Everyone who interacted with them. Every voluntary interaction between people has an inherent level of trust.
Geek Squad betrayed their customers in a corrupt way by taking money in exchange for reporting on the results of searched computers. If they just stumble on some shit and report it because they feel they have a duty to protect children or something, that's different because it’s an act of conscience. Geek Squad sold their customers out for cash (cf. Judas).
Like the other guys said, it’s a 4th Amendment issue. The cops can’t just hire people to do their (otherwise illegal, constitutionally prohibited) searches for them. They should be trying to obey the Constitution and protect our rights, not trying to work around them.
It’s up to the courts whether this sort of workaround is permissible. Courts have to make very clear rules.
Unless Geek Squad is legally required to report what they find, and unless they disclose that they will be searching for contraband, it’s a clear breach of trust on Geek Squad's part. Some of Geek Squad's customers probably deserve to have their trust breached. But the FBI was paying Geek Squad, so Geek Squad had a direct, corrupt incentive to breach every customer's trust.
I don't understand the surprise. Do you think Facebook management goes to church on sundays and PTA meetings at their kids' school?
In the UK, families apparently let their daughters be passed around by groups of foreign men, with the knowledge and tolerance of the police. Facebook might not be that progressive yet, but maybe they're working on it.
When did Facebook ever actually do the right thing? If they started doing the right thing, wouldn't that be the surprise?
I'm one of the loudest people condemning police misconduct and demanding changes. Police are irrelevant to the discussion of job discrimination though.
You mean 50 or 100 years ago? Nope. I wasn't born then.
I'm not sure what your point is. You should definitely build a time machine and go back and fix history if you can. If you can't, best to leave ancient grievances in the past rather than continually reliving them day after day and visiting them upon new generations of people who are innocent of what their ancestors did.
I think we can all agree, based on the above paragraph, that you are probably an asshole.
Actually, I’m really nice. Unlike you, I didn't say anything mean about anyone.
Sorry if I offended your religion by suggesting unworthy wrong-race, wrong-gender types pose as the correct-race, correct-gender, correct-lifestyle individuals you venerate. You're welcome to refuse to extend your worship to Sofia Espinoza because you don't think she is genuine.
Some of us don't feel the calling like you. We would rather treat all races and both genders the same rather than exalting some and degrading others.
...So the smarter choice is to shutup about it while you're at work, advocate for change as your personal hobby at home, and leave your employer out of it. There's a reason the tired old rule exists about not talking politics or religion in polite company....
You don't understand. It's not a hobby, it's a religion. It's how they know they're better than you. Without it, their shallow misanthropic lives would be seem meaningless — just an endless series of bitter score-settling and grievance dramatization that leaves them surrounded only by smug, unhappy people like themselves.
I think we can all agree that Google and YouTube probably did this. If they didn’t do this exactly, they're basically saying they'd like to do it if they could get away with it.
All applicants to Google and YouTube should say they "identify" as a lesbian refugee from Honduras named "Sofia Espinoza". After you're hired, you can say you had an epiphany and you now "identify" as who you were born as. You can change it back to Sofia the week before performance reviews. If they doubt you, call them racist and transphobic.
This story seems like complete, made-up bullshit. It has:
- Doctors and scientists making a claim that seems ridiculous on it's face - Focuses on children and learning for reader and interest - A bogeyman - No actual scientific study mentioned - An audience ready to believe
... a world where billionaires can functionally drive media sources into bankruptcy by proxy lawsuits is potentially incredibly chilling on free speech...
That might be a problem it it starts happening to media sources that don't deserve to be shut down. Right now, the only speech being "chilled" is publishing celebrity sex videos — and then only in combination with many years of other various bad behavior.
That's not the point. The point is that if every rich asshole is capable to run a media company into the ground "just because", we are in deep trouble.
So far it’s only one media company — the one full of assholes that couldn't be bothered to follow any rules. It turned out that following at least one rule was important.
It's not about the law. They're on the side of whatever is fashionable. If TV comedians and Barack Obama and other cultural leaders promote something, they'll be for it, regardless of how evil it is or who gets hurt.
If lots of people are terribly hurt, then you'll hear that "they had it coming" and a couple days later it'll be completely forgotten, just like when that Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire on 20 congressmen at a charity baseball game last summer.
A tortious interference claim is for wrongful and improper actions. Funding a lawsuit can hardly be considered wrongful or improper. Close all the courthouses forever if it is.
Gawker's conduct was wrongful and improper. That's why they lost.
Also, in a bankruptcy you can't just decide not to sell to someone you’re prejudiced against. There's are legal responsibilities. If he bid the highest and has the most credible plan for the assets, it will be very hard to justify (in court) not selling them to him.
Slashdot and news websites should stop pretending they don't pump up baseless hype and exaggerated drama to get clicks. It's obvious to everyone that measured, sober statements don't make news.
"Some defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."
being too stupid to know you are being used, does NOT mean that you were not involved it just means you are stupid AND a participant.
"Unwitting individuals" are distinctly not conspirators. Attempts to "seek to coordinate political activities" isn't coordinating political activities. Being contacted and answering is not being "a participant".
I predict the case about the Russians won't go to trial. It's an easy prediction because 97% of Federal charges are plea bargained.
They weren't even charged with "meddling" in the US Election(52 U.S.C. 30121), they were charged with conspiracy to defraud the US (18 U.S.C. 371) and some paperwork fraud. The feds will be eager to avoid a trial on the conspiracy to defraud charge because its weak. The defendants will plead to the paperwork stuff because that's easy to prove.
Facebook likes to pretend to do the right thing while always seeming to find a bunch of new wrong things to do instead. No doubt the next election will have similar ads with funding sources disguised enough to provide Facebook with deniability. The press won't care unless their candidate loses again.
Slashdot Mirror
You should probably avoid ever talking to anyone in the future. You're not very good at it.
Everyone who interacted with them. Every voluntary interaction between people has an inherent level of trust.
Geek Squad betrayed their customers in a corrupt way by taking money in exchange for reporting on the results of searched computers. If they just stumble on some shit and report it because they feel they have a duty to protect children or something, that's different because it’s an act of conscience. Geek Squad sold their customers out for cash (cf. Judas).
Like the other guys said, it’s a 4th Amendment issue. The cops can’t just hire people to do their (otherwise illegal, constitutionally prohibited) searches for them. They should be trying to obey the Constitution and protect our rights, not trying to work around them.
It’s up to the courts whether this sort of workaround is permissible. Courts have to make very clear rules.
Unless Geek Squad is legally required to report what they find, and unless they disclose that they will be searching for contraband, it’s a clear breach of trust on Geek Squad's part. Some of Geek Squad's customers probably deserve to have their trust breached. But the FBI was paying Geek Squad, so Geek Squad had a direct, corrupt incentive to breach every customer's trust.
I don't understand the surprise. Do you think Facebook management goes to church on sundays and PTA meetings at their kids' school?
In the UK, families apparently let their daughters be passed around by groups of foreign men, with the knowledge and tolerance of the police. Facebook might not be that progressive yet, but maybe they're working on it.
When did Facebook ever actually do the right thing? If they started doing the right thing, wouldn't that be the surprise?
I'm one of the loudest people condemning police misconduct and demanding changes. Police are irrelevant to the discussion of job discrimination though.
Discrimination exists and is still rampant. Staying with the status quo does not get rid of discrimination it just reinforces it.
Are you saying "not discriminating" doesn't help to "get rid of discrimination"?
Do you have any facts to back that up, or is it an article of faith?
It's sad that trying to get rid of discrimination is considered politics and that there's two sides to the issue.
They should try to "get rid of discrimination" by not discriminating.
Only the most zealous of true believers would consider that "politics".
You mean 50 or 100 years ago? Nope. I wasn't born then.
I'm not sure what your point is. You should definitely build a time machine and go back and fix history if you can. If you can't, best to leave ancient grievances in the past rather than continually reliving them day after day and visiting them upon new generations of people who are innocent of what their ancestors did.
I think we can all agree, based on the above paragraph, that you are probably an asshole.
Actually, I’m really nice. Unlike you, I didn't say anything mean about anyone.
Sorry if I offended your religion by suggesting unworthy wrong-race, wrong-gender types pose as the correct-race, correct-gender, correct-lifestyle individuals you venerate. You're welcome to refuse to extend your worship to Sofia Espinoza because you don't think she is genuine.
Some of us don't feel the calling like you. We would rather treat all races and both genders the same rather than exalting some and degrading others.
You still aren't saying you doubt Google did this.
All that and still you didn’t say that you doubt Google and YouTube did this.
...So the smarter choice is to shutup about it while you're at work, advocate for change as your personal hobby at home, and leave your employer out of it. There's a reason the tired old rule exists about not talking politics or religion in polite company....
You don't understand. It's not a hobby, it's a religion. It's how they know they're better than you. Without it, their shallow misanthropic lives would be seem meaningless — just an endless series of bitter score-settling and grievance dramatization that leaves them surrounded only by smug, unhappy people like themselves.
I think we can all agree that Google and YouTube probably did this. If they didn’t do this exactly, they're basically saying they'd like to do it if they could get away with it.
All applicants to Google and YouTube should say they "identify" as a lesbian refugee from Honduras named "Sofia Espinoza". After you're hired, you can say you had an epiphany and you now "identify" as who you were born as. You can change it back to Sofia the week before performance reviews. If they doubt you, call them racist and transphobic.
This story seems like complete, made-up bullshit. It has:
- Doctors and scientists making a claim that seems ridiculous on it's face
- Focuses on children and learning for reader and interest
- A bogeyman
- No actual scientific study mentioned
- An audience ready to believe
...that should be good grounds to watch out for a hoax.
The fact that anything could be a hoax is good grounds to watch out for a hoax.
But we don't need "good grounds" for the police to be careful when deciding to shoot at people.
Congrats to the LA police for not killing any innocent people when responding to those incidents. Keep it up.
...Those decisions must be made ONLY by those charged with enforcing laws currently in effect...
Like a court and a jury?
... a world where billionaires can functionally drive media sources into bankruptcy by proxy lawsuits is potentially incredibly chilling on free speech...
That might be a problem it it starts happening to media sources that don't deserve to be shut down. Right now, the only speech being "chilled" is publishing celebrity sex videos — and then only in combination with many years of other various bad behavior.
That's not the point. The point is that if every rich asshole is capable to run a media company into the ground "just because", we are in deep trouble.
So far it’s only one media company — the one full of assholes that couldn't be bothered to follow any rules. It turned out that following at least one rule was important.
It's not about the law. They're on the side of whatever is fashionable. If TV comedians and Barack Obama and other cultural leaders promote something, they'll be for it, regardless of how evil it is or who gets hurt.
If lots of people are terribly hurt, then you'll hear that "they had it coming" and a couple days later it'll be completely forgotten, just like when that Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire on 20 congressmen at a charity baseball game last summer.
A tortious interference claim is for wrongful and improper actions. Funding a lawsuit can hardly be considered wrongful or improper. Close all the courthouses forever if it is.
Gawker's conduct was wrongful and improper. That's why they lost.
Also, in a bankruptcy you can't just decide not to sell to someone you’re prejudiced against. There's are legal responsibilities. If he bid the highest and has the most credible plan for the assets, it will be very hard to justify (in court) not selling them to him.
Slashdot and news websites should stop pretending they don't pump up baseless hype and exaggerated drama to get clicks. It's obvious to everyone that measured, sober statements don't make news.
Comcast will be charging those goats extra to show you the good part.
"Some defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."
being too stupid to know you are being used, does NOT mean that you were not involved it just means you are stupid AND a participant.
"Unwitting individuals" are distinctly not conspirators. Attempts to "seek to coordinate political activities" isn't coordinating political activities. Being contacted and answering is not being "a participant".
I predict the case about the Russians won't go to trial. It's an easy prediction because 97% of Federal charges are plea bargained.
They weren't even charged with "meddling" in the US Election(52 U.S.C. 30121), they were charged with conspiracy to defraud the US (18 U.S.C. 371) and some paperwork fraud. The feds will be eager to avoid a trial on the conspiracy to defraud charge because its weak. The defendants will plead to the paperwork stuff because that's easy to prove.
Facebook likes to pretend to do the right thing while always seeming to find a bunch of new wrong things to do instead. No doubt the next election will have similar ads with funding sources disguised enough to provide Facebook with deniability. The press won't care unless their candidate loses again.