!
The "emails" are not private property - they're not property in any sense - they're bits stored on a server, which happens to be the property of Yahoo!
By extension, you're saying that there is no property in the digital realm, just the hardware to run it. That's contrary to the very concepts of copyright, and is the argument used by many to justify the copying of content on the internet (I'm not interested in the long winded arguments about copying music and movies, I've heard it for years and I'm done with the discussion). The heirs have every right to attempt to obtain what belonged to their son on Yahoo's servers, just as they have every right to his other property.
If I were to apply your arguments to other property, then it would be necessary to vet all letters and other "embarassing" personal effects from someone's property before giving to the heirs. That is not something we can do, and it is not something that should ever be considered, even in the name of privacy.
The email service is not theirs
This is not about the email service-they are not seeking the right to send and receive emails via their son's Yahoo mail account. They are seeking access to the emails he kept, which are property, not a service.
They need to see a shrink.
No, they need to go to court and get something done about this, which they are doing. This is a question about the rights of the heir, not an issue for privacy advocacy dogma. If their son was alive, this would be a completely different discussion, and unless accessing his email account was a matter of life and death, I would fiercly oppose their attempts.
He's dead, the equation has changed.
Get over it.
No. You're a dogmatic privacy advocate who has taken up a poorly chosen cause in this case. That's fine. What happens here is not your right to decide, any more than it is mine. They're going to court. They have a good chance of arguing that they should have access to those emails, just as they have a right to all of their son's property. Contrary to another of your comments, Yahoo isn't going to charge them with a crime for attempting to access his email, they know that's a losing cause that will turn public opinion against them, and could very well end up costing them financially in an investor backlash.
So if you want to protect yourself, get WMDs, and get them fast.
*sigh* That's a really bad idea, too. If the US was at war with someone, and they actually used WMDs of any kind to defend themselves, the response would be devastating. Our official policy is to respond to WMD in kind-and that means breaking out our still significant nuclear weapons. Even if we chose not to use them, the response from the military, and the American people at large, would be devastating to say the least. Think of a demand for vengeance on a scale that would make the response to 9/11 look calm.
A lot of countries, even the ones who opposed the invasion of Iraq, believed they had WMDs. Why? Who knows-maybe they bought into our propaganda, maybe they had intelligence that said Iraq had the weapons, maybe they just plain didn't trust Saddam. I can understand two and three, one is just gullibility on the part of their intelligence services.
In other words you've decided to abandon the argument that they shouldn't be allowed to access the private property of their dead relative to argue they should be denied because of attempts to gain access to that property. I don't see how emails I personally own are in any way related to a vehicle owned by someone else I use as part of my job. One is my property, the other is someone elses, and obviously my heirs would have to return that property to its rightful owner after my death. This is about accessing the private property (in this case emails) of an individual.
I'd love to see Yahoo attempt to bring criminal charges against the family for attempting to hack their dead son's account. The would be walking into the full and rightful scorn of the public and press without a hope in hell of getting out of it, and any judge and jury worth their salt would laugh them out of court. This was not a malicious attempt to attack their network, this was an attempt to retrieve a piece of their dead son's life.
I know you probably think of this as a privacy advocasy case, and if their son was still alive it would be, but this is about the rights of the heirs to a dead man's property. Its not for us, or Yahoo, to say whether his family should be able to read his emails.
This has already been discussed elsewhere in the thread, but I'll respond anyway. If the account is the property of the deceased, then the heirs now own the account. It is not yet illegal to hack your own account.
Now for what's in the back of a LOT of people's minds - what if the father gets access to all the email and finds out something his son didn't want him to know - for example, that his son had a boyfriend?
I'm getting a little tired of reading this same argument in half the comments on this article. When this man died, his heirs (in this case his parents) took control of all of his property. By your argument, that should not be allowed because they might find love letters from a boyfriend in his personal effects. That's no different than finding such an email on his personal computer, or finding it on Yahoo's servers. What it comes down to here is if those emails are the personal property of the deceased (something that will doubtless be argued by the family's lawyer in court), then the heirs should have the right to access them. Its up to the family to decide if they want to read them or not, and noone else. None of us can decide what is the correct way for his family to deal with what has happened-grieving is a very individual, and personal, process.
I lost my brother suddenly and without warning last summer. He didn't have a will-he was 24, and at that age most people don't think about things like wills and estates. They have what they hope is the prime years of their lives ahead of them, and its a cruel thing when someone dies young and that future slips away. We found and read many of his emails-we couldn't get to his Yahoo accounts, for the same reason as this soldier's family. We found jokes he and his friends had passed around, school related emails-and emails to, from, and about girls. It gave us some comfort to have those, it helped us deal with the pain of losing him and remind us that except for his last hour, his life was a good and mainly happy one.
It's a bit like the usual thing about we see the sun as it was 8 seconds ago, and that what it is 'now' we will see in 8 seconds time.
Erm, um...its 8 minutes away (give or take, someone more pendantic can fix that). If the sun were suddenly 8 light seconds away, I think we'd be in a bit of pain here.
Clarke has been wheelchair bound for some time. Between post-polio syndrome and another disease whose name I'm not even going to bother to pronounce (info here. He is getting up there in years, though.
I'm very sorry. I lost my brother last summer as well. It isn't an easy thing to deal with, especially not this time of year.
He left himself logged into AIM before he went to work the last day. Luckily I was able to pull the entire buddy list and I used it to get in contact with his college and high school buddies. That was the only way I had to find them-I didn't know any of them before his death. It was the saddest and most surreal experience of my life, sitting at his computer seven hours after I found his body, clothes still wet from the river, trying to find his friends and tell them the worst had happened.
We tried to get into his Yahoo mail account, but they wouldn't budge-not even when we offered a copy of the death certificate. They were even more difficult than the bank and other financial institutions, and there wasn't even money involved. Very frustrating, and now its too late to get whatever emails may have been sitting in his account whe he died. Just one more piece of him gone we will never get back.
This situation needs to be changed-when someone dies, those who are left behind have every right to access whatever they can, including their email. Everything left behind, no matter how minor, becomes invaluable in holding onto the memories of them.