One thing that is important is to remember that in nearly every generation for at least the last three hundred years there's been a tendency for a certain kind of comfortable intellectual to shake their heads and decry the downfall of civilization, the irreverence of youth and the death of literacy and wisdom. Noticing that trend does not necessarily make it incorrect, but it certainly makes it suspicious. I suspect it says more about a certain type of person than it does about our culture.
With that said however, there is change going on, although unlike Dr Lunsford I think that any judgment of what is going on exactly is a bit premature: it's all guesswork right now. Her analysis isn't too bad, but it's not necessarily better than anyone else's guess. What Dr Lunsford has undertaken is very subjective, and it's almost impossible for her to get any kind of objective research or testable results. Given a century or two of distance and perspective that may become easier. (If we're still around then. ha)
If they were stealing the wallet, placing money in it and returning it I would imagine that it could still be considered theft. It sounds like they don't go that far, but I'm still surprised that any company is willing to risk the possible PR backlash or legal problems that could be spurred by something like this.
-You are still invading that person's personal space, and lately the courts haven't been very forgiving of those who grope strangers.
-Inevitably one of the employees planting money will get caught, and possibly even injured. I don't imagine they'll have time to explain their contract before the victim assumes that their intent was leaning more toward sexual assault or theft.
Again: It's not the job of governing/enforcement agencies to tell people it's their fault. That's akin to the police telling an assault victim that they shouldn't have been out at night anyway. It may be true, but these agencies are here to prevent the exploitation of citizens. It's also entirely unreasonable to expect everyone to have the knowledge to properly protect their own privacy by abstaining from things like Facebook. It's not obvious or intuitive that you need to be careful, not at all.
I don't think it's your posts on other people's walls and photos and such that are of concern. It isn't the collaborative content.
If you check out the link on the OP the biggest concern is 3rd party applications. They could also destroy all the information, pictures, etc saved on your wall or profile without touching anyone else's account. If the user can currently delete it themself, then Facebook could certainly delete the same information from their backups.
Absolutely. But the job of the Canadian Privacy Commissioner is certainly not to tell citizens to keep their mouths shut if they want their secrets kept.
I don't think the EULA is particularly significant compared to their violations of Canadian copyright law.
To throw up an unjust comparison: You can host child porn behind a strict EULA all you want, but they'll still toss in you in jail.
You say that like it's a joke, but it wouldn't be the first time a website had been blocked on a national level, and it isn't necessarily a bad idea....and somehow I suspect the lost advertising revenues would get facebook's attention long before the calls of irate citizens annoyed the answering service at the Canadian privacy commission. Only one in a thousand people will bother to call the government and complain, most will probably just fill out internet polls on whatever new social networking site they move to. Those advertising dollars are lost immediately though.
You may be right. A quick revision of the situation says there've been some really encouraging rulings. There've been some ugly moments, but for the most part they've come out in our favor.
My personal favorite was Telus' attempt at blocking their union webpage. Real classy.
Actually the most irritating thing we've done was kind of counter to net neutrality, when the supreme court decided that Bell could go ahead and traffic shape last November.
How would you go about enforcing something like this?
Clearly like any law it could be a matter of criminal charges if you drew enough attention to yourself to be caught... but is there a more effective method of implementation? Even if you monitored their computer use at home, a laptop and an unsecured network will work wonders toward avoiding surveillance.
It's kind of like the law makers are admitting the failure of the justice system, isn't it?
I'm not necessarily against such an admission, but I don't think that's what was the intended message. *amused*
We have had this debate before in Canada. And we are paying a substantial tax on all blank media, supposedly that made it legal for us to backup our music. It's a levy on legal copies, but it still applies somewhat. It's about 30 cents a unit, and a few bucks on sales of mp3 players. So I'll agree that this isn't a new issue in Canada, and has reached the public awareness before.
There's been a lot of concern expressed in Canadian universities about how this will affect them, particularly long distance institutions like the Athabasca University. The copyright restrictions put them in a very precarious position that could increase licensing costs, make educational materials inaccessible or result in fines. There's no provision to protect such institution and their use of material, and nothing to even warn them if they risk violation.
The threat to educators may be even more significant than the threat to individuals in this case, and it runs a serious risk of being overlooked in this ongoing crusade against copyright violation.
People very rarely say "Oh look, I'm ignorant about an important issue! Oh no!" They need to realize it's important first... right?:)
In this case, it's a very new technology, and debates like this aren't of much interest outside geek circles. Clearly those of us who are concerned do what we can to raise awareness, but in a lot of ways it's still a very new issue, and it takes a while for things like this to reach the public awareness.
In a lot of ways Canada, like the US under President Obama, has done alright on Net Neutrality issues. Copyright is another matter. Canada has been staggering backwards for quite some time on that issue. Net Neutrality is threatening to everyone but the ISPs that stand to profit from it, Copyright is a much uglier matter.
It's been a long time since I heard anyone say "but we pay tax on blank cds, it's okay to copy here! We already had this fight over tapes decades ago!" The way things are going I guess we just pay that tax for the hell of it.
Re:As juvenile and deplorable as the whole thing i
on
The Outing of Pranknet
·
· Score: 1
I suspect that you're entirely right. There's nothing shameful about believing lies that are being fed to you in an emergency situation.
"Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may bring an individual action in small claims court. YOU AGREE THAT, BY ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT, YOU AND AT&T ARE EACH WAIVING THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY AND TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION WITH RESPECT TO ARBITRATION CLAIMS. This Agreement evidences a transaction in interstate commerce, and thus the Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this provision. This arbitration provision shall survive termination of this Agreement."
I assume this is the part being referenced.
I agree. Trust and critical thinking aren't mutually exclusive. They're both absolutely essential to a properly functioning society IMHO.
As juvenile and deplorable as the whole thing is..
on
The Outing of Pranknet
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Perhaps those receiving the prank calls should use some critical thinking before they obey those claiming to be authority and have their best interests in mind.
Still, lying to someone and then laughing when they believe you is painfully juvenile
Slashdot Mirror
One thing that is important is to remember that in nearly every generation for at least the last three hundred years there's been a tendency for a certain kind of comfortable intellectual to shake their heads and decry the downfall of civilization, the irreverence of youth and the death of literacy and wisdom. Noticing that trend does not necessarily make it incorrect, but it certainly makes it suspicious. I suspect it says more about a certain type of person than it does about our culture. With that said however, there is change going on, although unlike Dr Lunsford I think that any judgment of what is going on exactly is a bit premature: it's all guesswork right now. Her analysis isn't too bad, but it's not necessarily better than anyone else's guess. What Dr Lunsford has undertaken is very subjective, and it's almost impossible for her to get any kind of objective research or testable results. Given a century or two of distance and perspective that may become easier. (If we're still around then. ha)
If they were stealing the wallet, placing money in it and returning it I would imagine that it could still be considered theft. It sounds like they don't go that far, but I'm still surprised that any company is willing to risk the possible PR backlash or legal problems that could be spurred by something like this. -You are still invading that person's personal space, and lately the courts haven't been very forgiving of those who grope strangers. -Inevitably one of the employees planting money will get caught, and possibly even injured. I don't imagine they'll have time to explain their contract before the victim assumes that their intent was leaning more toward sexual assault or theft.
Again: It's not the job of governing/enforcement agencies to tell people it's their fault. That's akin to the police telling an assault victim that they shouldn't have been out at night anyway. It may be true, but these agencies are here to prevent the exploitation of citizens. It's also entirely unreasonable to expect everyone to have the knowledge to properly protect their own privacy by abstaining from things like Facebook. It's not obvious or intuitive that you need to be careful, not at all.
I don't think it's your posts on other people's walls and photos and such that are of concern. It isn't the collaborative content. If you check out the link on the OP the biggest concern is 3rd party applications. They could also destroy all the information, pictures, etc saved on your wall or profile without touching anyone else's account. If the user can currently delete it themself, then Facebook could certainly delete the same information from their backups.
Absolutely. But the job of the Canadian Privacy Commissioner is certainly not to tell citizens to keep their mouths shut if they want their secrets kept.
10.6 million according to Facebook. http://themeaningofweb.com/facebook-user-profile-canada-2008/ So yes. That's a lot of advertising revenues.
I don't think the EULA is particularly significant compared to their violations of Canadian copyright law. To throw up an unjust comparison: You can host child porn behind a strict EULA all you want, but they'll still toss in you in jail.
You say that like it's a joke, but it wouldn't be the first time a website had been blocked on a national level, and it isn't necessarily a bad idea. ...and somehow I suspect the lost advertising revenues would get facebook's attention long before the calls of irate citizens annoyed the answering service at the Canadian privacy commission. Only one in a thousand people will bother to call the government and complain, most will probably just fill out internet polls on whatever new social networking site they move to. Those advertising dollars are lost immediately though.
That sounds like a very fair assessment of what they're trying to do.
I've always felt that Social Network was something of a buzz word without any real meaning. It's an artificial category that shifts around a lot.
You may be right. A quick revision of the situation says there've been some really encouraging rulings. There've been some ugly moments, but for the most part they've come out in our favor. My personal favorite was Telus' attempt at blocking their union webpage. Real classy. Actually the most irritating thing we've done was kind of counter to net neutrality, when the supreme court decided that Bell could go ahead and traffic shape last November.
How would you go about enforcing something like this? Clearly like any law it could be a matter of criminal charges if you drew enough attention to yourself to be caught... but is there a more effective method of implementation? Even if you monitored their computer use at home, a laptop and an unsecured network will work wonders toward avoiding surveillance.
It's kind of like the law makers are admitting the failure of the justice system, isn't it? I'm not necessarily against such an admission, but I don't think that's what was the intended message. *amused*
This comment deserves special notice.
We have had this debate before in Canada. And we are paying a substantial tax on all blank media, supposedly that made it legal for us to backup our music. It's a levy on legal copies, but it still applies somewhat. It's about 30 cents a unit, and a few bucks on sales of mp3 players. So I'll agree that this isn't a new issue in Canada, and has reached the public awareness before.
There's been a lot of concern expressed in Canadian universities about how this will affect them, particularly long distance institutions like the Athabasca University. The copyright restrictions put them in a very precarious position that could increase licensing costs, make educational materials inaccessible or result in fines. There's no provision to protect such institution and their use of material, and nothing to even warn them if they risk violation. The threat to educators may be even more significant than the threat to individuals in this case, and it runs a serious risk of being overlooked in this ongoing crusade against copyright violation.
People very rarely say "Oh look, I'm ignorant about an important issue! Oh no!" They need to realize it's important first... right? :)
In this case, it's a very new technology, and debates like this aren't of much interest outside geek circles. Clearly those of us who are concerned do what we can to raise awareness, but in a lot of ways it's still a very new issue, and it takes a while for things like this to reach the public awareness.
Most Canadians don't even know about the issue, let alone understand it. And that's hardly their fault.
In a lot of ways Canada, like the US under President Obama, has done alright on Net Neutrality issues. Copyright is another matter. Canada has been staggering backwards for quite some time on that issue. Net Neutrality is threatening to everyone but the ISPs that stand to profit from it, Copyright is a much uglier matter. It's been a long time since I heard anyone say "but we pay tax on blank cds, it's okay to copy here! We already had this fight over tapes decades ago!" The way things are going I guess we just pay that tax for the hell of it.
I suspect that you're entirely right. There's nothing shameful about believing lies that are being fed to you in an emergency situation.
"Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may bring an individual action in small claims court. YOU AGREE THAT, BY ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT, YOU AND AT&T ARE EACH WAIVING THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY AND TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION WITH RESPECT TO ARBITRATION CLAIMS. This Agreement evidences a transaction in interstate commerce, and thus the Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this provision. This arbitration provision shall survive termination of this Agreement." I assume this is the part being referenced.
http://my.att.net/csbellsouth/s/s.dll?spage=cg/legal/att.htm&leg=tos A quick google search shows that it's in the updated TOS on their webpage already.
This is very reminiscent of lengthy, legally binding EULAs on software and webpages that the average consumer doesn't read or understand.
I agree. Trust and critical thinking aren't mutually exclusive. They're both absolutely essential to a properly functioning society IMHO.
Perhaps those receiving the prank calls should use some critical thinking before they obey those claiming to be authority and have their best interests in mind. Still, lying to someone and then laughing when they believe you is painfully juvenile