I'm not so sure that HIPPA needs an update. I wouldn't want my doctor entrusting my information to some random third party, but if they do, and that party is covered by HIPPA, then OK. However, if that party, such as google, isn't covered, then they can't.
When it comes to myself submitting information to a third party, it should be on me to make sure that party is trusted. If I gave all my medical information to my crazy neighbor, I really shouldn't expect them to be held to the same standard as a trusted professional.
Seconded. He would do better to make himself stand out to his immediate supervisor. When the supervisor gets promoted, he'll do his best to keep the people that made him look good close by; so they can continue to make him look good in his new position. That's simply how the system works.
Contrasting between the two mothers, I would say that their contribution to her death, in Drew's case is a matter of provocation, and in Meier's case a matter of failure at prevention. I think it raises the question of whether either woman had a reason to suspect that she would commit suicide, and I believe that in both cases the answer is no; nor do I believe that it was Drew's intention to drive Megan to suicide.
I think it is clear, however, that Drew's intention, at least towards the end of this scenario, was to use her positions of trust as a family friend, a close friend's mother, and an imaginary boyfriend, to torment the child and cause her anguish. This is the charge levied against her.
Irony is someone being pedantic and critical on slashdot in response to a minor misuse of language. No, no, no, irony is someone being pedantic and critical on slashdot in response to a minor misuse of language and being wrong.
That's a tough choice; futility or having nothing to do next.
Then again, even if there is no end, there's always the next secret waiting, and who know what that could be? If there's no end to what we could know and what we could do, then life may take an inconceivable direction.
Even if we do discover the last secret though, there will be a million minds invested in the application of those secrets, and it's my naive hope, for the betterment of mankind.
(Also, I wanted to make a pun about black hole being black boxes, but I just don't think it's going to work out.)
This is an old story, and Lori Drew has already made public statements on this matter. The facts of the incident aren't being discussed at this point, but rather what charges they can bring against her.
Actually, I'm interested in this angle. This is more or less what the argument was against deep-linking years ago, which I think is bullshit.
I think there's a line somewhere between "If it's accessible, I may access it" and "You don't have permission to look at my billboard next to the highway," but I can't say where it is.
I'm reluctant to compare a TOS agreement to a EULA, since you must agree to the TOS before receiving the service, as opposed to a contract you receive after purchasing a product.
I think that this incident's place in that spectrum is that she agreed to the TOS before she signed up, knowing that she was going to violate it, and then used MySpace's resources that aren't public (as in freely accessible). If that was a crime, I would be surprised, but I'm not sure that I'm upset if it is a civil matter. I'm trying not to weigh the emotional component in this, and I think it's a reasonable stance.
I would expect that she knew about the girl's problems. Her daughter and Megan had been close friends until they got in a fight; the reason Lori Drew alleges she started the hoax was to find out what, if anything, Megan was saying about her daughter. Megan confided in the persona for a long time, until she discovered a sudden onslaught of bulletins revealing all the secrets she shared, personal attacks, and comments about her body and mental health.
When Megan questioned "Josh" about his intentions, "he" responded "You should just kill yourself."
She did. She hung herself with a belt in her closet; it wasn't enough of a height to break her neck, but she crushed her throat and slowly suffocated over the next hour. Her mom found her upstairs, dead, a few days before her fifteenth birthday. She never lived long enough to find out that the cruelty was perpetuated by a grown woman living a few houses down, her daughter, and another neighbor girl.
Even if we agree or disagree with it, there is the concept of corporate personage. It was originally created so you had someone to sue, but has evolved tremendously.
Well, to be honest, I don't think it's a horrible idea to put in protections for children. The response to the person who originally said that was essentially "you don't meet my personal qualifications to make that statement." I thought it was sanctimonious, and since I fit the bill I backed him up.
But, I'm actually enjoying this dialog, so I'll continue with this position:
Cartoonnetwork.com has a similar system, where upon registering, you must give your birthday. If you're under 18, it also requires a parent's email address to which it sends a notification that your child has registered, and it gives their username.
I imagine, that if you were to say that you're 18 or older, that it would restrict communication with minors; but this is just a guess. Either way, I consider this to be a harmless approach, but I'm not sure how much it accomplishes.
The biggest difference between things like MySpace and Facebook, and Cartoon Network's website is that people don't really have a reason to lie to Cartoon Network. At the same time, the complaint that we're trying to find a solution to is that children are representing themselves as adults and adults are representing themselves as children. For even the average person who intends to circumvent this system, I believe that all but the most intrusive solutions will be ineffective.
Any teenager that wants to sign up for a new account can still lie about their age, or not check the parental supervision box, or give a fake parent's email address. Age verification cannot really be done without being intrusive. The most accepted measure is to give a credit card number, but some children have credit cards, and some adults don't. Even if you have a foolproof way to verify adults, it's still hard to verify that a person is a minor, which seems to be the bigger issue.
There are, however, steps that could help with sufficient levels of parental supervision already in place that websites could take steps to complement; but there are also options that already exist that make this a moot point. The blame and responsibility has already been shifted away from parents and to the websites, so I doubt that any truly effective but complementing system would be enough for those people, pushing this initiative, who already refuse to exercise their options and take responsibility for their children.
So we are left with options that protect children but are intrusive to adults, which I find to be an unacceptable trend. We cannot limit the activities of adults to protect children, with obvious exceptions that are already accounted for. Frankly, Facebook, MySpace, or any website can do what it damn well pleases. MySpace could start requiring a photo ID, birth certificate, and personal interview as of tomorrow; that's their right to do business as they like. It doesn't mean I have to like it, and I can always cancel my account. Even so, this is a system that can still be gamed, accounts can still be phished, and I suspect that the more a person's real identity is link to an online account the more dangerous a security comprise would be. Systems like this potentially threaten children who act responsibly and know not to give out personal information.
There have already been several attempts to pass legislation that requires some degree of protection and identification. They've all fell flat on their faces, but I worry that if systems like this, enacted willingly by these websites, become commonplace that the attempts to legislate would go through. This would make it difficult or impossible to defect to a competitor who isn't intrusive; or at least one of any notoriety.
If these websites bow to this pressure, I believe that it will be a very negative trend, and I don't want to see that happen. That's fucking up my Internet. There are already solutions in place for parents who want to monitor their children, and by taking those actions they can get the protect they want without restricting what we can do.
Yes, because what if he recognizes one of them from a photo on his grilf's dresser? I don't think anybody at NASA would blow up a shuttle and it's crew out of jealous rage. The obvious response is to buy a pack of diapers and drive across the country with a hammer.
If there's one thing I'll give them, it's that Visual Studio is very, very nice. This is because it's necessary to make things as convenient as possible for developers at all levels to develop for windows; it's a critical part of the feedback loop: more people use windows, let's program on windows <-> there's more program on windows, let's use windows.
So they make it as easy as possible for users, and spend their time making a good suite for programmers; it's a good strategy.
The idea that parents should actively supervise and participate in their children's Internet usage SOUNDS good, but in practice it means two things: I have to spend all of my free time watching what my kids do on the net (leaving me no time for slashdot!), and I have to severely limit their Internet usage.
Your kids, your problem. Don't try to screw up the Internet for the rest of us in an attempt to make it kid-safe enough to reduce your workload.
Did I ask for any screwing up of the Internet? I asked for Facebook and Myspace to implement some parental supervision support.
Also, please consider that one day you, too, may grow up and be in my shoes.
Hey, I'm grown up and in your shoes, can I join your conversation?
Your kids, your problem. Don't try to screw up the Internet for the rest of us in an attempt to make it kid-safe enough to reduce your workload.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure that HIPPA needs an update. I wouldn't want my doctor entrusting my information to some random third party, but if they do, and that party is covered by HIPPA, then OK. However, if that party, such as google, isn't covered, then they can't.
When it comes to myself submitting information to a third party, it should be on me to make sure that party is trusted. If I gave all my medical information to my crazy neighbor, I really shouldn't expect them to be held to the same standard as a trusted professional.
Seconded. He would do better to make himself stand out to his immediate supervisor. When the supervisor gets promoted, he'll do his best to keep the people that made him look good close by; so they can continue to make him look good in his new position. That's simply how the system works.
Contrasting between the two mothers, I would say that their contribution to her death, in Drew's case is a matter of provocation, and in Meier's case a matter of failure at prevention. I think it raises the question of whether either woman had a reason to suspect that she would commit suicide, and I believe that in both cases the answer is no; nor do I believe that it was Drew's intention to drive Megan to suicide.
I think it is clear, however, that Drew's intention, at least towards the end of this scenario, was to use her positions of trust as a family friend, a close friend's mother, and an imaginary boyfriend, to torment the child and cause her anguish. This is the charge levied against her.
In this case, I was specifically referring to the unauthorized access charge, which refers to the MySpace servers.
We should both read the title at least; they aren't trying to find charges, they've already indicted her. :)
That's a tough choice; futility or having nothing to do next.
Then again, even if there is no end, there's always the next secret waiting, and who know what that could be? If there's no end to what we could know and what we could do, then life may take an inconceivable direction.
Even if we do discover the last secret though, there will be a million minds invested in the application of those secrets, and it's my naive hope, for the betterment of mankind.
(Also, I wanted to make a pun about black hole being black boxes, but I just don't think it's going to work out.)
This is an old story, and Lori Drew has already made public statements on this matter. The facts of the incident aren't being discussed at this point, but rather what charges they can bring against her.
Actually, I'm interested in this angle. This is more or less what the argument was against deep-linking years ago, which I think is bullshit.
I think there's a line somewhere between "If it's accessible, I may access it" and "You don't have permission to look at my billboard next to the highway," but I can't say where it is.
I'm reluctant to compare a TOS agreement to a EULA, since you must agree to the TOS before receiving the service, as opposed to a contract you receive after purchasing a product.
I think that this incident's place in that spectrum is that she agreed to the TOS before she signed up, knowing that she was going to violate it, and then used MySpace's resources that aren't public (as in freely accessible). If that was a crime, I would be surprised, but I'm not sure that I'm upset if it is a civil matter. I'm trying not to weigh the emotional component in this, and I think it's a reasonable stance.
I would expect that she knew about the girl's problems. Her daughter and Megan had been close friends until they got in a fight; the reason Lori Drew alleges she started the hoax was to find out what, if anything, Megan was saying about her daughter. Megan confided in the persona for a long time, until she discovered a sudden onslaught of bulletins revealing all the secrets she shared, personal attacks, and comments about her body and mental health.
When Megan questioned "Josh" about his intentions, "he" responded "You should just kill yourself."
She did. She hung herself with a belt in her closet; it wasn't enough of a height to break her neck, but she crushed her throat and slowly suffocated over the next hour. Her mom found her upstairs, dead, a few days before her fifteenth birthday. She never lived long enough to find out that the cruelty was perpetuated by a grown woman living a few houses down, her daughter, and another neighbor girl.
I've been following this one for a while.
As well, if you smoke a lot of pot and have sandwich bags, then the charge is elevated to "intent to distribute"
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
Ok, so I'm going to hell, but how could I not say it?
Are the non-religous barred from using religious concepts as metaphors?
If I ever have to go to court, I want you for my lawyer.
How hard do you have squeeze a robot to get juice out of it?
730,000 infractions x $100/infraction = $73,000,000
Triple damages: $73,000,000 x 3 = $230,000,000
This is what the summary states the settlement was for; I think you added a zero.
Hell, altavista is what pulled me away from excite.com.
Even if we agree or disagree with it, there is the concept of corporate personage. It was originally created so you had someone to sue, but has evolved tremendously.
Well, to be honest, I don't think it's a horrible idea to put in protections for children. The response to the person who originally said that was essentially "you don't meet my personal qualifications to make that statement." I thought it was sanctimonious, and since I fit the bill I backed him up.
But, I'm actually enjoying this dialog, so I'll continue with this position:
Cartoonnetwork.com has a similar system, where upon registering, you must give your birthday. If you're under 18, it also requires a parent's email address to which it sends a notification that your child has registered, and it gives their username.
I imagine, that if you were to say that you're 18 or older, that it would restrict communication with minors; but this is just a guess. Either way, I consider this to be a harmless approach, but I'm not sure how much it accomplishes.
The biggest difference between things like MySpace and Facebook, and Cartoon Network's website is that people don't really have a reason to lie to Cartoon Network. At the same time, the complaint that we're trying to find a solution to is that children are representing themselves as adults and adults are representing themselves as children. For even the average person who intends to circumvent this system, I believe that all but the most intrusive solutions will be ineffective.
Any teenager that wants to sign up for a new account can still lie about their age, or not check the parental supervision box, or give a fake parent's email address. Age verification cannot really be done without being intrusive. The most accepted measure is to give a credit card number, but some children have credit cards, and some adults don't. Even if you have a foolproof way to verify adults, it's still hard to verify that a person is a minor, which seems to be the bigger issue.
There are, however, steps that could help with sufficient levels of parental supervision already in place that websites could take steps to complement; but there are also options that already exist that make this a moot point. The blame and responsibility has already been shifted away from parents and to the websites, so I doubt that any truly effective but complementing system would be enough for those people, pushing this initiative, who already refuse to exercise their options and take responsibility for their children.
So we are left with options that protect children but are intrusive to adults, which I find to be an unacceptable trend. We cannot limit the activities of adults to protect children, with obvious exceptions that are already accounted for. Frankly, Facebook, MySpace, or any website can do what it damn well pleases. MySpace could start requiring a photo ID, birth certificate, and personal interview as of tomorrow; that's their right to do business as they like. It doesn't mean I have to like it, and I can always cancel my account. Even so, this is a system that can still be gamed, accounts can still be phished, and I suspect that the more a person's real identity is link to an online account the more dangerous a security comprise would be. Systems like this potentially threaten children who act responsibly and know not to give out personal information.
There have already been several attempts to pass legislation that requires some degree of protection and identification. They've all fell flat on their faces, but I worry that if systems like this, enacted willingly by these websites, become commonplace that the attempts to legislate would go through. This would make it difficult or impossible to defect to a competitor who isn't intrusive; or at least one of any notoriety.
If these websites bow to this pressure, I believe that it will be a very negative trend, and I don't want to see that happen. That's fucking up my Internet. There are already solutions in place for parents who want to monitor their children, and by taking those actions they can get the protect they want without restricting what we can do.
`splain it to me Ricky, how would that work?
I was being silly.
Is that the French version of OLPC?
If there's one thing I'll give them, it's that Visual Studio is very, very nice. This is because it's necessary to make things as convenient as possible for developers at all levels to develop for windows; it's a critical part of the feedback loop: more people use windows, let's program on windows <-> there's more program on windows, let's use windows.
So they make it as easy as possible for users, and spend their time making a good suite for programmers; it's a good strategy.
Everything else, not so good.
Your kids, your problem. Don't try to screw up the Internet for the rest of us in an attempt to make it kid-safe enough to reduce your workload.
Did I ask for any screwing up of the Internet? I asked for Facebook and Myspace to implement some parental supervision support.
Also, please consider that one day you, too, may grow up and be in my shoes.
Hey, I'm grown up and in your shoes, can I join your conversation?Your kids, your problem. Don't try to screw up the Internet for the rest of us in an attempt to make it kid-safe enough to reduce your workload.