Facebook provides a free service to people like Sabados and Krupalija while they sell advertising. She paid them nothing, I don't understand why anyone expects facebook to do anything other than what is in their own interest. Responding to this request is a huge pain for Facebook with no upside. I can see why they might not want to help. If someone dies and you have a deep connection with their facebook profile then download it and store it yourself!
Just because yopu paid nothing does not mean you do not have any rights. So let's look at these rights (IANAL) The laws give or take away the rights. As there is no contract signed, that part of the law does not apply. A EULA can not take away any rights, just add to them. Further in Europe it is seen that the data belongs to the person, not the company holding it. The GDPR is an extention of already existing laws.
So the data on Facebook and other websites, like YouTube belong to me. The content might also belong to me. Content is seen as an asset and thus will be owned by the content holder, me.
When I die there are laws about who will own the assets after I die. e.g. in a bank it does not mean just because I have a shared account with my (imaginary) wife that she will get that money. This will depend on the law first and testament second.
The same would need to go with the asset "Facebook account". To show you what should happen is comparing it with a bank account and what happens there. If I have a bank account and I die, the moment the bank is officially notified of my death (Normally with a death ceryificate, but other ways are possible) they will block the account. They do not close it, they just block it. This untill it is determined who the new owner of that money is. That could be my spouce, my kid(s) or my cat.
The fact that this could result in a lot of fighting in the family is not the problem of the bank. It could well be that there is an undevisible amount that needs to be shared. e.g. when my last parent died, we had an uneven amount of shares that needed to be devided and we had to determine who got 1 share more than the other. Once that was clear, the issue was solved (Not really an issue, just an email) for the bank.
If we would have started a lawsuit over that, not the banks problem.
The same could be done here. The account goes to the person/s who is/are legally the people who have that right. It could be seen as undivisable and only one person can have access to the account.
OTOH if there is a rule that says that only a living person can own the Facebook account, like with a bank account, then the data should be handed over and the account and all the rest needs to be deleted.
Most of the time this could be handing over the data to a Notary who does the division of all the assets or to any other person who deals with the will.
So yes, it might be a pain for Facebook, but just because people did not pay anything is not an issue. And downloading data does not mean you get it all, nor that you have the rights to delete it. It could be in the will of the person that it is to be deleted. Does not mean that that will happen, but that he wants that to happen.
A death certificate only might mean nothing. E.g. with a bank account it merely blocks the account. The miney is not given (or debits asked) till it is certain who owns it. That might or might not be the spouse.
To me what should be done by FB and others, lik YouTube is that at the official notification of death to block the account, meaning not accesible, till it is clear who owns it. Yes, this couls end up in legal battle between severral parties, but all the companies need to do is follow the already established laws and only hand over the goods to the (group of) rightfull new owners.
Inn Belgium if a rightfull new owner can not be found, the money goes to a special bank account. It does not belong to the bank. Yes, there is more to it than just that, but that is the gist of it.
If the data is seen as goods, like a car or money or a house, the next of kin might or might not have the right to hsve it removed. It depends on the inherritance, the will and the law about it. Kust because she is the spouse does not automatically means she becomes the owner.
Why should it be higher? I could understand as high, but why would ot be higher and that raises the question why it could be lower for NASA than for cars.
I use a raspberry zero w to do some light switching. I could access it from the Intertubes over ssh, but turning in and off a light would bre the least of my problems.
The web interface is not accessible from the outside. But no way on hell would i do this via an external app with any company. Oh, the webserver is http://hackme.houghi.org/
Paper straws? I remember when straws where mader from, well, straw. At one moment they started to put the straws individually in a paper package. Guess because of some healthy issue law, but I am not sure if that was the case. Later they went to plastic. This because the price was just too high.
It explains the name as well in English (Straw), German (Strohhalm), French (Paille) and Dutch (Rietje). Probably other languages as well.
No idea if production could be chaep enough to be an alternative if done in high enough volumes.
As 50% is stupider than average and you ask for 66 2/3% not be able to vote, it could well be that you are in the part that is not allowed to vote. And the odds are against you.
Not sure how old you are, but remember the time when Telex was still a thing. Dishonest people where a thing even then. I remember when we received the same Nigerian scams via Fax when the Internet was not a thing that people had or understood except for a select few.
I have seen scams being tried in various ways. What has changes is the fact that the price they need to pay now is almost nothing to reach a lot of people.
And when I look at the people who grew up in the world where crooks can reach you from all over the world, I see also how readily people give out information to everybody. I am talking e.g. about giving others their credit card numbers (and pincode) and then tell that they where scammed.
I asked one person of about 18 why she did not locked her phone. The answer was "Too much work to re-open it and there is nothing important on it" When I started explaining that her bank account was on it that was linked to her email account that was on it her reaction was "Never thought about it that way." and still did not change her behaviour.
So it is not the time theyr grew up. It is that people are generally good and thus we trust them as that generally works out in our favour.
Not everybody has the instinct to think like a cracker with each contact they haver with another person and that is a good thing. Distrusting people all the time is a bad thing. That fear is not a good thing. Because fear is the path to the dark sideâ¦fear leads to angerâ¦anger leads to hateâ¦hate leads to suffering.
To go even further: Not even the dictonaries play the dictionary police : https://www.merriam-webster.co... The words left out are as real as those that gain entry; the former simply haven't met the criteria for dictionary entry â" at least not yet
OTOH just because a word or a meaning is NOT in a dictionary does not mean it is wrong to use it in another way. Dictionaries are not some sort of defining factor to make a word legal or not. The dictionary is merely a very extensive list of words with an explanation. It is in no way a limiting factor in any language.
Most general English dictionaries are designed to include only those words that meet certain criteria of usage across wide areas and over extended periods of time. As a result, they may omit words that are still in the process of becoming established, those that are too highly specialized, or those that are so informal that they are rarely documented in professionally edited writing. The words left out are as real as those that gain entry; the former simply haven't met the criteria for dictionary entry â" at least not yet (newer ones may ultimately gain admission to the dictionary's pages if they gain sufficient use).
I do the same and do not use Google. I have my own web server running Roundcube. Why would I give Google even more details about be if I do not even use their service.
To make it somewhat idiot proof (where I would be the idiot) I let the email arrive at my provider and then secure pop3 it. Using my own domain, adding aliasses is easy. That way I can filter out a LOT of shit. e.g. if I get an email to MyOwnBank.com@example.com I know it is either from MyOwnBank or they have sold the address or they have been hacked.
So when I get an email send to slashdot.org@example.com from somebody claiming to be my bank, I know it is not true and there is an issue with/.
I do this with almost all companies. Then there are the "projects" where I have an email for one thing, e.g. holday2018@example.net that I can easily delete after it is over. All hotels, restaurants, car reservation and what not will go into that.
No reason at all to use a gmail address. Get a domain name, get a hosting and be free of the Google ball on a chain.
It comes with dozens of crapware programs that get reinstalled during updates. Updates are practically forced too. What's to stop the government from making them use their telemetry file reading ability with a NSL?
You nicely removed that part as to why overheating was possible and it wasn't the earthquake or the tsunami. It was cutting corners for profit.
Car example: Just because one car killed a child, it does not mean that another car will as well. Not even if it was the same make, model and production day and the driver of the car that killed the kid was drunk.
So nice FUD.
That said, it can well be that it should not be running. The Fukushima one has nothing to do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
So the next version will be undetectable.
Please note that 3rd month on a strike does not mean no trains during that period for 3 months. https://en.oui.sncf/en/train/s...
Just because yopu paid nothing does not mean you do not have any rights. So let's look at these rights (IANAL)
The laws give or take away the rights.
As there is no contract signed, that part of the law does not apply. A EULA can not take away any rights, just add to them. Further in Europe it is seen that the data belongs to the person, not the company holding it. The GDPR is an extention of already existing laws.
So the data on Facebook and other websites, like YouTube belong to me. The content might also belong to me. Content is seen as an asset and thus will be owned by the content holder, me.
When I die there are laws about who will own the assets after I die. e.g. in a bank it does not mean just because I have a shared account with my (imaginary) wife that she will get that money. This will depend on the law first and testament second.
The same would need to go with the asset "Facebook account". To show you what should happen is comparing it with a bank account and what happens there.
If I have a bank account and I die, the moment the bank is officially notified of my death (Normally with a death ceryificate, but other ways are possible) they will block the account. They do not close it, they just block it. This untill it is determined who the new owner of that money is. That could be my spouce, my kid(s) or my cat.
The fact that this could result in a lot of fighting in the family is not the problem of the bank.
It could well be that there is an undevisible amount that needs to be shared. e.g. when my last parent died, we had an uneven amount of shares that needed to be devided and we had to determine who got 1 share more than the other. Once that was clear, the issue was solved (Not really an issue, just an email) for the bank.
If we would have started a lawsuit over that, not the banks problem.
The same could be done here. The account goes to the person/s who is/are legally the people who have that right. It could be seen as undivisable and only one person can have access to the account.
OTOH if there is a rule that says that only a living person can own the Facebook account, like with a bank account, then the data should be handed over and the account and all the rest needs to be deleted.
Most of the time this could be handing over the data to a Notary who does the division of all the assets or to any other person who deals with the will.
So yes, it might be a pain for Facebook, but just because people did not pay anything is not an issue. And downloading data does not mean you get it all, nor that you have the rights to delete it. It could be in the will of the person that it is to be deleted. Does not mean that that will happen, but that he wants that to happen.
Even before the GDPR it would have been illegal to do so. I have told the police several times "no" when they requested info.
A death certificate only might mean nothing. E.g. with a bank account it merely blocks the account. The miney is not given (or debits asked) till it is certain who owns it. That might or might not be the spouse.
To me what should be done by FB and others, lik YouTube is that at the official notification of death to block the account, meaning not accesible, till it is clear who owns it.
Yes, this couls end up in legal battle between severral parties, but all the companies need to do is follow the already established laws and only hand over the goods to the (group of) rightfull new owners.
Inn Belgium if a rightfull new owner can not be found, the money goes to a special bank account. It does not belong to the bank. Yes, there is more to it than just that, but that is the gist of it.
If the data is seen as goods, like a car or money or a house, the next of kin might or might not have the right to hsve it removed. It depends on the inherritance, the will and the law about it.
Kust because she is the spouse does not automatically means she becomes the owner.
Perhaps they did. That does not mean that they feel that it being online and in the public is not a good thing.
Why should it be higher? I could understand as high, but why would ot be higher and that raises the question why it could be lower for NASA than for cars.
I use a raspberry zero w to do some light switching. I could access it from the Intertubes over ssh, but turning in and off a light would bre the least of my problems.
The web interface is not accessible from the outside. But no way on hell would i do this via an external app with any company. Oh, the webserver is http://hackme.houghi.org/
Secure? You have a CPU with a gun that fires shots. How secure do you want it to be?
... or elect them to be the most powerful person in the world.
Don't drink and drive.
Paper straws? I remember when straws where mader from, well, straw. At one moment they started to put the straws individually in a paper package. Guess because of some healthy issue law, but I am not sure if that was the case. Later they went to plastic. This because the price was just too high.
It explains the name as well in English (Straw), German (Strohhalm), French (Paille) and Dutch (Rietje). Probably other languages as well.
No idea if production could be chaep enough to be an alternative if done in high enough volumes.
Well, he fires rockets into the sky, so I think that proves he did it himself, right?
I doubt he had anything to do with the de-escalation. Kim is an asshole, but he is not an idiot. He did that.
A law is only worth something if it is enforced and offenders are hekt accountable. Same with a treaty.
As 50% is stupider than average and you ask for 66 2/3% not be able to vote, it could well be that you are in the part that is not allowed to vote. And the odds are against you.
Not sure how old you are, but remember the time when Telex was still a thing. Dishonest people where a thing even then.
I remember when we received the same Nigerian scams via Fax when the Internet was not a thing that people had or understood except for a select few.
I have seen scams being tried in various ways. What has changes is the fact that the price they need to pay now is almost nothing to reach a lot of people.
And when I look at the people who grew up in the world where crooks can reach you from all over the world, I see also how readily people give out information to everybody. I am talking e.g. about giving others their credit card numbers (and pincode) and then tell that they where scammed.
I asked one person of about 18 why she did not locked her phone. The answer was "Too much work to re-open it and there is nothing important on it" When I started explaining that her bank account was on it that was linked to her email account that was on it her reaction was "Never thought about it that way." and still did not change her behaviour.
So it is not the time theyr grew up. It is that people are generally good and thus we trust them as that generally works out in our favour.
Not everybody has the instinct to think like a cracker with each contact they haver with another person and that is a good thing. Distrusting people all the time is a bad thing. That fear is not a good thing. Because fear is the path to the dark sideâ¦fear leads to angerâ¦anger leads to hateâ¦hate leads to suffering.
I wonder that if you have a whole neighborhood with this, would you call it a red light district?
To go even further: Not even the dictonaries play the dictionary police : https://www.merriam-webster.co...
The words left out are as real as those that gain entry; the former simply haven't met the criteria for dictionary entry â" at least not yet
OTOH just because a word or a meaning is NOT in a dictionary does not mean it is wrong to use it in another way.
Dictionaries are not some sort of defining factor to make a word legal or not. The dictionary is merely a very extensive list of words with an explanation. It is in no way a limiting factor in any language.
Or from merriam-webster.com (Emphasis mine)
Dictionaries and reality
Most general English dictionaries are designed to include only those words that meet certain criteria of usage across wide areas and over extended periods of time. As a result, they may omit words that are still in the process of becoming established, those that are too highly specialized, or those that are so informal that they are rarely documented in professionally edited writing. The words left out are as real as those that gain entry; the former simply haven't met the criteria for dictionary entry â" at least not yet (newer ones may ultimately gain admission to the dictionary's pages if they gain sufficient use).
I do the same and do not use Google. I have my own web server running Roundcube. Why would I give Google even more details about be if I do not even use their service.
To make it somewhat idiot proof (where I would be the idiot) I let the email arrive at my provider and then secure pop3 it.
Using my own domain, adding aliasses is easy. That way I can filter out a LOT of shit. e.g. if I get an email to MyOwnBank.com@example.com I know it is either from MyOwnBank or they have sold the address or they have been hacked.
So when I get an email send to slashdot.org@example.com from somebody claiming to be my bank, I know it is not true and there is an issue with /.
I do this with almost all companies. Then there are the "projects" where I have an email for one thing, e.g. holday2018@example.net that I can easily delete after it is over. All hotels, restaurants, car reservation and what not will go into that.
No reason at all to use a gmail address. Get a domain name, get a hosting and be free of the Google ball on a chain.
You sure you are not talking about Android?
You nicely removed that part as to why overheating was possible and it wasn't the earthquake or the tsunami. It was cutting corners for profit.
Car example: Just because one car killed a child, it does not mean that another car will as well. Not even if it was the same make, model and production day and the driver of the car that killed the kid was drunk.
So nice FUD.
That said, it can well be that it should not be running. The Fukushima one has nothing to do with it.
Could well be that neither had guns. Not all police peoplke wear guns.