Your home security system isn't going to keep stuff from being stolen. It might present some deterrent. It might help catch the thief, but it won't do anything to repair the damage the thief causes before realizing you have one. I remember sitting on a bench across from a store some years back. Some guy walked up to the store. Looked in the window. Walked away. Came back and smashed the window to grab some item that probably was worth $50 or so and run. The store had an alarm, which commenced wailing away, but did nothing to get the item back, or the much more valuable window unbroken.
You tried asking them to stop abusing you, and they didn't. If it you find it sufficiently objectionable, you sue them for damages.
It's worth noting, in spite of likely getting modded down, that this is why 99 cents for illegally downloading a song is not reasonable, and $BIGNUM isn't entirely nuts. If the cost of getting caught with your hands in the cookie jar is just the price of a cookie, why ever pay for the cookie? There's no deterrent effect save for one's on morals. If the choice is instead licensing a picture for $X, or having a small chance of getting caught and sued for $1000X, you're more likely to be paid for your work.
I can certainly imagine it not holding up. You download the code and produce docs for me sufficient to write my plugin, or I just read public docs sufficient to write the plugin. I can release my plugin without ever agreeing to your license, in which case neither I nor any sane court gives a damn what the GPL says.
This analysis only looks at one side of the issue: What does Google -do- to China? Does it help oppress the citizenry, or free them?
There's another side to that. What -is- Google. It's a question of integrity (and incidentally, others have made the argument well that Google actually isn't censoring anything, they have stopped offering the services which the Chinese government required censored and will continue to offer only those that don't). I think that's reasonable, and retract my criticism.
It's reasonable and laudable to say that we, as a company don't assist governments in oppressing their citizens. We don't offer bribes. We choose not to operate in markets where behaving ethically is an unsustainable strategy. If that means I never run a company with operations in Country X, so be it. Doing this also makes it easier for others to follow suit. Ethical companies (oxymoron?) fall into this trap because "everybody" does it so they "have" to. What if somebody stopped?
Or where we have to in order ot make (more) money.
Or when it seems like a good idea at the time.
I shouldn't be surprised. It's the natural evolution of a small, innovative company with some moral backbone into just yet another big company. Still, I'm disappointed in you, Google. You were once better than this.
If you, dear reader, aren't really very good at your job and are paid well already, yeah, sit down and do your job. You're already paid fairly.
If, however the OP's assertions are true and he was hired for one job and is now doing 2 or 3 others capably and at a rate far below market, any manager that acts this way deserves a one way ticket to the street.
Look, realistically appropriate pay is whatever is reasonable to the parties involved. If you get a genius right out of high school who can do the work of three senior guys for peanuts, you're not going to pay him $150k. Period. He's thrilled to get a lot less. If you've got a guy who is doing $120,000 worth of work and wants to make more than $40,000, you're a flat dumbass if you don't give him a raise. He'll probably be thrilled to get $50,000 and you're still $70,000 in the black.
FWIW, been there done that. Asked for a well justified raise and didn't get it. I think they offered me 8% or so. I left and doubled my salary.
Honestly, if you're that good have a casual conversation and feel the company out. If they're not going to do anything for you, leave. By the way, dear manager, that's the equivalent of firing you, and bad managers are the #1 reason people leave.
Having worked for the police in multiple cities, and for the government in many more, I can safely say that you'll never get a ticket for going 55 in a 50 zone. Yeah, I know there are exceptions, but just don't use that as an argument. It's silly and wrong.
Funny, I once got a ticket for tailgating a police car at 5 mph. 1) Seriously, who tailgates police cars? 2) At 5mph, "safe stopping distance" is what, a couple feet?
Want to know what happened? The DA said "You should never have gotten a ticket for this." and dismissed it. I didn't even have to say anything. He just read the ticket, realized the patent absurdity of it, and dismissed it.
The fact of the matter is police are people with power. People with power sometimes exploit it because they have a hair out of place, the wifey chewed them out, the boss chewed them out, or whatever else. Don't pretend they always do the right thing. Don't pretend they don't make mistakes. Basically, don't pretend giving them a badge and a gun makes them right. They remain people, no better than you or I, with badges and guns.
Spot on. I think I'm a decently sharp crayon, yet I'll confess it never occurred to me that *I* might be committing a criminal act by responding to one of those spams. And, for the record, I never have because I've always thought they're simple scams. I expected them to quickly turn into some sort of demand for money, like the old "we're having $PROBLEM, we need $AMOUNT from you, then we'll get you your money!" Yeah, no thanks. IF I were to take a chance on one of those things, setting up a separate account would seem to be a prudent way to limit my risk, and not evidence I thought I was doing anything illegal.
Under 15, they're basically incompetent. At 15, we teach them to operate powerful machines that weigh 3-7,000 pounds where they kill people if they screw up. Really?
Uh, no.
I should be able to send my kids to school with cough drops. Or a couple asprin or ibuprofen, or any other nearly harmless substance. The "ban everything remotely dangerous" mentality is simply stupid. When I was in middle school, one kid stabbed another with a pencil. Ban pencils? In high school, a teacher got angry and threw an overhead projector. Ban those? A too-often-picked-on student finally snapped and hit his tormentor with a chair. Ban chairs?
School systems that think it is more important to keep out candy than educate students have their priorities sadly reversed.
This continual trend of babying people must stop. We'll give you a gun and send you to war at 18. You can vote, but you're not wise enough to drink. Some people want to move that to 25. Were you really that completely incompetent at 14 that you couldn't be trusted with an aspirin? I sure wasn't. I had an actual, real job doing actual real work in an industrial setting full of things that would have crushed, cut, or blown up anybody who wasn't competent to manage an aspirin. To say nothing of the fact, that in my state, you could start working at 14. Presumably including cashier in a drug store or supermarket where OMIGOD they'd let you SELL ASPIRIN TO UNSUSPECTING CONSUMERS!!!
I suppose the theory is that once it boils, it's gone, but that's terribly naive. Once it boils, it's in the atmosphere, where it will happily stay until the planet cools enough for it to condense.
Why are we looking for reasons why abundant elements form common molecules? We don't need water FROM anywhere. Everything needed (hydrogen, oxygen) would have been part of the dust and gas cloud that condensed to form the earth.
4. You should not be using your personal device and you need to get used to the fact that the PHI you view is NOT YOURS. It belongs to the PATIENT.
Are you sure you work in the healthcare industry? They're quite sure the data belongs to THEM. It's just ABOUT the patient. Test it. Ask them to give you all copies to take with you. If ti's yours, they will.
dropping $2k to buy a shitty computer from the company's approved supplier
Anyone who needs to spend $2,000 to buy a computer just to get on their employer's network in 2010 is in the wrong job. That's well beyond what you need to spend.
As a parent myself, I just tell my kids that fast food is unhealthy in that it has a lot of calories and fat in it. I think we need to be aware of what lesson we're teaching. The point I want them to learn is not that $PARENT won't let them buy a toy with their lunch, it's that some foods eaten more than sparingly will do bad things to you. They naturally ask, so I just tell them the truth. You'll get fat. You'll feel lethargic. You'll develop diseases later in life like diabetes. Your arteries will clog with crap.
Sadly, it's all too easy to just ask them to look around the school. The consequences of bad food choices and a sedentary lifestyle are all over the place.
I also want a law banning fruit or candy additives to milkshakes (Damn you Chick-fil-a and your irresistible milkshakes that I -only- buy when I can get 'em peachy or minty).
While we're at it, why not ban making unhealthy food taste good?
Then again, we could perhaps just expect adults to act like adults and suffer the consequences of their choices. And yes, the consequence of having children is having to raise them to make good choices, even when the bad food comes with a toy. Can't handle it? Don't have kids. Don't use law to constrain someone else to make up for your lack of spine.
Second, this only affects FAR Part 121 operations (read: commercial travel)
I think nearly everyone gets that, or didn't care because they aren't pilots, so commercial air travel is the only place it matters to then.
The thing is, it's still a stupid idea. If you're the pilot and the plane is on autopilot without any need for your interaction in the near future, I really don't care what you do. Watch a movie, play solitaire, post on fb "is flying a plane over the North Atlantic!!!!!!!!111111111111" for all I care. I'd like sufficient people in the cockpit to handle emergencies, so don't all of you leave or anything, but let's be realistic. Can YOU stare at a bank of dials and numbers for hour after hour when none of them change? That's not a job for a human, it's a job for a computer, and oh, there is one, it's called an autopilot.
So let the pilots do something else when they're not piloting. We need to bear in mind that they are human, and not impose working conditions upon them that would drive a normal human batty. Here, sit in this little box for hour after hour, don't touch anything, just look at the numbers that never change. Incidentally, you are prohibited from doing anything other than looking at the numbers that never change.
Honestly, I think this rule would result in more pilots falling asleep from boredom.
So this is how it works. They have no right to do any tests other than those that were authorized and a violation would be a breaking of a legally binding contract. And remember, that is what it is, a legally binding contract.
Exactly. I'm the kind of person who doesn't say "why all the paperwork", but "ok, go get lunch or something, because I'm going to read ALL of it before I sign it." If you didn't, you might want to. If it's like the typical paperwork I saw, the uses you allowed are basically anything, or any research purpose. There's usually a long winded section about what they intend to do, and the risks and benefits to you and others, and a tiny little bit at the bottom that allows anything else.
No, the problem is that you're asked (by a live human being) to participate in research to learn Thing A, in this case, why your tribe has a high incidence of a debilitating disease, and given a form which says they're allowed to use whatever you give them to research thing A, things B-Z, other things AA-zqf, and any other research purpose.
Been there, done that, with cord blood donation. Am I willing to donate cord blood which will otherwise just be thrown away but might help someone? Of course. Give me the consent form. No lie, the last line of the long form explaining what they were going to do with it was "or any other research purpose." In other words, the whole form should have read "Can we have your umbilical cord blood to do anything we want with?" Well, no, you can't. I didn't sign.
Sadly, this kind of crap will NEVER stop unless people start objecting to it, and objection takes the form of no. This isn't hard. Draft a narrowly focused consent form that lets you do your research, not any random research you or anyone else thinks up later, AND respects the rights of your subjects. Don't ask them to sign a blank biological check.
My understanding is that they aren't planning on closing their offices in China, they are merely planning on closing down their chinese search engine. It is the requirement to censor that is really bothering them, and they are not going to do it anymore.
I congratulate Google and suggest that their new motto be:
"Don't be evil...anymore" or maybe "Don't be evil...as much".
I do genuinely applaud the move (if they make it), but it would have been far better to say no when asked to help oppress over a billion of their fellow humans.
I usually try not to be inflammatory, but this is indefensible.
The father has another childr who still requires his care. They will not be well served by executing him or jailing him. In fact, they'll be quite harmed. No other parent anywhere will be deterred by giving him jail time. The possibility of losing a child to an accident like this is VASTLY more deterrent than jail time. Nevertheless, people screw up, and sadly, in the very worst cases of people screwing up, someone innocent dies.
Case in point. A couple months ago, one of my kids got the bright idea of sneaking out of the house and hiding behind my car to surprise me. The car I was about to back up. Happily, I'm fairly obsessive about making sure nobody's behind my car when I back up and something had attracted my attention to the possibility not all the kids were in the house, so I got back out of thee car and looked and he got nothing more than a good ass chewing rather than a trip to the hospital or the morgue. Nevertheless, it was a crystal clear moment of "So this is how responsible people run over their own children." All you need is a set of variables in the right position. Kid puts themselves in a bad situation and the parent fails to notice in time. With 300,000,000+ people bouncing around this country, SOMEBODY inevitably gets it all wrong.
Leaving a loaded gun in the reach of a three year old isn't the same thing. It IS inexcusable. Nevertheless, taking another life and depriving a child of a father is not going to make it any better. Justice is not about appeasing your sense of vengeance. It's about removing dangerous people from society so they can't offend again. Anybody have stats on how often somebody does this twice? I bet damn near never. It's about deterring others from committing the same offense. As I already said, losing a child is massively more deterrent than jail time. This guy's life is going to be hell for many years to come.
It's neither trespassing or breaking and entering. HTTP is a well known method of disseminating information. There are also well known ways of restricting access to information when you are disseminating it over HTTP. You can put it behind a firewall. You can restrict by IP ranges. You can give accounts with passwords to people who need to get it. No responsible organization can publish information on the web, not restricted by a firewall, not restricted by IP (which isn't very good anyway), not restricted by any authorization or authentication methods, and cry when somebody reads it.
It's rather like putting your private information between the pages of a library book and crying foul when someone reads it on the grounds that you didn't tell them which book or which page.
There's nothing to be not proud of. I saw it. Not because I wanted to, but because immediately after it happened, it was a lead story with video on cnn.com.
The issue is not really about free speech. The victim in this case is surely free to publish whatever she wants on Facebook, regardless of whether she is suspended from school.
You aren't free to do something if you are punished for doing that thing. You wouldn't maintain that she was free to post the web page if she was jailed for a day, or harassed by the police for doing so. This is an issue of free speech AND limitations on the authority of schools, who should, incidentally, get back to teaching children, not trying to raise them.
Consider another example. Smoking cigarettes on campus will result in a suspension. Yet, smoking cigarettes at about 1 foot outside the perimeter of a campus will result in nothing.
That's how it should be, but I bet one could amass a large group of people who have been disciplined for smoking near school grounds.
Slashdot Mirror
Your home security system isn't going to keep stuff from being stolen. It might present some deterrent. It might help catch the thief, but it won't do anything to repair the damage the thief causes before realizing you have one. I remember sitting on a bench across from a store some years back. Some guy walked up to the store. Looked in the window. Walked away. Came back and smashed the window to grab some item that probably was worth $50 or so and run. The store had an alarm, which commenced wailing away, but did nothing to get the item back, or the much more valuable window unbroken.
...damages.
You tried asking them to stop abusing you, and they didn't. If it you find it sufficiently objectionable, you sue them for damages.
It's worth noting, in spite of likely getting modded down, that this is why 99 cents for illegally downloading a song is not reasonable, and $BIGNUM isn't entirely nuts. If the cost of getting caught with your hands in the cookie jar is just the price of a cookie, why ever pay for the cookie? There's no deterrent effect save for one's on morals. If the choice is instead licensing a picture for $X, or having a small chance of getting caught and sued for $1000X, you're more likely to be paid for your work.
I can certainly imagine it not holding up. You download the code and produce docs for me sufficient to write my plugin, or I just read public docs sufficient to write the plugin. I can release my plugin without ever agreeing to your license, in which case neither I nor any sane court gives a damn what the GPL says.
This analysis only looks at one side of the issue: What does Google -do- to China? Does it help oppress the citizenry, or free them?
There's another side to that. What -is- Google. It's a question of integrity (and incidentally, others have made the argument well that Google actually isn't censoring anything, they have stopped offering the services which the Chinese government required censored and will continue to offer only those that don't). I think that's reasonable, and retract my criticism.
It's reasonable and laudable to say that we, as a company don't assist governments in oppressing their citizens. We don't offer bribes. We choose not to operate in markets where behaving ethically is an unsustainable strategy. If that means I never run a company with operations in Country X, so be it. Doing this also makes it easier for others to follow suit. Ethical companies (oxymoron?) fall into this trap because "everybody" does it so they "have" to. What if somebody stopped?
Except in China.
Or where we have to in order ot make (more) money.
Or when it seems like a good idea at the time.
I shouldn't be surprised. It's the natural evolution of a small, innovative company with some moral backbone into just yet another big company. Still, I'm disappointed in you, Google. You were once better than this.
This isn't quite as nuts as it reads.
If you, dear reader, aren't really very good at your job and are paid well already, yeah, sit down and do your job. You're already paid fairly.
If, however the OP's assertions are true and he was hired for one job and is now doing 2 or 3 others capably and at a rate far below market, any manager that acts this way deserves a one way ticket to the street.
Look, realistically appropriate pay is whatever is reasonable to the parties involved. If you get a genius right out of high school who can do the work of three senior guys for peanuts, you're not going to pay him $150k. Period. He's thrilled to get a lot less. If you've got a guy who is doing $120,000 worth of work and wants to make more than $40,000, you're a flat dumbass if you don't give him a raise. He'll probably be thrilled to get $50,000 and you're still $70,000 in the black.
FWIW, been there done that. Asked for a well justified raise and didn't get it. I think they offered me 8% or so. I left and doubled my salary.
Honestly, if you're that good have a casual conversation and feel the company out. If they're not going to do anything for you, leave. By the way, dear manager, that's the equivalent of firing you, and bad managers are the #1 reason people leave.
Funny, I once got a ticket for tailgating a police car at 5 mph. 1) Seriously, who tailgates police cars? 2) At 5mph, "safe stopping distance" is what, a couple feet?
Want to know what happened? The DA said "You should never have gotten a ticket for this." and dismissed it. I didn't even have to say anything. He just read the ticket, realized the patent absurdity of it, and dismissed it.
The fact of the matter is police are people with power. People with power sometimes exploit it because they have a hair out of place, the wifey chewed them out, the boss chewed them out, or whatever else. Don't pretend they always do the right thing. Don't pretend they don't make mistakes. Basically, don't pretend giving them a badge and a gun makes them right. They remain people, no better than you or I, with badges and guns.
Spot on. I think I'm a decently sharp crayon, yet I'll confess it never occurred to me that *I* might be committing a criminal act by responding to one of those spams. And, for the record, I never have because I've always thought they're simple scams. I expected them to quickly turn into some sort of demand for money, like the old "we're having $PROBLEM, we need $AMOUNT from you, then we'll get you your money!" Yeah, no thanks. IF I were to take a chance on one of those things, setting up a separate account would seem to be a prudent way to limit my risk, and not evidence I thought I was doing anything illegal.
You live in a very weird world.
Under 15, they're basically incompetent. At 15, we teach them to operate powerful machines that weigh 3-7,000 pounds where they kill people if they screw up. Really?
Uh, no.
I should be able to send my kids to school with cough drops. Or a couple asprin or ibuprofen, or any other nearly harmless substance. The "ban everything remotely dangerous" mentality is simply stupid. When I was in middle school, one kid stabbed another with a pencil. Ban pencils? In high school, a teacher got angry and threw an overhead projector. Ban those? A too-often-picked-on student finally snapped and hit his tormentor with a chair. Ban chairs?
School systems that think it is more important to keep out candy than educate students have their priorities sadly reversed.
This continual trend of babying people must stop. We'll give you a gun and send you to war at 18. You can vote, but you're not wise enough to drink. Some people want to move that to 25. Were you really that completely incompetent at 14 that you couldn't be trusted with an aspirin? I sure wasn't. I had an actual, real job doing actual real work in an industrial setting full of things that would have crushed, cut, or blown up anybody who wasn't competent to manage an aspirin. To say nothing of the fact, that in my state, you could start working at 14. Presumably including cashier in a drug store or supermarket where OMIGOD they'd let you SELL ASPIRIN TO UNSUSPECTING CONSUMERS!!!
How we ever survived is a mystery.
I suppose the theory is that once it boils, it's gone, but that's terribly naive. Once it boils, it's in the atmosphere, where it will happily stay until the planet cools enough for it to condense.
Why are we looking for reasons why abundant elements form common molecules? We don't need water FROM anywhere. Everything needed (hydrogen, oxygen) would have been part of the dust and gas cloud that condensed to form the earth.
Are you sure you work in the healthcare industry? They're quite sure the data belongs to THEM. It's just ABOUT the patient. Test it. Ask them to give you all copies to take with you. If ti's yours, they will.
Anyone who needs to spend $2,000 to buy a computer just to get on their employer's network in 2010 is in the wrong job. That's well beyond what you need to spend.
It's not a great idea.
As a parent myself, I just tell my kids that fast food is unhealthy in that it has a lot of calories and fat in it. I think we need to be aware of what lesson we're teaching. The point I want them to learn is not that $PARENT won't let them buy a toy with their lunch, it's that some foods eaten more than sparingly will do bad things to you. They naturally ask, so I just tell them the truth. You'll get fat. You'll feel lethargic. You'll develop diseases later in life like diabetes. Your arteries will clog with crap.
Sadly, it's all too easy to just ask them to look around the school. The consequences of bad food choices and a sedentary lifestyle are all over the place.
I also want a law banning fruit or candy additives to milkshakes (Damn you Chick-fil-a and your irresistible milkshakes that I -only- buy when I can get 'em peachy or minty).
While we're at it, why not ban making unhealthy food taste good?
Then again, we could perhaps just expect adults to act like adults and suffer the consequences of their choices. And yes, the consequence of having children is having to raise them to make good choices, even when the bad food comes with a toy. Can't handle it? Don't have kids. Don't use law to constrain someone else to make up for your lack of spine.
I think nearly everyone gets that, or didn't care because they aren't pilots, so commercial air travel is the only place it matters to then.
The thing is, it's still a stupid idea. If you're the pilot and the plane is on autopilot without any need for your interaction in the near future, I really don't care what you do. Watch a movie, play solitaire, post on fb "is flying a plane over the North Atlantic!!!!!!!!111111111111" for all I care. I'd like sufficient people in the cockpit to handle emergencies, so don't all of you leave or anything, but let's be realistic. Can YOU stare at a bank of dials and numbers for hour after hour when none of them change? That's not a job for a human, it's a job for a computer, and oh, there is one, it's called an autopilot.
So let the pilots do something else when they're not piloting. We need to bear in mind that they are human, and not impose working conditions upon them that would drive a normal human batty. Here, sit in this little box for hour after hour, don't touch anything, just look at the numbers that never change. Incidentally, you are prohibited from doing anything other than looking at the numbers that never change.
Honestly, I think this rule would result in more pilots falling asleep from boredom.
That's nothing. Industries that use chairs generate over $12 trillion annually! Fair Use ain't got nothing on chairs.
Exactly. I'm the kind of person who doesn't say "why all the paperwork", but "ok, go get lunch or something, because I'm going to read ALL of it before I sign it." If you didn't, you might want to. If it's like the typical paperwork I saw, the uses you allowed are basically anything, or any research purpose. There's usually a long winded section about what they intend to do, and the risks and benefits to you and others, and a tiny little bit at the bottom that allows anything else.
No, the problem is that you're asked (by a live human being) to participate in research to learn Thing A, in this case, why your tribe has a high incidence of a debilitating disease, and given a form which says they're allowed to use whatever you give them to research thing A, things B-Z, other things AA-zqf, and any other research purpose.
Been there, done that, with cord blood donation. Am I willing to donate cord blood which will otherwise just be thrown away but might help someone? Of course. Give me the consent form. No lie, the last line of the long form explaining what they were going to do with it was "or any other research purpose." In other words, the whole form should have read "Can we have your umbilical cord blood to do anything we want with?" Well, no, you can't. I didn't sign.
Sadly, this kind of crap will NEVER stop unless people start objecting to it, and objection takes the form of no. This isn't hard. Draft a narrowly focused consent form that lets you do your research, not any random research you or anyone else thinks up later, AND respects the rights of your subjects. Don't ask them to sign a blank biological check.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say this doesn't exactly break new ground.
I congratulate Google and suggest that their new motto be:
"Don't be evil...anymore" or maybe "Don't be evil...as much".
I do genuinely applaud the move (if they make it), but it would have been far better to say no when asked to help oppress over a billion of their fellow humans.
I usually try not to be inflammatory, but this is indefensible.
The father has another childr who still requires his care. They will not be well served by executing him or jailing him. In fact, they'll be quite harmed. No other parent anywhere will be deterred by giving him jail time. The possibility of losing a child to an accident like this is VASTLY more deterrent than jail time. Nevertheless, people screw up, and sadly, in the very worst cases of people screwing up, someone innocent dies.
Case in point. A couple months ago, one of my kids got the bright idea of sneaking out of the house and hiding behind my car to surprise me. The car I was about to back up. Happily, I'm fairly obsessive about making sure nobody's behind my car when I back up and something had attracted my attention to the possibility not all the kids were in the house, so I got back out of thee car and looked and he got nothing more than a good ass chewing rather than a trip to the hospital or the morgue. Nevertheless, it was a crystal clear moment of "So this is how responsible people run over their own children." All you need is a set of variables in the right position. Kid puts themselves in a bad situation and the parent fails to notice in time. With 300,000,000+ people bouncing around this country, SOMEBODY inevitably gets it all wrong.
Leaving a loaded gun in the reach of a three year old isn't the same thing. It IS inexcusable. Nevertheless, taking another life and depriving a child of a father is not going to make it any better. Justice is not about appeasing your sense of vengeance. It's about removing dangerous people from society so they can't offend again. Anybody have stats on how often somebody does this twice? I bet damn near never. It's about deterring others from committing the same offense. As I already said, losing a child is massively more deterrent than jail time. This guy's life is going to be hell for many years to come.
Federal employees are already being issued biometric ID cards.
It's neither trespassing or breaking and entering. HTTP is a well known method of disseminating information. There are also well known ways of restricting access to information when you are disseminating it over HTTP. You can put it behind a firewall. You can restrict by IP ranges. You can give accounts with passwords to people who need to get it. No responsible organization can publish information on the web, not restricted by a firewall, not restricted by IP (which isn't very good anyway), not restricted by any authorization or authentication methods, and cry when somebody reads it.
It's rather like putting your private information between the pages of a library book and crying foul when someone reads it on the grounds that you didn't tell them which book or which page.
There are ways to secure information. Use them.
There's nothing to be not proud of. I saw it. Not because I wanted to, but because immediately after it happened, it was a lead story with video on cnn.com.
You aren't free to do something if you are punished for doing that thing. You wouldn't maintain that she was free to post the web page if she was jailed for a day, or harassed by the police for doing so. This is an issue of free speech AND limitations on the authority of schools, who should, incidentally, get back to teaching children, not trying to raise them.
That's how it should be, but I bet one could amass a large group of people who have been disciplined for smoking near school grounds.