Who would I have to be to decide that a superstition is silly? Am I only allowed to be an atheist about gods from my own culture? I was not aware that there was a special permit you needed to poke fun at institutionalized stupidity.
They seem to be so basic, that one tends to regard them as global and attributes them as "realistic", "reasonable" or even "logical".
Yes, they feel that way. So you stop and question them. That's when you realize that Santa wouldn't fit down the chimney.
Some ideas don't need justification. You would be no more right or wrong if your chose 'country vista' over 'cityscape' for your favorite view. I might disagree, but I have no issue at all with you having any opinion on this.
But, when you have an opinion on something you're clearly ignorant on, that respect goes out the window. If you don't know the issues, don't vote. If you don't understand that this privacy debate isn't segregated by country, go do more research before jumping on the cultural sensitivity bandwagon. Many of my neighbors would likely agree with this fellow, without any more idea of how to make something useful happen, and many Japanese citizens would vehemently disagree.
They have all the right to ask for what accommodates them in their own country.
Yes, he has a right to ask. But expecting people to accommodate him is something totally different. I'm not likely to photograph his house (geography) but based on the evidence online of Japanese photography (looking much like mine, views around the neighborhood) many of his countrymen would be dismayed by your attempt to turn this into a racial issue. Clearly his opinion is far from culturally universal. Allowing these people to dictate laws, when they obviously display an inability to understand the reality of hidden cameras and the impossibility of preventing photography, does put a huge burden on the sane members of society.
Actually the writer of the letter seemed to think this was already prevented. FTFA:
... if you were to walk along a residential street in an urban area of Tokyo, every 10 meters surveying all 360 degrees of your surroundings, there's no question that you would be reported to the police within 30 minutes.
That's not a covert webcam. But what, really, is your point? You'd get stopped for photographing a lot of stuff in the USA too. Scare some panicky shut-in and the cops get called. But that doesn't mean it's illegal, just that panicked shut-ins see terrorists in everything anyone does.
Could it be that Japan and America are actually different places?
So different that all people in Japan think alike? There's no need for your racist assumptions. This isn't "The Japanese View". This is merely the neighborhood busy-body view.
It's exactly the same as reactionary idiots in the USA. And just as easily spotted as unappeasable complainers with a broken reality-link.
Oh really? And none of those photos are from galleries of similar photos. Honestly.
You do realize you totally believed everything you read in a Slashdot headline, without doing any work to verify it.
Many people in the USA dislike Streetview, many Japanese (including presumably the ones who drive the Streetview cars) presumably don't mind urban photography.
Do you honestly believe a whole first-world country really objects to photos? That they all have this weird privacy bubble that they can't understand being broken by having images of themselves made? Don't you realize it's racist to believe that a whole country believes some crazy thing (has the same standards for photo privacy) or are all the same way (too polite to hit the emergency stop). It's an implicit assumption that foreigners aren't people too, because if they had real motives they'd obviously have different ideas. Stereotyping people because of race or country of origin shows a fundamental lack of respect.
What you really find when traveling is that other cultures aren't that weird. They've got what sound like crazy ideas, but only because foreigners jump all over any crazy description they hear. Instead if you investigate, the people are all individuals and have similar ideas, and directly contradictory ones, but based on what they believe are rational reasons which they often share because of similar upbringing. To assume that every Japanese person is represented by the guy who wrote the letter is like assuming that they are all good at math, like sushi and anime, etc.
just as anyone can stab me in the eye - but I still don't want them to do so. If they disregard my wishes, I'd like the law to back me up.
You'll be forever disappointed. Stabbing you in the eye is a crime because it causes real damages. The only thing photographing someone does is steal their soul, which isn't a crime because it's a joke.
You could realize this and ask for publication bans on information (photos) likely to bring undue attention to something that should remain insignificant. For instance, it might not be a bad idea to have some notability standards for the publication of a picture. If I have a pic of you barfing at a private party maybe it should be "illegal" to put up for no reason, but it's different if you were doing it in public, or if you claimed not to drink and made the issue of your sobriety one of public interest.
But you rant on about eye-gouging and people being dicks because they exercise their legal right to photograph anything they can see without trespassing. This makes it appear that you don't understand the issue at all. If your privacy depends on me pretending not to look, you aren't private. If you realized that I might look and bought a curtain you would be private.
Photographing people's houses en masse and posting the photos on the web without permission is disrespectful.
Why is it worse to do this in bulk? Is your privacy lessened because there's a photo of my house as well? I'd think that'd bring some anonymity.
If Google did this there'd be less need for everyone else to do it. You'd only have to duck one Streetview car every few months, and it could play an announcement to give you time to get off the street. But if everyone does this manually your privacy will die in a thousand individual snapshots on sites you can't contact to get accidental nudity, etc removed. All for totally justifiable reasons - your neighbor will snap your house while taking a picture of his daughter's first steps and he won't be willing to delete the picture just because you're buying weed in the background.
Yeah, the complainant is entitled to his view. Are you happy now? But he wants to dictate the behavior of everyone else, many who don't feel the same way he does. That's not okay.
Yes, he is Japanese, no, I am not. But it's not a cultural issue. Look around on the net for pictures of Japan. They aren't in short supply. Personal snaps - like flikr stuff, commercial (posters, aerial photos, real-estate photos), and semi-commercial like camera-review sites with thousands of photos of exactly the same street across from their office. It's ludicrous to say that Japanese people really have a different feeling, in such a way that others can't understand. There are many people in the USA who make an almost identical argument, and there are obviously many Japanese photographers who don't see what the problem is.
Who I am to tell you, and the world, what to do, is simply 'right'. I literally have a clearer view of this than you. I can see some of the logical traps you're getting stuck on, and I can see as well that the proposed solutions serve nobody. For instance, you keep assuming that this is a cultural phenomenon simply because this individual says it is - the many similar sentiments expressed by even Americans shows clearly that it is not. It's doesn't need special handling, merely someone with some common sense to explain that even if cameras were illegal, the very snoops he finds rudest are the ones who would use hidden cameras.
I don't want people to be unhappy. But if we play your silly appeasement game where we assume that any complainer has the right to dictate the behavior of everyone around them we wouldn't actually try to solve anything, merely band-aid uselessly. Instead we need to figure out the problem - this guy wants more privacy and a better idea of where he is in private - and thus how to get those things. By realizing that his idea to prevent photography is authoritarian and ultimately useless we would keep searching for a way to make him feel better.
Otherwise what 'sort of crazy rules and jackbooted enforcement policies' will YOU want to enforce next.
Hello. I'm the one saying we don't need restrictive anti-photography laws. What kind of jack-booted policies am I enforcing? That we *not* leap immediately to enact sweeping regulation? Oh, what a fascist!
What arrogance and ignorance YOU demonstrate by assuming that YOU are required to accommodate THEM in THEIR country.
We (the non-lunatics) are required to accommodate this nonsense. None of the anti-photo privacy ideas really enhance privacy, they just give a false sense of security.
If Streetview exists I'll use it when shopping for real-estate instead of taking my own photos. If Google Streetview accidentally took a picture of you nude through the window you'd have someone to ask to remove it. If I was taking my own photos I might not notice you and put the shot on my website where it would be archived for anyone to find, but outside of your control to remove. Your privacy would be served by having Google Streetview in this case because it would provide a central responsible party, would reduce the number of other (my real-estate photos, etc) shots, and you could probably get Google to agree to playing an announcement, like an ice-cream truck plays music, if you work with them. That way private people could simply draw the curtains for the critical five minutes.
But you can't begin to approach a working solution unless you grow up and smell the camera-scented reality.
Anything that doesn't pander to the complainer is insensitivity. Hadn't you heard?
It's crazy to expect people to go around pretending cameras don't exist just because some people think they steal souls.
Besides, what does StreetView see? One image per year? What does your neighbor see? Your naked ass, twice a day. If that one image a year is anything, maybe it should be a wake-up call about your always-visible ass.
Oh, who am I kidding? The universal response is to blame someone essentially at random - ie photographers, instead of fixing the problem - aligning your mental model with reality. Blame on!
Who are you to tell me that my culture of pointing out stupid superstitions and useless beliefs is a bad one? I have as much right to criticize stupid views as people do to hold them.
It's not disregard for a strange culture though, it's an unwillingness to oblige stupid requests. I'd say the same to anyone who requested that their publicly viewable house not be photographed.
These people simply need to deal with reality. They're visible. If that doesn't bother them when eyeballed, they simply need to learn to feel that way about photos. It'd be harder to stop photos than to make unbreakable DRM, and such an invasion upon photographers rights to have a memory aid to things they've seen. It'd just be pure insanity if we were to actually give these people what would be required to accommodate them. If Google can't do this, can individuals do it? Of smaller areas? Just not to share? What's the penalty for violation? What are the allowable exceptions? What sort of crazy rules and jackbooted enforcement policies would we be left with?
Far better that people just grow up and smell the cameras.
Bull. Not only did that letter from the Japanese guy sound just like the letters many Americans have written re Streetview, thus negating the whole "it's another culture" argument, but it's an objectively wrong stance and catering to it is harmful.
Reality. People need to cope with it. They're visible. If they're doing something interesting their neighbors are already taking pictures, they just aren't (yet) sharing them in an easily indexable way.
If you complain about this you'll go on acting like you have privacy until it becomes painfully obvious that you don't. If you suck it up and act now, regardless of your cultural preference, as if you do not have privacy where you do not (publicly visible areas) you will not get a rude awakening.
Banning Google's Streetview would prevent people from seeing the area, but would not prevent an enemy of yours from placing a perfectly legal webcam and watching you specifically, or sharing this data - it would merely prevent all the other uses.
The pain in having your name attached to a message about sex, and a photo of your dick, is directly related to your involvement in the religious conservative rat hole.
See as the only damage is social, from the same group this person by definition must have been part of, I'd say that they do by definition "deserve" the given back to them. If they didn't want to be ridiculed for this, they should have left the organizations and groups known to ridicule people for these things. That they didn't leave merely supported the only groups who now have negative opinions of them.
Besides many of his victims may not even be married. Will that make the troll's actions less hurtful?
Yes. They will feel like dweebs for a while and then get over it.
Other people might lose spouses over this. They will *also* feel like dweebs. They will be more hurt (justifiably, though).
Who the hell are you to judge them?
Who the hell do I need to be to judge them? I'm pretty sure I don't have the authority to sentence them though, if that's what you mean...
Besides, I can learn something from their mistakes without judging them. Seriously, it doesn't even matter why the mail was leaked, a smart person comes out of this knowing not to attach a picture of their face to anything they don't want to come back to them.
If they're single, then what's the damage? People know they're heterosexual? Ditto if they're in an open marriage. It's odd, but not against the law or anything. The real damage from this is to those whose infidelities this exposed.
Or, you could say, the real gain is to those whose trust is no-longer being abused by the cheaters.
Everyone else involved? They had someone show pictures of their genitals to other people. Oh horror! People will know they like sex! Weird sex. Oh no!
In other words, quit blowing this out of proportion you concern troll.
Dunno bout you, but if it wasn't clear already I learned that people on the internet pretending to be hot women might not actually be hot, or women.
Besides, we have a word for "no real data there that can be used for anything, no methodology", we call it "history". Things happen, for what seem like (and may be) random reasons, but only in looking from far enough back that you are part of the event do we start to see the social implications, and then further back we see the historical results. People attempt to learn from history, to avoid repeating it.
It's funny. The "data" here are more real (being that there was no researcher bias, ill-performed test, etc - it simply tautologically is, and is a perfect example of itself) than they would be if there was a large study done. The study would attempt to be more complete, but would present aggregate data only and have filed off the outlying points.
After all, what is humiliation? Posting a picture of a piece of a monkey's body for other monkeys to see? I'd pay someone to post nude pics of every person on the planet if it'd end our body taboos...
I can't condemn making people feel bad because telling a religious person that their belief that god animates a cracker is silly makes them feel bad, yet imnsho needs to be said. Our anti-hate laws are getting close to making it illegal to insult someone over their beliefs, "your belief in abortion makes you equivalent to a murderer", "your god was a con man, your religious rules made-up and arbitrary, and the enforcement of them are killing people", etc.
Those things need to be said, especially any that are wrong like "your skin color makes you worthless" so that people can tell the person who says it just how worthless and stupid they are, and as an afterthought explain in detail why they are wrong. Without being able to say these things, in words that truly express how we feel, we aren't truly free. We're enslaved by the idea that all ideas are equal and above ridicule.
So no, I can't say it should stop either, even if it did hurt some people's feelings.
Bullshit. While Shieldw0lf no-doubt is an internet-tough-guy, what he said in no way indicated that he WOULD kill this guy, only that he would enjoy doing so. A threat has to indicate actual intent to perform the act.
I'd enjoy breaking into Fort Knox and stealing all the phat loots, but I won't do it for a few reasons, social and legal. No intent. Similarly, Shielfw0lf would ENJOY a world where he could defend, as he sees it, the nice people from the predatory jerks in the same fashion that he'd be lauded for killing a more obvious predator like a child killer or something.
"I would enjoy having sex with your mother." That doesn't mean that I'm threatening to, just saying that if it came to that the act would be enjoyable.
I was asking you to test the system because you have an account, I do not.
I didn't say "talking is illegal", I said others suggested that the pushing of PPL by a someone with a vested interest in it could be illegal in light of the MLM nature, etc. Certainly a real lawyer could tell you when this would be illegal ("If you know something is an MLM and you...") as a hypothetical question.
But this is exactly what everyone said would happen. Rather than you actually being interested in hearing a question and trying to answer it you get rude.
Aren't you slightly curious as to what PPL says about the law surrounding themselves? Seems like the ultimate test for bias.
The advice that I have received is far from "questionable" as you stated.
Did you get a second opinion from an unrelated lawyer? Or did it just work, so it must have been right?
a 25% discount on the hourly rate for any services
Yeah, a rate that is supposedly higher than the industry standard. And there appear to be a few lawsuits about the "prepaid" in their name and how everything involves extra fees that sales associates have been proven not to mention.
When you say "some people" who are you referring to?
It seems that nobody says it's any good unless they're selling it and many people say it's outright fraud, you can't cancel if you try and it's nearly a cult to boot.
Use google, there are many criticisms of it.
There's definitely no criminal liability, even if I was still selling it (show me the law; it's generally on-line). When you say "some people" who are you referring to?
Why don't you ask PPL for the law? Test the quality of your PPL team, ask what laws you could run into doing this sort of thing, especially if legal theories of them being an MLM are true, and what you could do to mitigate any risks.
See if you get a detailed answer, or some feel-good speech.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing it'd be related to misrepresentation, or just the general illegal nature of most MLMs.
Yes, that is the knee-jerk reaction you'd expect from marketing.
The problem is that it's overriding Engineering's attempts to actually improve the product.
Maybe someone should be afraid that a hacker WILL pull a rabbit from his hat, and use it to demonstrate the flaws of their security model. A code-red level worm, now, would be a huge market killer.
I am somewhat skeptical about paying some small sum of money and getting anyone to describe the legal issues involved, let alone go to court in a useful fashion.
I just looked up pre-paid legal. It's an MLM and that's a pretty conclusive sign of crap. Further, they've got a ton of restrictions on what they'll look at, offer "discounts" from insanely high rates once you go over your number of free issues.
Some people went so far as to suggest that you (generic internet person who mentions pre-paid legal) might be involved, and perhaps criminally liable for pushing an MLM if you are involved in it.
But as they say, sometimes a lawyer's name on a letter can cause the other party to back off. If you had a harassing landlord it might be worth $50 for questionable legal advice if it ended up solving the problem anyways.
Yeah, and people should honestly be expected to hear about, go find, read, and understand twenty pages of densely worded legalese, just to BUY a cellphone that's sold at retail, in a fashion that usually implies there won't be contracts.
I'm aware that there's a twenty page contract, but I'm also aware as a programmer that few people, including programmers, could take a twenty page document full of conditions and exceptions and properly parse it, being sure of not making any mistakes and of catching all restrictions. Especially standing in a store, without a day or two to make notes.
It simply is not reasonable to present people with a contract like that for things that don't warrant getting a lawyer. Thinking these contracts should be binding is like expecting you to hire a lawyer and do battle with Sony corp over your defective Walkman, as opposed to going to small-claims court where the rules are different and engaging them in a more level way.
We might as well practice law in Latin for all the good it does to hand a densely worded and intentionally confusing document, especially at a time that contracts usually aren't required - what looks to be a simple purchase at retail.
So no, even if I believed that these contracts would stand up to the type of challenge I would wage if I had the time/money, I still would not follow them because they are abusive.
As for Apple's ability to control what I do with my data, I do not believe they have the right to tell me I cannot tunnel games over an SSH connection to my phone, or web pages, or a packet whose ultimate destination might be someone else. They provide bandwidth, I use it. They can set limits on amounts, but not on the purpose of the data transmission. (Which would be like saying I can only use the iPhone for certain calls.)
Obviously nobody listens to a rule that says you can't take calls for your friends on your phone - they simply pay the airtime and use the device. Similarly, nobody would accept a rule saying you can call only affiliated pizza places. A limit on who you can forward data to is just a ridiculous.
I dunno. Buying unwanted games on my phone is pretty easy. It comes with a crappy pool game and some bad tetris clone that would have been embarrassing on my Apple 2 - both thoroughly crippled demo versions. They make it pretty easy to buy the full versions, almost easier than launching the demos. Like with Apple these apps will also stop working when I change phones (if not sooner).
What's with the HORRIBLE shareware games being recycled as state-of-the-art phone games? Are the people who buy this stuff blind, or is it all sold via accidental purchases?
Now, if the iPhone makes it easier to buy an app I might want... And if Apple wouldn't just discontinue that app whenever they wanted...
This is why we need open WIFI, for plausible deniability. Might be illegal, but it's a lot less "illegal" than the routers that do log and just happens to show something they find really offensive - like if you pinged Cuba or something.
With one or two exceptions, the quickest way for a government employee to deserve death is to demand you keep their actions secret. We all just need a reason to install pools or lye in our basements...
Slashdot Mirror
Who would I have to be to decide that a superstition is silly? Am I only allowed to be an atheist about gods from my own culture? I was not aware that there was a special permit you needed to poke fun at institutionalized stupidity.
They seem to be so basic, that one tends to regard them as global and attributes them as "realistic", "reasonable" or even "logical".
Yes, they feel that way. So you stop and question them. That's when you realize that Santa wouldn't fit down the chimney.
Some ideas don't need justification. You would be no more right or wrong if your chose 'country vista' over 'cityscape' for your favorite view. I might disagree, but I have no issue at all with you having any opinion on this.
But, when you have an opinion on something you're clearly ignorant on, that respect goes out the window. If you don't know the issues, don't vote. If you don't understand that this privacy debate isn't segregated by country, go do more research before jumping on the cultural sensitivity bandwagon. Many of my neighbors would likely agree with this fellow, without any more idea of how to make something useful happen, and many Japanese citizens would vehemently disagree.
They have all the right to ask for what accommodates them in their own country.
Yes, he has a right to ask. But expecting people to accommodate him is something totally different. I'm not likely to photograph his house (geography) but based on the evidence online of Japanese photography (looking much like mine, views around the neighborhood) many of his countrymen would be dismayed by your attempt to turn this into a racial issue. Clearly his opinion is far from culturally universal. Allowing these people to dictate laws, when they obviously display an inability to understand the reality of hidden cameras and the impossibility of preventing photography, does put a huge burden on the sane members of society.
Actually the writer of the letter seemed to think this was already prevented. FTFA:
... if you were to walk along a residential street in an urban area of Tokyo, every 10 meters surveying all 360 degrees of your surroundings, there's no question that you would be reported to the police within 30 minutes.
That's not a covert webcam. But what, really, is your point? You'd get stopped for photographing a lot of stuff in the USA too. Scare some panicky shut-in and the cops get called. But that doesn't mean it's illegal, just that panicked shut-ins see terrorists in everything anyone does.
Could it be that Japan and America are actually different places?
So different that all people in Japan think alike? There's no need for your racist assumptions. This isn't "The Japanese View". This is merely the neighborhood busy-body view.
It's exactly the same as reactionary idiots in the USA. And just as easily spotted as unappeasable complainers with a broken reality-link.
Oh really? And none of those photos are from galleries of similar photos. Honestly.
You do realize you totally believed everything you read in a Slashdot headline, without doing any work to verify it.
Many people in the USA dislike Streetview, many Japanese (including presumably the ones who drive the Streetview cars) presumably don't mind urban photography.
Do you honestly believe a whole first-world country really objects to photos? That they all have this weird privacy bubble that they can't understand being broken by having images of themselves made? Don't you realize it's racist to believe that a whole country believes some crazy thing (has the same standards for photo privacy) or are all the same way (too polite to hit the emergency stop). It's an implicit assumption that foreigners aren't people too, because if they had real motives they'd obviously have different ideas. Stereotyping people because of race or country of origin shows a fundamental lack of respect.
What you really find when traveling is that other cultures aren't that weird. They've got what sound like crazy ideas, but only because foreigners jump all over any crazy description they hear. Instead if you investigate, the people are all individuals and have similar ideas, and directly contradictory ones, but based on what they believe are rational reasons which they often share because of similar upbringing. To assume that every Japanese person is represented by the guy who wrote the letter is like assuming that they are all good at math, like sushi and anime, etc.
just as anyone can stab me in the eye - but I still don't want them to do so. If they disregard my wishes, I'd like the law to back me up.
You'll be forever disappointed. Stabbing you in the eye is a crime because it causes real damages. The only thing photographing someone does is steal their soul, which isn't a crime because it's a joke.
You could realize this and ask for publication bans on information (photos) likely to bring undue attention to something that should remain insignificant. For instance, it might not be a bad idea to have some notability standards for the publication of a picture. If I have a pic of you barfing at a private party maybe it should be "illegal" to put up for no reason, but it's different if you were doing it in public, or if you claimed not to drink and made the issue of your sobriety one of public interest.
But you rant on about eye-gouging and people being dicks because they exercise their legal right to photograph anything they can see without trespassing. This makes it appear that you don't understand the issue at all. If your privacy depends on me pretending not to look, you aren't private. If you realized that I might look and bought a curtain you would be private.
Photographing people's houses en masse and posting the photos on the web without permission is disrespectful.
Why is it worse to do this in bulk? Is your privacy lessened because there's a photo of my house as well? I'd think that'd bring some anonymity.
If Google did this there'd be less need for everyone else to do it. You'd only have to duck one Streetview car every few months, and it could play an announcement to give you time to get off the street. But if everyone does this manually your privacy will die in a thousand individual snapshots on sites you can't contact to get accidental nudity, etc removed. All for totally justifiable reasons - your neighbor will snap your house while taking a picture of his daughter's first steps and he won't be willing to delete the picture just because you're buying weed in the background.
Yeah, the complainant is entitled to his view. Are you happy now? But he wants to dictate the behavior of everyone else, many who don't feel the same way he does. That's not okay.
Yes, he is Japanese, no, I am not. But it's not a cultural issue. Look around on the net for pictures of Japan. They aren't in short supply. Personal snaps - like flikr stuff, commercial (posters, aerial photos, real-estate photos), and semi-commercial like camera-review sites with thousands of photos of exactly the same street across from their office. It's ludicrous to say that Japanese people really have a different feeling, in such a way that others can't understand. There are many people in the USA who make an almost identical argument, and there are obviously many Japanese photographers who don't see what the problem is.
Who I am to tell you, and the world, what to do, is simply 'right'. I literally have a clearer view of this than you. I can see some of the logical traps you're getting stuck on, and I can see as well that the proposed solutions serve nobody. For instance, you keep assuming that this is a cultural phenomenon simply because this individual says it is - the many similar sentiments expressed by even Americans shows clearly that it is not. It's doesn't need special handling, merely someone with some common sense to explain that even if cameras were illegal, the very snoops he finds rudest are the ones who would use hidden cameras.
I don't want people to be unhappy. But if we play your silly appeasement game where we assume that any complainer has the right to dictate the behavior of everyone around them we wouldn't actually try to solve anything, merely band-aid uselessly. Instead we need to figure out the problem - this guy wants more privacy and a better idea of where he is in private - and thus how to get those things. By realizing that his idea to prevent photography is authoritarian and ultimately useless we would keep searching for a way to make him feel better.
Otherwise what 'sort of crazy rules and jackbooted enforcement policies' will YOU want to enforce next.
Hello. I'm the one saying we don't need restrictive anti-photography laws. What kind of jack-booted policies am I enforcing? That we *not* leap immediately to enact sweeping regulation? Oh, what a fascist!
What arrogance and ignorance YOU demonstrate by assuming that YOU are required to accommodate THEM in THEIR country.
We (the non-lunatics) are required to accommodate this nonsense. None of the anti-photo privacy ideas really enhance privacy, they just give a false sense of security.
If Streetview exists I'll use it when shopping for real-estate instead of taking my own photos. If Google Streetview accidentally took a picture of you nude through the window you'd have someone to ask to remove it. If I was taking my own photos I might not notice you and put the shot on my website where it would be archived for anyone to find, but outside of your control to remove. Your privacy would be served by having Google Streetview in this case because it would provide a central responsible party, would reduce the number of other (my real-estate photos, etc) shots, and you could probably get Google to agree to playing an announcement, like an ice-cream truck plays music, if you work with them. That way private people could simply draw the curtains for the critical five minutes.
But you can't begin to approach a working solution unless you grow up and smell the camera-scented reality.
Anything that doesn't pander to the complainer is insensitivity. Hadn't you heard?
It's crazy to expect people to go around pretending cameras don't exist just because some people think they steal souls.
Besides, what does StreetView see? One image per year? What does your neighbor see? Your naked ass, twice a day. If that one image a year is anything, maybe it should be a wake-up call about your always-visible ass.
Oh, who am I kidding? The universal response is to blame someone essentially at random - ie photographers, instead of fixing the problem - aligning your mental model with reality. Blame on!
Who are you to tell me that my culture of pointing out stupid superstitions and useless beliefs is a bad one? I have as much right to criticize stupid views as people do to hold them.
It's not disregard for a strange culture though, it's an unwillingness to oblige stupid requests. I'd say the same to anyone who requested that their publicly viewable house not be photographed.
These people simply need to deal with reality. They're visible. If that doesn't bother them when eyeballed, they simply need to learn to feel that way about photos. It'd be harder to stop photos than to make unbreakable DRM, and such an invasion upon photographers rights to have a memory aid to things they've seen. It'd just be pure insanity if we were to actually give these people what would be required to accommodate them. If Google can't do this, can individuals do it? Of smaller areas? Just not to share? What's the penalty for violation? What are the allowable exceptions? What sort of crazy rules and jackbooted enforcement policies would we be left with?
Far better that people just grow up and smell the cameras.
Bull. Not only did that letter from the Japanese guy sound just like the letters many Americans have written re Streetview, thus negating the whole "it's another culture" argument, but it's an objectively wrong stance and catering to it is harmful.
Reality. People need to cope with it. They're visible. If they're doing something interesting their neighbors are already taking pictures, they just aren't (yet) sharing them in an easily indexable way.
If you complain about this you'll go on acting like you have privacy until it becomes painfully obvious that you don't. If you suck it up and act now, regardless of your cultural preference, as if you do not have privacy where you do not (publicly visible areas) you will not get a rude awakening.
Banning Google's Streetview would prevent people from seeing the area, but would not prevent an enemy of yours from placing a perfectly legal webcam and watching you specifically, or sharing this data - it would merely prevent all the other uses.
Don't feed the concern trolls.
I don't think my wife would buy that logic. I suggest you try again.
The pain in having your name attached to a message about sex, and a photo of your dick, is directly related to your involvement in the religious conservative rat hole.
See as the only damage is social, from the same group this person by definition must have been part of, I'd say that they do by definition "deserve" the given back to them. If they didn't want to be ridiculed for this, they should have left the organizations and groups known to ridicule people for these things. That they didn't leave merely supported the only groups who now have negative opinions of them.
Besides many of his victims may not even be married. Will that make the troll's actions less hurtful?
Yes. They will feel like dweebs for a while and then get over it.
Other people might lose spouses over this. They will *also* feel like dweebs. They will be more hurt (justifiably, though).
Who the hell are you to judge them?
Who the hell do I need to be to judge them? I'm pretty sure I don't have the authority to sentence them though, if that's what you mean...
Besides, I can learn something from their mistakes without judging them. Seriously, it doesn't even matter why the mail was leaked, a smart person comes out of this knowing not to attach a picture of their face to anything they don't want to come back to them.
If they're single, then what's the damage? People know they're heterosexual? Ditto if they're in an open marriage. It's odd, but not against the law or anything. The real damage from this is to those whose infidelities this exposed.
Or, you could say, the real gain is to those whose trust is no-longer being abused by the cheaters.
Everyone else involved? They had someone show pictures of their genitals to other people. Oh horror! People will know they like sex! Weird sex. Oh no!
In other words, quit blowing this out of proportion you concern troll.
Dunno bout you, but if it wasn't clear already I learned that people on the internet pretending to be hot women might not actually be hot, or women.
Besides, we have a word for "no real data there that can be used for anything, no methodology", we call it "history". Things happen, for what seem like (and may be) random reasons, but only in looking from far enough back that you are part of the event do we start to see the social implications, and then further back we see the historical results. People attempt to learn from history, to avoid repeating it.
It's funny. The "data" here are more real (being that there was no researcher bias, ill-performed test, etc - it simply tautologically is, and is a perfect example of itself) than they would be if there was a large study done. The study would attempt to be more complete, but would present aggregate data only and have filed off the outlying points.
After all, what is humiliation? Posting a picture of a piece of a monkey's body for other monkeys to see? I'd pay someone to post nude pics of every person on the planet if it'd end our body taboos...
I can't condemn making people feel bad because telling a religious person that their belief that god animates a cracker is silly makes them feel bad, yet imnsho needs to be said. Our anti-hate laws are getting close to making it illegal to insult someone over their beliefs, "your belief in abortion makes you equivalent to a murderer", "your god was a con man, your religious rules made-up and arbitrary, and the enforcement of them are killing people", etc.
Those things need to be said, especially any that are wrong like "your skin color makes you worthless" so that people can tell the person who says it just how worthless and stupid they are, and as an afterthought explain in detail why they are wrong. Without being able to say these things, in words that truly express how we feel, we aren't truly free. We're enslaved by the idea that all ideas are equal and above ridicule.
So no, I can't say it should stop either, even if it did hurt some people's feelings.
Bullshit. While Shieldw0lf no-doubt is an internet-tough-guy, what he said in no way indicated that he WOULD kill this guy, only that he would enjoy doing so. A threat has to indicate actual intent to perform the act.
I'd enjoy breaking into Fort Knox and stealing all the phat loots, but I won't do it for a few reasons, social and legal. No intent. Similarly, Shielfw0lf would ENJOY a world where he could defend, as he sees it, the nice people from the predatory jerks in the same fashion that he'd be lauded for killing a more obvious predator like a child killer or something.
"I would enjoy having sex with your mother." That doesn't mean that I'm threatening to, just saying that if it came to that the act would be enjoyable.
I was asking you to test the system because you have an account, I do not.
I didn't say "talking is illegal", I said others suggested that the pushing of PPL by a someone with a vested interest in it could be illegal in light of the MLM nature, etc. Certainly a real lawyer could tell you when this would be illegal ("If you know something is an MLM and you...") as a hypothetical question.
But this is exactly what everyone said would happen. Rather than you actually being interested in hearing a question and trying to answer it you get rude.
Aren't you slightly curious as to what PPL says about the law surrounding themselves? Seems like the ultimate test for bias.
Right, it doesn't need to claim the connection is to a known party, just use encryption to keep the ISP and everyone else from sniffing.
The advice that I have received is far from "questionable" as you stated.
Did you get a second opinion from an unrelated lawyer? Or did it just work, so it must have been right?
a 25% discount on the hourly rate for any services
Yeah, a rate that is supposedly higher than the industry standard. And there appear to be a few lawsuits about the "prepaid" in their name and how everything involves extra fees that sales associates have been proven not to mention.
When you say "some people" who are you referring to?
It seems that nobody says it's any good unless they're selling it and many people say it's outright fraud, you can't cancel if you try and it's nearly a cult to boot.
Use google, there are many criticisms of it.
There's definitely no criminal liability, even if I was still selling it (show me the law; it's generally on-line). When you say "some people" who are you referring to?
Why don't you ask PPL for the law? Test the quality of your PPL team, ask what laws you could run into doing this sort of thing, especially if legal theories of them being an MLM are true, and what you could do to mitigate any risks.
See if you get a detailed answer, or some feel-good speech.
I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing it'd be related to misrepresentation, or just the general illegal nature of most MLMs.
I'd much rather have a gallows we could drag people to for breaking their campaign promises.
Yes, that is the knee-jerk reaction you'd expect from marketing.
The problem is that it's overriding Engineering's attempts to actually improve the product.
Maybe someone should be afraid that a hacker WILL pull a rabbit from his hat, and use it to demonstrate the flaws of their security model. A code-red level worm, now, would be a huge market killer.
I am somewhat skeptical about paying some small sum of money and getting anyone to describe the legal issues involved, let alone go to court in a useful fashion.
I just looked up pre-paid legal. It's an MLM and that's a pretty conclusive sign of crap. Further, they've got a ton of restrictions on what they'll look at, offer "discounts" from insanely high rates once you go over your number of free issues.
Some people went so far as to suggest that you (generic internet person who mentions pre-paid legal) might be involved, and perhaps criminally liable for pushing an MLM if you are involved in it.
But as they say, sometimes a lawyer's name on a letter can cause the other party to back off. If you had a harassing landlord it might be worth $50 for questionable legal advice if it ended up solving the problem anyways.
Yeah, and people should honestly be expected to hear about, go find, read, and understand twenty pages of densely worded legalese, just to BUY a cellphone that's sold at retail, in a fashion that usually implies there won't be contracts.
Douche.
I'm aware that there's a twenty page contract, but I'm also aware as a programmer that few people, including programmers, could take a twenty page document full of conditions and exceptions and properly parse it, being sure of not making any mistakes and of catching all restrictions. Especially standing in a store, without a day or two to make notes.
It simply is not reasonable to present people with a contract like that for things that don't warrant getting a lawyer. Thinking these contracts should be binding is like expecting you to hire a lawyer and do battle with Sony corp over your defective Walkman, as opposed to going to small-claims court where the rules are different and engaging them in a more level way.
We might as well practice law in Latin for all the good it does to hand a densely worded and intentionally confusing document, especially at a time that contracts usually aren't required - what looks to be a simple purchase at retail.
So no, even if I believed that these contracts would stand up to the type of challenge I would wage if I had the time/money, I still would not follow them because they are abusive.
As for Apple's ability to control what I do with my data, I do not believe they have the right to tell me I cannot tunnel games over an SSH connection to my phone, or web pages, or a packet whose ultimate destination might be someone else. They provide bandwidth, I use it. They can set limits on amounts, but not on the purpose of the data transmission. (Which would be like saying I can only use the iPhone for certain calls.)
Obviously nobody listens to a rule that says you can't take calls for your friends on your phone - they simply pay the airtime and use the device. Similarly, nobody would accept a rule saying you can call only affiliated pizza places. A limit on who you can forward data to is just a ridiculous.
I dunno. Buying unwanted games on my phone is pretty easy. It comes with a crappy pool game and some bad tetris clone that would have been embarrassing on my Apple 2 - both thoroughly crippled demo versions. They make it pretty easy to buy the full versions, almost easier than launching the demos. Like with Apple these apps will also stop working when I change phones (if not sooner).
What's with the HORRIBLE shareware games being recycled as state-of-the-art phone games? Are the people who buy this stuff blind, or is it all sold via accidental purchases?
Now, if the iPhone makes it easier to buy an app I might want... And if Apple wouldn't just discontinue that app whenever they wanted...
This is why we need open WIFI, for plausible deniability. Might be illegal, but it's a lot less "illegal" than the routers that do log and just happens to show something they find really offensive - like if you pinged Cuba or something.
With one or two exceptions, the quickest way for a government employee to deserve death is to demand you keep their actions secret. We all just need a reason to install pools or lye in our basements...