You seem to be functionally illiterate. I say sex-trafficking is basically a myth. The numbers you cite on it are entirely bogus. If they were even remotely true, the victims would turn up all over the place. They do not.
Regular trafficking is different.
You forgot to clarify your inconsistency of ''a single' one' vs. 'the exceptionally few cases'.
Aside from that, let's have a look at those numbers: "The UNODC approximates the number of victims worldwide to be around 2.5 million." 2.5 million / worldwide population = 2.5 million / 7.5 billion = some really fucking small percentage = will not 'show up all over the place'
"UNICEF reports that since 1982 about 30 million children have been trafficked." 2015 - 1982 = 33 years. 30 million / 33 = a bit less than 100,000 per year / worldwide population of 6.5 million = again some really fucking small percentage that again will not 'show up all over the place'
Sexual trafficking is not 'different'. It is a part of regular trafficking, thus the third quote: "Trafficking for sexual slavery accounts for 79% of cases, with the majority of victims being female, of which an estimated 20% are children"
You are obviously going to stick to your fucked up opinion regardless of anything that is presented to you to the contrary so I'll close this worthless discussion by saying that I would rather be functionally illiterate than a complete fucking idiot like yourself.
No - this is data removal about a given person at that person's request to be 'forgotten'. The government is enforcing that person's wishes about the data pertaining to that person.
That doesn't make shit for sense. Why would they be asking Google to remove it instead of its original publisher? This is about respecting that person's wishes, right? Google is simply offering its opinion of what link you're looking for, and itself doesn't possess the information that the person is wanting to remove.
I mean shit, most of these removal requests are for European newspapers, so they're even more under the EU jurisdiction than Google is.
Quit pretending that this isn't about censoring speech that somebody like.
Google caches pages. The results are those caches. Once the argument is won with Google then France will go after the original publishers of the content.
What requests are you referring to for newspapers? Do you have some reference(s)?
Or perhaps, they don't believe France has the right to tell the rest of the world what they can read/know. Why doesn't France demand the published sites of record remove it, and then it would be purged from Googles index accordingly? If it was truly about clearing the information from public scrutiny they wouldn't be placing the responsibility on Google.
The law does not apply only to google. Google happens to be the largest target and so the French are going after it first. That hardly means they'll ignore the rest.
You've got it completely backwards. This isn't about keeping people in France from seeing something.
No, you've got it backwards. If Google had to remove every single piece of data that every world government says shouldn't be visible anywhere in the world, then the internet would be limited to information available from the least free country in the world.
And unless there's some kind of treaty saying otherwise, no country's laws are automatically applied to every other country in the world.
No - this is data removal about a given person at that person's request to be 'forgotten'. The government is enforcing that person's wishes about the data pertaining to that person.
There's a big difference between the government saying 'remove data X' and a person saying 'remove that post about me' and having the government enforce that person's right to privacy.
As well, a government has a right and a responsibility to protect its citizens, regardless of whether that protection is on that nation's territory or outside it and I see this as a protection of the rights of citizens - not an infringement upon them. (and I normally post the opposite, just FYI)
Health care in the US is an ideological issue, and I don't get why.
Because we are programmed from the time we can walk to know that 'communism' and 'socialism' are evil.
Business interests have convinced Americans that a single payer health system = socialism (or communism to those who can't tell the difference), thus the ideological aspect of the discussion which is actually a capitalism vs. 'communism' propaganda issue.
Not an option for High Frequency Traders. Geographic diversity means locating your fiber optic connect further way from the transatlantic fiber head ends which make HFT possible.
Nope -
FHTs will typically have a presence in two colos per exchange and, depending on where they trade, with multiple exchanges each exchange being in a different country or region.
If the disaster is big enough to take out both colos for a given exchange it has probably taken out the exchange as well.
Google just removed the results from some local domains (fr, co.uk etc), but left it working for com domain. Basically it means they failed at delisting since EU citizen can still easily avoid it. Instead they should comply by doing some kind of geoip delisting as then they would be really compliant within EU jurisdiction.
No, I am in France using google.com and searching (for example on myself) I get this message at the bottom of the results page:
Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.
With China being a MUCH bigger market and all, I could see Google just outright leaving France if it came down to it. Maybe Jacques Chirac would finally get his wish of a French owned search engine.
One having nothing to do with another.
China wanted Google out, for one thing - and did whatever they had to do to get them to leave.
This is about protecting people's rights under EU data law (but globally) - not about removing people's rights further (i.e. the China scenario)
Another problem I'm having with this is that when you look at the way other countries handle information they don't like (that is, national firewalls) why is it that France doesn't just step up to the plate and create a GFW around their own border routers to prevent their citizens from accessing undesirable Google pages? Why is it Google's responsibility to make sure that French citizens can't see what their government doesn't want them to see?
You've got it completely backwards. This isn't about keeping people in France from seeing something.
France is trying to protect their citizens' right to privacy / right to be forgotten / data rights globally instead of just in the EU (where they are protected by EU law).
Google doesn't want to do this because they want to sell EU people (including French people) data as a product.
We are talking about sex trafficking of teenagers here and that is almost completely a fantasy-product of perverted minds. Incidentally, the media, the police and others have interviewed countless prostitutes from eastern Europe here and did not find a single "trafficked" one.
The exceptionally few cases that are known are from customers that noticed something was off and informed the police.
In one sentence you say they didn't find 'a single' one and in the next you say 'the exceptionally few cases' which means that you're backpedaling but whatever.
Show me your references.
"Ordinary" trafficking is a serious problem and happens in significant numbers.
You say that trafficking is a serious problem and happens in significant numbers...but not of teenagers?
Seriously...are you high?
Wherever there is a market, goods will be sold - and there is a market for teenagers (and younger for that matter) and they are most certainly being sold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "The UNODC approximates the number of victims worldwide to be around 2.5 million." "UNICEF reports that since 1982 about 30 million children have been trafficked." "Trafficking for sexual slavery accounts for 79% of cases, with the majority of victims being female, of which an estimated 20% are children"
You're probably one of these fucknuts that thinks there was no holocaust either.
...it is extremely hard to even find a single credible one.
I suppose you've actually gone out and done the research yourself have you? Talked to a few foreign prostitutes maybe...or do prostitutes not count because they are 'not credible'?
My wife has family from an east Asian country, several of whom have been trafficked to the middle east, their papers taken and effectively forced to work as slave labor. It took years to find them and get them back.
"OMG! Like, Tiffany? She totally told Heather that I had sex with Trevor. I mean, no way! He's such a dork! Anyway, Heather told Megan who told Sierra who wrote a note and passed it around 7th hour band and now everyone in the school thinks Trevor and me are an item! My life is like totally ruined! Now I'm afraid no one will ask me to the prom because they're all gonna think I'm a slut!"
That's what you sound like, and your doxxing problems are going to be about as meaningful a year from now. Your life will suck for a short period of time, then everyone will forget about you and move on to the next bit of juvenile drama.
If you're honestly concerned about your safety (not just your reputation, that damage will blow over and be forgotten) take the evidence to the police and get real legal advice instead of asking a bunch of jerkwads on a random tech web site.
If parents need to spy on their children . . . there is a lack of trust.
Sometimes there are children who just cannot be trusted to make good decisions - who have proven that they are going to make bad decisions over and over again.
And sometimes children just make mistakes and in this unkind world such mistakes can be very dangerous indeed.
Case in point: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi... Snippings from that article for your convenience: "When we got into her Facebook account, we realised that she had a profile that we didn't know about..." "Sixteen days after Karen disappeared, she was abandoned at a bus terminal[...] "[...]she didn't understand the magnitude of the danger she'd been in." "Elizabeth took her to a conference where she met girls who had been trafficked." "It was when she heard their stories and realised what hell they'd been through that she finally realised the danger she'd been in. She went to the conference as one girl, and came back another," says Elizabeth.
There will always be shoddy code that makes it into apps, though this is pretty awful and unacceptable. I'm also really troubled by the government mandate that such a program be installed on children's phones. Shouldn't it be up to the parents if they want this level of monitoring or not? Also, can't this be implemented by wireless carriers in a secure fashion by monitoring traffic from the device instead of apps on the phone? Surely such a thing would be more secure and probably a lot harder to circumvent. Why is the government of South Korea turning into a nanny state and requiring something that should be solely the decision of the parents?
The question as always is, who profits?
Follow the money spent on this crapp and you'll know the 'why' of it.
Crystal offered their product for free for literally less than a day but I snapped it up in time.
Holy shit. It's like the first time you discovered adblock+ on your desktop. Suddenly surfing is fast and, well, useful.
Fucking advertisers are especially aggressive on mobile because they know their audience is captive and less skilled. If, as a species, we spent half as much time as it took to research how to make predictive ad slide right the fuck under your thumb before you tap the screen in to medical research we'd have cured fucking cancer by now. (I'm looking right the fuck at you slashdot on mobile. In-line adds for fermium shitware skinnerbox games and hovering banners? Fuck this place has fallen since the 90s)
This is a real coup for apple. Think you'll ever see operating system supported ad blockers on the play store? Fat fucking chance!
There are adblockers on Play. There are also addblocker add-ins for browsers (for example Firefox w/adblock+ which is what I use) that are on Play.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be functionally illiterate. I say sex-trafficking is basically a myth. The numbers you cite on it are entirely bogus. If they were even remotely true, the victims would turn up all over the place. They do not.
Regular trafficking is different.
You forgot to clarify your inconsistency of ''a single' one' vs. 'the exceptionally few cases'.
Aside from that, let's have a look at those numbers:
"The UNODC approximates the number of victims worldwide to be around 2.5 million."
2.5 million / worldwide population = 2.5 million / 7.5 billion = some really fucking small percentage = will not 'show up all over the place'
"UNICEF reports that since 1982 about 30 million children have been trafficked."
2015 - 1982 = 33 years. 30 million / 33 = a bit less than 100,000 per year / worldwide population of 6.5 million = again some really fucking small percentage that again will not 'show up all over the place'
Sexual trafficking is not 'different'. It is a part of regular trafficking, thus the third quote:
"Trafficking for sexual slavery accounts for 79% of cases, with the majority of victims being female, of which an estimated 20% are children"
You are obviously going to stick to your fucked up opinion regardless of anything that is presented to you to the contrary so I'll close this worthless discussion by saying that I would rather be functionally illiterate than a complete fucking idiot like yourself.
No - this is data removal about a given person at that person's request to be 'forgotten'. The government is enforcing that person's wishes about the data pertaining to that person.
That doesn't make shit for sense. Why would they be asking Google to remove it instead of its original publisher? This is about respecting that person's wishes, right? Google is simply offering its opinion of what link you're looking for, and itself doesn't possess the information that the person is wanting to remove.
I mean shit, most of these removal requests are for European newspapers, so they're even more under the EU jurisdiction than Google is.
Quit pretending that this isn't about censoring speech that somebody like.
Google caches pages. The results are those caches. Once the argument is won with Google then France will go after the original publishers of the content.
What requests are you referring to for newspapers? Do you have some reference(s)?
hey, that post about you is my intellectual property.
google is anti-competitive.
they're delisting my articles and not those of my competitors.
No, it's not yours. It's mine because it's about me.
And if they de-list your articles it's because you have requested it.
Here's a Discovery article that proposes Venus as a better option:
http://blogs.discovermagazine....
IANAL but it sounds like his prison time will be about the same as you'd get for normal robbery (without weapons or other aggregating factors).
Lesson to be learned...if you're going to steal, steal a LOT.
Or perhaps, they don't believe France has the right to tell the rest of the world what they can read/know. Why doesn't France demand the published sites of record remove it, and then it would be purged from Googles index accordingly? If it was truly about clearing the information from public scrutiny they wouldn't be placing the responsibility on Google.
The law does not apply only to google. Google happens to be the largest target and so the French are going after it first. That hardly means they'll ignore the rest.
You've got it completely backwards. This isn't about keeping people in France from seeing something.
No, you've got it backwards. If Google had to remove every single piece of data that every world government says shouldn't be visible anywhere in the world, then the internet would be limited to information available from the least free country in the world.
And unless there's some kind of treaty saying otherwise, no country's laws are automatically applied to every other country in the world.
No - this is data removal about a given person at that person's request to be 'forgotten'. The government is enforcing that person's wishes about the data pertaining to that person.
There's a big difference between the government saying 'remove data X' and a person saying 'remove that post about me' and having the government enforce that person's right to privacy.
As well, a government has a right and a responsibility to protect its citizens, regardless of whether that protection is on that nation's territory or outside it and I see this as a protection of the rights of citizens - not an infringement upon them. (and I normally post the opposite, just FYI)
Health care in the US is an ideological issue, and I don't get why.
Because we are programmed from the time we can walk to know that 'communism' and 'socialism' are evil.
Business interests have convinced Americans that a single payer health system = socialism (or communism to those who can't tell the difference), thus the ideological aspect of the discussion which is actually a capitalism vs. 'communism' propaganda issue.
Not an option for High Frequency Traders. Geographic diversity means locating your fiber optic connect further way from the transatlantic fiber head ends which make HFT possible.
Nope -
FHTs will typically have a presence in two colos per exchange and, depending on where they trade, with multiple exchanges each exchange being in a different country or region.
If the disaster is big enough to take out both colos for a given exchange it has probably taken out the exchange as well.
Google just removed the results from some local domains (fr, co.uk etc), but left it working for com domain. Basically it means they failed at delisting since EU citizen can still easily avoid it. Instead they should comply by doing some kind of geoip delisting as then they would be really compliant within EU jurisdiction.
No, I am in France using google.com and searching (for example on myself) I get this message at the bottom of the results page:
Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.
If removing the results worldwide isn't apply French Law extraterritorially, what is it?
Does France have the right to protect it's citizens worldwide?
With China being a MUCH bigger market and all, I could see Google just outright leaving France if it came down to it. Maybe Jacques Chirac would finally get his wish of a French owned search engine.
One having nothing to do with another.
China wanted Google out, for one thing - and did whatever they had to do to get them to leave.
This is about protecting people's rights under EU data law (but globally) - not about removing people's rights further (i.e. the China scenario)
Another problem I'm having with this is that when you look at the way other countries handle information they don't like (that is, national firewalls) why is it that France doesn't just step up to the plate and create a GFW around their own border routers to prevent their citizens from accessing undesirable Google pages? Why is it Google's responsibility to make sure that French citizens can't see what their government doesn't want them to see?
You've got it completely backwards. This isn't about keeping people in France from seeing something.
France is trying to protect their citizens' right to privacy / right to be forgotten / data rights globally instead of just in the EU (where they are protected by EU law).
Google doesn't want to do this because they want to sell EU people (including French people) data as a product.
We are talking about sex trafficking of teenagers here and that is almost completely a fantasy-product of perverted minds. Incidentally, the media, the police and others have interviewed countless prostitutes from eastern Europe here and did not find a single "trafficked" one.
The exceptionally few cases that are known are from customers that noticed something was off and informed the police.
In one sentence you say they didn't find 'a single' one and in the next you say 'the exceptionally few cases' which means that you're backpedaling but whatever.
Show me your references.
"Ordinary" trafficking is a serious problem and happens in significant numbers.
You say that trafficking is a serious problem and happens in significant numbers...but not of teenagers?
Seriously...are you high?
Wherever there is a market, goods will be sold - and there is a market for teenagers (and younger for that matter) and they are most certainly being sold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The UNODC approximates the number of victims worldwide to be around 2.5 million."
"UNICEF reports that since 1982 about 30 million children have been trafficked."
"Trafficking for sexual slavery accounts for 79% of cases, with the majority of victims being female, of which an estimated 20% are children"
You're probably one of these fucknuts that thinks there was no holocaust either.
Then what, pray tell, is the point of Apple's byzantine approvals process?
Money.
ORLY?
Apple could make even MORE money by letting ANY software in, and saving the Resources it takes to Approve it.
Therefore, there MUST be another reason. Let's see; what could it be?
Could it POSSIBLY be that they really ARE trying (pretty damned successfully so far!) to keep this kind of shit OUT of the App Store(s)?
Nah. That can't be it. Must be GREED, right?
Haters gotta hate; even when it makes NO sense.
Apple would not make more by letting just anything in.
They block whatever competes with Apple themselves.
...it is extremely hard to even find a single credible one.
I suppose you've actually gone out and done the research yourself have you? Talked to a few foreign prostitutes maybe...or do prostitutes not count because they are 'not credible'?
My wife has family from an east Asian country, several of whom have been trafficked to the middle east, their papers taken and effectively forced to work as slave labor. It took years to find them and get them back.
Fuck you and your ignorance.
"OMG! Like, Tiffany? She totally told Heather that I had sex with Trevor. I mean, no way! He's such a dork! Anyway, Heather told Megan who told Sierra who wrote a note and passed it around 7th hour band and now everyone in the school thinks Trevor and me are an item! My life is like totally ruined! Now I'm afraid no one will ask me to the prom because they're all gonna think I'm a slut!"
That's what you sound like, and your doxxing problems are going to be about as meaningful a year from now. Your life will suck for a short period of time, then everyone will forget about you and move on to the next bit of juvenile drama.
If you're honestly concerned about your safety (not just your reputation, that damage will blow over and be forgotten) take the evidence to the police and get real legal advice instead of asking a bunch of jerkwads on a random tech web site.
Doxxing can have real life impact. http://www.businessinsider.com...
The OP already said the police couldn't do anything and that as the sources are outside the US legal options are ineffective.
Maybe you should have read more before posting something completely useless.
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall. Torque is how far you take the wall with you. "
-Ross Bentley
Then what, pray tell, is the point of Apple's byzantine approvals process?
Money.
If parents need to spy on their children . . . there is a lack of trust.
Sometimes there are children who just cannot be trusted to make good decisions - who have proven that they are going to make bad decisions over and over again.
And sometimes children just make mistakes and in this unkind world such mistakes can be very dangerous indeed.
Case in point: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
Snippings from that article for your convenience:
"When we got into her Facebook account, we realised that she had a profile that we didn't know about..."
"Sixteen days after Karen disappeared, she was abandoned at a bus terminal[...]
"[...]she didn't understand the magnitude of the danger she'd been in."
"Elizabeth took her to a conference where she met girls who had been trafficked."
"It was when she heard their stories and realised what hell they'd been through that she finally realised the danger she'd been in. She went to the conference as one girl, and came back another," says Elizabeth.
There will always be shoddy code that makes it into apps, though this is pretty awful and unacceptable. I'm also really troubled by the government mandate that such a program be installed on children's phones. Shouldn't it be up to the parents if they want this level of monitoring or not? Also, can't this be implemented by wireless carriers in a secure fashion by monitoring traffic from the device instead of apps on the phone? Surely such a thing would be more secure and probably a lot harder to circumvent. Why is the government of South Korea turning into a nanny state and requiring something that should be solely the decision of the parents?
The question as always is, who profits?
Follow the money spent on this crapp and you'll know the 'why' of it.
Crystal offered their product for free for literally less than a day but I snapped it up in time.
Holy shit. It's like the first time you discovered adblock+ on your desktop. Suddenly surfing is fast and, well, useful.
Fucking advertisers are especially aggressive on mobile because they know their audience is captive and less skilled. If, as a species, we spent half as much time as it took to research how to make predictive ad slide right the fuck under your thumb before you tap the screen in to medical research we'd have cured fucking cancer by now. (I'm looking right the fuck at you slashdot on mobile. In-line adds for fermium shitware skinnerbox games and hovering banners? Fuck this place has fallen since the 90s)
This is a real coup for apple. Think you'll ever see operating system supported ad blockers on the play store? Fat fucking chance!
There are adblockers on Play. There are also addblocker add-ins for browsers (for example Firefox w/adblock+ which is what I use) that are on Play.
Perhaps you should google what a "trust" is.
A single company can not form a trust or be anti-trust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
http://www.rt.com/news/249733-...
I think using a swipe pattern is even LESS secure than using a pin with the same number of digits as swipe points.
Agreed completely
Rate the chances of a reverse app to assist migrating from iPhone to Android making it into the Apple store?
I'll go with never.
Worth trying. If it got blocked you'd have a nice anti-trust suit against Apple.