That's like saying that if you do something in public, you want everyone there to see it.
it says you don't care who sees it. Otherwise you'd have done it in private, wouldn't you? Would you be mad if someone took your picture and wrote a story about what you were doing in public? You wouldn't have any recourse (assuming its all true).
I don't actually care enough to prevent my old high school buddies from knowing everything I post on Facebook, but I'd really rather not have it broadcast either.
You obviously don't care if they see it OR YOU WOULD NOT HAVE POSTED THE INFORMATION THERE. You post it and then expect that others WON'T look at it? What kind of stupidity is that?
The claim being made (not necessarily by you) is that publicly available is no different from publicly broadcast. I'm sure that I can get info about you from publicly available sources that you don't want on your Slashdot profile. Do you agree or disagree? It doesn't even have to be internet based. I can hire (if I really want) a P.I. to do a thorough background check on you using only public records. Where you live, if you own, how much you paid if you do own, etc.
I'd love to see you try; without knowing anything about where I live, my name, my gender, my age, my race, you'd be hard pressed to find out anything. The public records you refer to are public by law, and not something I can restrict. Anything I put out on the web myself I cannot expect to keep private.
But it would cost me money (not to mention time) to dig through all that info. And that's your reason for believing I won't. It takes more trouble than it's worth, so you don't lose sleep over it. I'm not actually going to hire a P.I. 'cause I don't have a lot of extra cash and it's not worth it to prove a point on an internet forum.
I don't believe you'd find the first thing about me, being able to hire a PI or not.
Now imagine that Facebook just hired a P.I. for all their members and said "have fun". That's kind of like what is happening here. They've erased the effort it required to dig up info on people's status. Considering that people have 50-100 friends on average, that's a lot of effort (hence a lot of cost) that went into protecting privacy that is now gone.
Its not like hiring a PI at all. Its like a bunch of college kids putting information on the internet, thus making it public and then complaining when someone else agregates and flags that information. If you're telling 100 people private details, you don't seem to be concerned about whether they know it or not. At any time any one of those people can dig throuhg your profile. They can record it everyday and look for changes. Its not that hard.
No one has 50 to 100 friends. They are aquentices, nothing more. You simpily cannot have that close of a relationship with 50 to 100 people at one time. Choosing to give out that much personal info to 50 to 100 aquentices and then complaining that they actually looked at the info is stupid.
You just proved his point. The rest is irrelevant. There's publicly available info about you that you don't want publicly announced. Period.
Excuse me, how exactly did I make any of that information publicly available? The answer is I didn't, which is MY point. If you don't want your information available, don't make it public!
You're depending on exactly the type of anonymity (people being too lazy to collect disparate public info) that the Facebook people are angry about losing. When Slashdot starts aggregating all your info (including real name, email, etc.) and putting it in your profile whether you want it there or not, maybe it will sink through your thick skull.
How can/. make my information public WHEN I HAVEN'T PROVIDED IT TO THEM? I never put information online which I want to keep to myself, even if the site says right now they won't make it public. Facebook never even made that promise, if you look at the agreement you have to accept before using their services. Facebook didn't do all the legwork to find out who its users where, THE USERS TOLD THEM EVERYTHING ABOUT THEMSELVES.
Facebook users were granted a measure of privacy not explicitly in the terms, but in the system. The way Facebook functioned provided a measure of privacy by making people who wanted to find out info about them do the work themselves. That's been taken away.
Actually the terms EXPLICITLY stated that the information was Facebooks or that they could do whatever they wanted with it. The terms of the site haven't changed at all; just the information PROVIDED BY THE USERS which facebook displays. Really, tough shit. You don't like it, close your account.
As the owner of a tangible piece of property, or as an agent ( employee ) of the owner, you have the right to grab people who steal from you.
No you do not. Only the police have that power; grabbing someone without their permission is called Simple Assault, and is illegal.
You can make a citizen's arrest. You just have to be able to convince a judge/jury in civil court that your actions are reasonable. You can use force, just no more than a judge considers neccesary.
Only if you witness the person committing a felony. AFAIK, shoplifting is a misdemeanor. Any use of force may be considered assult, because usually the burden will be on you to PROVE it was necessary, just like killing in self defense requires you prove there was no other option, and usually that's exteremely difficult.
He had him pinned down on the sidewalk, stolen merchandise spilled in plain view. He yelled for the employee in the place across the street to please call the cops. The other employee refused because he 'didn't want to get involved.' After all, why should he? He was paid by the hour and got the same amount whether he tried or not.
So when did the lawsuits hit you? Assaulting someone to stop shoplifting isn't legal as far as I know. Not that I like shoplifting; my wife and I caught someone, but they got away by the time the employees figured out what to do..
More to the point though, why should the other shop care if you were robbed or not? You now know that if the same happens to them, you should stay out of it as well. You're lucky if nothing ever came from the incident.
Try explaining to your girlfriend why you won't set your profile to read "in a relationship" with her. I'll give you a hint: as much sense as your argument makes, all she is going to hear is "I'm not that important to you."
Do you really want to be with some ditz that is always reading between the lines? I wouldn't.
This was all public information. Now it's been announced. See the difference?
Nope, no difference. Its a poor example too, as its magnitudes easier for Joe Blow Collegekid to get information from facebook that it is to to do a whois.
Let's say I break up with my girlfriend. Previously, I would simply change my relationship status to "single." Eventually, my closer friends would notice that my relationship status changed.
Or anyone else that's look at your account. You don't really know who's looking do you? Oh, I'd like to point out how lame you are for telling your 'closer friends' about your breakup via a web site..
Now, it is announced to the world as soon as it would happen. There's a difference between publicly available and publicly announced. As an analogy: the former is adding a line in your slashdot personal profile that you had a divorce. The latter is having a story greenlighted on slashdot, that you just had a divorce. Both are public information, but would you really want it announced?
YOU announced both by posting. If you didn't want to known to the WORLD don't fucking put it on the internet.
Just because we choose to disclose something does not mean we wish to draw attention to it when the situation changes. Even something as innocuous as an invitation to a party shows up; if I decline the invitation, everyone knows I just declined.
So don't disclose it if you're that worried about it. If you posted something on your blog, and then that post became very popular (via/. or something else) you'd complain? If that's a problem for you, I suggest you password protect your information.
You are not a college student, and you do not live in the same sort of social environment where it is encouraged to share contact information publicly to be included in events and meet new people. We knowingly give up some of our privacy when we do so, but there is a limit.
I was a college student, and not too long ago. Somehow we managed to meet people and get included in events. You haven't limited in anyway YOUR information, because you posted it on a public site. (Yes, I could get on there too, as my college provides me with an email address still).
I'm sure if I dug around your website or google, I could find your (real) email address, so why don't you post it on slashdot? It's public information, after all? What about your phone number? Knowing your name and city, I could easily find it, so why isn't it in your slashdot profile? It's not in your profile because you don't want to call attention to it.
I didn't put my real name, email address or any other identifying in my/. profile. Its because I don't wish to have that information available to the world at large.
Lack of self control is not a mental disease though. Your body craves something because your mind is telling it to... and you have control over you mind.
Its like anorexia or agoraphobia.. those "diseases" simply don't exist in say Ethiopia.
Sorry, wrong. We 'hear' using more tahn just our ears; how the sound hits your jawbone for example has a great effect on how you preceive the sound. Sound IS directional; its just a mechanical wave. How the wave bounces around in your ear is different depending on if the wave entered directly at 90 degrees to your eardrum or if it bounced around a bit first.
Except that if your child is molested, you do not believe that the legal system is set up properly if he gets away with it by not being caught, and manages to stay under the radar until the statute of limitations runs out.
Except that if your child is molested its likely YOU or your family that's done it. Read the statistics.
The amount of process required is a sliding scale based on the severity of the deprivation. Criminal convictions include jail time, so that deprivation liberty requires a jury verdict. Lesser deprivations don't.
Really? Please show me the portion of the Constitution that makes this assertion.
I'm a second year law student, here's my take on this:
From reading your post, you're an idiot.
First of all, it's a civil registry. I don't see an automatic due process issue because the state isn't meting out any punishment to those who are listed (i.e. there's no state-led deprivation of life, liberty, or property). You might argue that being listed is enough of a black mark that it effectively bars finding employment or housing, thereby creating a due process issue, but that hasn't been borne out in practice yet.
Maybe you missed the part that says the person on this civil list has to follow all the same requirements as real sex offenders. If you don't think notification and restrictions on where one may live DOESN'T interfere with life liberty, property or happiness, well, you're an idiot. Oh, and it is state-led, otherwise there would be no way to compele someone to cooperate with the restrictions, and no way to compele someone's name to be on the list in the first place.
If the accused can attend the hearing and present evidence in his defense before the judge, due process is satisfied so the above argument will be moot. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other part of the constitution this law would violate, but I haven't take con law yet so it's possible.
I think due process means that if you are found not guilty, you are not subject to any kind of punishment. Being listed sure sounds like a punishment to me. A $50 fine is a punishment too you know, and they can't just hand those out without proving guilt.
While I'm not in favor of this law, it's not nearly as bad as the knee-jerk reaction indicates. Tossing around any old accusation won't cut it; a judge will be weighing the evidence and making the decision. Presumably the accused can attend the hearing and present his own evidence, lessening the effect of unfounded accusations even further. And for those worried about the crazy maverick judge who's just hell-bent on ruining your life, I would fully expect the decision can be appealed and the appellate court will review all the facts anew (on many issues the presiding judge has unchallenged discretion; this wouldn't be one of them).
No, its worse than you think. Don't you think the judge will just rubber stamp the request to add the name, given that even judges are now elected in some areas. Many people are pushing to elect judges JUST like we do representives, so they'll be even more prone to 'knee-jerk' reactions, if they want to keep their jobs anyway. That's not how you foster justice.
I can see where this law could be useful in cases where we know someone has committed a heinous act but the state can't punish him. Maybe the key evidence linking him is inadmissible in court (but still reliable). Maybe the statue of limitations has expired or there are jurisdictional problems. Maybe the victim is unwilling to press charges or has fled. Maybe what the person did is despicable but not criminal, e.g. someone with HIV who knowingly refuses to use protection or inform his/her partners. A criminal conviction is a very high bar. We can't always establish criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt even though we know for certain the person has done very bad things. Not saying I think this is the right approach, but it's not as harebrained as many here have suggested.
There's a reason the bar is set so high stupid; its so that things like this registry can't happen! Dear fucking god, has everyone forgotten WHY its supposed to be hard to get a conviction? Oh, and if its not beyond a reasonable doubt, how the fuck can you say the person has done 'very bad things?' If its so certain, the criteria would have been met. That's the point!
Please, take up a career in mowing lawns; you have no place in our law system.
Hope the country-folk like having child molesters next door.
You're still playing right into the government's plan though. You're assuming all sex offenders are child molesters. Like the 17 year old dating the 15 year old..
Not at all. Speeding in most areas is now just a 'civil' infraction. I knew it was just a matter of time until the state began moving this way for 'more important' crimes.
Well, I just got an AMD X2 3800+, MB and 1GB ram for ~$400. Add a case and dvd drive, maybe up to $450 now. So $650 for a media pc with better quality than a $2000 dvd player seems to make sense to me..
Slashdot Mirror
That's like saying that if you do something in public, you want everyone there to see it.
it says you don't care who sees it. Otherwise you'd have done it in private, wouldn't you? Would you be mad if someone took your picture and wrote a story about what you were doing in public? You wouldn't have any recourse (assuming its all true).
I don't actually care enough to prevent my old high school buddies from knowing everything I post on Facebook, but I'd really rather not have it broadcast either.
You obviously don't care if they see it OR YOU WOULD NOT HAVE POSTED THE INFORMATION THERE. You post it and then expect that others WON'T look at it? What kind of stupidity is that?
The claim being made (not necessarily by you) is that publicly available is no different from publicly broadcast. I'm sure that I can get info about you from publicly available sources that you don't want on your Slashdot profile. Do you agree or disagree? It doesn't even have to be internet based. I can hire (if I really want) a P.I. to do a thorough background check on you using only public records. Where you live, if you own, how much you paid if you do own, etc.
I'd love to see you try; without knowing anything about where I live, my name, my gender, my age, my race, you'd be hard pressed to find out anything. The public records you refer to are public by law, and not something I can restrict. Anything I put out on the web myself I cannot expect to keep private.
But it would cost me money (not to mention time) to dig through all that info. And that's your reason for believing I won't. It takes more trouble than it's worth, so you don't lose sleep over it. I'm not actually going to hire a P.I. 'cause I don't have a lot of extra cash and it's not worth it to prove a point on an internet forum.
I don't believe you'd find the first thing about me, being able to hire a PI or not.
Now imagine that Facebook just hired a P.I. for all their members and said "have fun". That's kind of like what is happening here. They've erased the effort it required to dig up info on people's status. Considering that people have 50-100 friends on average, that's a lot of effort (hence a lot of cost) that went into protecting privacy that is now gone.
Its not like hiring a PI at all. Its like a bunch of college kids putting information on the internet, thus making it public and then complaining when someone else agregates and flags that information. If you're telling 100 people private details, you don't seem to be concerned about whether they know it or not. At any time any one of those people can dig throuhg your profile. They can record it everyday and look for changes. Its not that hard.
No one has 50 to 100 friends. They are aquentices, nothing more. You simpily cannot have that close of a relationship with 50 to 100 people at one time. Choosing to give out that much personal info to 50 to 100 aquentices and then complaining that they actually looked at the info is stupid.
You just proved his point. The rest is irrelevant. There's publicly available info about you that you don't want publicly announced. Period.
/. make my information public WHEN I HAVEN'T PROVIDED IT TO THEM? I never put information online which I want to keep to myself, even if the site says right now they won't make it public. Facebook never even made that promise, if you look at the agreement you have to accept before using their services. Facebook didn't do all the legwork to find out who its users where, THE USERS TOLD THEM EVERYTHING ABOUT THEMSELVES.
Excuse me, how exactly did I make any of that information publicly available? The answer is I didn't, which is MY point. If you don't want your information available, don't make it public!
You're depending on exactly the type of anonymity (people being too lazy to collect disparate public info) that the Facebook people are angry about losing. When Slashdot starts aggregating all your info (including real name, email, etc.) and putting it in your profile whether you want it there or not, maybe it will sink through your thick skull.
How can
Facebook users were granted a measure of privacy not explicitly in the terms, but in the system. The way Facebook functioned provided a measure of privacy by making people who wanted to find out info about them do the work themselves. That's been taken away.
Actually the terms EXPLICITLY stated that the information was Facebooks or that they could do whatever they wanted with it. The terms of the site haven't changed at all; just the information PROVIDED BY THE USERS which facebook displays. Really, tough shit. You don't like it, close your account.
As the owner of a tangible piece of property, or as an agent ( employee ) of the owner, you have the right to grab people who steal from you.
No you do not. Only the police have that power; grabbing someone without their permission is called Simple Assault, and is illegal.
You can make a citizen's arrest. You just have to be able to convince a judge/jury in civil court that your actions are reasonable. You can use force, just no more than a judge considers neccesary.
Only if you witness the person committing a felony. AFAIK, shoplifting is a misdemeanor. Any use of force may be considered assult, because usually the burden will be on you to PROVE it was necessary, just like killing in self defense requires you prove there was no other option, and usually that's exteremely difficult.
He had him pinned down on the sidewalk, stolen merchandise spilled in plain view. He yelled for the employee in the place across the street to please call the cops. The other employee refused because he 'didn't want to get involved.' After all, why should he? He was paid by the hour and got the same amount whether he tried or not.
So when did the lawsuits hit you? Assaulting someone to stop shoplifting isn't legal as far as I know. Not that I like shoplifting; my wife and I caught someone, but they got away by the time the employees figured out what to do..
More to the point though, why should the other shop care if you were robbed or not? You now know that if the same happens to them, you should stay out of it as well. You're lucky if nothing ever came from the incident.
Smoke is the sign of fire
;-)
Not totally true. It could be smoke from acid eating away at metal.
a beeping alarm is (supposedly) the sign of theft.
That's the fallacy; the beeping alarm is just a sign of a tag which was not deactivated. It gives no indication at all if the item was paid for.
Try explaining to your girlfriend why you won't set your profile to read "in a relationship" with her. I'll give you a hint: as much sense as your argument makes, all she is going to hear is "I'm not that important to you."
Do you really want to be with some ditz that is always reading between the lines? I wouldn't.
Your name is Rick Blake.
/. or something else) you'd complain? If that's a problem for you, I suggest you password protect your information.
/. profile. Its because I don't wish to have that information available to the world at large.
You are the webmaster of CyberNexus.
You can be contacted at webmaster@cybernexus.net.
This was all public information. Now it's been announced. See the difference?
Nope, no difference. Its a poor example too, as its magnitudes easier for Joe Blow Collegekid to get information from facebook that it is to to do a whois.
Let's say I break up with my girlfriend. Previously, I would simply change my relationship status to "single." Eventually, my closer friends would notice that my relationship status changed.
Or anyone else that's look at your account. You don't really know who's looking do you? Oh, I'd like to point out how lame you are for telling your 'closer friends' about your breakup via a web site..
Now, it is announced to the world as soon as it would happen. There's a difference between publicly available and publicly announced. As an analogy: the former is adding a line in your slashdot personal profile that you had a divorce. The latter is having a story greenlighted on slashdot, that you just had a divorce. Both are public information, but would you really want it announced?
YOU announced both by posting. If you didn't want to known to the WORLD don't fucking put it on the internet.
Just because we choose to disclose something does not mean we wish to draw attention to it when the situation changes. Even something as innocuous as an invitation to a party shows up; if I decline the invitation, everyone knows I just declined.
So don't disclose it if you're that worried about it. If you posted something on your blog, and then that post became very popular (via
You are not a college student, and you do not live in the same sort of social environment where it is encouraged to share contact information publicly to be included in events and meet new people. We knowingly give up some of our privacy when we do so, but there is a limit.
I was a college student, and not too long ago. Somehow we managed to meet people and get included in events. You haven't limited in anyway YOUR information, because you posted it on a public site. (Yes, I could get on there too, as my college provides me with an email address still).
I'm sure if I dug around your website or google, I could find your (real) email address, so why don't you post it on slashdot? It's public information, after all? What about your phone number? Knowing your name and city, I could easily find it, so why isn't it in your slashdot profile? It's not in your profile because you don't want to call attention to it.
I didn't put my real name, email address or any other identifying in my
And yes, we do not want our breakups made public. Don't criticize what you don't understand.
Then don't fucking use facebook. Jesus christ. When did all the intelligence leave our country?
Not a knee jerk reaction; there are absolutely zero cases where it'd be appropriate for any law enforcement to be provided a segway.
If I were a tax payer in Chicago, I'd be outraged. What a waste. Lets make it so those fat donut eaters walk even less. Brilliant.
Personally I think the cost of making everything whellchair accessible far outweighs the benefits.
Lack of self control is not a mental disease though. Your body craves something because your mind is telling it to... and you have control over you mind.
Its like anorexia or agoraphobia.. those "diseases" simply don't exist in say Ethiopia.
Sorry, wrong. We 'hear' using more tahn just our ears; how the sound hits your jawbone for example has a great effect on how you preceive the sound. Sound IS directional; its just a mechanical wave. How the wave bounces around in your ear is different depending on if the wave entered directly at 90 degrees to your eardrum or if it bounced around a bit first.
Can anyone say OJ? Criminal court, innocent. Civil court, Liable. This just is a database of civil proceedings just like that one.
I would argue that dragging him to civil court is just as distasteful as this law.
Yes, you are advocating to discriminate on basis of illness, the same kind of attitude that our savior fought against 2000 years ago. Hypocrite!
While I agree with you on the matters of law and freedom please limit your statements to YOUR savior. Not all of us believe that drivel.
Except that if your child is molested, you do not believe that the legal system is set up properly if he gets away with it by not being caught, and manages to stay under the radar until the statute of limitations runs out.
Except that if your child is molested its likely YOU or your family that's done it. Read the statistics.
The amount of process required is a sliding scale based on the severity of the deprivation. Criminal convictions include jail time, so that deprivation liberty requires a jury verdict. Lesser deprivations don't.
Really? Please show me the portion of the Constitution that makes this assertion.
I'm a second year law student, here's my take on this:
From reading your post, you're an idiot.
First of all, it's a civil registry. I don't see an automatic due process issue because the state isn't meting out any punishment to those who are listed (i.e. there's no state-led deprivation of life, liberty, or property). You might argue that being listed is enough of a black mark that it effectively bars finding employment or housing, thereby creating a due process issue, but that hasn't been borne out in practice yet.
Maybe you missed the part that says the person on this civil list has to follow all the same requirements as real sex offenders. If you don't think notification and restrictions on where one may live DOESN'T interfere with life liberty, property or happiness, well, you're an idiot. Oh, and it is state-led, otherwise there would be no way to compele someone to cooperate with the restrictions, and no way to compele someone's name to be on the list in the first place.
If the accused can attend the hearing and present evidence in his defense before the judge, due process is satisfied so the above argument will be moot. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other part of the constitution this law would violate, but I haven't take con law yet so it's possible.
I think due process means that if you are found not guilty, you are not subject to any kind of punishment. Being listed sure sounds like a punishment to me. A $50 fine is a punishment too you know, and they can't just hand those out without proving guilt.
While I'm not in favor of this law, it's not nearly as bad as the knee-jerk reaction indicates. Tossing around any old accusation won't cut it; a judge will be weighing the evidence and making the decision. Presumably the accused can attend the hearing and present his own evidence, lessening the effect of unfounded accusations even further. And for those worried about the crazy maverick judge who's just hell-bent on ruining your life, I would fully expect the decision can be appealed and the appellate court will review all the facts anew (on many issues the presiding judge has unchallenged discretion; this wouldn't be one of them).
No, its worse than you think. Don't you think the judge will just rubber stamp the request to add the name, given that even judges are now elected in some areas. Many people are pushing to elect judges JUST like we do representives, so they'll be even more prone to 'knee-jerk' reactions, if they want to keep their jobs anyway. That's not how you foster justice.
I can see where this law could be useful in cases where we know someone has committed a heinous act but the state can't punish him. Maybe the key evidence linking him is inadmissible in court (but still reliable). Maybe the statue of limitations has expired or there are jurisdictional problems. Maybe the victim is unwilling to press charges or has fled. Maybe what the person did is despicable but not criminal, e.g. someone with HIV who knowingly refuses to use protection or inform his/her partners. A criminal conviction is a very high bar. We can't always establish criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt even though we know for certain the person has done very bad things. Not saying I think this is the right approach, but it's not as harebrained as many here have suggested.
There's a reason the bar is set so high stupid; its so that things like this registry can't happen! Dear fucking god, has everyone forgotten WHY its supposed to be hard to get a conviction? Oh, and if its not beyond a reasonable doubt, how the fuck can you say the person has done 'very bad things?' If its so certain, the criteria would have been met. That's the point!
Please, take up a career in mowing lawns; you have no place in our law system.
Hope the country-folk like having child molesters next door.
You're still playing right into the government's plan though. You're assuming all sex offenders are child molesters. Like the 17 year old dating the 15 year old..
Not at all. Speeding in most areas is now just a 'civil' infraction. I knew it was just a matter of time until the state began moving this way for 'more important' crimes.
Mine has 25; I have yet to receive that large of an email though since its downloaded then removed from the server.
You realize that 5.1 means five seperate speakers and subwoofer and not 2 speakers that attempt to 'fake it?'
Well, I just got an AMD X2 3800+, MB and 1GB ram for ~$400. Add a case and dvd drive, maybe up to $450 now. So $650 for a media pc with better quality than a $2000 dvd player seems to make sense to me..
Of course, if you don't like the noise, you could wear noise blanking headphones.
Right... because those that want a high quality picture don't really care to use the 5.1 sound system they also have installed...
Yes, and so did Yahoo. I've never had an ISP email suddenly say 'nope, no more POP access.'