The problem with calling a DDOS "unauthorized access" is that the access is implicitly authorized by the server being on the internet. The real world analogy here is getting your hundred closest friends to visit WalMart and go through the checkout lines VERY VERY SLOWLY. You have the intent to negatively impact their business, and you are acting recklessly, but that is only 2/3 (well, more like 9/10) of the criteria for violating the laws in question here. You are not using their store without authorization (they have to TELL YOU TO LEAVE before they have any legal relief for your being there).
The problem with this "real world analogy" is that it doesn't take into account the "real world" laws criminalizing this behavior in the United States. There is a difference between "unauthorized access" and "exceeding authorized access". The latter can lead to prosecution under federal law.
My sources:
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1029
I think you have been misinformed as to how the legal process of judgement by court works, because the reality is not nearly as simple as you describe. What an unjust system it would be if it actually were! Thankfully, civil procedure exists.
This was a federal court case and Blizzard was required to submit evidence of damages so that the court could determine the amount to award. That evidence, which includes everything from declarations to expert testimony, can be seen in the court docket. If this had been a case involving a contract or similar issue where an award amount had already been determined, then it might have been more simple. But it was not.
Courts do not randomly award sums of $88M because someone failed to respond to a complaint. Blizzard was awarded $88M because they proved those were their damages with evidence. There might be cases where you "do not need evidence to prove a thing," but this was certainly not one of them.
I disagree that Blizzard's legal team did not present a case. If they had not presented evidence of damages, and such a compelling argument against the egregious nature of the infringement, then the court would not have awarded Blizzard $88M from a server company that only reaped $3M in profits.
Alyson Reeves could claim that she was never served, but that doesn't mean that a judge would immediately set aside the judgement against her. The motion to vacate the judgement would need to be timely and she would still need to prove that she was not served. It is unlikely that she was not served, and it is even more unlikely that she would be able to prove that she was not served if she actually was served.
There is nothing to indicate that any grounds exist to set aside the judgement, so any assumption (or assertion) that it will get set aside is extremely premature. Personally, I have greater faith in our justice system, if not the defendant's own sense of self-preservation. If the debt is dischargeable in a bankruptcy, then Alyson Reeves has nothing to gain from expending even more resources in an attempt to prove a negative just to start over a case where she already knows the outcome.
I've played on Team Interrobang's servers before. =) It is a good community; which, I suppose, means that you are a good Admin!
I agree that people are more likely to act with greater reservation and self-moderation in the absence of anonymity. However, I disagree that the sudden and immediate sacrifice of anonymity is enough to necessitate such meaningful change in so large and established a population. The reason I find this conclusion so unsatisfying is that it assumes everyone in the community entertains the same definition and value of privacy; which is, in my opinion, unrealistic.
To get an idea of how the worst users might act under this new Real ID system, we only need to look at how many of them act under the present system, while divulging identifying information such as their "Internet alias" or WoW character name(s). Griefers who are determined enough to cause grief for others typically entertain little concern for the possibility of facing recriminations in the future. Normal users on the other hand might refrain from posting on forums altogether out of fear that that they would become the victim of personally-directed attacks.
Under this new systems, griefers would possess knowledge of the average user's identity. They have the tools and motivation to make hurtful use of that knowledge. That is what unnerves a lot of people, including myself.
What makes this decision so interesting is that the court treated the OPD's audit of the pager text messages as an entirely separate issue and still concluded that it was reasonable under the language of the Fourth Amendment.
The OPD requested the transcripts in order to analyze how much of the contract overage was being caused by legitimate work-related use of the devices (and to that end, determine whether or not the OPD's contract with the provider needed to be renegotiated).
Auditing the text message transcripts was therefore a necessary (and reasonable) step in determining how many characters were being used to send work-related messages, and extrapolate from those figures how many more characters might be needed under a new contract for the devices to be utilized efficiently by officers in the course of their duties.
Therefore, even if Quon did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the audit still wasn't a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
I was reduced to paying out-of-pocket for a root canal recently (I switched insurance providers and my new dental coverage won't kick in for another year). The procedure and crown cost me $3500. So, $4,000-$5,000 for a tooth implant does sound normal to me in comparison.
Dental work is one of those things that I do consider worth the cost, because it is such highly specialized work. Being able to chew, and being able to smile confidently, are also important enough to my quality of living for me to justify this kind of expense. Then again, I'm paying out-of-pocket for teeth whitening during my cleaning visits too, so I might place a higher value on dental work than most.
I'm sorry to hear about the missing tooth. I hope that you can find a way to get the implant at a more affordable price if the $4,000 is too unreasonable in your market, or under your circumstance. Have you checked with your insurance provider? I would think that something as essential as a tooth replacement would be covered. If it isn't, then it should be! >:(
Under California law, if you come into the possession of lost or stolen property, you have a legal duty to make reasonable efforts to return that property. If the phone was not stolen when it came into Brian Hogan's possession, then it became stolen when he refused to meet his obligations under the law, and attempted to sell it. Even if Brian Hogan had not succeeded in selling the phone, it would have still been stolen, as it was not his property to advertise for sale.
I do not know which article you are quoting, but the syntax, rationale, and conclusions of the paragraph you've provided are wrong.
"If McKinnon is extradited, he could be given a 70-year sentence in a high-security prison (he would, as an overseas national, be considered a "flight risk", hence imprisonment with violent criminals rather than in an open prison)."
If McKinnon was tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve time in prison, then he would obviously no longer be a "flight risk" (as he would already be imprisoned). Therefore, if McKinnon was placed in a "high-security prison" (what we call "maximum security" in the US), it would not be because he was a "flight risk".
Neither extradition, nor conviction, would guarantee McKinnon prison time in a maximum security prison by default. The ignorant assertion that they somehow would is sensationalist nonsense, and a gross misrepresentation of the American justice system.
If McKinnon was placed in a maximum security prison, he would not be housed with violent criminals. He would be confined to his own individual cell and have no contact with the other inmates. This is IF he was placed in a maximum security prison.
McKinnon falls under the category of what we define as a "white collar criminal" in the US. These are criminals who post little physical risk to the public and are non-violent. They are placed in minimum security prisons.
"If tried in the UK - his home country, and where he was living when he committed the crimes he admits to - the sentence would be more lenient."
Where McKinnon was living when he committed the crime is irrelevant. When McKinnon unlawfully accessed US computers, he committed a crime on US soil, involving US property. If he didn't want to come under US law or jurisdiction, then he shouldn't have compromised US government computer systems.
According to the House of Lords judgment in Mckinnon V Government of The United States of America and Another, McKinnon's crimes have equivalents under British law for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence under US law provided in your quote is 70 years. Both of these numbers are arbitrary however as any reasonable person is aware that under both American and British law, individuals rarely receive the maximum sentence for their crimes, other than in the most egregious of crimes and circumstance.
If we are to consider the maximum sentence facing McKinnon, then should we not also consider the scope of the crimes for which he is accused?
The allegations against McKinnon can be viewed in the April 2007 High Court Judgment. Paragraph 4 outlines data deleted by McKinnon, which includes:
(1) Critical operating system files from nine computers, the deletion of which shut down the entire US Army's Military District of Washington network of over 2000 computers for 24 hours, significantly disrupting Governmental functions [...]
(2) 2,455 user accounts on a US Army computer that controlled access to an Army computer network, causing those computers to reboot and become inoperable [...]
(3) Critical Operating system files and logs from computers at US Naval Weapons Station Earle, one of which was used for monitoring the identity, location, physical condition, staffing and battle readiness of Navy ships. Deletion of these files rendered the Base's entire network of over 300 computers inoperable at a critical time immediately following 11 September 2001 [...]
What a laugh this man must be having at the expense of American and British relations, judicial process, and the spirit of our common law with his long line of vexatious appeals.
If NASA was specifically allotted funds and resources to maintain a security infrastructure, and they failed to meet their obligations in creating or maintaining what was specifically dictated of that infrastructure, then that is an entirely separate (civil) issue.
It is also a scenario of supposition introduced to this discussion by Slashdotters who seem incapable of acknowledging the real and only issue: whether or not McKinnon should face extradition and be held accountable for the crimes that he has admitted to committing.
Gaining unlawful access to NASA computers, committing obstruction, defacement (leaving notes), and making threats, are all crimes under British and American law. The US has every right to demand that McKinnon be extradited to face charges for committing those crimes against the US government and its agencies. The British government would likely make the same demands if an American intruded into their computer systems unlawfully.
McKinnon's motivations, rationale, or intentions for committing these crimes might provide a compelling emotional defense to those sympathetic of his condition during a trial. But they hold no relevance to the issue of whether or not McKinnon should actually face trial. Having an inquisitive nature powerful enough to compel you into breaking into a neighbor's residence does not absolve you of accountability under the law for acting on such an impulse to commit a crime. The same is true for McKinnon.
The notes that McKinnon left on NASA computers were not the harmless ruminations of an inquisitive man-child either. They were the rantings, criticisms, and threats of an inflated ego who clearly enjoyed a sense of control and influence over the government networks he had intruded into.
Has anyone been following the Facebook case between Zuckerberg and the founders? I don't have a Facebook (I've always been turned off by the privacy policies of social networking websites), and I don't know all the facts in the case yet, but I found the situation very intriguing after reading this article:
The Harvard students suing Zuckerberg/Facebook are the founders. Zuckerberg clearly owed them a fiduciary duty, or at least full disclosure under the securities law Rule 10b(5). I'll try to dig up the text of the rule and sec. 10b(5) of the Securities & Exchange Act of 1934 later, but the text of it is something that I would expect attorneys -- especially Zuckerberg's attorneys -- to know by heart.
If Zuckerberg comes under 10(b)5, then he has big problems... bigger than the privacy complaints he is presently dealing with.
That is your personal definition of the word copy, which has no application in this context.
The definition of "copy" under Penal Code section 499c is the only definition that is relevant to this case or discussion.
California Penal Code Section 499c(a)(7)
"[...] any facsimile, replica, photograph or other reproduction of an article, and any note, drawing or sketch made of or from an article."
Before you argue that this is an iPhone and not an "article"...
California Penal Code Section 499c(a)(2)
"[...] any object, material, device, or substance or copy thereof, including any writing, record, recording, drawing, sample, specimen, prototype, model, photograph, micro-organism, blueprint, map, or tangible representation of a computer program or information, including both human and computer readable information and information while in transit."
The judge, case, and hate speech law in question are Canadian.
Even if Americans made comments on the The Coast article, only Canadians or those under Canadian jurisdiction will be subpoenaed.
Why do so many Americans commenting on this article have a difficult time comprehending this?
The season premier worried me because it seemed too much like the series premier. It is as if the new writers don't know how to fill the shoes of their predecessors, so they are recycling elements from the previous seasons that they know were popular among fans. These similarities include:
A heroine who is the "girl next door" and strong-willed, but still somewhat naive and vulnerable.
A schmuck boyfriend/fiance of the heroine who struggles with being overshadowed by the Doctor. This Mickey #2 has been living in the Doctor's shadow since he and "Rose" Pond were children.
A Doctor who is youthful, overconfident, and presumably over-friendly with his companion as time progresses.
I am hoping that I will be proved wrong as more episodes air. I've been a fan of Doctor Who since the Fourth Doctor though, and will remain one regardless of where these new writers take the show.
This wasn't a case that involved the sending of private company data to a competitor.
The issue in this case wasn't the monitoring of outgoing communications.
This was a case that involved an employee bringing a suit against her employer, and the employer going out of its way to access the private communication she exchanged with her attorney.
The issue was whether this correspondence was protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy, and to that end, inadmissible as evidence by her employer.
OR rather this is why we should make laws and then stick to them when a case comes up. Unforutnately, it's a lot easier to push a sob story over a jury than appeal to the actual laws.
There are "actual laws" against this type of behavior -- civil and criminal. The regular and relentless harassment by the classmates was an intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Facebook and Twitter postings about her referred to her in derisive terms that those knowledgeable of the situation could easily infer as being her; which is still defamation. Depending on the content of the Craigslist postings, there could be more that these students could potentially be held accountable for because of this harassment.
It offends me how frequently people on/. accept, or even attempt to justify, this type of behavior as "free speech" on the Internet. Our right to free speech does not supersede the human rights of others.
I think that your post does a wonderful job of highlighting the hypocrisy and reality of this recurring issue. The reasons you outlined above are why I don't belong to MySpace, Facebook, or any other "social networking" websites, and probably never will in the future. Whenever you use anything freely, it is a privilege; so it is no wonder that many of these websites now feel an increasing sense of entitlement to user-contributed information.
The naivete displayed in the replies to your comment are astounding. Others are quick to point out that they wouldn't cry about this issue if they had a say in the "when and what" of how their information was sold. If only the American right to privacy gave us such direct control over our information, and was transmutable to such an extent on social networking sites that it superseded the TOS! Ultimately, our privacy is our own burden. If we choose to give our information freely to these websites, then we should expect what they choose to do with it to change as often as their TOS and Privacy Policies.
Slashdot Mirror
"but it seems that only lately they have begun to be successful in their attempts"
Only recently? Subpoenas have routinely been granted for MySpace accounts in divorce cases for awhile now. This isn't anything new, or recent.
The article's headline is "FBI Executes 40 Search Warrants" and neither the OP of this thread, nor any of the replies, specifically mentioned UK law.
Nevertheless, it is still a crime in the UK, and has been since 2006:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/48/part/5/crossheading/computer-misuse
The problem with calling a DDOS "unauthorized access" is that the access is implicitly authorized by the server being on the internet. The real world analogy here is getting your hundred closest friends to visit WalMart and go through the checkout lines VERY VERY SLOWLY. You have the intent to negatively impact their business, and you are acting recklessly, but that is only 2/3 (well, more like 9/10) of the criteria for violating the laws in question here. You are not using their store without authorization (they have to TELL YOU TO LEAVE before they have any legal relief for your being there).
The problem with this "real world analogy" is that it doesn't take into account the "real world" laws criminalizing this behavior in the United States. There is a difference between "unauthorized access" and "exceeding authorized access". The latter can lead to prosecution under federal law.
My sources:
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1029
I think you have been misinformed as to how the legal process of judgement by court works, because the reality is not nearly as simple as you describe. What an unjust system it would be if it actually were! Thankfully, civil procedure exists.
This was a federal court case and Blizzard was required to submit evidence of damages so that the court could determine the amount to award. That evidence, which includes everything from declarations to expert testimony, can be seen in the court docket. If this had been a case involving a contract or similar issue where an award amount had already been determined, then it might have been more simple. But it was not.
Courts do not randomly award sums of $88M because someone failed to respond to a complaint. Blizzard was awarded $88M because they proved those were their damages with evidence. There might be cases where you "do not need evidence to prove a thing," but this was certainly not one of them.
I disagree that Blizzard's legal team did not present a case. If they had not presented evidence of damages, and such a compelling argument against the egregious nature of the infringement, then the court would not have awarded Blizzard $88M from a server company that only reaped $3M in profits.
Alyson Reeves could claim that she was never served, but that doesn't mean that a judge would immediately set aside the judgement against her. The motion to vacate the judgement would need to be timely and she would still need to prove that she was not served. It is unlikely that she was not served, and it is even more unlikely that she would be able to prove that she was not served if she actually was served.
There is nothing to indicate that any grounds exist to set aside the judgement, so any assumption (or assertion) that it will get set aside is extremely premature. Personally, I have greater faith in our justice system, if not the defendant's own sense of self-preservation. If the debt is dischargeable in a bankruptcy, then Alyson Reeves has nothing to gain from expending even more resources in an attempt to prove a negative just to start over a case where she already knows the outcome.
I've played on Team Interrobang's servers before. =) It is a good community; which, I suppose, means that you are a good Admin!
I agree that people are more likely to act with greater reservation and self-moderation in the absence of anonymity. However, I disagree that the sudden and immediate sacrifice of anonymity is enough to necessitate such meaningful change in so large and established a population. The reason I find this conclusion so unsatisfying is that it assumes everyone in the community entertains the same definition and value of privacy; which is, in my opinion, unrealistic.
To get an idea of how the worst users might act under this new Real ID system, we only need to look at how many of them act under the present system, while divulging identifying information such as their "Internet alias" or WoW character name(s). Griefers who are determined enough to cause grief for others typically entertain little concern for the possibility of facing recriminations in the future. Normal users on the other hand might refrain from posting on forums altogether out of fear that that they would become the victim of personally-directed attacks.
Under this new systems, griefers would possess knowledge of the average user's identity. They have the tools and motivation to make hurtful use of that knowledge. That is what unnerves a lot of people, including myself.
What makes this decision so interesting is that the court treated the OPD's audit of the pager text messages as an entirely separate issue and still concluded that it was reasonable under the language of the Fourth Amendment.
The OPD requested the transcripts in order to analyze how much of the contract overage was being caused by legitimate work-related use of the devices (and to that end, determine whether or not the OPD's contract with the provider needed to be renegotiated).
Auditing the text message transcripts was therefore a necessary (and reasonable) step in determining how many characters were being used to send work-related messages, and extrapolate from those figures how many more characters might be needed under a new contract for the devices to be utilized efficiently by officers in the course of their duties.
Therefore, even if Quon did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the audit still wasn't a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Hey, Eponymous. I'm in California, USA.
I was reduced to paying out-of-pocket for a root canal recently (I switched insurance providers and my new dental coverage won't kick in for another year). The procedure and crown cost me $3500. So, $4,000-$5,000 for a tooth implant does sound normal to me in comparison.
Dental work is one of those things that I do consider worth the cost, because it is such highly specialized work. Being able to chew, and being able to smile confidently, are also important enough to my quality of living for me to justify this kind of expense. Then again, I'm paying out-of-pocket for teeth whitening during my cleaning visits too, so I might place a higher value on dental work than most.
I'm sorry to hear about the missing tooth. I hope that you can find a way to get the implant at a more affordable price if the $4,000 is too unreasonable in your market, or under your circumstance. Have you checked with your insurance provider? I would think that something as essential as a tooth replacement would be covered. If it isn't, then it should be! >:(
Under California law, if you come into the possession of lost or stolen property, you have a legal duty to make reasonable efforts to return that property. If the phone was not stolen when it came into Brian Hogan's possession, then it became stolen when he refused to meet his obligations under the law, and attempted to sell it. Even if Brian Hogan had not succeeded in selling the phone, it would have still been stolen, as it was not his property to advertise for sale.
"If McKinnon is extradited, he could be given a 70-year sentence in a high-security prison (he would, as an overseas national, be considered a "flight risk", hence imprisonment with violent criminals rather than in an open prison)."
If McKinnon was tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve time in prison, then he would obviously no longer be a "flight risk" (as he would already be imprisoned). Therefore, if McKinnon was placed in a "high-security prison" (what we call "maximum security" in the US), it would not be because he was a "flight risk".
Neither extradition, nor conviction, would guarantee McKinnon prison time in a maximum security prison by default. The ignorant assertion that they somehow would is sensationalist nonsense, and a gross misrepresentation of the American justice system.
If McKinnon was placed in a maximum security prison, he would not be housed with violent criminals. He would be confined to his own individual cell and have no contact with the other inmates. This is IF he was placed in a maximum security prison.
McKinnon falls under the category of what we define as a "white collar criminal" in the US. These are criminals who post little physical risk to the public and are non-violent. They are placed in minimum security prisons.
"If tried in the UK - his home country, and where he was living when he committed the crimes he admits to - the sentence would be more lenient."
Where McKinnon was living when he committed the crime is irrelevant. When McKinnon unlawfully accessed US computers, he committed a crime on US soil, involving US property. If he didn't want to come under US law or jurisdiction, then he shouldn't have compromised US government computer systems.
According to the House of Lords judgment in Mckinnon V Government of The United States of America and Another, McKinnon's crimes have equivalents under British law for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence under US law provided in your quote is 70 years. Both of these numbers are arbitrary however as any reasonable person is aware that under both American and British law, individuals rarely receive the maximum sentence for their crimes, other than in the most egregious of crimes and circumstance.
If we are to consider the maximum sentence facing McKinnon, then should we not also consider the scope of the crimes for which he is accused?
The allegations against McKinnon can be viewed in the April 2007 High Court Judgment. Paragraph 4 outlines data deleted by McKinnon, which includes:
(1) Critical operating system files from nine computers, the deletion of which shut down the entire US Army's Military District of Washington network of over 2000 computers for 24 hours, significantly disrupting Governmental functions [...]
(2) 2,455 user accounts on a US Army computer that controlled access to an Army computer network, causing those computers to reboot and become inoperable [...]
(3) Critical Operating system files and logs from computers at US Naval Weapons Station Earle, one of which was used for monitoring the identity, location, physical condition, staffing and battle readiness of Navy ships. Deletion of these files rendered the Base's entire network of over 300 computers inoperable at a critical time immediately following 11 September 2001 [...]
What a laugh this man must be having at the expense of American and British relations, judicial process, and the spirit of our common law with his long line of vexatious appeals.
If NASA was specifically allotted funds and resources to maintain a security infrastructure, and they failed to meet their obligations in creating or maintaining what was specifically dictated of that infrastructure, then that is an entirely separate (civil) issue.
It is also a scenario of supposition introduced to this discussion by Slashdotters who seem incapable of acknowledging the real and only issue: whether or not McKinnon should face extradition and be held accountable for the crimes that he has admitted to committing.
Gaining unlawful access to NASA computers, committing obstruction, defacement (leaving notes), and making threats, are all crimes under British and American law. The US has every right to demand that McKinnon be extradited to face charges for committing those crimes against the US government and its agencies. The British government would likely make the same demands if an American intruded into their computer systems unlawfully.
McKinnon's motivations, rationale, or intentions for committing these crimes might provide a compelling emotional defense to those sympathetic of his condition during a trial. But they hold no relevance to the issue of whether or not McKinnon should actually face trial. Having an inquisitive nature powerful enough to compel you into breaking into a neighbor's residence does not absolve you of accountability under the law for acting on such an impulse to commit a crime. The same is true for McKinnon.
The notes that McKinnon left on NASA computers were not the harmless ruminations of an inquisitive man-child either. They were the rantings, criticisms, and threats of an inflated ego who clearly enjoyed a sense of control and influence over the government networks he had intruded into.
Has anyone been following the Facebook case between Zuckerberg and the founders? I don't have a Facebook (I've always been turned off by the privacy policies of social networking websites), and I don't know all the facts in the case yet, but I found the situation very intriguing after reading this article:
http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/19/facebook-connectu-securities-fraud
The Harvard students suing Zuckerberg/Facebook are the founders. Zuckerberg clearly owed them a fiduciary duty, or at least full disclosure under the securities law Rule 10b(5). I'll try to dig up the text of the rule and sec. 10b(5) of the Securities & Exchange Act of 1934 later, but the text of it is something that I would expect attorneys -- especially Zuckerberg's attorneys -- to know by heart.
If Zuckerberg comes under 10(b)5, then he has big problems... bigger than the privacy complaints he is presently dealing with.
That is your personal definition of the word copy, which has no application in this context.
The definition of "copy" under Penal Code section 499c is the only definition that is relevant to this case or discussion.
California Penal Code Section 499c(a)(7)
"[...] any facsimile, replica, photograph or other reproduction of an article, and any note, drawing or sketch made of or from an article."
Before you argue that this is an iPhone and not an "article"...
California Penal Code Section 499c(a)(2)
"[...] any object, material, device, or substance or copy thereof, including any writing, record, recording, drawing, sample, specimen, prototype , model, photograph, micro-organism, blueprint, map, or tangible representation of a computer program or information, including both human and computer readable information and information while in transit."
The judge, case, and hate speech law in question are Canadian. Even if Americans made comments on the The Coast article, only Canadians or those under Canadian jurisdiction will be subpoenaed. Why do so many Americans commenting on this article have a difficult time comprehending this?
The season premier worried me because it seemed too much like the series premier. It is as if the new writers don't know how to fill the shoes of their predecessors, so they are recycling elements from the previous seasons that they know were popular among fans. These similarities include:
A heroine who is the "girl next door" and strong-willed, but still somewhat naive and vulnerable.
A schmuck boyfriend/fiance of the heroine who struggles with being overshadowed by the Doctor. This Mickey #2 has been living in the Doctor's shadow since he and "Rose" Pond were children.
A Doctor who is youthful, overconfident, and presumably over-friendly with his companion as time progresses.
I am hoping that I will be proved wrong as more episodes air. I've been a fan of Doctor Who since the Fourth Doctor though, and will remain one regardless of where these new writers take the show.
This wasn't a case that involved the sending of private company data to a competitor. The issue in this case wasn't the monitoring of outgoing communications. This was a case that involved an employee bringing a suit against her employer, and the employer going out of its way to access the private communication she exchanged with her attorney. The issue was whether this correspondence was protected by a reasonable expectation of privacy, and to that end, inadmissible as evidence by her employer.
OR rather this is why we should make laws and then stick to them when a case comes up. Unforutnately, it's a lot easier to push a sob story over a jury than appeal to the actual laws.
There are "actual laws" against this type of behavior -- civil and criminal. The regular and relentless harassment by the classmates was an intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Facebook and Twitter postings about her referred to her in derisive terms that those knowledgeable of the situation could easily infer as being her; which is still defamation. Depending on the content of the Craigslist postings, there could be more that these students could potentially be held accountable for because of this harassment.
/. accept, or even attempt to justify, this type of behavior as "free speech" on the Internet. Our right to free speech does not supersede the human rights of others.
It offends me how frequently people on
I think that your post does a wonderful job of highlighting the hypocrisy and reality of this recurring issue. The reasons you outlined above are why I don't belong to MySpace, Facebook, or any other "social networking" websites, and probably never will in the future. Whenever you use anything freely, it is a privilege; so it is no wonder that many of these websites now feel an increasing sense of entitlement to user-contributed information.
The naivete displayed in the replies to your comment are astounding. Others are quick to point out that they wouldn't cry about this issue if they had a say in the "when and what" of how their information was sold. If only the American right to privacy gave us such direct control over our information, and was transmutable to such an extent on social networking sites that it superseded the TOS! Ultimately, our privacy is our own burden. If we choose to give our information freely to these websites, then we should expect what they choose to do with it to change as often as their TOS and Privacy Policies.