did facebook force her to sign up? did facebook force her to get hammered and act a fool?
As far as I understand, the incident has nothing to do with her even having a FB account. The videographers who recorded her being drunk did have an account; but that has nothing to do with *their* privacy (such as of the account owner.)
In essence, FB is being sued for allowing someone else (the people who recorded the video) to post that video for everyone to see. That video was offensive to some other people. How would FB censors, even if FB had them, know what is and what isn't offensive?
In the end, it will be judged by the fact whether FB had a certain duty, and they failed at that duty. I suspect FB has no duty to watch users' videos. With regard to the contract, I am not sure if there was a contract. Most of the Web operates without an explicitly defined contract. It is hard to even establish competence over the Internet; and most services are free in every aspect. Can FB be guilty of giving access to a child? Depends on what that child said about his age. Most likely the EULA says "By clicking "Accept" I verify that I am of certain age and of legal age to form a contract." If the child did that, he misled the service provider and fraudulently obtained access to FB. The FB has no way to verify his age. It could be even impossible with EU's strict privacy laws.
So Facebook should be allowed to host videos of child rape?
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.
'Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts, yet Facebook is effectively entering into a contract with minors regarding their privacy, without their parents knowing.''
how is facebook allowing this? did facebook buy the people internet connections? did facebook force her to sign up? did facebook force her to get hammered and act a fool?
Look, i understand all the facebook hate. and a lot of it is just, no question about that. but you cant blame facebook for any of this
Liquor stores, bars, pubs and so forth don't force children to buy alcohol or cigarettes, and yet they are held responsible for selling to minors.
The bullies are to be blamed for the death, not facebook. May be facebook with its detailed logs can help us find the passive audience who watched the bullying and did nothing to stop. May be we can teach the passive by standers how they could help assuage the hurt feelings of the bully victim behind the scenes etc. I think the by standers are the real key in solving bullying issue. If we could find a way to make them side with the victim without exposing themselves bullying might eventually get solved
News agencies are held responsible for the images they publish. Facebook is no less accountable.
Parents should be monitor their kids. I don't think it's facebooks fault, they really have no way of telling if people are using real names & real ages. Let alone verifying any of the info.
You mean like asking for proof of age? Yes, that's very complicated isn't it - way beyond the capabilities of a company like Facebook.
I'd like to see the video, because I'm wondering if it was really bad, or if she was suicidal and it was a good enough excuse. I do remember when I was 14 and it seemed like everything evolved around the world i was in, and everything seems like it mattered and was important. Then again, I guess if my less then memorial moments were captured on video, i don't know.
But I think Italy needs to be talking to the parents, not facebook.
The point is that Facebook is in fact entering into contracts with minors, which is, and should be, illegal.
kids didnt have pocket sized HD video cameras when I was in school....but now, kids cant make mistakes and learn from them without being taunted fr life with the stupid mistake...
I don't know about that. In my experience kids have never required video evidence of a mistake being made before they're willing to taunt someone for life for making it. I'm sure that having embarrassing videos floating around doesn't improve the situation at all, but stuff like this happened long before cell phone cameras were prevalent. Blaming cell phones, or Facebook for that matter, is just an excuse to ignore the underlying systemic problem.
The underlying systemic problem being what? That kids will be kids?
Kids do stupid shit - it's in the nature of being young.
The nature of Facebook is that stupid shit becomes public and permanent so what would have been relatively minor before Facebook takes on epic proportions now.
Facebook has broken the law and should be held accountable. I'm not saying the're directly responsible for the girls death but they certainly contributed to it by allowing minors to have accounts (and thus contracts) with them.
The RIAA tried to get an amendment added to the Patriot Act in 2001 that would do the very same thing. This is domestic terrorism on different level, but terrorism just the same.
This will train the younger generation to harden their computers against future attacks. No Script, PDF Adobe Acrobat, IE, and other easy targets may finaly get secured as the avenue of attack is examined by security pro's.
Maybe...but as likely if these scumbags got rootkits made legal it would only be a matter of time before there would be additional legislation building such functionality into commercial OSs (ie Windows Vista), mainboard firmware and so on.
I'd take living in this modern life as a 'peon' any day over being any royal person in history. We live better than any kings and queens of yore. We have modern plumbing and sanitation instead of having to defecate into holes, and nothing beats a hot shower on demand. In the 1400's the average english person took a bath every 7 years, the world was filled with dirty smelly people. Heat and air conditioning on demand, not cold castle walls. We can get to anyplace in the world in a matter of hours, not yearlong odyessee's. Only royalty got to wear the color purple, today we have the full spectrum of color available. Disease and plagues are not something to be feared as back then, healthcare today is top-notch. And all the world's knowledge is all available on your portable phone, there's no need to live in ignorance provided by royal magical wisemen. We live better and longer than kings and queens of history ever did. This story, repeat though it is here, reminds me to be grateful for the marvelous lives we lead today, the best time in all of history to be alive.
I'd rather have been royalty in the 1400s than a peon in Harare or Dhaka or any number of other extremely poor places in the world today.
Even if the registration was legitimate, they still used a Microsoft trademark as a portion of the domain name. That is going to cause problems for the domain's owner even if the trademark XBox One didn't exist at the time of registration.
For what it's worth, I pulled up on archive.org and it was some sort of xbox fan site in the past. Depending upon the trail of registrations since then, it is doubtful that a domain squatter owns it.
So if I used the name Dellve Consulting then Dell should sue me ?
HighLatitude.com ?
XPSThree.com ? (Dell or Sony, take your pick)
A trademark is specific and for good reason. If Microsoft fucked up and didn't arrange the domain ahead of time it's their own fault and they'll have to pay, one way or the other.
FTA: "The Muon g-2 ring, an electromagnet made of steel and aluminum, begins its 3,200-mile trek from New York in early June. From there, it will sail by barge down the East Coast, around Florida's tip into the Gulf of Mexico, then up the Mississippi River until it arrives in Illinois."
The economy functions fine with workers and companies right? Why wouldn't it function with robotic workers and companies?
1. People can own shares in companies that own robots. Those shares will pay dividends (or increase in value etc).
2. The government can tax the profits of the robot run factories. These profits can provide a dividend check to citizens who would hopefully invest wisely in the robot companies.
Rather than work, people's time will be spent trying to figure out which robot companies perform well. You can use a computer program to do it.. which will let you decide if you want to be a risky investor etc. If you want to design robots for extra income, you can do that too.
I didn't say products should be free. People will have to pay for the manufactured goods. Think of it this way -- it's the same as working. Instead of you physically going to work and getting a paycheck. Your robot does it for you. People who make bad investment choices will be worse off than those who make wiser choices. Hopefully nobody will starve, because government will have enough tax revenue for a welfare scheme that provides the bare essentials.
So people aren't working because there are almost no jobs left but they have to pay for things anyway?
What percentage of the population do you envisage will actually own stock in the robot companies? Some small percentage of the population if things continue as they have been up to now.
Hopefully nobody will starve...well...I like your optimism:-)
Slashdot Mirror
What era are you living in? Multi-person telephone calls have been around for ages.
I could talk to 10 people at once with my VoIP provider.
You could but I'm sure you generally don't. I'd guess you probably never have.
Even if you had, there's a huge difference between 10 and 10,000,000
I'd ask what HSBC might have agreed to other than fines - such as giving information on their (offshore) customers to US investigators.
This is more like people talking crap about you over a telephone rather than a newspaper. A newspaper has editors that have to read everything in it.
You don't sue the phone company for what people say on the phone.
You have it completely backwards:
People talking on the phone is (in this day and age) point to point.
Newspapers are broadcast (or at least multicast).
If you're going to publish something you have to be responsible for it. The header at the top of the page says "FACEBOOK".
did facebook force her to sign up? did facebook force her to get hammered and act a fool?
As far as I understand, the incident has nothing to do with her even having a FB account. The videographers who recorded her being drunk did have an account; but that has nothing to do with *their* privacy (such as of the account owner.)
In essence, FB is being sued for allowing someone else (the people who recorded the video) to post that video for everyone to see. That video was offensive to some other people. How would FB censors, even if FB had them, know what is and what isn't offensive?
In the end, it will be judged by the fact whether FB had a certain duty, and they failed at that duty. I suspect FB has no duty to watch users' videos. With regard to the contract, I am not sure if there was a contract. Most of the Web operates without an explicitly defined contract. It is hard to even establish competence over the Internet; and most services are free in every aspect. Can FB be guilty of giving access to a child? Depends on what that child said about his age. Most likely the EULA says "By clicking "Accept" I verify that I am of certain age and of legal age to form a contract." If the child did that, he misled the service provider and fraudulently obtained access to FB. The FB has no way to verify his age. It could be even impossible with EU's strict privacy laws.
So Facebook should be allowed to host videos of child rape?
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.
'Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts, yet Facebook is effectively entering into a contract with minors regarding their privacy, without their parents knowing.''
how is facebook allowing this? did facebook buy the people internet connections? did facebook force her to sign up? did facebook force her to get hammered and act a fool?
Look, i understand all the facebook hate. and a lot of it is just, no question about that. but you cant blame facebook for any of this
Liquor stores, bars, pubs and so forth don't force children to buy alcohol or cigarettes, and yet they are held responsible for selling to minors.
The bullies are to be blamed for the death, not facebook. May be facebook with its detailed logs can help us find the passive audience who watched the bullying and did nothing to stop. May be we can teach the passive by standers how they could help assuage the hurt feelings of the bully victim behind the scenes etc. I think the by standers are the real key in solving bullying issue. If we could find a way to make them side with the victim without exposing themselves bullying might eventually get solved
News agencies are held responsible for the images they publish. Facebook is no less accountable.
Parents should be monitor their kids. I don't think it's facebooks fault, they really have no way of telling if people are using real names & real ages. Let alone verifying any of the info.
You mean like asking for proof of age? Yes, that's very complicated isn't it - way beyond the capabilities of a company like Facebook.
I'd like to see the video, because I'm wondering if it was really bad, or if she was suicidal and it was a good enough excuse. I do remember when I was 14 and it seemed like everything evolved around the world i was in, and everything seems like it mattered and was important. Then again, I guess if my less then memorial moments were captured on video, i don't know.
But I think Italy needs to be talking to the parents, not facebook.
The point is that Facebook is in fact entering into contracts with minors, which is, and should be, illegal.
kids didnt have pocket sized HD video cameras when I was in school....but now, kids cant make mistakes and learn from them without being taunted fr life with the stupid mistake...
I don't know about that. In my experience kids have never required video evidence of a mistake being made before they're willing to taunt someone for life for making it. I'm sure that having embarrassing videos floating around doesn't improve the situation at all, but stuff like this happened long before cell phone cameras were prevalent. Blaming cell phones, or Facebook for that matter, is just an excuse to ignore the underlying systemic problem.
The underlying systemic problem being what? That kids will be kids?
Kids do stupid shit - it's in the nature of being young.
The nature of Facebook is that stupid shit becomes public and permanent so what would have been relatively minor before Facebook takes on epic proportions now.
Facebook has broken the law and should be held accountable. I'm not saying the're directly responsible for the girls death but they certainly contributed to it by allowing minors to have accounts (and thus contracts) with them.
now let them build what's in those plans, and go into perpetual national debt, crippling their economy, too!
Maybe you aren't taking into account the relative cost of manufacturing in China, or that they have enormous (3.4 trillion USD) foreign reserves.
If he is too young to receive money for finding a bug, is he also too young to be criminally prosecuted for exploiting a bug ?
No, he's too young to enter into a contract to receive money for finding a bug.
Don't like it, change US contract law.
So you wouldn't pay the kid that found your lost dog the reward you promised?
This has nothing to do with contract law. Paypal could pay him any number of ways (ie via the parents or when he turns 18).
The RIAA tried to get an amendment added to the Patriot Act in 2001 that would do the very same thing. This is domestic terrorism on different level, but terrorism just the same.
The RIAA and Patriot Act are domestic terrorism.
What's really sad is your voice of reason sounds like paranoia to ordinary people. No one outside of tech circles remembers the rootkit fiasco.
“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you”
Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Let's say this does get legalised, somehow. Have fun trying to export any infected products to the rest of the world!
Do you live somewhere in the rest of the world?
Have you heard the expression "To 'harmonize' the laws".
That is how this will become legal where you live.
Unless you live in India or China or anywhere else that flat out ignores IP (or at least Western IP)
This will train the younger generation to harden their computers against future attacks. No Script, PDF Adobe Acrobat, IE, and other easy targets may finaly get secured as the avenue of attack is examined by security pro's.
Maybe...but as likely if these scumbags got rootkits made legal it would only be a matter of time before there would be additional legislation building such functionality into commercial OSs (ie Windows Vista), mainboard firmware and so on.
Going the lawsuit way for someone as powerful as MS, is stupid, they're most likely just going to have haters against them etc.
There is no such thing as bad publicity...
I'd take living in this modern life as a 'peon' any day over being any royal person in history. We live better than any kings and queens of yore. We have modern plumbing and sanitation instead of having to defecate into holes, and nothing beats a hot shower on demand. In the 1400's the average english person took a bath every 7 years, the world was filled with dirty smelly people. Heat and air conditioning on demand, not cold castle walls. We can get to anyplace in the world in a matter of hours, not yearlong odyessee's. Only royalty got to wear the color purple, today we have the full spectrum of color available. Disease and plagues are not something to be feared as back then, healthcare today is top-notch. And all the world's knowledge is all available on your portable phone, there's no need to live in ignorance provided by royal magical wisemen. We live better and longer than kings and queens of history ever did. This story, repeat though it is here, reminds me to be grateful for the marvelous lives we lead today, the best time in all of history to be alive.
I'd rather have been royalty in the 1400s than a peon in Harare or Dhaka or any number of other extremely poor places in the world today.
Even if the registration was legitimate, they still used a Microsoft trademark as a portion of the domain name. That is going to cause problems for the domain's owner even if the trademark XBox One didn't exist at the time of registration.
For what it's worth, I pulled up on archive.org and it was some sort of xbox fan site in the past. Depending upon the trail of registrations since then, it is doubtful that a domain squatter owns it.
So if I used the name Dellve Consulting then Dell should sue me ?
HighLatitude.com ?
XPSThree.com ? (Dell or Sony, take your pick)
A trademark is specific and for good reason. If Microsoft fucked up and didn't arrange the domain ahead of time it's their own fault and they'll have to pay, one way or the other.
"This is the mechanism that crooks use when they deploy ransomware."
Enough said.
AT&T...it's just not worth it...
Food Oil Cartridge is too low to allow non-oil based printing. You must replace ALL cartridges to continue printing.
The printer has detected a refilled cartridge in it's carrier; system lock-out until brand new cartridge is inserted.
You just have to wait for the 3D printed 3D printers that have been jailbroken to take any cartridge
I hope it has a way to print a decent texture.. I would prefer not to live off mush.
Don't worry it will still taste like chicken
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20weapon
Its easy to make a trigger that doesn't fire when the wrong person holds it. Its harder to make one that also does fire all the time when you hold it.
They said the same thing when guns were introduced - better to stick to bows and swords.
Automatics jam (vs. revolvers) - better not count on an automatic then.
Full auto is probably (guessing due to relative complexity) less reliable than single shot - better not count on those automatic rifles.
Technology becomes more reliable over time and sometimes the gain is worth the risk.
FTA: "The Muon g-2 ring, an electromagnet made of steel and aluminum, begins its 3,200-mile trek from New York in early June. From there, it will sail by barge down the East Coast, around Florida's tip into the Gulf of Mexico, then up the Mississippi River until it arrives in Illinois."
So just in time for hurricane season http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Atlantic_hurricane_season
The economy functions fine with workers and companies right? Why wouldn't it function with robotic workers and companies?
1. People can own shares in companies that own robots. Those shares will pay dividends (or increase in value etc).
2. The government can tax the profits of the robot run factories. These profits can provide a dividend check to citizens who would hopefully invest wisely in the robot companies.
Rather than work, people's time will be spent trying to figure out which robot companies perform well. You can use a computer program to do it .. which will let you decide if you want to be a risky investor etc. If you want to design robots for extra income, you can do that too.
I didn't say products should be free. People will have to pay for the manufactured goods. Think of it this way -- it's the same as working. Instead of you physically going to work and getting a paycheck. Your robot does it for you.
People who make bad investment choices will be worse off than those who make wiser choices. Hopefully nobody will starve, because government will have enough tax revenue for a welfare scheme that provides the bare essentials.
So people aren't working because there are almost no jobs left but they have to pay for things anyway?
What percentage of the population do you envisage will actually own stock in the robot companies? Some small percentage of the population if things continue as they have been up to now.
Hopefully nobody will starve...well...I like your optimism :-)