Unless you're one of the 1.5% of the people didn't vote for a republican/democrat, STFU! You voted for this at least six times since it was officially made legal. And no doubt you will approve again in the next election.
And who would you have voted for that wouldn't have approved similar legislation?
zuckerburg said he doesnt give the government "direct access" to its servers, that doesnt mean that it doesnt give them access. I am sure there will be more "legal speak" in the days to come
Indeed, he probably just gives them direct access to the network instead.
It's called PRISM because that's what you use to split optical fibres.
Passive man-in-the-middle attacks. Doesn't matter if they can't get access to contents due to encryption if they're analysing traffic patterns with ThinThread - which is exactly what they're doing.
There are also specific trojans that have been deployed inside major companies without their knowledge (well, without their knowledge until now).
When your enemy sets up a mortar on the roof of a hospital and launches attacks from there, what do you do?
There is actually a choice.
a. take the easy way and drop a bomb on the hospital, attacking military and civilians at the same time b. take the expensive way and use costly (in every way) ground troops or helicopters to take out the mortar team
If you had been living in your family home for all your life and a bunch of hoodlums came into your neighborhood and started shooting up the place, would you A. leave, or B. stay to spite them? Many people would choose A., but many would choose B.
And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?
Only if you change the definition of the word 'militant'. Just because someone chooses to remain in any given place does not make them militant.
militant
(ml-tnt) adj. 1. Fighting or warring. 2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist. n. A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militant
This is a problem with the organization of your business and cannot be fixed with a technical solution.
"the main issue is that they were able to do this at all, but reality is that IT gets overridden by the Process Control department in a manufacturing business. They were warned about this"
You need to raise the risks to management and if they choose to override your recommendation then the problem is theirs, not yours.
From the same link: "Whether or do not a blockade was seen as lawful depended on the laws of the nations whose trade was influenced by the blockade. The Brazilian blockade of Río de la Plata in 1826, for instance, was considered lawful according to British law"
"At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Isreal has a habit of attacking who they want, when they want, where they want...with no repercussions whatsoever.
I am Jewish by birth but I am disgusted with the politics of Isreal.
Why not just purchase a botnet? It's cheaper and easier than getting millions of people to visit a website. And you don't have to limit yourself to JS.
Presumably buying a botnet is more expensive than the gain from the mining you would realize with it.
Ah, and there we come to the heart of the issue. "In my mind" are the key words. Look at case of Julian Assange as a great example of how there are other opinions on the issue.
There's an old saying. The main reason why there are wars in this world is because the amount of different concepts of justice equals the amount of people.
If what you're saying is that we disagree and that's that then there's not much point in your point, if you get my point.
Forcing people to vote one way is different than non-violent and non-obligatory discussion that gets someone to change their mind.
You can ask anyone you see on the street for money and they can choose to give it to you or not.
If you convince them to give it to you without resorting to coercion (ie please I need it to call my family to come pick me up or whatever), you have done nothing wrong in getting them to give you the money.
If you tell them that you will hurt them or someone they care about if they don't give you money then you breaking the law.
The differentiation between the two is very clear.
What about cases when person says no, is then orally talked to and then convinced to do the act? If this is still rape, I'm guilty of rape. As are most men in the world. Granted, essentially no law except perhaps Swedish qualifies this as rape.
What about person who like to be forced a bit, say "no", do it anyway, and then tell you how wonderful it was and tell you to call him/her and leave his/her number?
What about perosn that are into the act but get another idea after or even during the act?
What about countless other shades of gray?
No as there is no obligation, no threat of violence. If you can talk the person into changing their mind in this fashion then no I do not see it as rape.
If a girl (for me it's girls but whatever) says no then it's no. I have lived my life like this (I am not young) and have no regrets.
Seduction and rape are very easily differentiated. If the person says no and is forced then it is rape.
If people are not free to vote as they want to vote, or if their votes are changed or 'lost', then voting is being manipulated.
Your argument about cultures being accepting of coercion does not change the fact that the votes are being manipulated.
If you have a village who is going to vote and every family is told "Vote for our candidate or we will kill you and your children" then you have voting manipulation and I don't really give a shit if it's acceptable in the culture or not. The end result is not democracy.
I am not talking about western standards. This has nothing to do with western standards. I'm talking about the military being charged in Turkey with making sure that the Islamists do not violate the Turkish constitution which states that Turkey is to be a secular country.
Not sure if you're trolling, but Turkey absolutely is a secular state.
Not trolling at all. Turkey's secular status is under attack by the Islamist government running the country. With the military that would normally have been the counter balance against the islamists in jail, it's now left to the people to get out in the streets (which they are indeed doing). We'll see how it goes.
There is no chance of that any more than there is a chance of that in US. Turkey is a democratic country and proud of it. Islamists are proud of the fact that in spite of being dispersed by West-supported military in multiple coups, it always came back to power because of democratic forces, and this time it managed to successfully sever the army's power by imprisoning certain key generals who were planning the next coup.
You misunderstand. I was saying that there was a good chance that voting was manipulated to put and keep George W. in power.
The problem with democracy (or one of the problems with it anyway) is that voting can, and is, manipulated. Islamists tend to put varying levels of pressure up to and including the threat of violence to 'encourage' people to vote for them.
Is it any surprise that the islamist government consolidates it's power by putting down those who threaten it ?
The military was given a duty to follow - to keep the islamists from turning Turkey into a religious state. They have indeed overturning previous islamist regimes...and then giving the power back to the people of the country.
In the current situation, the islamists in Turkey have taken those in charge of the military and put them in prison to stop them from doing exactly what they are supposed to do while trying to turn Turkey Sharia.
Thank you for posting the tumblr link - really gives an idea of the scope of things (which is, of course, exactly what the Turkish government wants to avoid at this point).
I seriously doubt Turkey will be made into a bad guy. They're a NATO member and the only muslim majority country in the region with a healthy economy and political stability. They are also a needed conter-weight to Iran and are crucial in resolving the civil war in Syria. Never mind that Erdogan was democratically elected.
A counter weight to Iran would be a secular state, not an Islamist state.
Example: US and its current ability to imprison people indefinitely under anti-terrorist laws. After 9/11 enough US people of voting aged judged that freedom to have a fair trial in reasonable amount of time was no longer on the list of freedoms they wish to have. So this freedom was repelled democratically.
I have to disagree as there was no referendum and the people did not vote for self-repression. Additionally, there is a good chance that voting was manipulated to put and keep the purported author in the President's chair.
Noun A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force. A person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere.
So Facebook should be allowed to host videos of child rape?
Well, in this particular case no rape was involved. I haven't seen the video, but apparently it depicted a drunk girl in some state of disrepair. We also know that it was used to further haunt that girl.
I chose an extreme example to illustrate the point but the issue remains that the publisher (in this case facebook with the 'authors' being the minors who uploaded the videos) must be responsible for what they publish. If a newspaper or television station publishes something they shouldn't they are expected to publish a retraction (and possibly pay reparations, depending on what it is).
The issue for me isn't so much this girl in particular, as that Facebook is not following a law specifying that there can be no contracts with minors - which they are ignoring (for all intents and purposes) to make money.
But to answer your original question... I think nobody can be "allowed" to host illegal materials. The one that you threw in as an example would classify as illegal. Providers are immune from prosecution as long as they don't have a positive censorship system. Some forums are moderated, and therefore have such a system. The provider of an unmoderated forum has to remove the illegal material as soon as they are informed about its existence. The poster may be prosecuted for distribution of an illegal material.
One question to ask would be what FB people knew, and when they knew it, about this video. Did the girl complain to FB? If she did, and FB people did nothing, that would be bad. If the girl did not complain (didn't know that she can, for example) then FB had no way to know that a certain video, one out of millions that are uploaded daily, is causing problems.
I don't disagree with you on this. It isn't relevant to the general issue of whether minors can have accounts without their parents' permission though (the contract thus being with the parents and not with the minors).
Facebook has every way to verify the age of someone who wants an account - they just don't want to bother because there's a cost associated with it.
Most likely because they do only what the law requires.
Depends on whether having an account which requires signing terms & conditions (even electronically constitutes a contract. If it does, and I believe it does, then they are not doing what the law requires.
Gaming sites, for example, just ask to enter your birth date. You can enter whatever you want. Is the law insufficient? Perhaps. But that's the best law money can buy.
Just because that's the way they do it does not mean that it is following the law to the extent required by the law. The law does not say "You must ask the age of someone before you enter into a contract with them". It says (paraphrasing and generalizing) "You must not have contracts with minors".
We could equate the selling of alcohol or cigarettes to minors. The vendor must do more than just ask the age and take the buyer's word for it- it must not sell to minors. And if the vendor makes an error, it's the vendor that pays the fine.
In most cases the age cannot be verified without an interview where government-issued documents are checked. Can you imagine how much *that* would cost? Can Slashdot afford that, for example? For a registration from Central Africa? You'd have to send an expedition to conduct that interview. Will the civilization be better off if Web sites refuse to accept registrations from 3rd world? Or, perhaps, the society as a whole benefits from free access to information; and if that information is too much for some - that's sad, but we won't keep millions of adults in diapers. Don't hold millions of responsible children hostage just because one or two, somewhere, were not responsible. Make sure
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you're one of the 1.5% of the people didn't vote for a republican/democrat, STFU! You voted for this at least six times since it was officially made legal. And no doubt you will approve again in the next election.
And who would you have voted for that wouldn't have approved similar legislation?
zuckerburg said he doesnt give the government "direct access" to its servers, that doesnt mean that it doesnt give them access. I am sure there will be more "legal speak" in the days to come
Indeed, he probably just gives them direct access to the network instead.
Narus STA 6600 deep packet inspection gear
It's called PRISM because that's what you use to split optical fibres.
Passive man-in-the-middle attacks. Doesn't matter if they can't get access to contents due to encryption if they're analysing traffic patterns with ThinThread - which is exactly what they're doing.
There are also specific trojans that have been deployed inside major companies without their knowledge (well, without their knowledge until now).
ThinThread ==> Trailblazer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project
When your enemy sets up a mortar on the roof of a hospital and launches attacks from there, what do you do?
There is actually a choice.
a. take the easy way and drop a bomb on the hospital, attacking military and civilians at the same time
b. take the expensive way and use costly (in every way) ground troops or helicopters to take out the mortar team
And those that stayed to fight could be correctly described as "militants", no?
Only if you change the definition of the word 'militant'. Just because someone chooses to remain in any given place does not make them militant.
militant
(ml-tnt)
adj.
1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.
n.
A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militant
This is a problem with the organization of your business and cannot be fixed with a technical solution.
"the main issue is that they were able to do this at all, but reality is that IT gets overridden by the Process Control department in a manufacturing business. They were warned about this"
You need to raise the risks to management and if they choose to override your recommendation then the problem is theirs, not yours.
Everybody needs to be using Tor on their mobile device and running lots of servers to help these people.
And then Tor will be blocked (if it isn't already).
Countries like Saudi would rather cut off the Internet altogether then lose control of it.
Not often you hear the words 'basic freedoms" and "Saudi Arabia" in the same sentence...
From the same link:
"Whether or do not a blockade was seen as lawful depended on the laws of the nations whose trade was influenced by the blockade. The Brazilian blockade of Río de la Plata in 1826, for instance, was considered lawful according to British law"
how the Israelis would feel if someone created a Twitter account along the lines of "@Treblinka1942" and ran a play by play of the daily events there?
Generally fine, in all probability, as the goal is to never forget what happened.
Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on the Egyptian Air Force, after Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran.
Blockades in international law are acts of war. You have it backwards as usual, but thanks for yielding the point.
It depends - sometimes it's legal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade#Act_of_war
"At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Isreal has a habit of attacking who they want, when they want, where they want...with no repercussions whatsoever.
I am Jewish by birth but I am disgusted with the politics of Isreal.
Why not just purchase a botnet? It's cheaper and easier than getting millions of people to visit a website. And you don't have to limit yourself to JS.
Presumably buying a botnet is more expensive than the gain from the mining you would realize with it.
Ah, and there we come to the heart of the issue. "In my mind" are the key words. Look at case of Julian Assange as a great example of how there are other opinions on the issue.
There's an old saying. The main reason why there are wars in this world is because the amount of different concepts of justice equals the amount of people.
If what you're saying is that we disagree and that's that then there's not much point in your point, if you get my point.
Forcing people to vote one way is different than non-violent and non-obligatory discussion that gets someone to change their mind.
You can ask anyone you see on the street for money and they can choose to give it to you or not.
If you convince them to give it to you without resorting to coercion (ie please I need it to call my family to come pick me up or whatever), you have done nothing wrong in getting them to give you the money.
If you tell them that you will hurt them or someone they care about if they don't give you money then you breaking the law.
The differentiation between the two is very clear.
What about cases when person says no, is then orally talked to and then convinced to do the act? If this is still rape, I'm guilty of rape. As are most men in the world. Granted, essentially no law except perhaps Swedish qualifies this as rape.
What about person who like to be forced a bit, say "no", do it anyway, and then tell you how wonderful it was and tell you to call him/her and leave his/her number?
What about perosn that are into the act but get another idea after or even during the act?
What about countless other shades of gray?
No as there is no obligation, no threat of violence. If you can talk the person into changing their mind in this fashion then no I do not see it as rape.
If a girl (for me it's girls but whatever) says no then it's no. I have lived my life like this (I am not young) and have no regrets.
Seduction and rape are very easily differentiated. If the person says no and is forced then it is rape.
If people are not free to vote as they want to vote, or if their votes are changed or 'lost', then voting is being manipulated.
Your argument about cultures being accepting of coercion does not change the fact that the votes are being manipulated.
If you have a village who is going to vote and every family is told "Vote for our candidate or we will kill you and your children" then you have voting manipulation and I don't really give a shit if it's acceptable in the culture or not. The end result is not democracy.
I am not talking about western standards. This has nothing to do with western standards. I'm talking about the military being charged in Turkey with making sure that the Islamists do not violate the Turkish constitution which states that Turkey is to be a secular country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Turkey#Military_Factor
Marriages Spawned From Online Dating As Unsatisfying As From Traditional Dating
FTFY
Not sure if you're trolling, but Turkey absolutely is a secular state.
Not trolling at all. Turkey's secular status is under attack by the Islamist government running the country. With the military that would normally have been the counter balance against the islamists in jail, it's now left to the people to get out in the streets (which they are indeed doing). We'll see how it goes.
There is no chance of that any more than there is a chance of that in US. Turkey is a democratic country and proud of it. Islamists are proud of the fact that in spite of being dispersed by West-supported military in multiple coups, it always came back to power because of democratic forces, and this time it managed to successfully sever the army's power by imprisoning certain key generals who were planning the next coup.
You misunderstand. I was saying that there was a good chance that voting was manipulated to put and keep George W. in power.
The problem with democracy (or one of the problems with it anyway) is that voting can, and is, manipulated. Islamists tend to put varying levels of pressure up to and including the threat of violence to 'encourage' people to vote for them.
Is it any surprise that the islamist government consolidates it's power by putting down those who threaten it ?
The military was given a duty to follow - to keep the islamists from turning Turkey into a religious state. They have indeed overturning previous islamist regimes...and then giving the power back to the people of the country.
In the current situation, the islamists in Turkey have taken those in charge of the military and put them in prison to stop them from doing exactly what they are supposed to do while trying to turn Turkey Sharia.
I suppose its only fair to link to some of the social media photos.
Thank you for posting the tumblr link - really gives an idea of the scope of things (which is, of course, exactly what the Turkish government wants to avoid at this point).
I seriously doubt Turkey will be made into a bad guy. They're a NATO member and the only muslim majority country in the region with a healthy economy and political stability. They are also a needed conter-weight to Iran and are crucial in resolving the civil war in Syria. Never mind that Erdogan was democratically elected.
A counter weight to Iran would be a secular state, not an Islamist state.
Example: US and its current ability to imprison people indefinitely under anti-terrorist laws. After 9/11 enough US people of voting aged judged that freedom to have a fair trial in reasonable amount of time was no longer on the list of freedoms they wish to have. So this freedom was repelled democratically.
I have to disagree as there was no referendum and the people did not vote for self-repression. Additionally, there is a good chance that voting was manipulated to put and keep the purported author in the President's chair.
dictator /dikttr/
Noun
A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.
A person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere.
source: http://www.google.com/
How long until Monsanto sues the state of Oregon?
(and no I'm not serious)
So Facebook should be allowed to host videos of child rape?
Well, in this particular case no rape was involved. I haven't seen the video, but apparently it depicted a drunk girl in some state of disrepair. We also know that it was used to further haunt that girl.
I chose an extreme example to illustrate the point but the issue remains that the publisher (in this case facebook with the 'authors' being the minors who uploaded the videos) must be responsible for what they publish. If a newspaper or television station publishes something they shouldn't they are expected to publish a retraction (and possibly pay reparations, depending on what it is).
The issue for me isn't so much this girl in particular, as that Facebook is not following a law specifying that there can be no contracts with minors - which they are ignoring (for all intents and purposes) to make money.
But to answer your original question... I think nobody can be "allowed" to host illegal materials. The one that you threw in as an example would classify as illegal. Providers are immune from prosecution as long as they don't have a positive censorship system. Some forums are moderated, and therefore have such a system. The provider of an unmoderated forum has to remove the illegal material as soon as they are informed about its existence. The poster may be prosecuted for distribution of an illegal material.
One question to ask would be what FB people knew, and when they knew it, about this video. Did the girl complain to FB? If she did, and FB people did nothing, that would be bad. If the girl did not complain (didn't know that she can, for example) then FB had no way to know that a certain video, one out of millions that are uploaded daily, is causing problems.
I don't disagree with you on this. It isn't relevant to the general issue of whether minors can have accounts without their parents' permission though (the contract thus being with the parents and not with the minors).
Facebook has every way to verify the age of someone who wants an account - they just don't want to bother because there's a cost associated with it.
Most likely because they do only what the law requires.
Depends on whether having an account which requires signing terms & conditions (even electronically constitutes a contract. If it does, and I believe it does, then they are not doing what the law requires.
Gaming sites, for example, just ask to enter your birth date. You can enter whatever you want. Is the law insufficient? Perhaps. But that's the best law money can buy.
Just because that's the way they do it does not mean that it is following the law to the extent required by the law. The law does not say "You must ask the age of someone before you enter into a contract with them". It says (paraphrasing and generalizing) "You must not have contracts with minors".
We could equate the selling of alcohol or cigarettes to minors. The vendor must do more than just ask the age and take the buyer's word for it- it must not sell to minors. And if the vendor makes an error, it's the vendor that pays the fine.
In most cases the age cannot be verified without an interview where government-issued documents are checked. Can you imagine how much *that* would cost? Can Slashdot afford that, for example? For a registration from Central Africa? You'd have to send an expedition to conduct that interview. Will the civilization be better off if Web sites refuse to accept registrations from 3rd world? Or, perhaps, the society as a whole benefits from free access to information; and if that information is too much for some - that's sad, but we won't keep millions of adults in diapers. Don't hold millions of responsible children hostage just because one or two, somewhere, were not responsible. Make sure