So we should all set up a cron job to load their privacy policy every 5 minutes. When they complain, point out how they're not leaving you much choice if you want to keep up to date.
You'd probably need to do it a lot more often that that to catch all possible changes. It would be pointless anyway, this is just a policy even if it turned out they had violated it then good luck trying to sue them.
A few years ago, congress passed a law requiring companies to disclose their privacy policies to their customers.
As opposed to passing a law restricting what companies could do with data about their customers, which would acually be of some use. However so long as it's only "plebs" being abused this is unlikely to happen. The only data protection type law in the US appears to have originated because the media got hold of information on a "patrician".
Someone went through and *read* one of those things (from a major brand, I forget who) and worked out the actual content of it. What it came down to was
"If you don't check the box [on the signup page], we will do whatever we like with your personal information.
"If you do check the box, we will do whatever we like with your personal information, but we won't break the law."
Although I am not a privacy advocate I do advocate for truth. If companies are sharing data while deceiving customers then prison is the place for these executives.
In how many such cases do they break the letter of the law though...
I am convinced that our justice system has become little more than a racial and social system that is clearly devoted to crushing the lower classes. That is why we are bombarded with white collar crime and these people rarely are punished.
Even more rarely punished proportionally to the damage their crimes do. One interesting thing mention in relation to Michael Moore's "Cracker the Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken" is that corporate crime accounts for a major proportion of crime, whilst being ignored by both the media and law enforcement.
Q: How can you tell when someone in marketing is lying to you?
A: His lips are moving.
The original version was "How can you tell it a politician is lying?" Effectivly privacy policies translate into "We won't pass on your details, unless we are lying. We might change out minds (or start lying) in future, without you knowing about it". For all practical purposes they are meaningless. Unless those involved were to break an actual law, you have no comeback. AFAIK the only "data protection" laws which exist in the US involve video libraries. No doubt corporate lawyers would argue that they only apply to VHS tapes...
No argument there. I certainly expect my doctor to have medical training, my lawyer to have law training - but do I expect my local PC tech guy to have investigative training?
But possibly not training in fixing computers... What next, doctors required to have a civil engineering degree?
It's hardly news that governments, no matter of what time and day, are mostly absorbed with the will to retain power and don't really enjoy giving away any to its subjects. That's why most governments are actually so keen on retaining the "power monopoly", i.e. being the only ones able to tell what's "right" or "wrong". That's the business they're in.
Though it dosn't always ensure that the government in question remains in power. See "German Democratic Republic"...
Before you go that route, how else do you prove your age to buy a product that is restricted to a certain age group? There aren't many things with your birthdate on them that are official in some sort of capacity besides a DL, ID card, passport, or Birth certificate.
What you need is a document which indicates you are over a certain age, and nothing else. You might need several if there are different age restrictions related to different products (or drugs) you might wish to buy. Something which has your date of birth on has the drawback that it requires some "working out". The documents mentioned are also likely to contain a lot of information which isn't relavent to the transaction, whilst being vulnerable to misuse.
Unlike the US, not everyone in the rest of the world deems it necessary to acquire a driver's license.
Including, apparently, people who don't drive!
Those things are also quite expensive here, it's not just going to the DMV and grabbing it. A license to operate a vehicle can cost well over 1000 USD in my area.
Then you'd have to add the costs of the vehicle and operating it. Fuel is actually still comparativly cheap in the US.
What they did instead was to require you to insert your ATM card to "proof" that you're old enough. What this proves is beyond me, considering that anyone can get one, but hey, it's just one of those "see, we do something" things.
Try talking to someone with an addiction. Be it alcohol, nicotine, or crack. Try reasoning with them. Odds are they will agree with you but won't change their behavior.
There are plenty of ways of that addict getting their fix without bothering bystanders. Even if their addiction is to nicotine...
No idea how it works over there but I thought you could get a "non driving" driver's license here in the states to use as an ID.
Yet nobody appears to realise that this is fundermentally daft. The whole point of such a document is to indicate that someone may drive certain types of vehicles on the public road. Overloading with unrelated functions is also a factor in "ID theft". For these vending machines the required check is that a person is over a certain age. (AFAIK there is no test required to operate a vending machine.)Their actual age is irrelevent. Information such as someone's name, address, what they can drive, etc is non of the vending machine operator's (or anyone else's) business.
If they really wanted to handle this with a machine, they would make you insert your driver's license, tell you to close either your left eye or right eye or make some other facial expression at random, then compare the faces. They would double-check with the driver's license database to make sure the face on the license matched the face on record.
What has buying drugs got to do with driving? From a security POV it would be better to have completly separate documents for driving and drug buying. Even for people who want to do both.
Having several near accidents should have been a wakeup call to her to modify her driving, but it hasn't. I suspect that she is the kind of person who will only learn the hard way, either by accident
Hopefully if she does hit another car she will cause no serious injuries to the people in it and it will be a police car:)
A lot states have laws like this. In DE, my wife got rear-ended (lightly) by some teenager when coming to a stop at a red light in good weather (she was not the first car to stop and didn't brake hard or anything), and his explanation was basically "sorry, I didn't see you".
Driving into the back on another car typically means that they arn't paying attention or are too close. Even if they couldn't see the traffic light cars have at least two red lights at the back which come on as soon as the brake is operated.
The problem is enforcement is hard until they hit somebody.
I can't believe these people! What's so "fun" about text messages? Why the aversion to real communication?
The "fun" isn't really the issue here.
I'd much rather talk to someone than exchange emoticons while risking the lives of those on the road around me.
If people can't responsibly operate their vehicles, which includes paying attention to what's happening outside, then their "operator's permit" should be withdrawn (or not issued in the first place). Things are not helped by overloading the document in question with all sorts of stuff like being a building entry pass, alcoholic beverages purchase card, bank card, even passport.
I just don't have time for text messages. It can take an hour of back and forth to have a two minute conversation. I can barely put up with IM, but it is required in our office so that people can interrupt your train of thought if you accidentally get on a productive streak.
At least with the latter you get a proper keyboard as an input device...
That last part is actually a very good point. With employers checking up on prospective hires' Facebook profiles, I don't find it a stretch to think that insurance companies would do the same thing. Here's hoping they quadruple the rates of everyone in that group.
Upping the rates might result in these idiots driving uninsured. It would be more responsible of insurance companies to provide "third party only" insurance here.
The group is called "I Text Message People While Driving and I Haven't Crashed Yet!"
Seems like the police should keep an eye on people who suddenly leave the group.:)
It might be better for the police to keep an eye on the group members. So as to take them off the road before they crash into innocent bystanders. Since it's hard to ensure that they will crash only into inanimate objects.
Despite her reason and common sense telling her that it's not a good idea, she's going to continue doing it simply because "it's not illegal."
It's not specifically illegal. Though it might already be illegal in the sense that a driver should be giving as much attention as they can to driving. Rather than having to enumerate all possible stupid actions drivers could possibly take as "illegal". What would be needed is one law along the lines of "driving without paying due attention or when voluntarily incapacitated".
The only way to get her to actually change her behaviour (and that's a big maybe) is to have some sort of "punishment" go along with the action.
Getting such people off the roads is more a matter of "public safety" than anything else.
If people want to do something dangerous which involves risking only their own lives then by all means make a joke about it. But this is something which endangers bystanders. Wonder if a group for "people who like to fire guns in random directions, but havn't hit anyone yet" would likewise be considered a joke.
Neither do government-granted monopolies.
Due to the nature of the beast, both 'monopoly' and 'government' are going to be factors. So they might as well accept that fact, drop the ideology and work towards the least sucky implementation.
In the absence of strong regulation a private monopoly is probably amongst the worst of situations.
I've noticed the same thing in parts of Canada, where former crown corporations (ex. electric and water) were shut down and for-profit companies took over on government contract. QoS took a very noticable nosedive very quickly. (greater grid instability and less 'safe' drinking water).
Slashdot Mirror
So we should all set up a cron job to load their privacy policy every 5 minutes. When they complain, point out how they're not leaving you much choice if you want to keep up to date.
You'd probably need to do it a lot more often that that to catch all possible changes. It would be pointless anyway, this is just a policy even if it turned out they had violated it then good luck trying to sue them.
A few years ago, congress passed a law requiring companies to disclose their privacy policies to their customers.
As opposed to passing a law restricting what companies could do with data about their customers, which would acually be of some use. However so long as it's only "plebs" being abused this is unlikely to happen. The only data protection type law in the US appears to have originated because the media got hold of information on a "patrician".
Someone went through and *read* one of those things (from a major brand, I forget who) and worked out the actual content of it. What it came down to was
"If you don't check the box [on the signup page], we will do whatever we like with your personal information.
"If you do check the box, we will do whatever we like with your personal information, but we won't break the law."
More simply "heads I win, tails you lose!"
Although I am not a privacy advocate I do advocate for truth. If companies are sharing data while deceiving customers then prison is the place for these executives.
In how many such cases do they break the letter of the law though...
I am convinced that our justice system has become little more than a racial and social system that is clearly devoted to crushing the lower classes. That is why we are bombarded with white collar crime and these people rarely are punished.
Even more rarely punished proportionally to the damage their crimes do.
One interesting thing mention in relation to Michael Moore's "Cracker the Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken" is that corporate crime accounts for a major proportion of crime, whilst being ignored by both the media and law enforcement.
Q: How can you tell when someone in marketing is lying to you?
A: His lips are moving.
The original version was "How can you tell it a politician is lying?"
Effectivly privacy policies translate into "We won't pass on your details, unless we are lying. We might change out minds (or start lying) in future, without you knowing about it".
For all practical purposes they are meaningless. Unless those involved were to break an actual law, you have no comeback. AFAIK the only "data protection" laws which exist in the US involve video libraries. No doubt corporate lawyers would argue that they only apply to VHS tapes...
Or my mechanic should have PI so if he finds child porn in my trunk I can be reported.
A car mechanic would probably be covered by this law anyway. Since they might well end up having to fix computers...
No argument there. I certainly expect my doctor to have medical training, my lawyer to have law training - but do I expect my local PC tech guy to have investigative training?
But possibly not training in fixing computers... What next, doctors required to have a civil engineering degree?
It's hardly news that governments, no matter of what time and day, are mostly absorbed with the will to retain power and don't really enjoy giving away any to its subjects. That's why most governments are actually so keen on retaining the "power monopoly", i.e. being the only ones able to tell what's "right" or "wrong". That's the business they're in.
Though it dosn't always ensure that the government in question remains in power. See "German Democratic Republic"...
There's a brilliant idea, Firearm vending machines, we can put them in all US schools, Universities and Post Offices, we'd make a killing.
Where would you put the ammunition vending machines?
Before you go that route, how else do you prove your age to buy a product that is restricted to a certain age group? There aren't many things with your birthdate on them that are official in some sort of capacity besides a DL, ID card, passport, or Birth certificate.
What you need is a document which indicates you are over a certain age, and nothing else. You might need several if there are different age restrictions related to different products (or drugs) you might wish to buy. Something which has your date of birth on has the drawback that it requires some "working out". The documents mentioned are also likely to contain a lot of information which isn't relavent to the transaction, whilst being vulnerable to misuse.
Unlike the US, not everyone in the rest of the world deems it necessary to acquire a driver's license.
Including, apparently, people who don't drive!
Those things are also quite expensive here, it's not just going to the DMV and grabbing it. A license to operate a vehicle can cost well over 1000 USD in my area.
Then you'd have to add the costs of the vehicle and operating it. Fuel is actually still comparativly cheap in the US.
What they did instead was to require you to insert your ATM card to "proof" that you're old enough. What this proves is beyond me, considering that anyone can get one, but hey, it's just one of those "see, we do something" things.
Can you use the card to pay?
Try talking to someone with an addiction. Be it alcohol, nicotine, or crack. Try reasoning with them. Odds are they will agree with you but won't change their behavior.
There are plenty of ways of that addict getting their fix without bothering bystanders. Even if their addiction is to nicotine...
No idea how it works over there but I thought you could get a "non driving" driver's license here in the states to use as an ID.
Yet nobody appears to realise that this is fundermentally daft. The whole point of such a document is to indicate that someone may drive certain types of vehicles on the public road. Overloading with unrelated functions is also a factor in "ID theft".
For these vending machines the required check is that a person is over a certain age. (AFAIK there is no test required to operate a vending machine.)Their actual age is irrelevent. Information such as someone's name, address, what they can drive, etc is non of the vending machine operator's (or anyone else's) business.
If they really wanted to handle this with a machine, they would make you insert your driver's license, tell you to close either your left eye or right eye or make some other facial expression at random, then compare the faces. They would double-check with the driver's license database to make sure the face on the license matched the face on record.
What has buying drugs got to do with driving? From a security POV it would be better to have completly separate documents for driving and drug buying. Even for people who want to do both.
Having several near accidents should have been a wakeup call to her to modify her driving, but it hasn't. I suspect that she is the kind of person who will only learn the hard way, either by accident
:)
Hopefully if she does hit another car she will cause no serious injuries to the people in it and it will be a police car
A lot states have laws like this. In DE, my wife got rear-ended (lightly) by some teenager when coming to a stop at a red light in good weather (she was not the first car to stop and didn't brake hard or anything), and his explanation was basically "sorry, I didn't see you".
Driving into the back on another car typically means that they arn't paying attention or are too close. Even if they couldn't see the traffic light cars have at least two red lights at the back which come on as soon as the brake is operated.
The problem is enforcement is hard until they hit somebody.
The way you enforce is by having police patrols.
I can't believe these people! What's so "fun" about text messages? Why the aversion to real communication?
The "fun" isn't really the issue here.
I'd much rather talk to someone than exchange emoticons while risking the lives of those on the road around me.
If people can't responsibly operate their vehicles, which includes paying attention to what's happening outside, then their "operator's permit" should be withdrawn (or not issued in the first place). Things are not helped by overloading the document in question with all sorts of stuff like being a building entry pass, alcoholic beverages purchase card, bank card, even passport.
I just don't have time for text messages. It can take an hour of back and forth to have a two minute conversation. I can barely put up with IM, but it is required in our office so that people can interrupt your train of thought if you accidentally get on a productive streak.
At least with the latter you get a proper keyboard as an input device...
That last part is actually a very good point. With employers checking up on prospective hires' Facebook profiles, I don't find it a stretch to think that insurance companies would do the same thing. Here's hoping they quadruple the rates of everyone in that group.
Upping the rates might result in these idiots driving uninsured. It would be more responsible of insurance companies to provide "third party only" insurance here.
Think about this for a moment. She created the group when she was 16 and had just gotten a driver's license.
This is very young for allowing people to be driving on the public roads, even if they are legally emancipated...
The group is called "I Text Message People While Driving and I Haven't Crashed Yet!" :)
Seems like the police should keep an eye on people who suddenly leave the group.
It might be better for the police to keep an eye on the group members. So as to take them off the road before they crash into innocent bystanders. Since it's hard to ensure that they will crash only into inanimate objects.
Despite her reason and common sense telling her that it's not a good idea, she's going to continue doing it simply because "it's not illegal."
It's not specifically illegal. Though it might already be illegal in the sense that a driver should be giving as much attention as they can to driving. Rather than having to enumerate all possible stupid actions drivers could possibly take as "illegal". What would be needed is one law along the lines of "driving without paying due attention or when voluntarily incapacitated".
The only way to get her to actually change her behaviour (and that's a big maybe) is to have some sort of "punishment" go along with the action.
Getting such people off the roads is more a matter of "public safety" than anything else.
Clearly, the group was created as a joke
If people want to do something dangerous which involves risking only their own lives then by all means make a joke about it. But this is something which endangers bystanders. Wonder if a group for "people who like to fire guns in random directions, but havn't hit anyone yet" would likewise be considered a joke.
God: Where are you?
Idiot: Be there in 5 mins.
CRASH!! BANG!!
God: So you'll be going to "the other place" then...
Neither do government-granted monopolies.
Due to the nature of the beast, both 'monopoly' and 'government' are going to be factors. So they might as well accept that fact, drop the ideology and work towards the least sucky implementation.
In the absence of strong regulation a private monopoly is probably amongst the worst of situations.
I've noticed the same thing in parts of Canada, where former crown corporations (ex. electric and water) were shut down and for-profit companies took over on government contract. QoS took a very noticable nosedive very quickly. (greater grid instability and less 'safe' drinking water).
What happened to the prices?