What mechanism have you put in place to allow hotlinking only in the context of thumbnails intended to attract visits to documents on your site, such as og:image, and deny it otherwise?
Um... I don't use Open Graph Protocol whatever that is, and if somebody wants to show a link to my site with a thumbnail, then they're going to have to generate that on their server and serve the image to their users.
I wonder when they'll extend their definition of "to misbehave" to include people who are critical of their services/policies...
It'll probably just be the "Reported for Community Standards violations", except instead of 1 Strike you lose Partner status and 3 Strikes you're banned from Google services with all your video's taken down ----- one strike and you're banned, and as a side penalty you can no longer use Google Search, and you'll lose access to your Gmail account, Google Drive account, etc, at the same time.
...and I can't, even if I want to, because going in would provide evidence that I no longer need the accommodation.
Hey, just because someone managed to get there in person once on some special occasion shouldn't prove it would not be excessively burdensome for the employee to set foot there on a daily basis.
Not all disabilities that are required to be accommodated are 100% disabilities.... some conditions can vary ---- some conditions involve discomfort or pain as a burden that can be carried infrequently enough for an important enough reason, and some accommodations are about limiting the exacerbation of certain conditions ---- For example, possibly a daily commute would be out of the question, but infrequent trips for essential purposes might be Ok.
Many webmasters require it to prevent abuse on our websites. We check the HTTP_REFERRER to make sure the page that loaded an image is on Our Domain. Using IMG tags referring to our resources without our permission is called Hot Linking, and we'll deny the Image Load if the referrer is missing.
Good technical analysis is sometimes used by traders and it's more reliable than "random luck"; although there are strong trends and weak trends, and there is always uncertainty. Will it make a break below that support line or not?
The entire basis of bitcoin retaining value was that it would become an everyday currency used for buying and selling goods and services. It's current value and volatility preclude that
If its current volatility is temporary, then it doesn't preclude that --- so long as its value is increasing, and the merchants have a payment provider willing to protect the merchant from price changes during the payment process.
There's nothing special about 8000. It's just another 10% decrease below 9000. The dip is probably not over yet --- I'm anxiously awaiting what the media will say when it hits 7000.
For example, a common issue with dispute resolution is return postage. PayPal makes it difficult to give a greater than 100% refund, as legally required when the product is faulty.
Well, returning 100% is a full refund. "Give a refund greater than 100%" is nonsensical.
The warranty policy regarding return postage by most manufacturers and online retailers is -- customer is responsible for all postage in both directions for returns and exchanges. In rare cases, a retailer will offer the customer a prepaid return shipping label, in case there was actually an error that was their responsibility such as sending the wrong product --- and not just a routine warranty claim for a defective or non-functioning device or an exchange.
Push would be crazy. You'd have people pushing the wrong amounts both before and after they bought things
Authorization should be part of the protocol. The merchant's computer won't authorize a push for the wrong amount, and the customer-specific Push Account ID from the QR code would be ephemeral, so it could no longer be pushed to after the transaction.
Then they would be investment companies, not banks.
Banks are free to buy T-Bills and often do. Just in the same way as they can loan money to businesses. 7 years ago, there was a time when they were doing mostly that, and mortgages were tough to get and coming at a significant premium.
Banks are less inclined to write loans to consumers and businesses if higher interest is available at zero risk from a government note ---- as a result, there cannot be a large gap between the short term treasuries and new short term debt for consumers, because the high rates available from the treasury notes will reduce the supply of loans to individuals and businesses until the market interest rates for those rise high enough for the banks to expect profit given the risk of making those loans.
There is not enough information to resolve the question --- if you found something you say is an answer, then it was a mere guess or it wasn't through reasoning. This does not encourage Critical thinking; it encourages guesstaking and making unverifiable questionable assumptions and coming up with creative answers.
"The captain is at least 18 because he has to be an adult to drive the ship."
See, the question didn't provide any context to make that a reasonable proposition. Who says the laws are being observed? Perhaps the captain is operating in a country where 15 year olds can drive ships. What kind of ship is it --- maybe this is a toy boat with toy goats and toy sheep in a bathtub? Who says the captain is driving this ship, anyways?
Critical thinking would be present an argument, or present a proposition question or claim or paper with information that contains flawwed reasoning and ask the students to analyze the paragraph and say whether they agree or not, and if there are any problems in what was written.
I don't see how "Copyright and the law" is a topic in Computer Science *or* Computer Science Principles.
Copyright and the law is not a computer science topic; it has no business being in a High-School level course, as Copyright is a very complex thing where an adequate teaching of it would leave no time and space for meaningful CS education.... it sounds like something the RIAA would have lobbied for. However Digital Copyright is a "Computer Literacy/Computers in Society topic", that would be something like a 1-credit class CS students get as a required elective in college, and something software developers would need to know something about to know not to go copy+pasting other peoples code into their work and go into business and protect their works.
That's why it's "Computer Science Principles" and not "Computer Science"; the students aren't learning any of the core CS which includes things like
(1) Digital Logic -- The differences, pros/cons, and appropriate applications for Analog versus Digital electronics and Analog and Digital computing, Symbolic Logic topics from philosophy - Formal Argumentation from philosophy - What is the definition of a sound argument? - Propositions and Proofs in the language of symbolic logic and Mathematical logic, logical Syllogisms, Boolean Logic and representation, Boolean Algebra, Logic Gates (AND, OR, NOT, XOR, NAND, NOR), Simplification, Karnaugh Maps, Binary and Hexadecimal number systems and the skill to do arithmetic and conversions in the binary and hexadecimal numbers (Translate, Add, Subtract, Multiplication and Long-division within Base-2 without use of a calculator or aide), Gray Code, Binary representations of integers, decimal numbers, character strings, and complex structures, Multi-byte representations, Unicode, Big-Endian vs Little-Endian, 1-st complement form IEEE 1394 Floating point;
(2) Introductory programming --- Basic programming and use of common tools for at least two major programming languages -- All common primitive Data Types from C++ and X86 assembly, Variables, Constants, Declarations. Statements. Putting together "Hello World". Expressions. The difference between a Statement and Expression. Common programming errors such as "Works by coincidence", unintended assignment; Undefined Behavior; Off-By-One; Miscounting; Buffer Overflow. Conditional Statements and branching. Looping structures and writing code with both conditionals and looping. Nested looping structures and Basic recursion. Pointers to basic types.
Pointers to functions. Pointers to pointers. Pointer-based and Array-based Linked lists.
(3) Basic Software Engineering and Assembly -- Learn the basics of X86_64 assembly language and to compile and execute software in a console environment. Understand how.SO and.DLL libraries, dynamic, and static linking works on major operating systems. Learn to properly use common version control systems: Git, Subversion, Mercurial, and Perforce. Learn to analyze binary files without source code using Binary Analysis tools. Debug and analyze software execution in two or three common languages with or without source code using common debugging tools such as Valgrind, GDB, or Visual Studio's debugging. Use breakpoints. Use disassembly to identify classes of errors.
(4) All basic Data structures -- Recursively-defined datatypes, Implementations of Trees, UnionFind, Heaps, Queues, Stacks, Priority Queues, Huffman Coding, Hashing, B-Trees, Merkle Trees, Complex data structures
(4) Construction and Analysis of algorithms -- Big O notation, Sorting, Djikstra's Algorithm, A* Search
(5) Set theory, Graph Theory, Recurrence relations, and the applications of Discrete and Applied Math to computer science
(6) Theory of Computation: Turing Machines, Lambda Calculus, Procedural Programming, Functional Programming, OOP.
(7) Foundational concepts in CS: Discrete Finite Automata, Regular Expressions, Finite State Machines, The construction of Parsers for formal languages LR LALR, Parse trees, Construction of Compilers, Turing Machines, Turing Completeness.
(8) Modeling functions using Splines and polynomials, F-NORM, Mathematics and applications of High-dimensional spaces, Machine learning, Statistical Analysis of Algorithms, and AI principles --- N-Space, Clustering, Classifiers based on Simple regression, Non-Linear regression, DFS Search, Games, basic Game Theory, Neural Networks
That's basically an irrelevent figure -- or no causality can be inferred from it.... given the poor economic figures, increasing number of single-parent families, and steady exponential population growth in the US (Increasing quantity and density of people); MANY variables will be at or near all time highs.
It certainly doesn't require manufacturing new complicated imaginary culprits like "cyberbullying" or "remote abuse" to explain. Physical bullying or physical/sexual abuse, or serious threats to backed up by an in-person history are what matters ---- just about anything else online though is something any random person on the internet is 'free to say', and the kid should learn to deal with.
How about just plain inattentive poor parenting in general; or parents that fail to supervise, set boundaries and limits around activities, and ensure their kids have diverse experience? See again: Increased number of single-parent families.
No. The fed could pay 90% interest on T-bills, while charging banks 1% for the FED rate.
The Banks would borrow out their maximum from the fed window and use ALL the money to buy the T-Bills and profit from that arbitrage instead of using it to make loans that carry risk; there would likely be some forms of collusion games where financial institutions would make deposits with each other to increase their borrowing power... consumers suddenly wouldn't be able to get mortgages or auto loans --- even with perfect credit you're more risk than a T-Bill; credit cards would be priced out of the market unless they can charge consumers 120% interest.
Odd how again, your focus is on the 'big businesses'... and not say... the labor unions who also benefited from that
The Labor unions ARE among big businesses. Just because they call themselves non-profit unions, does not detract from their large size and unjustifiable influence in affecting our government.
In other words.... The Fed will not be able to keep the interest rates low, because the fed's ability to lower interest rates requires that there actually be demand for the treasury notes --- lesser demand would mean the notes will be auctioned off at a lower bond price = higher interest yield.
The overall market fell by about 1%, mostly because of the fall of the health industry, which represents about 18% of the American economy
Sounds like a high chance that some buying opportunities have been created.
Whatever Amazon is planning is not going to have an affect on the entire insurance industry overnight; the market tends to react irrationally lately ---- whenever Amazon suggests they might be entering a new business suddenly market cap evaporates from any of the perceived competition.
But Healthcare is very much unlike retail Amazon is familiar with in so many ways.
Well, I don't know what it takes to be a "child expert", but presumably it takes more than having had a childhood.
It seems like the "qualification" is in part to be an activist, some may have studied child development ---- that doesn't necessarily mean they are right, and many may be biased from personal views that don't come from or aren't really reflecting their expertise.
From what I see the letterhead shows the organization name: Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, So what kind of position do you think an organization like that is going to have regarding Facebook?, and based on the Journal articles they are citing, these authors are likely against any use of social media by people under 21, then they're signed by a list of organizations including the ACLU, "Corporate Accountability", "Defending the early years", "EPIC Privacy",.... and a list of a bunch of MDs and PhDs, some organizations' Medical directors, and others who have written some books with titles like 'raising healthy kids'.
Anecdotes are only fallacious when being used to create an argument, not when being used to refute an argument that claims to be absolute.
I am not responding to a statistical argument that says X% of kids are not ready. I am using a counterexample within my own experience to indicate how an overgeneralized statement is wrong or at least dubious. I am countering with: age you are "old enough to navigate the complexities of online relationships" and learn proper netiquette and avoid misunderstandings is specific to an individual and their education.
70% of the Population might have traits that make them not ready for X yet. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to protest X, because "nobody needs it". One anecdote of a person needing X or being ready for X proves the generalization false.
"Younger children are simply not ready to have social media accounts. They are not old enough to navigate the complexities of online relationships, which often lead to misunderstandings and conflicts even among more mature users. They also do not have a fully developed understanding of privacy, including what's appropriate to share with others and who has access to their conversations, pictures, and videos."
Now any low life has access and access to tools to exploit the gullible.
Maybe.... now that we have tools like Skype and Facebook which everybody and their grandma logs into. I think if you check though: you'll find the average age of the gullible to be users 40 or older.
We're not even talking about that though...... the Facebook app is essentially a walled garden where the parents approve all their contacts, thus you have effectively limited the population of potential scammers to those who can fool BOTH the parents and the kids.
I just find it quite ridiculous how the "experts" could reasonably equate this to putting the kids on Facebook and raise concerns about "Not being ready for Socializing" ----- as if being a human wasn't defined more strongly by anything else than being a social animal from the earliest age, then, when it's such a restricted environment where the child isn't even free to interact and learn about strangers........ In fact, have the experts considered maybe that restricting the environment (No access to contacts outside the parents' approved friends) could cause the kids to not learn things they ought to learn about socializing?
What does your example have to do with at-risk kids being cyber-bullied and killing themselves?
What you call "cyber bullying" is not new, but a frequent thing that happened on the internet back into the '90s. I don't want to make light of suicides, but it's not even a realistic risk: kids aren't killing themselves over cyberbullying unless they already are behaviorally deficient or have a mental disease or other major real-life problems --- Real-Life bullying at school is the bigger risk, and "cyberbullying" is just a scapegoat where some School's can try to pretend the technology was responsible for the rogue behavior they failed to control and appropriate discipline in and out their classrooms.
is that you can't take it for granted that your own experiences and preferences are universal, or even typical.
Fair enough.... but maybe just maybe the parent closer to their specific child's experiences would be a better judge than the recommendations of questionable merit from some prescriptive experts.
Are just making vague generalizations. I know when I was 10 there was no Facebook, but I got an E-mail account, and I got on Internet Relay Chat, became a regular in dozens of channels --- started helping out users with their technical troubles and abuse issues.
A few years later I was a DALnet Oper and Svs Admin: that was until two events involving DDoS and politics obliterated the pair of servers whose teams I was on from the network.
I saw the worst of the worst, and turned out just fine, and I didn't have a group of experts saying I "shouldn't socialize or have my own accounts on the internet" --- heck, I registered my own accounts all the time (Admittedly.... often under a pseudonym/fake/assumed name), and there wasn't even any language back then that you needed to be 13.....
Why with the artificial privacy restrictions, when we KNOW very well... that Google knows MORE about us than ourselves and our closest pals?
The only rule for privacy protection is to learn who to trust and who NOT to trust, and large companies are among those NOT to trust.
Could have been using a different cartridge, or doctored the system or cartridge or display, then took the photo.
If you're sophisticated enough you could also (maybe) pass the video out through an analog filter circuit of some sort that would tamper with certain scanlines before they go to the monitor.
Slashdot Mirror
What mechanism have you put in place to allow hotlinking only in the context of thumbnails intended to attract visits to documents on your site, such as og:image, and deny it otherwise?
Um... I don't use Open Graph Protocol whatever that is, and if somebody wants to show a link to my site with a thumbnail, then they're going to have to generate that on their server and serve the image to their users.
I wonder when they'll extend their definition of "to misbehave" to include people who are critical of their services/policies...
It'll probably just be the "Reported for Community Standards violations", except instead of 1 Strike you lose Partner status and 3 Strikes you're banned from Google services with all your video's taken down ----- one strike and you're banned, and as a side penalty you can no longer use Google Search, and you'll lose access to your Gmail account, Google Drive account, etc, at the same time.
Hey, just because someone managed to get there in person once on some special occasion shouldn't prove it would not be excessively burdensome for the employee to set foot there on a daily basis.
Not all disabilities that are required to be accommodated are 100% disabilities.... some conditions can vary ---- some conditions involve discomfort or pain as a burden that can be carried infrequently enough for an important enough reason, and some accommodations are about limiting the exacerbation of certain conditions ---- For example, possibly a daily commute would be out of the question, but infrequent trips for essential purposes might be Ok.
Many webmasters require it to prevent abuse on our websites. We check the HTTP_REFERRER to make sure the page that loaded an image is on Our Domain. Using IMG tags referring to our resources without our permission is called Hot Linking, and we'll deny the Image Load if the referrer is missing.
Good technical analysis is sometimes used by traders and it's more reliable than "random luck"; although there are strong trends and weak trends, and there is always uncertainty. Will it make a break below that support line or not?
The entire basis of bitcoin retaining value was that it would become an everyday currency used for buying and selling goods and services. It's current value and volatility preclude that
If its current volatility is temporary, then it doesn't preclude that --- so long as its value is increasing, and the merchants have a payment provider willing to protect the merchant from price changes during the payment process.
There's nothing special about 8000. It's just another 10% decrease below 9000.
The dip is probably not over yet --- I'm anxiously awaiting what the media will say when it hits 7000.
For example, a common issue with dispute resolution is return postage. PayPal makes it difficult to give a greater than 100% refund, as legally required when the product is faulty.
Well, returning 100% is a full refund. "Give a refund greater than 100%" is nonsensical.
The warranty policy regarding return postage by most manufacturers and online retailers is -- customer is responsible for all postage in both directions for returns and exchanges. In rare cases, a retailer will offer the customer a prepaid return shipping label, in case there was actually an error that was their responsibility such as sending the wrong product --- and not just a routine warranty claim for a defective or non-functioning device or an exchange.
Push would be crazy. You'd have people pushing the wrong amounts both before and after they bought things
Authorization should be part of the protocol. The merchant's computer won't authorize a push for the wrong amount, and the customer-specific Push Account ID from the QR code would be ephemeral, so it could no longer be pushed to after the transaction.
Then they would be investment companies, not banks.
Banks are free to buy T-Bills and often do. Just in the same way as they can loan money to businesses. 7 years ago, there was a time when they were doing mostly that, and mortgages were tough to get and coming at a significant premium.
Banks are less inclined to write loans to consumers and businesses if higher interest is available at zero risk from a government note ---- as a result, there cannot be a large gap between the short term treasuries and new short term debt for consumers, because the high rates available from the treasury notes will reduce the supply of loans to individuals and businesses until the market interest rates for those rise high enough for the banks to expect profit given the risk of making those loans.
There is not enough information to resolve the question --- if you found something you say is an answer, then it was a mere guess or it wasn't through reasoning. This does not encourage Critical thinking; it encourages guesstaking and making unverifiable questionable assumptions and coming up with creative answers.
"The captain is at least 18 because he has to be an adult to drive the ship."
See, the question didn't provide any context to make that a reasonable proposition.
Who says the laws are being observed? Perhaps the captain is operating in a country where 15 year olds can drive ships.
What kind of ship is it --- maybe this is a toy boat with toy goats and toy sheep in a bathtub? Who says the captain is driving this ship, anyways?
Critical thinking would be present an argument, or present a proposition question or claim or paper with information that contains flawwed reasoning and ask the students to analyze the paragraph and say whether they agree or not, and if there are any problems in what was written.
I don't see how "Copyright and the law" is a topic in Computer Science *or* Computer Science Principles.
Copyright and the law is not a computer science topic; it has no business being in a High-School level course, as Copyright is a very complex thing where an adequate teaching of it would leave no time and space for meaningful CS education.... it sounds like something the RIAA would have lobbied for.
However Digital Copyright is a "Computer Literacy/Computers in Society topic", that would be something like a 1-credit class CS students get as a required elective in college, and something software developers would need to know something about to know not to go copy+pasting other peoples code into their work and go into business and protect their works.
That's why it's "Computer Science Principles" and not "Computer Science"; the students aren't learning any of the core CS which includes things like
Pointers to functions. Pointers to pointers. Pointer-based and Array-based Linked lists.
(3) Basic Software Engineering and Assembly -- Learn the basics of X86_64 assembly language and to compile and execute software in a console environment. Understand how
Teen suicides are at all time highs.
That's basically an irrelevent figure -- or no causality can be inferred from it.... given the
poor economic figures, increasing number of single-parent families, and steady exponential
population growth in the US (Increasing quantity and density of people);
MANY variables will be at or near all time highs.
It certainly doesn't require manufacturing new complicated imaginary culprits like "cyberbullying" or "remote abuse" to explain.
Physical bullying or physical/sexual abuse, or serious threats to backed up by an in-person history are what matters ---- just about anything else online though is something any random person on the internet is 'free to say', and the kid should learn to deal with.
How about just plain inattentive poor parenting in general; or parents that fail to supervise, set boundaries and limits around activities, and ensure their kids have diverse experience? See again: Increased number of single-parent families.
No. The fed could pay 90% interest on T-bills, while charging banks 1% for the FED rate.
The Banks would borrow out their maximum from the fed window and use ALL the money to buy the T-Bills and profit from that arbitrage instead of using it to make loans that carry risk; there would likely be some forms of collusion games where financial institutions would make deposits with each other to increase their borrowing power... consumers suddenly wouldn't be able to get mortgages or auto loans --- even with perfect credit you're more risk than a T-Bill; credit cards would be priced out of the market unless they can charge consumers 120% interest.
Odd how again, your focus is on the 'big businesses'... and not say... the labor unions who also benefited from that
The Labor unions ARE among big businesses. Just because they call themselves non-profit unions, does not detract from their large size and unjustifiable influence in affecting our government.
In other words.... The Fed will not be able to keep the interest rates low, because the fed's ability to lower interest rates requires that there actually be demand for the treasury notes --- lesser demand would mean the notes will be auctioned off at a lower bond price = higher interest yield.
The overall market fell by about 1%, mostly because of the fall of the health industry, which represents about 18% of the American economy
Sounds like a high chance that some buying opportunities have been created.
Whatever Amazon is planning is not going to have an affect on the entire insurance industry overnight; the market tends to react irrationally lately ---- whenever Amazon suggests they might be entering a new business suddenly market cap evaporates from any of the perceived competition.
But Healthcare is very much unlike retail Amazon is familiar with in so many ways.
Well, I don't know what it takes to be a "child expert", but presumably it takes more than having had a childhood.
It seems like the "qualification" is in part to be an activist, some may have studied child development ---- that doesn't necessarily mean they are right, and many may be biased from personal views that don't come from or aren't really reflecting their expertise.
From what I see the letterhead shows the organization name: Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, So what kind of position do you think an organization like that is going to have regarding Facebook?, .... and a list of a bunch of MDs and PhDs, some organizations' Medical directors, and others who have written some books with titles like 'raising healthy kids'.
and based on the Journal articles they are citing, these authors are likely against any use of social media by people under 21,
then they're signed by a list of organizations including the ACLU, "Corporate Accountability", "Defending the early years", "EPIC Privacy",
Anecdotes are only fallacious when being used to create an argument, not when being used to refute an argument that claims to be absolute.
I am not responding to a statistical argument that says X% of kids are not ready. I am using a counterexample within my own experience to indicate how an overgeneralized statement is wrong or at least dubious. I am countering with: age you are "old enough to navigate the complexities of online relationships" and learn proper netiquette and avoid misunderstandings is specific to an individual and their education.
70% of the Population might have traits that make them not ready for X yet. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to protest X, because "nobody needs it".
One anecdote of a person needing X or being ready for X proves the generalization false.
"Younger children are simply not ready to have social media accounts. They are not old enough to navigate the complexities of online relationships, which often lead to misunderstandings and conflicts even among more mature users. They also do not have a fully developed understanding of privacy, including what's appropriate to share with others and who has access to their conversations, pictures, and videos."
Now any low life has access and access to tools to exploit the gullible.
Maybe.... now that we have tools like Skype and Facebook which everybody and their grandma logs into.
I think if you check though: you'll find the average age of the gullible to be users 40 or older.
We're not even talking about that though...... the Facebook app is essentially a walled garden where the parents approve all their contacts, thus you have effectively limited the population of potential scammers to those who can fool BOTH the parents and the kids.
I just find it quite ridiculous how the "experts" could reasonably equate this to putting the kids on Facebook and raise concerns about "Not being ready for Socializing" ----- as if being a human wasn't defined more strongly by anything else than being a social animal from the earliest age, then, when it's such a restricted environment where the child isn't even free to interact and learn about strangers........ In fact, have the experts considered maybe that restricting the environment (No access to contacts outside the parents' approved friends) could cause the kids to not learn things they ought to learn about socializing?
What does your example have to do with at-risk kids being cyber-bullied and killing themselves?
What you call "cyber bullying" is not new, but a frequent thing that happened on the internet back into the '90s.
I don't want to make light of suicides, but it's not even a realistic risk: kids aren't killing themselves over cyberbullying
unless they already are behaviorally deficient or have a mental disease or other major real-life problems --- Real-Life bullying at school is the bigger risk,
and "cyberbullying" is just a scapegoat where some School's can try to pretend the technology was responsible for the rogue behavior they failed to control and appropriate discipline in and out their classrooms.
is that you can't take it for granted that your own experiences and preferences are universal, or even typical.
Fair enough.... but maybe just maybe the parent closer to their specific child's experiences would be a better judge than the recommendations of questionable merit from some prescriptive experts.
Are just making vague generalizations. I know when I was 10 there was no Facebook, but I got an E-mail account,
and I got on Internet Relay Chat, became a regular in dozens of channels --- started helping out users with their technical troubles and abuse issues.
A few years later I was a DALnet Oper and Svs Admin: that was until two events involving DDoS and politics obliterated the pair of servers
whose teams I was on from the network.
I saw the worst of the worst, and turned out just fine, and I didn't have a group of experts saying I "shouldn't socialize or have my own accounts on the internet" --- heck, I registered my own accounts all the time (Admittedly.... often under a pseudonym/fake/assumed name), and there wasn't even any language back then that you needed to be 13.....
Why with the artificial privacy restrictions, when we KNOW very well... that Google knows MORE about us than ourselves and our closest pals?
The only rule for privacy protection is to learn who to trust and who NOT to trust, and large companies are among those NOT to trust.
Could have been using a different cartridge, or doctored the system or cartridge or display, then took the photo.
If you're sophisticated enough you could also (maybe) pass the video out through an analog filter circuit of some sort that would tamper with certain scanlines before they go to the monitor.