The simple solution is to distribute these images with stipulation that they may not be used in any commercial manner, whether to charge to display them or to remove them. It's the ultimate "free" distribution.
There are legal restrictions on using somebody else's picture for commercial profit without their permission. You can't use John Lennon's picture to sell beer. Whether it would work for a booking photo of someone who was not convicted (or convicted of a minor crime) is something that lawyers are working on.
I'm pretty sure the pictures are considered public domain, in the same way that certain other legal information is.
Yes, you can post information that is in public domain.
However, according to TFA, some prosecutors are treating it as a crime of extortion or blackmail to keep the photos on your web site unless the person pays you money.
My gut reaction is that I would like it to be a crime, but it may be difficult to establish in law.
What if she was lost, confused and just made a wrong turn while talking on her cell phone, surprised by the barrier?
Yes. And there are several commonly-used drugs which can cause delirium. There's one drug used used by people who are going into areas where malaria is common, for protection against malaria. There are other drugs that cause delirium and panic. There are a few other medical reasons why somebody could be acting like that. And people just panic. That doesn't justify killing them.
About the time of the Rodney King case, I read in a magazine for police management that car chases are a big problem. Cops get into a chase, they get all pumped up, the chase ends with the car getting smashed up or something, the cops go out and attack the guy. They recommend that the commanders get cops who weren't involved in the chase to arrest the suspect.
Cops are authorized to use deadly force only if they're facing a threat to somebody's life. Otherwise, using deadly force is some degree of homicide.
There have been a few incidents in in New York City where cops killed somebody who (in my reading of the facts) could have been captured alive with little or no risk to the cops. The cops usually claim that they saw a gun (even though there was none), or that they believed their life was threatened (which are the magic words to justify the the most indiscriminate killing), and they usually get off on criminal charges.
There was a really bad case of a cop in upstate New York. There was an elderly (black) guy who had some dementia, and had a lifeline emergency service installed. The alarm went off and the service called an ambulance, and 911. The cop who responded had a long acrimonious relationship with the elderly guy. The elderly guy said that he had no problems, and he wanted to cancel the call. The cop refused to cancel it, and insisted on breaking down the door. On the recording, the cop was taunting the guy. The guy tried to defend himself with a kitchen knife, and the cop shot and killed him. The cop was tried and acquitted.
So I would bet, dollars to donuts, that the cops will say that they thought their lives were threatened in some way, and maybe they'll use the standard excuse that they thought they saw a gun.
There's another philosophy that a cop is getting paid to take risks, and part of his job is to protect lives, even at a small risk to his own life. I know a cop who confronted a man with a gun and told him to drop the gun, repeatedly, and then shot the man (who lived). But that doesn't happen consistently.
Joseph Steiglitz, who won the Nobel prize in economics, knows something about economics. He said that the real cost of the Iraq war was $3 trillion. If he can't explain it to you, I can't.
Any praise that I have of Clinton is highly qualified.
The Democrats are awful. They're willing to do things that are bad for the country so they can become millionaires.
But the Republicans are really crazy. They're willing to destroy the creditworthiness of treasury bills. They're basically willing to destroy the country and the legislative system because they don't want to follow a law that passed.
Well, looking at the US deficit and debt, one could argue that the Tea Party might be loonies but at least it isn't their policy to spend their grandchildren's earnings.
It wasn't Bill Clinton's policy to spend his grandchildren's earnings either. He left office with the budget in balance.
It was George W. Bush's policy to spend that surplus on tax breaks for his billionaire friends, and then spend $3 trillion for a war in Iraq for the purpose of (what was it again?), most of which went to his no-bid contractors like Halliburton. Bush left us in debt that your grandchildren will be paying for.
The Tea Party is funded by the same loonies that got those no-bid contracts.
You are not old enough to remember a time when you could go to a local government-funded university, like City College or U California, and get a college education basically free, without going $40,000 into debt.
Sometimes the government collects taxes and uses it to pay for government services that are worth far more to the taxpayer than the cost of the taxes; sometimes government wastes the money.
It's the job of an intelligent citizen to figure out which is which, not to cynically demonize government and shut it all down.
The government shutdown is simply a way for the Republicans to show that they are serious. It is an annoyance, but it is not an economic calamity. But the debt ceiling is. If the government defaults, everything is going to hell. So far the Republicans have just shot one hostage. Now they are threatening to kill them all.
Here's a few articles by Paul Krugman which go into those ideas in more detail.
Its purpose is to make people feel cynical and hopeless, so that they won't participate in politics and the plutocrats with the big money can take over.
The Democrats are pretty bad. The Republicans are fucking lunatics who are willing to destroy the country in order to serve their Koch brothers billionaires. They're even willing to destroy themselves, because they don't understand what they're doing. They're like the guy who saws off the tree limb he's sitting on.
Heroin overdose among experienced users with steady supplies are unheard of. Heroin is quite safe, actually.
I'm not sure of that any more. The use of prescribed opioids, including oxycodone and morphine, has gone up significantly, as a result of patients demanding that doctors treat their pain and of drug company marketing. (They use it a lot for arthritis, back pain, and other chronic pain, even though there are some studies that it's not that effective for that application.) As a result, there's been a large increase in the number of opioid-related deaths. However, the next time I see the statistics I'll pay attention to whether they break down morphine separately and whether it's safer than oxycodone.
it is not murder when someone willfully engages in the practice, knowing full well there are potentially fatal hazards involved (given the plethora of education on the subject, it's not like you can credibly claim a general ignorance here.) Long story short, while addiction is a tragedy, the participants are not exactly unwilling victims, either.
So if you go to a street corner where drug dealers hang out, somebody shoots you and takes your money, that wasn't murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.
So if you go to a bar looking for sex, a girl invites you home, kills you, and takes your wallet, she's not engaging in murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.
Alcohol is by far the worst drug. It doesn't matter in the least how many people it kills directly. It kills far more people than all the other drugs combined.
Actually, alcohol is responsible for about 100,000 deaths a year in the U.S., but cigarettes are responsible for about 400,000.
As I recall without looking it up, most of the direct deaths from alcohol are due to liver disease. Among those who consume 100 grams of alcohol a day, 15% of them will develop cirrhosis, and about 30% of those will develop liver cancer.
Most of the deaths from cigarettes are due to increases in heart attacks and strokes, although a lot of them die from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lung cancer is the signature disease of cigarettes, but it's only about 30,000 a year (check me on that).
The point is, anyone who argues that keeping the other drugs illegal makes sense is either brainwashed, a complete moron, someone lying directly on the money trail, or some combination of some or all of those things.
The reason we pay so much for health care is because the recipient doesn't know and/or doesn't care how much it costs, namely because they don't pay for it. Likewise, they don't shop around. So even though it is all privatized, there isn't really much of a free market system.
That's not true. There are countries with government-run insurance, like Canada and Germany, and government-run socialized medicine, like the UK, where patients don't know how much it costs, or care (except to the degree that a good citizen doesn't like to see tax money wasted), and they spend roughly half what we do.
Most of the difference is in the insurance system. For every $1 you pay in health insurance premiums, 15 cents of that right off the top goes to the insurance company (look up a health insurance company financial statement under "loss ratio"), and for every 85 cents that your doctor gets, another 15 cents goes for the administrative costs of dealing with the insurance companies. Another difference is in our use of expensive medicines (erythropoetin for kidney dialysis was Medicare's single most expensive drug, and the dialysis centers, which made a profit on it, were overusing it to the point that they were actually killing people with it), and high-tech equipment (such as CAT scans, which are so overused that they're causing a significant number of radiation-associated cancers). Specialists make around $300,000 a year. Malpractice is about 2% of the health care dollar, so there's no big savings there.
Patient choice has almost nothing to do with it. The doctor has to agree on a treatment (and the more expensive procedures they do, the more money they make). A doctor tells you, "You have to do this now or you can die." What choice do you have?
Here's an example of an unusually well-informed patient, a physician assistant himself, who got appendicitis, did his research, and wanted to be treated with antibiotics, rather than surgery (which can actually be safer):
How many patients know enough to resist a doctor's sales pitch: "You have to do this immediately or you could die"?
Every doctor I've known (which admittedly isn't many) who has worked in a country with a nationalized health care system always talks about how it is problematic because as the end of the year approaches they have to stop caring for their patients because the money has run out. In addition to that, the pay is crap compared to here, which results in a brain drain (notice how when a foreign country needs the *best* care for a particular patient, they pay to have them shipped here for their operation. Always here. In the US resides the world's top centers for cancer, neurology, cardio, and numerous other medical disciplines, and this didn't happen by accident.)
Well, I've talked to a few doctors from the UK, Canada, Germany, Sweden, and a few other countries, and I've read the studies that compare their outcomes for standard indicators like infant mortality and life expectancy, and for common procedures like cancer and heart disease. Basically the outcomes in all the developed countries are about the same. I wouldn't disparage American medical research, but if you read the New England Journal of Medicine every week, as I do, you'll see that some of the most important studies are also done in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere, The American studies are often done to get an expensive new drug approved, but the foreign studies are often done to test whether a common treatment actually works (for example this week an Australian doctor wrote an article about whether IV fluids do more harm than good). We didn't discover the AIDS virus; Luc Montagnier of France did. We didn't discover s
You've got a lot of things in Canada that we don't have in the U.S.
A lawyer once told me about HIPAA, in the U.S. we don't create laws that follow principle or rationality. We create laws that are a compromise among powerful interest groups.
Medical records haven't been confidential in the U.S. ever since Kenneth Starr subpoenaed Monica Lewinsky's therapist's notes during the Bill Clinton impeachment.
It sounds as if news services could have released it at exactly 2pm in Chicago without breaking the Fed's rules. The rules say "public use."
I often work with material under a press embargo. If I get something on Tuesday with an embargo of 2pm EST Wednesday, that means I can send it to my editor in Chicago (or anywhere else) on Tuesday. That's not public use. My editor will wait until 2pm EST and release it (for public use) at that time in Chicago.
A key question is whether or not any organization transmitted information out of the lockup room and into its own computer system before 2 p.m. If that was done, the data could have been moved to computer servers near Chicago before 2 p.m. and publicly released the information from there at precisely 2 p.m. – enabling subscribers of that data service to get the information milliseconds before others in Chicago relying on transmissions from the Federal Reserve in Washington to arrive.
It is not clear whether that would violate the Fed's rules. The Federal Reserve declined to tell CNBC whether or not it would be a violation of their rules to transmit information out of the lockup room before 2 p.m., if that information was pre-loaded into servers in Chicago for release at 2 p.m....
On top of those precautions, every media person entering the lockup – including two employees of CNBC -- was required to sign an agreement that read: "I understand that I may make no public use of the documents distributed by Federal Reserve Board (FRB) staff or the information contained therein, including broadcasting, posting on the Internet or other dissemination, until the time the FRB has set for their public release." [my emphasis]
Transmitting them to the news service's own computer system in Chicago isn't "public use."
"No public use" means you can transmit your story to your editor in Chicago, who holds it until 2:00:00 pm EST and releases it immediately in Chicago.
That would be an unusual news story. It would consist of 1 machine-readable bit meaning "buy." But that's all their readers need.
Quick, everybody, you've got 7 milliseconds to mod me up to +5 insightful.
Slashdot Mirror
The simple solution is to distribute these images with stipulation that they may not be used in any commercial manner, whether to charge to display them or to remove them. It's the ultimate "free" distribution.
There are legal restrictions on using somebody else's picture for commercial profit without their permission. You can't use John Lennon's picture to sell beer. Whether it would work for a booking photo of someone who was not convicted (or convicted of a minor crime) is something that lawyers are working on.
Stupid Mod System:
There ought to be a mod category for posts that are so stupid they're worth reading just to show you how stupid and wrong people can be.
Yes, it is simple. Don't do illegal stuff.
And don't be black.
One of the women in TFA was arrested because her partner was beating her up, she called the cops, and he accused her of a crime when the cops came.
Good, somebody read the exceptions.
There are also privacy rights, which go beyond the copyright.
http://www.loc.gov/homepage/legal.html#privacy_publicity
Since these web sites are trying to make money, there may also be publicity rights, which are subject to even greater restrictions.
I'm pretty sure the pictures are considered public domain, in the same way that certain other legal information is.
Yes, you can post information that is in public domain.
However, according to TFA, some prosecutors are treating it as a crime of extortion or blackmail to keep the photos on your web site unless the person pays you money.
My gut reaction is that I would like it to be a crime, but it may be difficult to establish in law.
We do need some laws that would limit the threats a prosecutor can make or imply.
We had one. The Constitution. It didn't work.
Doing something I disagree with.
What if she was lost, confused and just made a wrong turn while talking on her cell phone, surprised by the barrier?
Yes. And there are several commonly-used drugs which can cause delirium. There's one drug used used by people who are going into areas where malaria is common, for protection against malaria. There are other drugs that cause delirium and panic. There are a few other medical reasons why somebody could be acting like that. And people just panic. That doesn't justify killing them.
About the time of the Rodney King case, I read in a magazine for police management that car chases are a big problem. Cops get into a chase, they get all pumped up, the chase ends with the car getting smashed up or something, the cops go out and attack the guy. They recommend that the commanders get cops who weren't involved in the chase to arrest the suspect.
Cops are authorized to use deadly force only if they're facing a threat to somebody's life. Otherwise, using deadly force is some degree of homicide.
There have been a few incidents in in New York City where cops killed somebody who (in my reading of the facts) could have been captured alive with little or no risk to the cops. The cops usually claim that they saw a gun (even though there was none), or that they believed their life was threatened (which are the magic words to justify the the most indiscriminate killing), and they usually get off on criminal charges.
There was a really bad case of a cop in upstate New York. There was an elderly (black) guy who had some dementia, and had a lifeline emergency service installed. The alarm went off and the service called an ambulance, and 911. The cop who responded had a long acrimonious relationship with the elderly guy. The elderly guy said that he had no problems, and he wanted to cancel the call. The cop refused to cancel it, and insisted on breaking down the door. On the recording, the cop was taunting the guy. The guy tried to defend himself with a kitchen knife, and the cop shot and killed him. The cop was tried and acquitted.
So I would bet, dollars to donuts, that the cops will say that they thought their lives were threatened in some way, and maybe they'll use the standard excuse that they thought they saw a gun.
There's another philosophy that a cop is getting paid to take risks, and part of his job is to protect lives, even at a small risk to his own life. I know a cop who confronted a man with a gun and told him to drop the gun, repeatedly, and then shot the man (who lived). But that doesn't happen consistently.
Aren't there traditional laws giving the subject control over his or her image, besides copyright and trademark laws?
You couldn't use a picture of Albert Einstein or Marilyn Monroe without their permission to advertise a washing machine, could you?
Joseph Steiglitz, who won the Nobel prize in economics, knows something about economics. He said that the real cost of the Iraq war was $3 trillion. If he can't explain it to you, I can't.
I didn't say it was easy.
Any praise that I have of Clinton is highly qualified.
The Democrats are awful. They're willing to do things that are bad for the country so they can become millionaires.
But the Republicans are really crazy. They're willing to destroy the creditworthiness of treasury bills. They're basically willing to destroy the country and the legislative system because they don't want to follow a law that passed.
Well, looking at the US deficit and debt, one could argue that the Tea Party might be loonies but at least it isn't their policy to spend their grandchildren's earnings.
It wasn't Bill Clinton's policy to spend his grandchildren's earnings either. He left office with the budget in balance.
It was George W. Bush's policy to spend that surplus on tax breaks for his billionaire friends, and then spend $3 trillion for a war in Iraq for the purpose of (what was it again?), most of which went to his no-bid contractors like Halliburton. Bush left us in debt that your grandchildren will be paying for.
The Tea Party is funded by the same loonies that got those no-bid contracts.
When are they *not* coming for more money?
You are not old enough to remember a time when you could go to a local government-funded university, like City College or U California, and get a college education basically free, without going $40,000 into debt.
Sometimes the government collects taxes and uses it to pay for government services that are worth far more to the taxpayer than the cost of the taxes; sometimes government wastes the money.
It's the job of an intelligent citizen to figure out which is which, not to cynically demonize government and shut it all down.
The government shutdown is simply a way for the Republicans to show that they are serious. It is an annoyance, but it is not an economic calamity. But the debt ceiling is. If the government defaults, everything is going to hell. So far the Republicans have just shot one hostage. Now they are threatening to kill them all.
Here's a few articles by Paul Krugman which go into those ideas in more detail.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/krugman-rebels-without-a-clue.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/opinion/krugman-the-crazy-party.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/default-notes/
Blaming both parties means blaming nobody. Open your damn eyes.
That's what Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate and NYT columnist says. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/krugman-rebels-without-a-clue.html He calls it "false equivalence."
Its purpose is to make people feel cynical and hopeless, so that they won't participate in politics and the plutocrats with the big money can take over.
The Democrats are pretty bad. The Republicans are fucking lunatics who are willing to destroy the country in order to serve their Koch brothers billionaires. They're even willing to destroy themselves, because they don't understand what they're doing. They're like the guy who saws off the tree limb he's sitting on.
Heroin overdose among experienced users with steady supplies are unheard of. Heroin is quite safe, actually.
I'm not sure of that any more. The use of prescribed opioids, including oxycodone and morphine, has gone up significantly, as a result of patients demanding that doctors treat their pain and of drug company marketing. (They use it a lot for arthritis, back pain, and other chronic pain, even though there are some studies that it's not that effective for that application.) As a result, there's been a large increase in the number of opioid-related deaths. However, the next time I see the statistics I'll pay attention to whether they break down morphine separately and whether it's safer than oxycodone.
Have fun sleeping tonight, murderer.
it is not murder when someone willfully engages in the practice, knowing full well there are potentially fatal hazards involved (given the plethora of education on the subject, it's not like you can credibly claim a general ignorance here.) Long story short, while addiction is a tragedy, the participants are not exactly unwilling victims, either.
So if you go to a street corner where drug dealers hang out, somebody shoots you and takes your money, that wasn't murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.
So if you go to a bar looking for sex, a girl invites you home, kills you, and takes your wallet, she's not engaging in murder because you knew full well there were potentially fatal hazards involved.
Alcohol is by far the worst drug. It doesn't matter in the least how many people it kills directly. It kills far more people than all the other drugs combined.
Actually, alcohol is responsible for about 100,000 deaths a year in the U.S., but cigarettes are responsible for about 400,000.
As I recall without looking it up, most of the direct deaths from alcohol are due to liver disease. Among those who consume 100 grams of alcohol a day, 15% of them will develop cirrhosis, and about 30% of those will develop liver cancer.
Most of the deaths from cigarettes are due to increases in heart attacks and strokes, although a lot of them die from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Lung cancer is the signature disease of cigarettes, but it's only about 30,000 a year (check me on that).
The point is, anyone who argues that keeping the other drugs illegal makes sense is either brainwashed, a complete moron, someone lying directly on the money trail, or some combination of some or all of those things.
Or drunk.
Charlie Brown: Where did you get those numbers Lucy?
Lucy: I made them up!
The reason we pay so much for health care is because the recipient doesn't know and/or doesn't care how much it costs, namely because they don't pay for it. Likewise, they don't shop around. So even though it is all privatized, there isn't really much of a free market system.
That's not true. There are countries with government-run insurance, like Canada and Germany, and government-run socialized medicine, like the UK, where patients don't know how much it costs, or care (except to the degree that a good citizen doesn't like to see tax money wasted), and they spend roughly half what we do.
Most of the difference is in the insurance system. For every $1 you pay in health insurance premiums, 15 cents of that right off the top goes to the insurance company (look up a health insurance company financial statement under "loss ratio"), and for every 85 cents that your doctor gets, another 15 cents goes for the administrative costs of dealing with the insurance companies. Another difference is in our use of expensive medicines (erythropoetin for kidney dialysis was Medicare's single most expensive drug, and the dialysis centers, which made a profit on it, were overusing it to the point that they were actually killing people with it), and high-tech equipment (such as CAT scans, which are so overused that they're causing a significant number of radiation-associated cancers). Specialists make around $300,000 a year. Malpractice is about 2% of the health care dollar, so there's no big savings there.
Patient choice has almost nothing to do with it. The doctor has to agree on a treatment (and the more expensive procedures they do, the more money they make). A doctor tells you, "You have to do this now or you can die." What choice do you have?
Here's an example of an unusually well-informed patient, a physician assistant himself, who got appendicitis, did his research, and wanted to be treated with antibiotics, rather than surgery (which can actually be safer):
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/09/77-percent-success-good-guy-insurance.html
A 77 percent success rate is good enough for a guy without insurance
Andrew T. Gray, PA-C
September 26, 2013
How many patients know enough to resist a doctor's sales pitch: "You have to do this immediately or you could die"?
Every doctor I've known (which admittedly isn't many) who has worked in a country with a nationalized health care system always talks about how it is problematic because as the end of the year approaches they have to stop caring for their patients because the money has run out. In addition to that, the pay is crap compared to here, which results in a brain drain (notice how when a foreign country needs the *best* care for a particular patient, they pay to have them shipped here for their operation. Always here. In the US resides the world's top centers for cancer, neurology, cardio, and numerous other medical disciplines, and this didn't happen by accident.)
Well, I've talked to a few doctors from the UK, Canada, Germany, Sweden, and a few other countries, and I've read the studies that compare their outcomes for standard indicators like infant mortality and life expectancy, and for common procedures like cancer and heart disease. Basically the outcomes in all the developed countries are about the same. I wouldn't disparage American medical research, but if you read the New England Journal of Medicine every week, as I do, you'll see that some of the most important studies are also done in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere, The American studies are often done to get an expensive new drug approved, but the foreign studies are often done to test whether a common treatment actually works (for example this week an Australian doctor wrote an article about whether IV fluids do more harm than good). We didn't discover the AIDS virus; Luc Montagnier of France did. We didn't discover s
This means that they use mirrors to focus the light onto the panel.
I know just where to put them.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/09/03/0157256/building-melts-car
You've got a lot of things in Canada that we don't have in the U.S.
A lawyer once told me about HIPAA, in the U.S. we don't create laws that follow principle or rationality. We create laws that are a compromise among powerful interest groups.
Medical records haven't been confidential in the U.S. ever since Kenneth Starr subpoenaed Monica Lewinsky's therapist's notes during the Bill Clinton impeachment.
It sounds as if news services could have released it at exactly 2pm in Chicago without breaking the Fed's rules. The rules say "public use."
I often work with material under a press embargo. If I get something on Tuesday with an embargo of 2pm EST Wednesday, that means I can send it to my editor in Chicago (or anywhere else) on Tuesday. That's not public use. My editor will wait until 2pm EST and release it (for public use) at that time in Chicago.
FTA:
Transmitting them to the news service's own computer system in Chicago isn't "public use."
"No public use" means you can transmit your story to your editor in Chicago, who holds it until 2:00:00 pm EST and releases it immediately in Chicago.
That would be an unusual news story. It would consist of 1 machine-readable bit meaning "buy." But that's all their readers need.
Quick, everybody, you've got 7 milliseconds to mod me up to +5 insightful.