Guess what, by far most innocent people never get arrested at all, ever. In fact, many people who are guilt of a crime never get arrested at all. Your real complaint isn't that people are getting arrested and set free, but that the public has been taught that "arrest == guilty until proven innocent".
Go to any country where arrests are not necessarily public record and ask someone who has had a friend or loved one secretly arrested and detained. And, because arrests are public record, an outside party can look at the records and see that the [insert minority here] population, which is 10% of the whole population makes up 90% of the arrests. What does that sound like to you?
When one is arrested, one's information is already available on the internet and your consent is not needed. It is public record. You are complaining that something that is public record, and thus publicly available information, is being advertised as being publicly available. Your consent is not needed for the distribution of publicly available information about you.
The first part of your second sentence seems to indicate you want to ban search engines as the gather information and widely advertise it.
Really, if you don't want the fact you were arrested to be public record, move to a country where arrests are not public record and people may just disappear in the night and be held for months or years without charge.
Oh, and do you complain about your name and phone number being in the phone book and an unlisted number costing money?
An arrest is a public event and having the arrest public allows for victims and witnesses, both for and against the suspect, to come forward, and, most importantly, prevents secret arrests and detentions. Which would you rather have, yourself or a friend arrested and their arrest public record, or you or a friend disappearing by being arrested and held for six months without charge?
It is not the fault of the government that people today automatically assume one is guilty if one is arrested. That is the fault of the entertainment industry and education system.
If one has a reputation to protect, perhaps one should not be doing things that will get one arrested, such as possessing illegal substances or soliciting prostitutes.
If the person cared about his reputation, he would be thinking more about his actions. Why should the government care more about the reputation of a person than the person himself?
Arrest records are public records as well. Do you suggest limiting access to publicly available government records? Isn't that the exact opposite of all the hacks that are revealing government records that are so popular on slashdot?
Oh, I am going to make your easily found, publicly available on the internet arrest publicly available on the internet and easy to find. Yep, sounds like blackmail to me./sarcasm
For years, I have seen repeated complaints about government records not being public enough. "Information wants to be free" and all that crap. Well, here are some public records that are very public and people are taking advantage of it and suddenly it is a bad thing. But, the only difference is that you, slashdotter, sympathize with the criminals. You can see yourself in the shoes of the criminals, so now you want a public record to be not so public. What you refuse to see is that if you want public records easily and publicly available over the internet, then you have to accept that there will be records available that might hurt people.
It is kind of like free speech. Free speech means everyone gets their say, not that only YOU and people who share you opinion get to say what you want and those that you don't agree with have to keep quiet. Public records are public. You don't get to choose which public records are available to the public.
I really can't believe I have actually seen complaints on slashdot about public records laws being too liberal and too "public". You need to choose, either you want records to be public or you don't want public records easily available.
I was terminated from a company that I worked day and night for for about 5 years. During the last 2 years of that time, I created a simple web framework and contributed it to open source. We had always used open source, so it was high time we became a contributor!
Were you an employee?
If you were an employee, and you created the "simple web framework" on company time, you will want to check your employee agreement and/or handbook. It almost certainly says that anything you create on company time belongs to the company.
Was your job writing "a simple web framework"?
If you were hired to write "a simple web framework", you did not have the right to "contribute it to open source". Regardless of your feeling about whether it was "high time we became a contributor", the work was not yours to contribute. You were doing "work for hire" and you do not hold the copyright on the work created. Rather, your employer holds the copyright and is the one who gets to decide to contribute it. As such, they are within their rights to fire you for any number of reasons from insubordination to attempted theft of intellectual property.
Remember, boys and girls, when one is hired to do work for a company, the product of that work does not remain one's own, instead it becomes property of said company who hired one to do the work. This is called "work for hire" and is covered in the copyright laws.
No, it isn't helpful to them. They have already done the math and they want legitimate, identifiable users, not anonymous users. Anonymous users work against their other goals.
If you need to speak out without IDing yourself and, more importantly, other people want that, then stop complaining about the rules of someone else's social network and START YOUR OWN.
A) What is the rest of the solution.
B)What is to stop someone from registering 1,000,000 pseudonyms and modding themselves up or just using all of them to spam.
If you don't like Google's rules for Google Plus, or Facebook's rules, then don't use them. Start your own social networking site that allows pseudonyms and use your real name on the others or don't use them at all.
We should be giving it to all those delusional theists, especially muslims whose religion teaches it is OK to lie, cheat, and steal from non-muslims; teaches that it is OK to murder in the name of their god; teaches forced conversions; whose adherents simultaneously decry terrorism and celebrate successful terrorist attacks. But, as so many Americans are feeling helpless and threatened by muslims and hated by most of the world, it is no wonder many Americans are taking psychiatric drugs.
And, before dumbasses pipe up with "Islam doesn't teach that!!", Mohamed stated that if the new word contradicts the old word, the new word takes precedence. All the "peace and love" crap in the koran is in the older sections and all the "kill the infidels if they do not convert!!!" is in the newest books. Don't forget that, because I won't.
Why does everyone behave like the internet is automatically a private forum? At best, it is semi-private, and generally it is a public forum. These people started a public Facebook event. No spying necessary. Don't want everyone, including the authorities and people who may not like what you are doing, to know what you are doing, don't post it in a public forum.
Slashdot Mirror
No, being a smug, self-righteous douche is the point of all the "public information shouldn't be public" posts. And, of course, your flamebait post.
Guess what, by far most innocent people never get arrested at all, ever. In fact, many people who are guilt of a crime never get arrested at all. Your real complaint isn't that people are getting arrested and set free, but that the public has been taught that "arrest == guilty until proven innocent".
Go to any country where arrests are not necessarily public record and ask someone who has had a friend or loved one secretly arrested and detained. And, because arrests are public record, an outside party can look at the records and see that the [insert minority here] population, which is 10% of the whole population makes up 90% of the arrests. What does that sound like to you?
Health records are not public.
Arrest records are public to, among other things, prevent secret arrests and detentions.
It is not the government's fault that people assume "arrest == guilty". That is the fault of the entertainment industry and education system.
When one is arrested, one's information is already available on the internet and your consent is not needed. It is public record. You are complaining that something that is public record, and thus publicly available information, is being advertised as being publicly available. Your consent is not needed for the distribution of publicly available information about you.
The first part of your second sentence seems to indicate you want to ban search engines as the gather information and widely advertise it.
Really, if you don't want the fact you were arrested to be public record, move to a country where arrests are not public record and people may just disappear in the night and be held for months or years without charge.
Oh, and do you complain about your name and phone number being in the phone book and an unlisted number costing money?
An arrest is a public event and having the arrest public allows for victims and witnesses, both for and against the suspect, to come forward, and, most importantly, prevents secret arrests and detentions. Which would you rather have, yourself or a friend arrested and their arrest public record, or you or a friend disappearing by being arrested and held for six months without charge?
It is not the fault of the government that people today automatically assume one is guilty if one is arrested. That is the fault of the entertainment industry and education system.
I don't need to evade the law. That is the point of my comment.
If one has a reputation to protect, perhaps one should not be doing things that will get one arrested, such as possessing illegal substances or soliciting prostitutes.
If the person cared about his reputation, he would be thinking more about his actions. Why should the government care more about the reputation of a person than the person himself?
Arrest records are public records as well. Do you suggest limiting access to publicly available government records? Isn't that the exact opposite of all the hacks that are revealing government records that are so popular on slashdot?
Oh, I am going to make your easily found, publicly available on the internet arrest publicly available on the internet and easy to find. Yep, sounds like blackmail to me. /sarcasm
For years, I have seen repeated complaints about government records not being public enough. "Information wants to be free" and all that crap. Well, here are some public records that are very public and people are taking advantage of it and suddenly it is a bad thing. But, the only difference is that you, slashdotter, sympathize with the criminals. You can see yourself in the shoes of the criminals, so now you want a public record to be not so public. What you refuse to see is that if you want public records easily and publicly available over the internet, then you have to accept that there will be records available that might hurt people.
It is kind of like free speech. Free speech means everyone gets their say, not that only YOU and people who share you opinion get to say what you want and those that you don't agree with have to keep quiet. Public records are public. You don't get to choose which public records are available to the public.
I really can't believe I have actually seen complaints on slashdot about public records laws being too liberal and too "public". You need to choose, either you want records to be public or you don't want public records easily available.
It is their own fault. I have managed to live in Florida for most of my life and not get arrested, so you won't find a mugshot of me on arrests.org.
You say
I was terminated from a company that I worked day and night for for about 5 years. During the last 2 years of that time, I created a simple web framework and contributed it to open source. We had always used open source, so it was high time we became a contributor!
Were you an employee?
If you were an employee, and you created the "simple web framework" on company time, you will want to check your employee agreement and/or handbook. It almost certainly says that anything you create on company time belongs to the company.
Was your job writing "a simple web framework"?
If you were hired to write "a simple web framework", you did not have the right to "contribute it to open source". Regardless of your feeling about whether it was "high time we became a contributor", the work was not yours to contribute. You were doing "work for hire" and you do not hold the copyright on the work created. Rather, your employer holds the copyright and is the one who gets to decide to contribute it. As such, they are within their rights to fire you for any number of reasons from insubordination to attempted theft of intellectual property.
Remember, boys and girls, when one is hired to do work for a company, the product of that work does not remain one's own, instead it becomes property of said company who hired one to do the work. This is called "work for hire" and is covered in the copyright laws.
No, it isn't helpful to them. They have already done the math and they want legitimate, identifiable users, not anonymous users. Anonymous users work against their other goals.
pseudonyms are extremely useful in countries where you can be killed or imprisoned for your ideals and ideas.
Then people in those countries shouldn't be using Facebook and Google+ to express their ideas. They should be using an anonymous service.
If you need to speak out without IDing yourself and, more importantly, other people want that, then stop complaining about the rules of someone else's social network and START YOUR OWN.
A) What is the rest of the solution.
B)What is to stop someone from registering 1,000,000 pseudonyms and modding themselves up or just using all of them to spam.
If you don't like Google's rules for Google Plus, or Facebook's rules, then don't use them. Start your own social networking site that allows pseudonyms and use your real name on the others or don't use them at all.
This is really a non-issue.
When did breaking into a locked equipment cabinet become free speech?
What Manning did was also a violation of the law, military law.
Manning is also a criminal. He violated MILITARY law as a member of the military.
Oh, you mean you were just throwing out some flamebait. Nice of you to admit it.
Recently, christians have been killing each other over their own religion. I suggest you choose something in this millenium before you spout off.
No, I am an atheist. I think muslims are homicidal bat shit crazy while christians are just oppressive bat-shit crazy.
And, I notice you didn't refute anything but rather resorted to non sequitur and ad hominem.
We should be giving it to all those delusional theists, especially muslims whose religion teaches it is OK to lie, cheat, and steal from non-muslims; teaches that it is OK to murder in the name of their god; teaches forced conversions; whose adherents simultaneously decry terrorism and celebrate successful terrorist attacks. But, as so many Americans are feeling helpless and threatened by muslims and hated by most of the world, it is no wonder many Americans are taking psychiatric drugs.
And, before dumbasses pipe up with "Islam doesn't teach that!!", Mohamed stated that if the new word contradicts the old word, the new word takes precedence. All the "peace and love" crap in the koran is in the older sections and all the "kill the infidels if they do not convert!!!" is in the newest books. Don't forget that, because I won't.
Scientists replacing animal collagen with animal collagen is news? The only thing that is news in this is the way the collagen was obtained.
Why does everyone behave like the internet is automatically a private forum? At best, it is semi-private, and generally it is a public forum. These people started a public Facebook event. No spying necessary. Don't want everyone, including the authorities and people who may not like what you are doing, to know what you are doing, don't post it in a public forum.