It's good for kindling. Or giving to your worst enemy.
Yeah, yeah, computers have mics. Which can be disabled with a "dummy plug." So do cell phones, but they're not omnidirectional (you basically need to talk/shout at one to be heard) and aren't designed to listen 24/7.
This is a device that needs to listen to your home 24/7. No thanks. If someone gives me one for X-mess, I'd return it to them, specifically shove it where the sun don't shine.
(1) You have too much faith in the American system. Cute. (2) They won't refuse to hire her -- they'll just ignore her resume before she ever gets called for an interview based on background check data. It's only grounds for her to sue if she knows about the policy. Company's excuse would be they never got the resume.
The issue isn't "someone's mistake." The issue is some dumb and/or malicious cop's mistake in arresting someone for a crime they didn't commit. There's an issue with people being punished for OTHER people's mistakes (or malice) without trial.
Especially if the record only has a name and DOB, and it can "punish" multiple people who weren't even involved in the incident, but happen to have the same name and DOB.
What would be the social cost of penalizing the mass distribution of such information? Media articles/journalism would still go on -- they'd just be required to include a disclaimer that anyone arrested is innocent till proven guilty, and include the final disposition of the case in an update to articles about arrests.
Why make it easier for predatory data pimps to spread false (and/or outdated) data about her? Why do Slashdotters have a disturbing tendency to take the side of the corepirate entity over the little guy (or gal)?
Depends on the state and jurisdiction -- many of them "seal" the record, or at least don't make it public, if a person is acquitted. It may still be in someone's database, but it's not on the Web for all to see.
It's equivalent to the Linkedin example, because many public agency websites have a ToS that prohibits mass-downloading or redistribution. I'd personally go further to prohibit public agencies from listing arrests/mugshots online at all unless a conviction results, but this isn't the law in many states. So the next best thing is to use existing laws to protect people (who are innocent till proven guilty) from predatory data merchant scum.
The terms of use typically prohibit distribution or mass downloading. With good reason.
I'm generally against looser laws (drugs, prostitution between consenting adults), but I think privacy should be sacrosanct. I'm all for throwing the book at corporate entities that violate people's privacy, AND writing new laws having explicit time limits for data retention and mandating deletion. The EU's "right to be forgotten" is a good thing in an age where privacy is slipping away.
See, I disagree. I think invasion of privacy by corporate entities should be strictly punished -- whether it's retention of data past strict legal limits or when a user specifically opts for account deletion, mass surveillance, or dissemination of inaccurate or prejudicial information affecting people's ability to earn a living. How is someone going to sue if they don't have a job because of something incorrect being in a database used by employers?
Violate data retention laws? In an ideal world, one lash in the arse or a day in the pillory per instance. (Sadly, jail or steep criminal fines are the only real options here.)
Let's use a different example. Arrest records and mugshots on police agencies' websites. Let's say Jane Doe, born 1/1/1970 got arrested for a particularly heinous crime. Murder, or robbery at gunpoint.
Six months later, a court ruled her not guilty. She was able to petition to have the public arrest record on the Yoknapatawpha County Sheriff's office website deleted.
However, in the interim, it's been scraped and archived by database companies using the data for employer background checks. Every time she applies for a job with a large employer, her application either gets round-filed, or she has a lot of explaining to do.
What's worse, in the state of Winnemac, there are six Jane Does with that same birthday, all of which have the same record in their background check database...
Maybe it's the way my brain works, but I prefer boolean.
"2017" AND "Honda Civic" AND "Engine Capacity" gives very precise results, far better than any imprecise conversational query. Leave the AI, give me a good means of looking things up in a database, which is really what search is.
I hardly think that government policies encourage people to sleep on the street. Other than policies which pump up housing prices and remove affordable housing from the market, but I don't see those as "enabling sloth."
Are you proposing bringing back the workhouses from Dickens? If yes, go fuck yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't even need an ophthalmologist -- many brick-n-mortar eyeglass shops have an optometrist on site.
Yes. There are a lot of dumb sheep who want telescreens.
The Scroogle one is $30, pretty close to being given away. If sheep will pay for this junk, might as well make a few extra bucks.
It's good for kindling. Or giving to your worst enemy.
Yeah, yeah, computers have mics. Which can be disabled with a "dummy plug." So do cell phones, but they're not omnidirectional (you basically need to talk/shout at one to be heard) and aren't designed to listen 24/7.
This is a device that needs to listen to your home 24/7. No thanks. If someone gives me one for X-mess, I'd return it to them, specifically shove it where the sun don't shine.
(1) You have too much faith in the American system. Cute.
(2) They won't refuse to hire her -- they'll just ignore her resume before she ever gets called for an interview based on background check data. It's only grounds for her to sue if she knows about the policy. Company's excuse would be they never got the resume.
Exactly: half have it better. Why not use countries with more fair justice systems as examples to follow?
A lot more common in the Latino and Black communities, where the range of surnames tends to be smaller.
The job of government isn't to perpetuate unfairness, though, but rather to prevent it.
Honestly, I'd want public flogging of the arses of the CEOs, one lash per person victimized.
The issue isn't "someone's mistake." The issue is some dumb and/or malicious cop's mistake in arresting someone for a crime they didn't commit. There's an issue with people being punished for OTHER people's mistakes (or malice) without trial.
Especially if the record only has a name and DOB, and it can "punish" multiple people who weren't even involved in the incident, but happen to have the same name and DOB.
Because a lot of American cops are scum who want to punish people without trial, and think they have the right to do so.
What would be the social cost of penalizing the mass distribution of such information? Media articles/journalism would still go on -- they'd just be required to include a disclaimer that anyone arrested is innocent till proven guilty, and include the final disposition of the case in an update to articles about arrests.
Correction: FOR looser drug/prostitution/sex between consenting adult humans/sumptuary laws :)
Why make it easier for predatory data pimps to spread false (and/or outdated) data about her? Why do Slashdotters have a disturbing tendency to take the side of the corepirate entity over the little guy (or gal)?
Depends on the state and jurisdiction -- many of them "seal" the record, or at least don't make it public, if a person is acquitted. It may still be in someone's database, but it's not on the Web for all to see.
It's equivalent to the Linkedin example, because many public agency websites have a ToS that prohibits mass-downloading or redistribution. I'd personally go further to prohibit public agencies from listing arrests/mugshots online at all unless a conviction results, but this isn't the law in many states. So the next best thing is to use existing laws to protect people (who are innocent till proven guilty) from predatory data merchant scum.
The terms of use typically prohibit distribution or mass downloading. With good reason.
I'm generally against looser laws (drugs, prostitution between consenting adults), but I think privacy should be sacrosanct. I'm all for throwing the book at corporate entities that violate people's privacy, AND writing new laws having explicit time limits for data retention and mandating deletion. The EU's "right to be forgotten" is a good thing in an age where privacy is slipping away.
See, I disagree. I think invasion of privacy by corporate entities should be strictly punished -- whether it's retention of data past strict legal limits or when a user specifically opts for account deletion, mass surveillance, or dissemination of inaccurate or prejudicial information affecting people's ability to earn a living. How is someone going to sue if they don't have a job because of something incorrect being in a database used by employers?
Violate data retention laws? In an ideal world, one lash in the arse or a day in the pillory per instance. (Sadly, jail or steep criminal fines are the only real options here.)
... instead of migrating users to a different service, maybe with an AOL skin over it?
Here's the irony -- @verizon.net email accounts were actually migrated to AOL's servers last spring.
Let's use a different example. Arrest records and mugshots on police agencies' websites. Let's say Jane Doe, born 1/1/1970 got arrested for a particularly heinous crime. Murder, or robbery at gunpoint.
Six months later, a court ruled her not guilty. She was able to petition to have the public arrest record on the Yoknapatawpha County Sheriff's office website deleted.
However, in the interim, it's been scraped and archived by database companies using the data for employer background checks. Every time she applies for a job with a large employer, her application either gets round-filed, or she has a lot of explaining to do.
What's worse, in the state of Winnemac, there are six Jane Does with that same birthday, all of which have the same record in their background check database...
Does information still want to be free?
Maybe it's the way my brain works, but I prefer boolean.
"2017" AND "Honda Civic" AND "Engine Capacity" gives very precise results, far better than any imprecise conversational query. Leave the AI, give me a good means of looking things up in a database, which is really what search is.
Modern wine glasses are also seldom filled to the top. But yeah, I have wine glasses from the 1940'ies and they're much smaller than "typical" today.
(1) He's destroying devices that destroy privacy in themselves ... open Telnet ports
(2) He's destroying devices that are insecure by design
Not crying for the owners of this junk. He's indeed doing the Internet a service...
Putin will give you a polonium cocktail with cyanide chaser.
I hardly think that government policies encourage people to sleep on the street. Other than policies which pump up housing prices and remove affordable housing from the market, but I don't see those as "enabling sloth."
Are you proposing bringing back the workhouses from Dickens? If yes, go fuck yourself.