Your statement "Some will get legal on you." is bogus. Gmail is free and, if you bothered to read the ToS, Google is not liable for shit, in fact YOU agree to indemnify THEM and, because it's FREE, what do you propose to list a "damages?"
I apologize for my American-centric view, but my world view is bounded by it.
Moral points of view are, necessarily, outside the legal system and are within the scope of faith.
For me, viewing nude pictures of children, whether the source is from immature minors or mature adults, is not so much a matter of ethics violation as it is viewing evidence of a crime.
"Though their laws were created to protect minors from exploitation caused by others, states are prosecuting minors under child pornography statutes for sending nude or otherwise lurid self-portraits, even when the minors sent the selfies without coercion. The common quirk in the laws is that there is no exception for taking or distributing sexually explicit pictures of oneself. Thus, a high school student sending a racy seflie to a boyfriend or girlfriend could subject both themselves and the receiver to prosecution for child pornography. If the picture makes its way around other social circles through online or direct sharing, anyone who received or distributed the photo could also find themselves open to charges."
"Though their laws were created to protect minors from exploitation caused by others, states are prosecuting minors under child pornography statutes for sending nude or otherwise lurid self-portraits, even when the minors sent the selfies without coercion. The common quirk in the laws is that there is no exception for taking or distributing sexually explicit pictures of oneself. Thus, a high school student sending a racy seflie to a boyfriend or girlfriend could subject both themselves and the receiver to prosecution for child pornography. If the picture makes its way around other social circles through online or direct sharing, anyone who received or distributed the photo could also find themselves open to charges."
"I don't feel sorry for those who thought banks were seriously secure, and two [where's "one?"], who the hell sends dollars to banks and actually thinks other people won't steal them? 1999 called and it wants it's noobs back."
Slashdot Mirror
... we'll need more money.
One-word answers are acceptable ... and recall that I said, "lie?"
... and multiple-step authentication, as well.
And, for secret questions, sites should warn to lie, lie, lie (but remember).
Until these steps have been completed according to best practice, the user should not be allowed to progress any further.
To get this < and this > type:
& l t ; and & g t ; (less that, greater than)
With no spaces.
... to make it explode.
Your statement "Some will get legal on you." is bogus. Gmail is free and, if you bothered to read the ToS, Google is not liable for shit, in fact YOU agree to indemnify THEM and, because it's FREE, what do you propose to list a "damages?"
No need for that.
For each account with any supplier, charge a very small fee.
That would knock down the big spammers. For hijacked computers, the fee would motivate ISP to track down large abusers.
... It's what makes HTML markup like bold and italics and stuff.
... live.
I apologize for my American-centric view, but my world view is bounded by it.
Moral points of view are, necessarily, outside the legal system and are within the scope of faith.
For me, viewing nude pictures of children, whether the source is from immature minors or mature adults, is not so much a matter of ethics violation as it is viewing evidence of a crime.
Again,
"Though their laws were created to protect minors from exploitation caused by others, states are prosecuting minors under child pornography statutes for sending nude or otherwise lurid self-portraits, even when the minors sent the selfies without coercion. The common quirk in the laws is that there is no exception for taking or distributing sexually explicit pictures of oneself. Thus, a high school student sending a racy seflie to a boyfriend or girlfriend could subject both themselves and the receiver to prosecution for child pornography. If the picture makes its way around other social circles through online or direct sharing, anyone who received or distributed the photo could also find themselves open to charges."
Good question:
"Though their laws were created to protect minors from exploitation caused by others, states are prosecuting minors under child pornography statutes for sending nude or otherwise lurid self-portraits, even when the minors sent the selfies without coercion. The common quirk in the laws is that there is no exception for taking or distributing sexually explicit pictures of oneself. Thus, a high school student sending a racy seflie to a boyfriend or girlfriend could subject both themselves and the receiver to prosecution for child pornography. If the picture makes its way around other social circles through online or direct sharing, anyone who received or distributed the photo could also find themselves open to charges."
Some of the photos were taken by minors. Kids often use poor judgement.
Adults looking for those photos have no excuse.
Assuming you're not a jerk looking to exploit children, then it's clear you want adult pornography.
Try Google.
Wrong.
How about if we do this:
"I don't feel sorry for those who thought banks were seriously secure, and two [where's "one?"], who the hell sends dollars to banks and actually thinks other people won't steal them? 1999 called and it wants it's noobs back."
Go away.
I share your pain. What I do is wait a week. Early adopters make good canaries.
Damn right. This last batch was a bitch. It was a bitch batch. HaHaHa ...
Sorry.
Google how to make it think it's an ATM and fire it up.
Your analogy would work better if the jumper had been told, repeatedly, that the tiger had been removed.
For me, the cloud would have to be 3" from here.
Well. just SHIT! lol
Thanks.
... so far no one has said that people shouldn't be stupid enough to send nude pics and stuff.
Of course, our more important junk is up in the cloud, too.
I agree, and the unwashed are just noise, I guess.
Yeah, I'm with you on this. Put me down for another +1.
... "FUCK YOU, YOU GODDAM MACHINE!!!," please wait for the next available ....