Or rather: The transfer ought to automatically invalidate the patents. You can have all the patents covering the jurisdiction of your own little piece of reservation land, but the US does not allow other countries or sovereign entities to grant themselves patent rights over American persons on American soil.
The Google Play store is Google's walled garden; they've always had the ability to take down malware. The platform should be designed so that program's cannot modify themselves by adding new executable code or new executable program files, and if somehow they manage to do so anyways, then the program contains an "exploit" that should be treated as malware.
Perhaps Senator Wyden can be encouraged to run for President of the U.S. in 2020.
Patience patience.... I want to see him first get a plan out of these guys to have all the government systems mandated to be switched away from this deprecated Windows OS to something more respectable and secure.
He can do a hell of a lot more than "ASK". He can push. He might even be able to find a law on the books they're breaking if they don't move off flash, or he might get a new law put on the books they will be violating if they miss the deadline.
He's a Senator, and apparently a very IT tech-savvy one, which is a refreshing thing to see... since he knows about the Flash deprecation. If they don't provide a satisfactory answer, then he can potentially sponsor legislation or an amendment to legislation that will get passed requiring that they meet the deadline Or prohibit any further IT spending on equipment including maintenance, power, and network connectivity, until all Adobe flash-related software and flash-based executable objects (SWF, FLV) are removed from that equipment.
The MPAA has money to send a 40-page writeup when comments are being solicited.
What organization can we donate to that will make 40-page writeups in the OPPOSITE direction when comments are being solicited? And advocate for reducing overaggressive enforcement, loosening the stranglehold on the public domain, and promote expansion of fair use, and insisting some piracy be accepted as long as companies can still make a fair profit AND alternate solutions (when there is a real problem to be solved --- other than companies earnestly trying to squeeze out 5% more profit or something by promiting fascist regulations and enforcement) and less severe penalties against individuals?
If us individual consumers and americans aren't represented in these kinds of solicitations for comments, then what will happen is only the MPAA will have the ears of our representatives, and they'll get one-sided laws passed whatever they want.
Owning something actually means you hold the RIGHT to the thing Free and Clear with freedom from anyone else's claims. Pay for the car in cash, and it lasts 13+ years. A leased or new car bought instead --- it would have been 10x the cumulative expenses and designed to fail and become obsolete much sooner due to the more complicated key systems and cheaper less-durable parts manufacturers have been lately using in key vehicle systems.
IANAL and I'm certainly not familiar with the details of US law, but it seems weird that this sort of thing is legal under the "one party consent" rule.
I agree there are potential issues, since the "One party consent" only holds for conversations between the rider and the driver; If the rider pulls their cell phone out of pocket and has a conversation with someone else, then none of the parties to the conversation would have consented to the audio recording / wiretap.
It is NOT uncommon for passengers to be recorded while using paid or public transportation. What is unsettling is the live streaming of footage to the internet without passengers' knowledge or consent.
This, by the way, is a huge flagrant violation of Twitch Terms of Service and should result in at the very minimum a 24 hour channel ban and deletion of offending content for the driver deliberately streaming passengers without consent ----- that doesn't do anything about the small group of people who might've been watching the stream live, but at least (perhaps), the deletion/takedown should help prevent any footage from going viral.
This is why most of the "Cloud Mining" operations are scams --- they want to impose unreasonable maintenance fees on a regular basis; and they're disconnected from costs, essentially a huge markup, and now they want to abort mining if the BTC exchange rate makes it unprofitable for them? Screw that.
A fairer thing to do would be to charge the maintenance fee upfront based on actual cost. E.g. for a 365 day contract: approximately 100 Watts/Terahash = 2.4 kWh per day * 365 = 876 kWh per TH. At about $0.09/kWh: $78 US for Electricity, $40 in cooling costs.
Pay upfront $118.00 in "maintenance" per TH; $3000 in Hardware will buy 16TH, so that's about $187 in equipment costs.
So charge your customer $305 US per Year times number of Terahashes upfront plus a reasonable markup for a 12 month contract, and adjust down equipment and power cost for newly sold contracts when equipment and power gets cheaper per TH/s: So you both win, sort-of, and there's no way market fluctuations in BTC value affect the maintenance costs or cause an early abort in the project, and in a year you walk away with ~0.04 BTC assuming you spent none of it -- who knows what the market value will be at that time, but that mostly sets your profitability.
What I'm saying is that everywhere should be like Alaska. As human beings we've all got a legitimate claim to the earth's resources.
Actually no.... we have a legitimate claim to resources we are able to take and do take from the earth and hold without interfering with what anybody else is already doing.
I get no claim to something someone else managed to extract from the earth; unless they had to intrude upon a right of mine to get it.
In the case of Sovereign states.... it was easy: The government was physically present, so they could claim all the land for their citizens --- It's a little bit sketchy regarding HOW the process got started of private citizens getting to own land; I think it started with governments Deeding rights to large plots of land to business people who then subdivided and Deeded off rights to pieces of the land to individuals who purchased it to further develop, but before any claims could be solidified --- people had to be there REGULARLY; the mere act of going somewhere and planting a flag doesn't provide a durable claim of rights.
Shouldn't the executables be digitally signed by the author And signed in some matter specific to the device, and the platform should be designed so an app running in a sandbox can't launch an executable if it is unsigned or the signature doesn't match Or if the executable wasn't installed during an app installation?
Incentivizing flying empty planes to earn $$$ trading slots!
650 slot pairs exist per day, so airlines are prepared to drop massive cash in order to get prime slot pairs. And they can trade and sell them, too. [...] Should an airline fail to use their slot at least 80 percent of the time...
So why not recover more revenue from users? Add some additional rules to prevent congestion by empty planes: Should an airline fail to use their slot at least 80 percent of the time not counted as used when the passenger or cargo weight loaded is less than 30% of maximum for that plane. If an airline intends to use its slot, then it must give notice at least 24 hours ahead of time --- if no timely notice is received then for that day the slot is up for grabs - after giving notice, it will be liable to pay an additional $5000 fee ("slot confirmation charge").
You own the posts on Facebook since you own the copyright to them
False. The only copy you "OWN" is what is on your computer (If you kept a copy) --- the post itself, that is the records stored on Facebook's servers are Facebook's property. Ownership of the copyright to a work does not provide ownership of a copy that is in anybody else's possession -- once you hand a copy to someone else, the only right you retain are the rights listed in the copyright If I allow you to come to my house and type something on my typewriter that turns out to be a valuable manuscript; you may own the copyright because you created it, but you don't gain ownership of my typewriter, or the page it is printed on, or the ink that the text is formed from: without an explicit agreement to the contrary, I'm under no obligation to allow you access to come back and re-inspect it to see what you had written, and I can save it forever out of your reach, or shred it if I want --- my choice.
This is similar to the situation with Facebook, where the ToS provides by sending something to their servers -- posting something to Facebook you give Facebook itself an Unlimited Royalty Free License to your work, and you agree Facebook can cut off your access at any time they wish for any reason, or for no reason, So you have no right to inspect those database records --- only a temporary privilege while Facebook voluntarily decides to permit you to.
there is no "Right to Access" or "Right to Disseminate" that a copyright owner holds --- If you go to a bookstore and see a legitimate copy of a book you wrote inside a glass case; without permission from the venue, you have no right to get access to the book and look at its pages.
When you die, legal agreements don’t just vanish because you or the other party designated them to, whether they are in writing or orally or by practice established.
Facebook never provided you a legal agreement to allow you to own or assure you the right to review or see again posts sent by you or sent towards you on their servers --- No right to the paper, no right to the ink.
Facebook's account for you terminates under any number of conditions at your will, or at their will. So they can terminate the account with you at their own will because of something You requested, should certain circumstances arise, and that would be an exercise of their rights to close your account, Not your rights to close your account (Even though the original request came from you).
Furthermore, Facebook's legal agreement is careful to not provide you any rights... it's solely to protect Facebook.
Otherwise everyone going into a coma would have their Facebook cancelled in your world.
What happens when someone goes into a coma: is their Facebook account becomes inactive, because the terms of use provides that only the named person can use that identity to access Facebook services, and if Facebook learns that credentials have been shared, then Facebook can block the account as per Terms of Use.
Note that even the summary says that the photographer posted it on snapchat, not twitter.
Wait... that's no escape. To say they hadn't licensed it: the post to Snapchat would've likewise had to have been made without the photographer's permission (A violation of Snapchat's ToS). And then Snapchat has a similar set of terms of use for posters/submitters that provide an even broader license to the public.
And yes: Just like Twitter, Snapchat provides an embed interface that allows other entities to including Snapchat posts in a 3rd party website ---- which the Terms of Use grants a license for both to Snapchat and to their "Affiliates/Business Partners".
because the photo belongs to the photographer and it don't make a flying rat's ass where it's stored."
Well, if it's on Twitter's servers, then that is huge, because Twitter's Terms of Service then apply to the submitter.
By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.
You might as well argue that if someone robs my house I'm to blame because I could have purchased a stronger lock for my door.
It's a bad analogy. Presumably the stuff in your house is YOURs, and nobody other than you suffers a loss when it gets stolen.
When we're talking about patient records --- the stuff you are "securing" is other people's stuff.
And putting it on an information system connected to the internet is like putting it in buckets or boxes spread out in a massive field protected only by a fence with minimal maintenance budget placed around the borders of your property line which is adjacent to a public forest well-known to be teaming with thieves and undesirables.
Also, while your fence generally looks well built: there are places where there are holes in it that someone could slip in, or perhaps some "unexpected" exploit could allow some random person to jump your fence and then go make off with your customer's information, but minimal direct damage to your business (as long as you're able to minimize the reputation impact).
PII is valuable, and is deserving of Not being left out in a field --- it needs to be put in a Vault, which in the real world means PII is encrypted at rest and transit, And kept encrypted at all times, and the systems are designed so that authorization to extract PII cannot be approved by an internet-connected host.
In today's world, it is not "gross negligence" to connect a business system to the Internet. It's a typical requirement.
Creating direct connections between business systems and the internet is no fundamental business requirement. It is a "requirement" that could only come from almost completely ignoring security considerations.
I can tell you it's not easy to make anything completely secure.
And yet there are PLENTY of possible precautions which businesses ignore, because they're too inconvenient to employees or too great a negative impact to the cost savings from using electronic systems instead of paper-based systems. Note: There is no obligation to put customer's data in an electronic system. Paper-based systems not connected to any global network have worked for thousands of years and never had a "zero day" exploit ---- Airgapped records systems with dedicated business operations desktops that have no internet connection also work lovely.
There are zero-day exploits.
Yes.... and ANY system designer should be aware zero-day exploits exist before they start building an Information Management System.
Perhaps the ones that thought it was a "cool idea" to set it up directly on the internet as a publicly accessible cloud service should be charged with gross negligence.
So when, inevitably, someone's security is breached, save a bit of your condemnation for the person(s) committing the crime.
The problem is created by the supposed victim businesses making dunderheaded design decisions that causes systems that are EASY to exploit ---- Like knowing that immeasurable zero-day exploits exist against common operating systems and frameworks which are all insecure, AND choosing to use those OSes and frameworks to build their systems AND then willfully hooking them up those systems to be able to access the public internet anyways, who Know or Ought to Know such issues exist.
The problem is they can avoid the fines by taking precautions that turn out to fail. Instead they should be required to ensure records are not leaked, and the breach itself should incur a fine.
The fine should not be capped, but should be AT LEAST as many dollars as the attackers stand to gain by selling the information leaked.... that is fine $10,000 or so per person whose Times the Number of People who PII were in the record system that were leaked for sure, and 50% of that for any person whose PII was in the system and whose record MIGHT have been leaked, but that the company can't prove was not accessed or leaked.
Next I would like to see Microsoft make CLI versions of all the traditional windows management tools, and then for legacy GUI tools; Group Policy Editor, Active Directory Users and Computers, Domains And Trusts, Sites and Services.... make the traditional GUIs Read-Only solely for display and reporting
The issue is requiring 1000-1500 hours of flight time before you can get an ATP certification which is a requirement to work for a commercial passenger airline.
This insane. If the airlines need pilots that badly, they need to have REASONABLE requirements or foot the bill for this 1500 hours worth of training they are requiring.
Makes sense, since the EEOC only deals with complaints and issues between employers and employees, not contractors. If contractors allege discriminatory selection or payment based on gender, and none of the companies/individuals are involved in federal contracts, then regulation and enforcement falls on individual state bodies.
I remember a few years back seeing an insane price and reporting it as an issue with the listing once. Turns out, the seller claimed I shouldn't have seen it, and they set the price to $9999 to prevent sale while they are out of stock and the item is on the slow boat from china, or so they say.
so the officer held him until a drug dog was brought in to give the officer enough probable cause to search the vehicle.
What they fail to disclose is most "drug dogs" are multipurpose dogs that will alert things other than drugs --- they have a rate of alerting that is sufficiently high that the dog appearing to detect something ought NOT be considered probable cause to search. Also possibly the officer/handler can decide that the dog is going to alert on the air outside the car in order to "justify" a more in-depth search in violation of the person's rights.
They found a misdemeanor amount of marijuana, which they used to arrest Montenez
So they found a misdemeanor possibly by already violating the right to be free from unreasonable search. "Failing to Yield" at a traffic stop is by no means reasonable cause to suspect and look for a misdemeanor qty of drugs.
but they asked to search his two cellphones, which he also refused. They were able to secure a warrant for those as well, but Montenez claimed he had forgotten his password.
Now what praytell particular person or thing would they like to search his cellphone for? Seems like "law" officers going on a fishing expedition.
I'd bet in practice that it's at least hard and legally expensive to get the government to ever give anything back.
It has been relatively rare for anyone to be tried of treason, and typically the penalty is death by execution or life imprisonment: not forfeiting the use of their land or other real properties (for their lifetime) that would be protected ---- it's simple really, their punishment will cause the person to never see their land again, the government doesn't typically take it in the first place, and if they do, they just become a temporary leaseholder for the remainder of the life of the person.
change the fact that when you die, whatever you 'own' on Facebook gets transferred to your estate.
However.... you own "nothing" on Facebook; your Estate is a temporary legal entity for administering deceased's property until it is probated and the assets are distributed, But it can only manage property you legally own, and no matter what: the people managing your estate don't have a right to lie or misrepresent to Facebook that you are still alive. Meanwhile, in your Personal Preferences/Options with Facebook, while still alive you had established a preference setting/choice telling Facebook you want them to Permanently disable your account upon death and not allow anyone access to it.
While you were alive: there was a non-transferrable agreement for service from Facebook to you as a natural person --- this agreement is not a piece of property, or at least not a type of property that can be distributed or transferred to a corporation, trust, or estate, And while you were alive you have a privilege, but not a right to access and use the service while the agreement is active, And upon your death, you designated the agreement to terminate, so the instant Facebook discovers your death: they will exercise their right as service provider to at their discretion permanently disable your account.
Your successors have the same rights you have,
I thought we already established that is you have No actual rights to your Facebook account, so your successors should also have No actual rights? Facebook can delete your information at any time. Facebook can turn your account off at any time. Facebook can keep your information and keep your account permanently disabled, for any reason or no reason. Even if Facebook keeps your information: you don't have a right to make them send it to you or allow you to access it.... none of the ToS allows for that.
Facebook upon learning their death exercises the right held in their agreement to Block access to your account and Terminate the agreement.
At that point... what possible legal basis could there possibly be for any "Estate" to force Facebook to allow any kind of access or turn over any kind of information (Against Facebook's policies and against the Preference settings established by the deceased person when they configured their account to ensure No Access after death) ?
This is a very backward system... thank goodness in America we have a legal system that does not allow responsibility for crimes or wrongs to be passed on from the parent to a child.
Hell --- our constitution even prevents it from the most severe crimes which in Europe were considered a permanent dishonor to one's family and future descendants Article III Section 3:
Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Read that twice.... Not only can wrongs NOT be inherited, But if property is forfeited because of the crime: the government is only allowed to have it Forfeit for the rest of the Life of the Person attainted ---
thus upon their death, their estate still have the right to whatever had been forfeited when they were alive.
Slashdot Mirror
Or rather: The transfer ought to automatically invalidate the patents. You can have all the patents covering the jurisdiction of your own little piece of reservation land, but the US does not allow other countries or sovereign entities to grant themselves patent rights over American persons on American soil.
The Google Play store is Google's walled garden; they've always had the ability to take down malware.
The platform should be designed so that program's cannot modify themselves by adding new executable code or new executable program files,
and if somehow they manage to do so anyways, then the program contains an "exploit" that should be treated as malware.
Perhaps Senator Wyden can be encouraged to run for President of the U.S. in 2020.
Patience patience.... I want to see him first get a plan out of these guys to have all the government systems mandated to be switched away from this deprecated Windows OS to something more respectable and secure.
He can do a hell of a lot more than "ASK". He can push. He might even be able to find a law on the books they're breaking if they don't move off flash, or he might get a new law put on the books they will be violating if they miss the deadline.
He's a Senator, and apparently a very IT tech-savvy one, which is a refreshing thing to see... since he knows about the Flash deprecation. If they don't provide a satisfactory answer, then he can potentially sponsor legislation or an amendment to legislation that will get passed requiring that they meet the deadline Or prohibit any further IT spending on equipment including maintenance, power, and network connectivity, until all Adobe flash-related software and flash-based executable objects (SWF, FLV) are removed from that equipment.
The MPAA has money to send a 40-page writeup when comments are being solicited.
What organization can we donate to that will make 40-page writeups in the OPPOSITE direction when comments are being solicited? And advocate for reducing overaggressive enforcement, loosening the stranglehold on the public domain, and promote expansion of fair use, and insisting some piracy be accepted as long as companies can still make a fair profit AND alternate solutions (when there is a real problem to be solved --- other than companies earnestly trying to squeeze out 5% more profit or something by promiting fascist regulations and enforcement) and less severe penalties against individuals?
If us individual consumers and americans aren't represented in these kinds of solicitations for comments, then what will happen is only the MPAA will have the ears of our representatives, and they'll get one-sided laws passed whatever they want.
Owning something actually means you hold the RIGHT to the thing Free and Clear with freedom from anyone else's claims. Pay for the car in cash, and it lasts 13+ years. A leased or new car bought instead --- it would have been 10x the cumulative expenses and designed to fail and become obsolete much sooner due to the more complicated key systems and cheaper less-durable parts manufacturers have been lately using in key vehicle systems.
IANAL and I'm certainly not familiar with the details of US law, but it seems weird that this sort of thing is legal under the "one party consent" rule.
I agree there are potential issues, since the "One party consent" only holds for conversations between the rider and the driver; If the rider pulls their cell phone out of pocket and has a conversation with someone else, then none of the parties to the conversation would have consented to the audio recording / wiretap.
It is NOT uncommon for passengers to be recorded while using paid or public transportation. What is unsettling is the live streaming of footage to the internet without passengers' knowledge or consent.
This, by the way, is a huge flagrant violation of Twitch Terms of Service and should result in at the very minimum a 24 hour channel ban and deletion of offending content for the driver deliberately streaming passengers without consent ----- that doesn't do anything about the small group of people who might've been watching the stream live, but at least (perhaps), the deletion/takedown should help prevent any footage from going viral.
This is why most of the "Cloud Mining" operations are scams --- they want to impose unreasonable maintenance fees on a regular basis; and they're disconnected from costs, essentially a huge markup, and now they want to abort mining if the BTC exchange rate makes it unprofitable for them? Screw that.
A fairer thing to do would be to charge the maintenance fee upfront based on actual cost. E.g. for a 365 day contract: approximately 100 Watts/Terahash = 2.4 kWh per day * 365 = 876 kWh per TH. At about $0.09/kWh: $78 US for Electricity, $40 in cooling costs.
Pay upfront $118.00 in "maintenance" per TH; $3000 in Hardware will buy 16TH, so that's about $187 in equipment costs.
So charge your customer $305 US per Year times number of Terahashes upfront plus a reasonable markup for a 12 month contract, and adjust down equipment and power cost for newly sold contracts when equipment and power gets cheaper per TH/s: So you both win, sort-of, and there's no way market fluctuations in BTC value affect the maintenance costs or cause an early abort in the project, and in a year you walk away with ~0.04 BTC
assuming you spent none of it -- who knows what the market value will be at that time, but that mostly sets your profitability.
What I'm saying is that everywhere should be like Alaska. As human beings we've all got a legitimate claim to the earth's resources.
Actually no.... we have a legitimate claim to resources we are able to take and do take from the earth and hold without interfering with what anybody else is already doing.
I get no claim to something someone else managed to extract from the earth; unless they had to intrude upon a right of mine to get it.
In the case of Sovereign states.... it was easy: The government was physically present, so they could claim all the land for their citizens --- It's a little bit sketchy regarding HOW the process got started of private citizens getting to own land; I think it started with governments Deeding rights to large plots of land to business people who then subdivided and Deeded off rights to pieces of the land to individuals who purchased it to further develop, but before any claims could be solidified --- people had to be there REGULARLY; the mere act of going somewhere and planting a flag doesn't provide a durable claim of rights.
Shouldn't the executables be digitally signed by the author And signed in some matter specific to the device, and the platform should be designed so an app running in a sandbox can't launch an executable if it is unsigned or the signature doesn't match Or if the executable wasn't installed during an app installation?
Incentivizing flying empty planes to earn $$$ trading slots!
650 slot pairs exist per day, so airlines are prepared to drop massive cash in order to get prime slot pairs. And they can trade and sell them, too. [...] Should an airline fail to use their slot at least 80 percent of the time...
So why not recover more revenue from users? Add some additional rules to prevent congestion by empty planes: Should an airline fail to use their slot at least 80 percent of the time not counted as used when the passenger or cargo weight loaded is less than 30% of maximum for that plane.
If an airline intends to use its slot, then it must give notice at least 24 hours ahead of time --- if no timely notice is received then for that day the slot is up for grabs - after giving notice, it will be liable to pay an additional $5000 fee ("slot confirmation charge").
You own the posts on Facebook since you own the copyright to them
False. The only copy you "OWN" is what is on your computer (If you kept a copy) --- the post itself, that is the records stored on Facebook's servers are Facebook's property. Ownership of the copyright to a work does not provide ownership of a copy that is in anybody else's possession -- once you hand a copy to someone else, the only right you retain are the rights listed in the copyright If I allow you to come to my house and type something on my typewriter that turns out to be a valuable manuscript;
you may own the copyright because you created it, but you don't gain ownership of my typewriter, or the page it is printed on, or the ink that the text is formed from: without an explicit agreement to the contrary, I'm under no obligation to allow you access to come back and re-inspect it to see what you had written, and I can save it forever out of your reach, or shred it if I want --- my choice.
This is similar to the situation with Facebook, where the ToS provides by sending something to their servers -- posting something to Facebook you give Facebook itself an Unlimited Royalty Free License to your work, and you agree Facebook can cut off your access at any time they wish for any reason, or for no reason, So you have no right to inspect those database records --- only a temporary privilege while Facebook voluntarily decides to permit you to.
there is no "Right to Access" or "Right to Disseminate" that a copyright owner holds --- If you go to a bookstore and see a legitimate copy of a book you wrote inside a glass case; without permission from the venue, you have no right to get access to the book and look at its pages.
When you die, legal agreements don’t just vanish because you or the other party designated them to, whether they are in writing or orally or by practice established.
Facebook never provided you a legal agreement to allow you to own or assure you the right to review or see again posts sent by you or sent towards you on their servers --- No right to the paper, no right to the ink.
Facebook's account for you terminates under any number of conditions at your will, or at their will.
So they can terminate the account with you at their own will because of something You requested, should certain circumstances arise, and that would be an exercise of their rights to close your account, Not your rights to close your account (Even though the original request came from you).
Furthermore, Facebook's legal agreement is careful to not provide you any rights... it's solely to protect Facebook.
Otherwise everyone going into a coma would have their Facebook cancelled in your world.
What happens when someone goes into a coma: is their Facebook account becomes inactive, because the terms of use provides that only the named person can use that identity to access Facebook services, and if Facebook learns that credentials have been shared, then Facebook can block the account as per Terms of Use.
Note that even the summary says that the photographer posted it on snapchat, not twitter.
Wait... that's no escape. To say they hadn't licensed it: the post to Snapchat would've likewise had to have been made without the
photographer's permission (A violation of Snapchat's ToS).
And then Snapchat has a similar set of terms of use for posters/submitters that provide an even broader license to the public.
And yes: Just like Twitter, Snapchat provides an embed interface that allows other entities to including Snapchat posts in a 3rd party website ---- which the Terms of Use grants a license for both to Snapchat and to their "Affiliates/Business Partners".
because the photo belongs to the photographer and it don't make a flying rat's ass where it's stored."
Well, if it's on Twitter's servers, then that is huge, because Twitter's Terms of Service then apply to the submitter.
You might as well argue that if someone robs my house I'm to blame because I could have purchased a stronger lock for my door.
It's a bad analogy. Presumably the stuff in your house is YOURs, and nobody other than you suffers a loss when it gets stolen.
When we're talking about patient records --- the stuff you are "securing" is other people's stuff.
And putting it on an information system connected to the internet is like putting it in buckets or boxes spread out in a massive field protected only by a fence with minimal maintenance budget placed around the borders of your property line which is adjacent to a public forest well-known to be teaming with thieves and undesirables.
Also, while your fence generally looks well built: there are places where there are holes in it that someone could slip in, or perhaps some "unexpected" exploit could allow some random person to jump your fence and then go make off with your customer's information, but minimal direct damage to your business (as long as you're able to minimize the reputation impact).
PII is valuable, and is deserving of Not being left out in a field --- it needs to be put in a Vault, which in the real world means PII is encrypted at rest and transit, And kept encrypted at all times, and the systems are designed so that authorization to extract PII cannot be approved by an internet-connected host.
In today's world, it is not "gross negligence" to connect a business system to the Internet. It's a typical requirement.
Creating direct connections between business systems and the internet is no fundamental business requirement. It is a "requirement" that could only come from almost completely ignoring security considerations.
I can tell you it's not easy to make anything completely secure.
And yet there are PLENTY of possible precautions which businesses ignore, because they're too inconvenient to employees or too great a negative impact to the cost savings from using electronic systems instead of paper-based systems.
Note: There is no obligation to put customer's data in an electronic system. Paper-based systems not connected to any global network have worked for thousands of years and never had a "zero day" exploit ---- Airgapped records systems with dedicated business operations desktops that have no internet connection also work lovely.
There are zero-day exploits.
Yes.... and ANY system designer should be aware zero-day exploits exist before they start building an Information Management System.
Perhaps the ones that thought it was a "cool idea" to set it up directly on the internet as a publicly accessible cloud service should be charged with gross negligence.
So when, inevitably, someone's security is breached, save a bit of your condemnation for the person(s) committing the crime.
The problem is created by the supposed victim businesses making dunderheaded design decisions that causes systems that are EASY to exploit ---- Like knowing that immeasurable zero-day exploits exist against common operating systems and frameworks which are all insecure, AND choosing to use those OSes and frameworks to build their systems AND then willfully hooking them up those systems to be able to access the public internet anyways, who Know or Ought to Know such issues exist.
The problem is they can avoid the fines by taking precautions that turn out to fail.
Instead they should be required to ensure records are not leaked, and the breach itself should incur a fine.
The fine should not be capped, but should be AT LEAST as many dollars as the attackers stand to gain by selling the information leaked.... that is fine $10,000 or so per person whose Times the Number of People who PII were in the record system that were leaked for sure, and 50% of that for any person whose PII was in the system and whose record MIGHT have been leaked, but that the company can't prove was not accessed or leaked.
Next I would like to see Microsoft make CLI versions of all the traditional windows management tools, and
then for legacy GUI tools; Group Policy Editor, Active Directory Users and Computers, Domains And Trusts, Sites and Services.... make the traditional GUIs Read-Only solely for display and reporting
The issue is requiring 1000-1500 hours of flight time before you can get an ATP certification which is a requirement to work for a commercial passenger airline.
This insane. If the airlines need pilots that badly, they need to have REASONABLE requirements or foot the bill for this 1500 hours worth of training they are requiring.
Makes sense, since the EEOC only deals with complaints and issues between employers and employees, not contractors. If contractors allege discriminatory selection or payment based on gender, and none of the companies/individuals are involved in federal contracts, then regulation and enforcement falls on individual state bodies.
I remember a few years back seeing an insane price and reporting it as an issue with the listing once.
Turns out, the seller claimed I shouldn't have seen it, and they set the price to $9999 to prevent sale while they are out of stock and the item is on the slow boat from china, or so they say.
so the officer held him until a drug dog was brought in to give the officer enough probable cause to search the vehicle.
What they fail to disclose is most "drug dogs" are multipurpose dogs that will alert things other than drugs --- they have a rate of alerting that is sufficiently high that the dog appearing to detect something ought NOT be considered probable cause to search. Also possibly the officer/handler can decide that the dog is going to alert on the air outside the car in order to "justify" a more in-depth search in violation of the person's rights.
They found a misdemeanor amount of marijuana, which they used to arrest Montenez
So they found a misdemeanor possibly by already violating the right to be free from unreasonable search.
"Failing to Yield" at a traffic stop is by no means reasonable cause to suspect and look for a misdemeanor qty of drugs.
but they asked to search his two cellphones, which he also refused. They were able to secure a warrant for those as well, but Montenez claimed he had forgotten his password.
Now what praytell particular person or thing would they like to search his cellphone for?
Seems like "law" officers going on a fishing expedition.
I'd bet in practice that it's at least hard and legally expensive to get the government to ever give anything back.
It has been relatively rare for anyone to be tried of treason, and typically the penalty is death by execution or life imprisonment: not forfeiting the use of their land or other real properties (for their lifetime) that would be protected ---- it's simple really, their punishment will cause the person to never see their land again, the government doesn't typically take it in the first place, and if they do, they just become a temporary leaseholder for the remainder of the life of the person.
change the fact that when you die, whatever you 'own' on Facebook gets transferred to your estate.
However.... you own "nothing" on Facebook; your Estate is a temporary legal entity for administering deceased's property until it
is probated and the assets are distributed, But it can only manage property you legally own, and no matter what: the people managing your estate
don't have a right to lie or misrepresent to Facebook that you are still alive. Meanwhile, in your Personal Preferences/Options with
Facebook, while still alive you had established a preference setting/choice telling Facebook you want them to Permanently disable your account upon death and not allow anyone access to it.
While you were alive: there was a non-transferrable agreement for service from Facebook to you as a natural person --- this agreement is not a piece of property, or at least not a type of property that can be distributed or transferred to a corporation, trust, or estate, And while you were alive you have a privilege, but not a right to access and use the service while the agreement is active, And upon your death, you designated the agreement to terminate, so the instant Facebook discovers your death: they will exercise their right as service provider to at their discretion permanently disable your account.
Your successors have the same rights you have,
I thought we already established that is you have No actual rights to your Facebook account, so your successors should also have No actual rights?
Facebook can delete your information at any time. Facebook can turn your account off at any time.
Facebook can keep your information and keep your account permanently disabled, for any reason or no reason.
Even if Facebook keeps your information: you don't have a right to make them send it to you or allow you to access it....
none of the ToS allows for that.
Facebook upon learning their death exercises the right held in their agreement to Block access to your account and Terminate the agreement.
At that point... what possible legal basis could there possibly be for any "Estate" to force Facebook to allow any kind of access or turn over any kind of information (Against Facebook's policies and against the Preference settings established by the deceased person when they configured their account to ensure No Access after death) ?
This is a very backward system... thank goodness in America we have a legal system that does not allow responsibility for crimes or wrongs to be passed on from the parent to a child.
Hell --- our constitution even prevents it from the most severe crimes which in Europe were considered a permanent dishonor to one's family and future descendants Article III Section 3:
Read that twice.... Not only can wrongs NOT be inherited, But if property is forfeited because of the crime: the government is only allowed to have it Forfeit for the rest of the Life of the Person attainted ---
thus upon their death, their estate still have the right to whatever had been forfeited when they were alive.