A long time ago, I programmed an application that relied on the Twitter API. For a long time, the Twitter API was a reliable way of building an application that utilized Twitter. I'd even argue that this contributed to Twitter's growth: People could third party applications with great new features to interact with Twitter instead of just the official application.
All was good for awhile, but then Twitter not only changed the API (which is to be expected from time to time) but radically reduced the amount of calls a developer could make to the API - with exceptions for the existing big API users. Essentially, they were locking the big players in (while limiting how much more they could grow) and ensuring that no other Twitter API-based application rose to prominence. Instead, they wanted people to just use the official Twitter applications. While I could understand why they made this move (steering people to Twitter's official applications increases chances to show those people ads and make money off of them), it severely damaged the third party ecosystem that grew around Twitter. They've done a few more of these API changes to all but kill off any non-official Twitter app.
I've since ditched that Twitter application. It's a shame because I thought it had potential to be helpful to people, but I couldn't invest time and money into an application that could be killed off by one more Twitter press release.
The basic lesson to be learned here is: Your application isn't truly yours if it relies on an API for a service that you don't control.
I don't think officers should be open for libel for arresting a person. There should definitely be false arrest charges if it can be proven that the officers knowingly targeted an innocent person for some reason. However, if it's just a case of mistaken identity or not enough evidence, the officers were just doing their job. Police officers have the ability to do many things that normal citizens can't do because their job demands it.
Now the Mugshots website, on the other hand, could definitely be open to libel charges. They are insinuating that an individual is linked to a crime merely because that person was arrested. As I understand it, they didn't use terms like "allegedly" (which all decent news organizations will use to avoid slander/libel suits), but instead simply said "John Jackson/Robbery." By doing so, they are implying that John Jackson was found guilty of robbery when he wasn't. Even if charges were dropped, the site kept that link up and - even worse - charged people for the "privilege" of having this link to a crime they didn't commit removed.
I think there's value in the arrest record after the case is dropped or the defendant is found not guilty - but only as an aggregate statistic. If a precinct normally has 30 dropped cases a month and suddenly they spike to 50, something's up and procedures need to be examined. This can be useful but it shouldn't be able to be traced back to the specific person.
There's a difference between arrest and guilt. Suppose I'm walking down the street and suddenly a police car pulls over and the officers arrest me. Suppose they're acting on a tip that a man fitting my description has been doing some unsavory things to kids in the area. Suddenly, my name is linked to those crimes and anyone searching for me would see that.
Now, let's say that - after a day - the police realize they have the wrong guy, apologize, and release me. I'm sure I'd still be rattled over the situation, but at least it would die down, right? Wrong. This site (and others like it) would still be proclaiming my arrest for this crime, still associating my name with the crime as if I were found guilty and not released with no charges pressed. Years later, people might see this link and judge me based on a case of mistaken identity. Even if it went to trial and I was acquitted, this site would still be blaring my link to the alleged crime as if it were a proven fact that I was guilty.
Arrests should be withheld until charges are pressed. Once charges are pressed, they should be available at a local courthouse. If a defendant is found guilty, then the evidence should be made public.
I won't agree with b0s0z0ku's statement that a not-guilty verdict or dropped case should result in the records being destroyed. There's value to holding onto them if only to tell how often this sort of thing occurs. However, these cases should be released only in aggregate (e.g. "there were 27 dropped cases in Precinct A over the past year") not in detail. Other than that, they should be locked away and regarded as not existing if any future charge is presented or when evaluating a person.
In any event, an arrest mugshot should definitely not be posted worldwide for everyone to see and then left up long after the charges were dropped.
I used to use this approach. I had two external hard drives with all of my data backed up on them. I'd take one drive and store it at my in-laws' house in case something (fire, theft) happened at my house. In theory, this system was great. The plan was that I'd regularly take the hard drive home, back everything up, and then take it back to my in-laws' house. The reality, though, was that I'd forget to back up for months at a time or would back up to the local hard drive and not to the remote one.
Now, I use BackBlaze to automatically back up everything to their servers. It's automatic so I don't need to think about it or remember it. It just happens. A meteor could smash my house to smithereens tomorrow and all of my data would be safe.
And, from what I've heard from prisoners, the video quality stinks. Think bad webcam over dial-up connection bad. So you're paying a premium price for a video call when what you're getting only just barely qualifies as "a video call." Yes, they could easily use better equipment, but that'd cut into the profits and we can't have that!
Because of America's hard nose attitude towards the law, they are a lot of small time offenders in jail, who are not really a danger to other people or themselves. But are locked up for breaking the law.
And when those small time offenders are released, they are excluded from jobs because of their criminal record. If there are fewer legal options to make money, these people will turn to crime again. And after they are caught, they will be locked up and - now that they're a repeat offender - will be much less likely to get a job when released again.
Unfortunately, too many people think "we need to be hard on crime" means "we need to make life miserable for all law breakers." (But not for the laws that they broke, of course. Those are minor things that should get a slap on the wrist at worst.) You can be "hard on crime" while still being compassionate towards criminals, especially non-violent criminals.
And if you don't bother reducing recidivism, you can make the case that "once a criminal, always a criminal." Then, you push for harsher sentencing and longer jail times. This results in more people in prison, more profits for those private prisons, and more votes for those "tough on crime" politicians.
I was thinking something similar but with a negative feedback. Hook up a single phone on his wall. Have it hooked up to wires that run across this cell floor (as well as bed, toilet, and any other surface he might try to climb on). Anytime the phone rings, it delivers a mild electric shock to him if he doesn't answer it in 5 seconds. Not enough to permanently harm/kill him, but enough to cause him pain. Then, you publish his number. "Anyone who has received a robocall, call 555-555-5555 to shock a robo-caller!"
Extra irony points if you have a robo-caller call this guy constantly.
No, the price remains the same. Wait, you want to view Netflix? That's $2 extra a month. Wait, you want to view it in HD? $5 extra a month. YouTube also? Another $3 extra. You know what? Just subscribe to our Approved Streaming Providers package ($9.99 a month extra for the first 12 months*) where you can watch all you want. Then, when you want to comment on those videos or share them with your friends, you'll want the Approved Social Media Experience ($7.99 a month extra for the first 12 months*).
* Price valid for the first 12 months. Price may increase afterwards. Taxes and fees may apply however the ISP deems they should.
If it's on a public facing server it's "fair game", whether it's supposed to be or not.
Exactly this. If the government wants to go after someone, go after the person who uploaded the non-redacted documents to the public server. That's where the problem occurred, not with the kid whose script to access public documents also pulled documents that shouldn't have been there.
So on a decade level, it's much easier and more convenient to refer to decades as short hand by 80's instead of being pedantic and forcing everybody to say 1981-1990 since I will protest as loud as you if somebody demands including 1990 in the decade referred to as the 80's.
Just to add to this, you can refer to the period from 1900 - 1999 as "the 1900's" if you want to group them like that, just like 1990 - 1999 is referred to as "the 90's." However, the grouping of "1901 - 2000" is referred to as "the 20th Century."
I was thinking that he should have a special collar attached to him that would emit a low voltage (but still painful) shock every time people called a number. "Annoyed by telemarketers and robocalls? Dial 1-800-SHOCKING to shock someone who placed millions of robocalls." Sure, the hold times might get long, but the knowledge that we were returning some discomfort back to him would be worth it.
And whatever you do, don't say "Yes." If you do, your recording of "Yes" can be attached to a recording of "Do you agree to X" and used as verification that you agreed to some garbage service. If you have to answer in the affirmative (for example, there's still a chance that this isn't a scam call and you want to stay on the line), find other words that can't be used to mean "I agree to whatever you're really selling."
True, I'll accept racist language as the price of a free society, but when said language devolves into threats of violence, the "free speech" claim is lost and action needs to be taken.
That's the way things still are in my oldest son's high school. During the school day, you need to call the office to get in touch with a student. After school activities allow cell phones to be used, but during the school day they have to be put away and silenced.
Really? My son's locker is out of his way so he winds up carrying EVERYTHING he needs for the entire day in his backpack. It's a heavy monstrosity and I don't see how he carries it every day without hurting his back.
My oldest son's high school has a policy that allows smartphones to come into the building, but they need to be turned off during the school day. If the student takes them out at all during the day to use them, they can be confiscated and then the principal will have a nice chat with the parents about cell phone use in the building.
(My son actually only has a cheap flip phone because there have also been instances of smartphones being stolen from students. I doubt anyone will want to steal a cheap flip phone and my son won't be tempted to take it out to play some game when he shouldn't be.)
And for those of us who were bullied, the bullying typically ended once you left school. When I was in high school and walked in my front door, the bullies couldn't reach me anymore. Nowadays, bullies can still harass people no matter where they are. We had to complain one day when a kid in my son's high school band class took out a cell phone and began taking photos of my son without his - or our - permission. The kid was making fun of my child as he did this so who knows where those photos ended up. Kids today have some really cool new tech to play with that we didn't have growing up, but there's a dark side to all of it as well.
After years of resisting joining Facebook, I caved after publishing my first novel. I figured that it was a potential place to spread the word of my book and I couldn't ignore it. As a method of spreading the word, it's pretty bad, though. If you post something, everyone who follows you won't see it. Not unless you pay Facebook to spread it to more people than the people they deem will see your message. If a group of people follow me, I'd think they should ALL see my message, but apparently Facebook disagrees.
I'd be interested in any alternatives to Facebook that people can recommend. (And, no, "get off all social media" is not a valid alternative.) Are there up and coming social media sites that are viable alternatives to Facebook? Obviously, they might not have the number of users that Facebook has, but if you set the page to be public, it doesn't matter if the person is a subscribed member or not.
At this point, I'm thinking of going back to my blog and maybe using IFTTT to auto-post links on Facebook about my blog posts.
My library does DVD rentals also. Hollywood can't stop them because once they buy the disc, they are free to do with it as they please. They can rent it out for free to thousands of people without giving Hollywood a single extra cent.
Try your local library. Ours has tons of DVDs available to rent for free. Well, you pay for it in your taxes, but you'd pay that anyway and I don't mind paying to support my local library. My library can even get titles from other libraries if they don't have the specific DVD I'm looking for.
Slashdot Mirror
A long time ago, I programmed an application that relied on the Twitter API. For a long time, the Twitter API was a reliable way of building an application that utilized Twitter. I'd even argue that this contributed to Twitter's growth: People could third party applications with great new features to interact with Twitter instead of just the official application.
All was good for awhile, but then Twitter not only changed the API (which is to be expected from time to time) but radically reduced the amount of calls a developer could make to the API - with exceptions for the existing big API users. Essentially, they were locking the big players in (while limiting how much more they could grow) and ensuring that no other Twitter API-based application rose to prominence. Instead, they wanted people to just use the official Twitter applications. While I could understand why they made this move (steering people to Twitter's official applications increases chances to show those people ads and make money off of them), it severely damaged the third party ecosystem that grew around Twitter. They've done a few more of these API changes to all but kill off any non-official Twitter app.
I've since ditched that Twitter application. It's a shame because I thought it had potential to be helpful to people, but I couldn't invest time and money into an application that could be killed off by one more Twitter press release.
The basic lesson to be learned here is: Your application isn't truly yours if it relies on an API for a service that you don't control.
I don't think officers should be open for libel for arresting a person. There should definitely be false arrest charges if it can be proven that the officers knowingly targeted an innocent person for some reason. However, if it's just a case of mistaken identity or not enough evidence, the officers were just doing their job. Police officers have the ability to do many things that normal citizens can't do because their job demands it.
Now the Mugshots website, on the other hand, could definitely be open to libel charges. They are insinuating that an individual is linked to a crime merely because that person was arrested. As I understand it, they didn't use terms like "allegedly" (which all decent news organizations will use to avoid slander/libel suits), but instead simply said "John Jackson/Robbery." By doing so, they are implying that John Jackson was found guilty of robbery when he wasn't. Even if charges were dropped, the site kept that link up and - even worse - charged people for the "privilege" of having this link to a crime they didn't commit removed.
I think there's value in the arrest record after the case is dropped or the defendant is found not guilty - but only as an aggregate statistic. If a precinct normally has 30 dropped cases a month and suddenly they spike to 50, something's up and procedures need to be examined. This can be useful but it shouldn't be able to be traced back to the specific person.
There's a difference between arrest and guilt. Suppose I'm walking down the street and suddenly a police car pulls over and the officers arrest me. Suppose they're acting on a tip that a man fitting my description has been doing some unsavory things to kids in the area. Suddenly, my name is linked to those crimes and anyone searching for me would see that.
Now, let's say that - after a day - the police realize they have the wrong guy, apologize, and release me. I'm sure I'd still be rattled over the situation, but at least it would die down, right? Wrong. This site (and others like it) would still be proclaiming my arrest for this crime, still associating my name with the crime as if I were found guilty and not released with no charges pressed. Years later, people might see this link and judge me based on a case of mistaken identity. Even if it went to trial and I was acquitted, this site would still be blaring my link to the alleged crime as if it were a proven fact that I was guilty.
Arrests should be withheld until charges are pressed. Once charges are pressed, they should be available at a local courthouse. If a defendant is found guilty, then the evidence should be made public.
I won't agree with b0s0z0ku's statement that a not-guilty verdict or dropped case should result in the records being destroyed. There's value to holding onto them if only to tell how often this sort of thing occurs. However, these cases should be released only in aggregate (e.g. "there were 27 dropped cases in Precinct A over the past year") not in detail. Other than that, they should be locked away and regarded as not existing if any future charge is presented or when evaluating a person.
In any event, an arrest mugshot should definitely not be posted worldwide for everyone to see and then left up long after the charges were dropped.
I used to use this approach. I had two external hard drives with all of my data backed up on them. I'd take one drive and store it at my in-laws' house in case something (fire, theft) happened at my house. In theory, this system was great. The plan was that I'd regularly take the hard drive home, back everything up, and then take it back to my in-laws' house. The reality, though, was that I'd forget to back up for months at a time or would back up to the local hard drive and not to the remote one.
Now, I use BackBlaze to automatically back up everything to their servers. It's automatic so I don't need to think about it or remember it. It just happens. A meteor could smash my house to smithereens tomorrow and all of my data would be safe.
And, from what I've heard from prisoners, the video quality stinks. Think bad webcam over dial-up connection bad. So you're paying a premium price for a video call when what you're getting only just barely qualifies as "a video call." Yes, they could easily use better equipment, but that'd cut into the profits and we can't have that!
And when those small time offenders are released, they are excluded from jobs because of their criminal record. If there are fewer legal options to make money, these people will turn to crime again. And after they are caught, they will be locked up and - now that they're a repeat offender - will be much less likely to get a job when released again.
Unfortunately, too many people think "we need to be hard on crime" means "we need to make life miserable for all law breakers." (But not for the laws that they broke, of course. Those are minor things that should get a slap on the wrist at worst.) You can be "hard on crime" while still being compassionate towards criminals, especially non-violent criminals.
And if you don't bother reducing recidivism, you can make the case that "once a criminal, always a criminal." Then, you push for harsher sentencing and longer jail times. This results in more people in prison, more profits for those private prisons, and more votes for those "tough on crime" politicians.
I was thinking something similar but with a negative feedback. Hook up a single phone on his wall. Have it hooked up to wires that run across this cell floor (as well as bed, toilet, and any other surface he might try to climb on). Anytime the phone rings, it delivers a mild electric shock to him if he doesn't answer it in 5 seconds. Not enough to permanently harm/kill him, but enough to cause him pain. Then, you publish his number. "Anyone who has received a robocall, call 555-555-5555 to shock a robo-caller!"
Extra irony points if you have a robo-caller call this guy constantly.
No, the price remains the same. Wait, you want to view Netflix? That's $2 extra a month. Wait, you want to view it in HD? $5 extra a month. YouTube also? Another $3 extra. You know what? Just subscribe to our Approved Streaming Providers package ($9.99 a month extra for the first 12 months*) where you can watch all you want. Then, when you want to comment on those videos or share them with your friends, you'll want the Approved Social Media Experience ($7.99 a month extra for the first 12 months*).
* Price valid for the first 12 months. Price may increase afterwards. Taxes and fees may apply however the ISP deems they should.
Exactly this. If the government wants to go after someone, go after the person who uploaded the non-redacted documents to the public server. That's where the problem occurred, not with the kid whose script to access public documents also pulled documents that shouldn't have been there.
Let's call it Smock.
Not that it really describes the action or anything. I just like to say smock. Smock Smock Smock Smock Smock Smock.
This reply brought to you by Lightspeed Briefs!
Just to add to this, you can refer to the period from 1900 - 1999 as "the 1900's" if you want to group them like that, just like 1990 - 1999 is referred to as "the 90's." However, the grouping of "1901 - 2000" is referred to as "the 20th Century."
I was thinking that he should have a special collar attached to him that would emit a low voltage (but still painful) shock every time people called a number. "Annoyed by telemarketers and robocalls? Dial 1-800-SHOCKING to shock someone who placed millions of robocalls." Sure, the hold times might get long, but the knowledge that we were returning some discomfort back to him would be worth it.
And whatever you do, don't say "Yes." If you do, your recording of "Yes" can be attached to a recording of "Do you agree to X" and used as verification that you agreed to some garbage service. If you have to answer in the affirmative (for example, there's still a chance that this isn't a scam call and you want to stay on the line), find other words that can't be used to mean "I agree to whatever you're really selling."
True, I'll accept racist language as the price of a free society, but when said language devolves into threats of violence, the "free speech" claim is lost and action needs to be taken.
That's the way things still are in my oldest son's high school. During the school day, you need to call the office to get in touch with a student. After school activities allow cell phones to be used, but during the school day they have to be put away and silenced.
Really? My son's locker is out of his way so he winds up carrying EVERYTHING he needs for the entire day in his backpack. It's a heavy monstrosity and I don't see how he carries it every day without hurting his back.
My oldest son's high school has a policy that allows smartphones to come into the building, but they need to be turned off during the school day. If the student takes them out at all during the day to use them, they can be confiscated and then the principal will have a nice chat with the parents about cell phone use in the building.
(My son actually only has a cheap flip phone because there have also been instances of smartphones being stolen from students. I doubt anyone will want to steal a cheap flip phone and my son won't be tempted to take it out to play some game when he shouldn't be.)
And for those of us who were bullied, the bullying typically ended once you left school. When I was in high school and walked in my front door, the bullies couldn't reach me anymore. Nowadays, bullies can still harass people no matter where they are. We had to complain one day when a kid in my son's high school band class took out a cell phone and began taking photos of my son without his - or our - permission. The kid was making fun of my child as he did this so who knows where those photos ended up. Kids today have some really cool new tech to play with that we didn't have growing up, but there's a dark side to all of it as well.
After years of resisting joining Facebook, I caved after publishing my first novel. I figured that it was a potential place to spread the word of my book and I couldn't ignore it. As a method of spreading the word, it's pretty bad, though. If you post something, everyone who follows you won't see it. Not unless you pay Facebook to spread it to more people than the people they deem will see your message. If a group of people follow me, I'd think they should ALL see my message, but apparently Facebook disagrees.
I'd be interested in any alternatives to Facebook that people can recommend. (And, no, "get off all social media" is not a valid alternative.) Are there up and coming social media sites that are viable alternatives to Facebook? Obviously, they might not have the number of users that Facebook has, but if you set the page to be public, it doesn't matter if the person is a subscribed member or not.
At this point, I'm thinking of going back to my blog and maybe using IFTTT to auto-post links on Facebook about my blog posts.
My library does DVD rentals also. Hollywood can't stop them because once they buy the disc, they are free to do with it as they please. They can rent it out for free to thousands of people without giving Hollywood a single extra cent.
Try your local library. Ours has tons of DVDs available to rent for free. Well, you pay for it in your taxes, but you'd pay that anyway and I don't mind paying to support my local library. My library can even get titles from other libraries if they don't have the specific DVD I'm looking for.
They claim it's 30.72GB but all you really get is 30.1415926535GB of space.