Tech companies admit all sorts of lousy things in their TOSes. Moreso, something like targetted advertising based on email contents is really easy to validate. And if every tech company is lying about what they do with your data, why do they even write novel length privacy policies and TOSes to begin with? Security researchers turn up backdoors and bugs all the time, and sure, the occasional clear violation or outright lie between a TOS and actual practice, but if every one lied about this stuff, why on earth would YAHOO mail admit to doing it (let alone any of the other marketing oriented data collection they engage in across all their other services.)
That's the foundation for a stupid society. People need to be able to rely on a reliable news-media and press because nobody has the expertise or time to figure out what is real or not real, all information being equal. He might as well insist that everyone repair their own cars and grow their own food.
Of course, Trump thinks the press is the enemy of the people. Insisting that everyone individually figure out what's real or what's not is straight from the populist cookbook interested in keeping people effectively believing in nothing.
I have no problems with a cap, fines should be limited to ensuring crime doesn't pay (even one cent) plus a surcharge to reflect the cost of investigating and prosecuting crimes (thus bringing the total benefit to zero) plus a fixed penalty for the crime itself. It should not be otherwise constrained, and certainly not by political motives or a good old boys club.
What the fuck does this even mean? To determine that crime doesn't pay, you have to figure out how much a company made from a deceptive or fraudulent practice. That's basically impossible unless you have a 2nd parallel timeline available to you. Which new customers would have become new customers regardless of a fraudulent marketing campaign when companies regularly engage in multiple novel marketing streams concurrently? That's always going to be an estimate, not an inarguable quantitative known number. And if the evidence isn't terribly conclusive that that value is X, for X being on the high end of the estimate of consumer damage or revenues from deceptive practices, then a judge will be hesitant to award it in the full amount. THEN you say it shouldn't otherwise be constrained.. which.. if you're referring to the punitive damages based on evidence - now I'm not sure you know what 'cap' means. A fine should be capped to something, that something being what the legal process determines to be a proper fine, which shouldn't be constrained - but again, you have no problem with a cap?
Don't be daft. You can prove intent without reading people's thoughts. People communicate their intentions to other people. You can take a legal activity (using copywritten material) and use it in legal ways (under fair use) and be found guilty of copyright infringement because you communicated to somebody else that your intent was to circumvent copyright law even if all your actions would have been legal under another intent.
The maker of the tool could easily modify their tool to prevent it from being used online. But they won't do that, since that's why most people buy it. Intent is a major part of the law.
It's an entirely different situation and impact on the producer of the software when what an individual does with the 3rd party product affects other purchasers of the software who don't use it. Especially if it affects them in negative ways that may cause them to consider terminating their consumer relationship with that producer.
I didn't say there are no consequences for actions. Declaring bankruptcy protects people in some reasonable respects from their own stupidity or irresponsibility (although in the states, most frequently of all, shitty luck with respect to health) - but if there were no consequences, you wouldn't mind going bankrupt. Want to go bankrupt? You also seem to believe there are simple objective means of saying, "What a poor decision." You only get to say that in hindsight once somebody is in a bad spot, but had nothing invested in the decisions at the time that led to it. People who seem to revel in people suffering for their actions seem unwilling (although I'd charge it's more like emotionally unable) to understand that things change and happen beyond people's control, and it's more expensive, time consuming, and ethically difficult to separate who "deserves" protection from who does not. (Which ignores that many systems in place actually do place reasonable amounts of effort in determining abuse.)
And you frame the argument as if people who are bailed out of bad situations suffer absolutely zero consequences for their actions. I point out the masturbatory fantasy that they should have their lives ruined as a way of "learning something" is counterproductive to them and to us - you dream of a system powered by schadenfreude. It's an emotionally stunted way of living. It's expensive. It's mostly useless. It's a system that places more emphasis on making you feel good about yourself than helping the most amount of people possible despite some amount of abuse and enabling, and that's a shitty system.
"The paying process is voluntary, Wiggins said, but customers who choose not pay won't be able to ride on the subway."
I mean, it's as voluntary as using the subway is in general - isn't that voluntary? I mean, I get why you wouldn't want this security theater to extend to subways, but I've no idea on what grounds you'd say this infringes on your freedom. You're already on camera in subways. This is just a more powerful camera.
Anyhow, the public keeps voting for weaker and weaker public institutions, so you get what you pay for.
Societies protect 'dumb' (or vulnerable or less educated or naive or whatever makes you feel superior, ya fuckin' dumbass) people because it's more economical in the long run. We want people to succeed, because they contribute to our society. We don't want them to fail. This is costly to all of us. This masturbatory fantasy of your where letting people suffer the consequences of whatever happens to them in a fully free market because it teaches them or others do act differently is just that - a masturbatory fantasy that is more costly to society and economy in the long run.
We can talk specifics, but this point of yours that people should bear the brunt of every decision they ever make fully and personally completely ignores that it isn't an ideal just world, that people's success and failures impact those around them like friends, families, citizens, and that in many respects is cheaper for society to look after it's dumdums. You reek of somebody who has succeeded and decided to use whatever faculties you had to get there (hard work, brains, and other things you erroneously think *you* alone are responsible for) to be a fucking tool about it. I'm successful too, on my own terms, but I also acknowledge I had help along the way, from other people to government to consumer and investor protection rules. Anyone who thinks they made it by themselves is both a liar and a sanctimonious twit.
Slashdot Mirror
Information taken personally by simple man, feels guilty and emotionally inconvenienced. Blames conspiracy as means to emotionally divest. News at 11.
Nobody is claiming they can't do it, least of all them.
Why the fuck would google say "we read your e-mails" at all if they're just going to lie about it?
Tech companies admit all sorts of lousy things in their TOSes. Moreso, something like targetted advertising based on email contents is really easy to validate. And if every tech company is lying about what they do with your data, why do they even write novel length privacy policies and TOSes to begin with? Security researchers turn up backdoors and bugs all the time, and sure, the occasional clear violation or outright lie between a TOS and actual practice, but if every one lied about this stuff, why on earth would YAHOO mail admit to doing it (let alone any of the other marketing oriented data collection they engage in across all their other services.)
Dropbox has a daemon component for file syncing so startup scripts are going to be involved.
Anything not that's not sychophantic is liberal to you yokels.
Guess what you're not!
A: a person with any relevant experience or knowledge.
That's the foundation for a stupid society. People need to be able to rely on a reliable news-media and press because nobody has the expertise or time to figure out what is real or not real, all information being equal. He might as well insist that everyone repair their own cars and grow their own food.
Of course, Trump thinks the press is the enemy of the people. Insisting that everyone individually figure out what's real or what's not is straight from the populist cookbook interested in keeping people effectively believing in nothing.
Roughly the same functionality like a horse and buggy basically doses what a car does. How's your horse?
I have no problems with a cap, fines should be limited to ensuring crime doesn't pay (even one cent) plus a surcharge to reflect the cost of investigating and prosecuting crimes (thus bringing the total benefit to zero) plus a fixed penalty for the crime itself. It should not be otherwise constrained, and certainly not by political motives or a good old boys club.
What the fuck does this even mean? To determine that crime doesn't pay, you have to figure out how much a company made from a deceptive or fraudulent practice. That's basically impossible unless you have a 2nd parallel timeline available to you. Which new customers would have become new customers regardless of a fraudulent marketing campaign when companies regularly engage in multiple novel marketing streams concurrently? That's always going to be an estimate, not an inarguable quantitative known number. And if the evidence isn't terribly conclusive that that value is X, for X being on the high end of the estimate of consumer damage or revenues from deceptive practices, then a judge will be hesitant to award it in the full amount. THEN you say it shouldn't otherwise be constrained .. which .. if you're referring to the punitive damages based on evidence - now I'm not sure you know what 'cap' means. A fine should be capped to something, that something being what the legal process determines to be a proper fine, which shouldn't be constrained - but again, you have no problem with a cap?
Don't be daft. You can prove intent without reading people's thoughts. People communicate their intentions to other people. You can take a legal activity (using copywritten material) and use it in legal ways (under fair use) and be found guilty of copyright infringement because you communicated to somebody else that your intent was to circumvent copyright law even if all your actions would have been legal under another intent.
The maker of the tool could easily modify their tool to prevent it from being used online. But they won't do that, since that's why most people buy it. Intent is a major part of the law.
Oh man, and get a load of this, people play games in which they get shot don't actually want to get shot in real life! HYPOCRITE MUCH, AMIRITE
It's an entirely different situation and impact on the producer of the software when what an individual does with the 3rd party product affects other purchasers of the software who don't use it. Especially if it affects them in negative ways that may cause them to consider terminating their consumer relationship with that producer.
I AM THE LAW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Intent counts in law.
People can be prosecuted for doing legal things for the intent of circumventing taxes.
Not trusting anybody is just as stupid as trusting everybody.
I didn't say there are no consequences for actions. Declaring bankruptcy protects people in some reasonable respects from their own stupidity or irresponsibility (although in the states, most frequently of all, shitty luck with respect to health) - but if there were no consequences, you wouldn't mind going bankrupt. Want to go bankrupt? You also seem to believe there are simple objective means of saying, "What a poor decision." You only get to say that in hindsight once somebody is in a bad spot, but had nothing invested in the decisions at the time that led to it. People who seem to revel in people suffering for their actions seem unwilling (although I'd charge it's more like emotionally unable) to understand that things change and happen beyond people's control, and it's more expensive, time consuming, and ethically difficult to separate who "deserves" protection from who does not. (Which ignores that many systems in place actually do place reasonable amounts of effort in determining abuse.)
And you frame the argument as if people who are bailed out of bad situations suffer absolutely zero consequences for their actions. I point out the masturbatory fantasy that they should have their lives ruined as a way of "learning something" is counterproductive to them and to us - you dream of a system powered by schadenfreude. It's an emotionally stunted way of living. It's expensive. It's mostly useless. It's a system that places more emphasis on making you feel good about yourself than helping the most amount of people possible despite some amount of abuse and enabling, and that's a shitty system.
"The paying process is voluntary, Wiggins said, but customers who choose not pay won't be able to ride on the subway."
I mean, it's as voluntary as using the subway is in general - isn't that voluntary? I mean, I get why you wouldn't want this security theater to extend to subways, but I've no idea on what grounds you'd say this infringes on your freedom. You're already on camera in subways. This is just a more powerful camera.
Anyhow, the public keeps voting for weaker and weaker public institutions, so you get what you pay for.
+5 correct
Not an option, unless you're a wanna be Pol pot.
Excellent summary for the historically impaired.
Societies protect 'dumb' (or vulnerable or less educated or naive or whatever makes you feel superior, ya fuckin' dumbass) people because it's more economical in the long run. We want people to succeed, because they contribute to our society. We don't want them to fail. This is costly to all of us. This masturbatory fantasy of your where letting people suffer the consequences of whatever happens to them in a fully free market because it teaches them or others do act differently is just that - a masturbatory fantasy that is more costly to society and economy in the long run.
We can talk specifics, but this point of yours that people should bear the brunt of every decision they ever make fully and personally completely ignores that it isn't an ideal just world, that people's success and failures impact those around them like friends, families, citizens, and that in many respects is cheaper for society to look after it's dumdums. You reek of somebody who has succeeded and decided to use whatever faculties you had to get there (hard work, brains, and other things you erroneously think *you* alone are responsible for) to be a fucking tool about it. I'm successful too, on my own terms, but I also acknowledge I had help along the way, from other people to government to consumer and investor protection rules. Anyone who thinks they made it by themselves is both a liar and a sanctimonious twit.
The US is founded on the principle that if there's a right way to do something, they have the freedom to also do it 49 worse ways.