Because if that is your argument, what would you say if the parents then went back to the court asking for exactly such a solution? Then the court would most likely grant that request.
Some FB algorithms figured that she is dead by the condolence messages of her friends and "RIP her name" postings. I don't know how the deceased status actually looks. I guess the friend remains in your network for a while or for ever.
Unless there is a court order or a mutual agreement or justified interest, e.g. showing a letter to a lawyer or forwarding a work eMail to a colleague when you can assume it is relevant etc.
However it is without a curt order always illegal ton "intrude" on a conversation, that is what the parents basically attempted.
Yes, there are various age limits, depending on the topic, contracts, simple shopping, marriage, sex, voting, joining the army... working as minor etc.
First of all: in this case the friends network informed FB Secondly: this is not a "Facebook problem" Thirdly: if the account was still accessible, it would be still illegal for FB to let someone else use it (parents had the password, but legally they are no allowed to access that account), and let anyone read the private conversations
Just imagine: parents figure last date she had with Mysrerious X. Then they message Mysterious X and inquiry about that date. Mr. X says: "how do you know we had a date? I thought she kept it a secret." Parents answer: "we where checking her facebook mails to figure what was going on before she died"
That is bollocks. Not even the dark side of the moon is that cold. Look at Mars, nearly no atmosphere. Still around +15 degrees C at the equator in summer.
Actually the responsibility to bring some proof is on your side. If you think there are natural contributions to the current climate change, then point them out. We all like to hear about that. Then again, the other questions are all off topic. I doubt a single victim of a car accident really cares/dies if he is rescued by an EV ambulance and not a gasoline one.
The American people are the most generous in the world, with the most concern for other nations in the world. While we don't always take the "right" actions, the intent from the public is never "screw them other guys". Strange that the rest of the world has a different picture of you.
And your history must be lacking.../me looking to south america where the USA destroyed legitimated elected regimes and put up dictatorships
In my eyes the US did not do anything great after the Marshall Plan.
I suggest to google and especially check pinterest. Yurts come in all flavoirs from simple wood frames covered with woolen tent canvas to small pallaces. You will be surprised how comfortable the interiour is, there are even Yurt 'hotel camps', similar to tree house hotels.
As long as the UI is designed by a monkey, looks and works completely different on Windows versus Mac verus iOS (I did not dare to try the Android version yet), it will never fly.
Just clicked on a link on iOS skype a few minutes ago. Instead of opening in Safari it opend in a mediocre working and awfull looking build in web browse...
An then again there is Skype for business (Lynx?) on windows 10... I can only say, it is to bad that the old custom to have some dark, damp and cold dungeons bellow your building has gone away.
Those dungeons were quite usefull to explain simple concepts of "how not to make a GUI"!
The first court followed your argument: the parents inherit the contract. The second court said two things: with the death the contract is finished/void; and even if there was a contract, the right of "private correspondence" (that involves mainly the correspondence partners) is above having access to the account.
Is that not written in the summary or linked article? I thought it was, but I had read the german article 10 hours ago already.
hen the court arguably just deferred to that intent. No, the court is simply reading the book of law and stating what is written under "privacy of correspondence".
Depending on age: they have no right to read the letters. How dumb are you? Now as she is deceases: most certainly they don't have the right to read the letters, regardless how old she was before she died. Your stupid questions are actually no brainers and only show from what a fucked up culture you come regarding privacy and how to tread children.
Would anyone care if parents read the letters of their deceased children? Most likely not, but that was not your question nor implication.
Have the court appoint a lawyer to review the girl's messages, approving for release of only those relating to the parents question of suicide. The parents did not ask for that.
They asked for access in their person.
Why should the court deny the request and then install a lawyer? That is not how law works. Not in your country. And not in my country.
If they want a lawyer to have access to examine under vow of keeping everything private, just to figure if there are suicidal texts: then they should ask for precisely that.
but they sure can rescind their right to go to the beach until their grades improve. For a limited time, yes. But "grounding" a child for an irresponsible time is called "deprivation of liberty" or "illegal restraint". And as the second phrase implies: illegal.
If your child's grades are not good enough in your opinion you should ask yourself what is wrong instead of grounding it.
My parents e.g. where to dumb to ever tell me that you can "prepare" for a test/examination. I realized that in my last year of school and at university I was surprised how many people meet in "learning groups" to prepare for the next exam. So in other words I went 12 years to school without ever preparing for a test/exam. And the last year I tried to fix that... luckily I'm not the only one that dumb as I told that story once a friend and he yelled: "me too!"
In other words if your child is bad in school the main reason is likely you.
but it seems to me that most nations consider the age of 15 to be a minor and that their legal guardians have total control of their possessions, including accounts of this nature. If you mean with "most nations" such nations where parents can marry their minors to each other against their will, then yes. If you mean nations that have actually laws, like Europe, then no.
And the most important thing you seem to miss: the girls is dead. There are no parents. There are ex parents.
The girl has "private correspondence" with other FB users. And the privacy of those users is contested. Not the boring account of the deceased child.
And the ex parents have no right to breach that privacy, nor a real reason.
Regarding the age of 15 being a minor: in Europe we have for basically every topic a scale of ages were the "minor" have the right to decide himself. Topics as small contracts, having a bank account, religion, sex etc. Bluntly, if my 16 year old son wants to fuck your 15 year old daughter and she agrees and you try to deny it to her: you will have very bad luck, in court, morally and amoung the neighbours when word spreads. With age of 14 "minors" can decide for them selves, with very small restrictions if and with whom they have sex.
Your question is completely irrelevant to the courts ruling. It has nothing to do with "contract", age or other things.
The point of the ruling is: protecting the privacy of telecommunication, or secrecy, is a higher good than the parents desire to read the last facebook mails of their daughter.
The girl was 15 btw. So yes, she can make binding contracts within limits. Especially if they don't cost any money. Without consent of the parents.
No idea why you life in a 3rd world/middle age law system and want to impose your fucked up law system on us.
The mother actually had the password. But after the death of the daughter the account got moved into a "deceased status" and the old log in does not work anymore.
Acording to Wikipedia an A10 reaches less than 30,000 feet. An Airship is only limited by the pressure of its cabines. In WWI the british had biplane carrying Airships. Long befor the two American ones you mention.
Slashdot Mirror
Because if that is your argument, what would you say if the parents then went back to the court asking for exactly such a solution?
Then the court would most likely grant that request.
Some FB algorithms figured that she is dead by the condolence messages of her friends and "RIP her name" postings. I don't know how the deceased status actually looks. I guess the friend remains in your network for a while or for ever.
Unless there is a court order or a mutual agreement or justified interest, e.g. showing a letter to a lawyer or forwarding a work eMail to a colleague when you can assume it is relevant etc.
However it is without a curt order always illegal ton "intrude" on a conversation, that is what the parents basically attempted.
Yes, there are various age limits, depending on the topic, contracts, simple shopping, marriage, sex, voting, joining the army ... working as minor etc.
First of all: in this case the friends network informed FB
Secondly: this is not a "Facebook problem"
Thirdly: if the account was still accessible, it would be still illegal for FB to let someone else use it (parents had the password, but legally they are no allowed to access that account), and let anyone read the private conversations
Just imagine: parents figure last date she had with Mysrerious X. Then they message Mysterious X and inquiry about that date. Mr. X says: "how do you know we had a date? I thought she kept it a secret."
Parents answer: "we where checking her facebook mails to figure what was going on before she died"
And then? Still caught ...
That is bollocks.
Not even the dark side of the moon is that cold.
Look at Mars, nearly no atmosphere. Still around +15 degrees C at the equator in summer.
Actually the responsibility to bring some proof is on your side.
If you think there are natural contributions to the current climate change, then point them out.
We all like to hear about that.
Then again, the other questions are all off topic.
I doubt a single victim of a car accident really cares/dies if he is rescued by an EV ambulance and not a gasoline one.
The American people are the most generous in the world, with the most concern for other nations in the world. While we don't always take the "right" actions, the intent from the public is never "screw them other guys".
Strange that the rest of the world has a different picture of you.
And your history must be lacking ... /me looking to south america where the USA destroyed legitimated elected regimes and put up dictatorships
In my eyes the US did not do anything great after the Marshall Plan.
Actually you are.
As the article points out.
Considering the total amount of CO2 ever produced, most of it came from the USA.
I suggest to google and especially check pinterest. Yurts come in all flavoirs from simple wood frames covered with woolen tent canvas to small pallaces.
You will be surprised how comfortable the interiour is, there are even Yurt 'hotel camps', similar to tree house hotels.
Most people would consider the 'average standard of living' in the USA not particular high.
As long as the UI is designed by a monkey, looks and works completely different on Windows versus Mac verus iOS (I did not dare to try the Android version yet), it will never fly.
Just clicked on a link on iOS skype a few minutes ago. Instead of opening in Safari it opend in a mediocre working and awfull looking build in web browse ...
An then again there is Skype for business (Lynx?) on windows 10 ... I can only say, it is to bad that the old custom to have some dark, damp and cold dungeons bellow your building has gone away.
Those dungeons were quite usefull to explain simple concepts of "how not to make a GUI"!
It is not the privacy of the dead girl that is in question but the privacy of her correspondence partners.
That law is the law that forbids to open letters, wiretap phones, disclose private conversations you pick up via radio when you are sailing etc.
It is basically the other side of the free speech laws ... good luck in getting it "damned".
The first court followed your argument: the parents inherit the contract.
The second court said two things: with the death the contract is finished/void; and even if there was a contract, the right of "private correspondence" (that involves mainly the correspondence partners) is above having access to the account.
Is that not written in the summary or linked article? I thought it was, but I had read the german article 10 hours ago already.
You hacked her account, gosh, you are evil!
hen the court arguably just deferred to that intent.
No, the court is simply reading the book of law and stating what is written under "privacy of correspondence".
How do you come to that brain dead idea?
Facebook has no right ... or its employees ... to read the messages on that account either.
Depending on age: they have no right to read the letters. How dumb are you?
Now as she is deceases: most certainly they don't have the right to read the letters, regardless how old she was before she died.
Your stupid questions are actually no brainers and only show from what a fucked up culture you come regarding privacy and how to tread children.
Would anyone care if parents read the letters of their deceased children? Most likely not, but that was not your question nor implication.
Have the court appoint a lawyer to review the girl's messages, approving for release of only those relating to the parents question of suicide.
The parents did not ask for that.
They asked for access in their person.
Why should the court deny the request and then install a lawyer? That is not how law works. Not in your country. And not in my country.
If they want a lawyer to have access to examine under vow of keeping everything private, just to figure if there are suicidal texts: then they should ask for precisely that.
but they sure can rescind their right to go to the beach until their grades improve.
For a limited time, yes.
But "grounding" a child for an irresponsible time is called "deprivation of liberty" or "illegal restraint". And as the second phrase implies: illegal.
If your child's grades are not good enough in your opinion you should ask yourself what is wrong instead of grounding it.
My parents e.g. where to dumb to ever tell me that you can "prepare" for a test/examination. I realized that in my last year of school and at university I was surprised how many people meet in "learning groups" to prepare for the next exam. So in other words I went 12 years to school without ever preparing for a test/exam. And the last year I tried to fix that ... luckily I'm not the only one that dumb as I told that story once a friend and he yelled: "me too!"
In other words if your child is bad in school the main reason is likely you.
but it seems to me that most nations consider the age of 15 to be a minor and that their legal guardians have total control of their possessions, including accounts of this nature.
If you mean with "most nations" such nations where parents can marry their minors to each other against their will, then yes.
If you mean nations that have actually laws, like Europe, then no.
And the most important thing you seem to miss: the girls is dead.
There are no parents. There are ex parents.
The girl has "private correspondence" with other FB users. And the privacy of those users is contested. Not the boring account of the deceased child.
And the ex parents have no right to breach that privacy, nor a real reason.
Regarding the age of 15 being a minor: in Europe we have for basically every topic a scale of ages were the "minor" have the right to decide himself. Topics as small contracts, having a bank account, religion, sex etc. Bluntly, if my 16 year old son wants to fuck your 15 year old daughter and she agrees and you try to deny it to her: you will have very bad luck, in court, morally and amoung the neighbours when word spreads. With age of 14 "minors" can decide for them selves, with very small restrictions if and with whom they have sex.
Germany has *laws*
You only have common law, mostly.
Your question is completely irrelevant to the courts ruling. It has nothing to do with "contract", age or other things.
The point of the ruling is: protecting the privacy of telecommunication, or secrecy, is a higher good than the parents desire to read the last facebook mails of their daughter.
The girl was 15 btw. So yes, she can make binding contracts within limits. Especially if they don't cost any money. Without consent of the parents.
No idea why you life in a 3rd world/middle age law system and want to impose your fucked up law system on us.
The mother actually had the password.
But after the death of the daughter the account got moved into a "deceased status" and the old log in does not work anymore.
Acording to Wikipedia an A10 reaches less than 30,000 feet.
An Airship is only limited by the pressure of its cabines.
In WWI the british had biplane carrying Airships. Long befor the two American ones you mention.
There is no icon or other way to start a terminal.
You are supposed not to need one.
Idiot ...