Indeed. If I were among these 84,000 site owners, I would be talking to a lawyer about a very large libel suit.
The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should at least now make clear that all those sites were unrelated to that kind of activity. A very simple way of doing this that costs next to nothing is by publishing a list of those 84,000 domains at their own site saying they had nothing to do with it. That way, site owners could link to that page and clear their reputation.
Malaria has already been successfully eradicated following a test on Moheli Island off the east coast of Africa, where the disease was endemic, by a Chinese team who used nothing but artemisinin combined with another drug as a mass treatment to 40,000 people.
Maybe I didn't explain it well.
If Facebook posts are being used as evidence to incriminate someone, then by hacking that someone's account and posting illegal stuff on his/her behalf, that someone could get into a lot of trouble.
How can Mark Zuckerberg prove he didn't post himself that ‘social business' stuff linking to Nobel Price winner Muhammad Yunus? What f it had linked to illegal stuff, is he responsible for that, since it originates from his account?
And how can anyone prove that account has not been hacked in order to plant "evidence"?
By those standards Mark Zuckerberg is guilty of promoting the ‘social business' philosophy of Nobel Price winner Muhammad Yunus, no?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. If I were among these 84,000 site owners, I would be talking to a lawyer about a very large libel suit.
The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should at least now make clear that all those sites were unrelated to that kind of activity. A very simple way of doing this that costs next to nothing is by publishing a list of those 84,000 domains at their own site saying they had nothing to do with it. That way, site owners could link to that page and clear their reputation.
Malaria has already been successfully eradicated following a test on Moheli Island off the east coast of Africa, where the disease was endemic, by a Chinese team who used nothing but artemisinin combined with another drug as a mass treatment to 40,000 people.
Maybe I didn't explain it well. If Facebook posts are being used as evidence to incriminate someone, then by hacking that someone's account and posting illegal stuff on his/her behalf, that someone could get into a lot of trouble. How can Mark Zuckerberg prove he didn't post himself that ‘social business' stuff linking to Nobel Price winner Muhammad Yunus? What f it had linked to illegal stuff, is he responsible for that, since it originates from his account?
And how can anyone prove that account has not been hacked in order to plant "evidence"? By those standards Mark Zuckerberg is guilty of promoting the ‘social business' philosophy of Nobel Price winner Muhammad Yunus, no?