I own a Fitbit. It was Fitbit's fault. Apparently, though, nobody at Slashdot thought to actually look at Fitbit's site:
We take the privacy of all Fitbit users very seriously. To address some recent concerns about logged activities of Fitbit users showing up in search engine results, we have taken several immediate steps.
Some quick background:
As you know, Fitbit users can decide voluntarily to log their physical activities. You must do this manually and this information is not collected automatically.
When setting up their profiles, users have had the option to make their profile activity records private, though the default setting has been to make this information public.
As of Sunday [July 3], we have taken the following steps to protect our users’ privacy:
All activity records on Fitbit.com were hidden from view from both other users and search engines, no matter what the user’s current privacy setting. We have also updated our default settings for new users for activity sharing to “private.”
We submitted requests to Google and Yahoo/Bing to remove any indexed user profile pages from their search engines. As a result, user profile pages and their activity records have already disappeared from Google and should disappear within several days at other search engines. Once removed, previously indexed activity records should not be accessible to the public at all from that search engine.
For now, we have removed other personally identifiable information from users’ Fitbit profile pages regardless of privacy settings.
We are dedicated to making this the best fitness platform possible with users in full control of their data. For many people, sharing information is an important motivator for them to achieve their fitness goals. We will be in touch with our users about new choices they will have when they want to share information.
But why do we have such laws [against murder]? To protect others' liberty to live.
No. We have such laws to protect others' right to live. Having the source code to a computer program, or ensuring that others do, is not, in any sense, a human right.
I doubt if billable hours are a concern. Sony needs lawyers so often, they probably have them on staff—i.e., on salary. There are a ton of lawyers who are willing to make less money if it also means having an 8–5, 5-days-a-week, job instead of a 90-hour workweek.
Just because something existed in the 70's doesn't necessarily mean people should have known about it or that it had any impact on future developments.
You know, you're right. I am not a lawyer, but I deal with them on a day-to-day basis for my job. Many—most, even—of them are some of the nicest people on a personal level. But you start talking about legal matters with them and suddenly they are complete bastards. I don't know whether this is something inculcated in law school or what.
One can use Evolution as a substitute for Outlook.
Maybe I'm alone here, but I won't use Evolution until it supports recurring tasks. And since that particular bug has gone unclosed for over eleven years, I'm not holding my breath. Well, not anymore.
Minors are not held—legally—to the same standard. This is for their protection. The legal presumption is that the judgment of minors is not as sound as adults', and that therefore they cannot be held accountable to the same extent as an adult would be. Basically, the law believes that minors are too dumb and easily-influenced to know what they're doing. (We can argue about whether that's a valid belief, but that's a different argument.)
That's not the same as being able to "say anything they please without consequence."
A sales tax in excess of 20% would kill the economy.
It would kill the legal economy. The shadow economy would blossom. Say I'm a widget vendor, and the tax is 20%. You want to buy a widget. So I tell you, "Sure, hedwards, tell you what: if you pay cash, I'll only charge you 10% tax." I then, of course, keep no record of the transaction and pocket the 10%. Calls for some creative bookkeeping, but nothing out of the ordinary as these things go.
Would you say the same thing if it was a student suspended for off-campus speach about his teachers? It seems Slashdot has a problem with punishing the students for this kind of behavior, and I don't see anything that would negate that principle here.
You mean besides the fact that they're minors and not held to the same standard as adults?
I'll stipulate for the purpose of this discussion that, of the people who know what the MPAA and RIAA are and what they've done, most believe those organization to be (at least on their way to becoming) obsolete. You can infer my argument from my caveat.
It's all about context. Sure, Google delists sites all the time—for trying to game its algorithm. De-indexing a site in retaliation for some unrelated action is a different ball of wax.
They could do that, but it would be an amazingly stupid move, I think.
Google gained traction in the search engine world largely because they have an algorithm which ranks sites such that—theoretically, at least—the top listing is, by some measure, the best. Sites stand or fall on their own merits, which means that users (who have the eyeballs which are looking at Google's ads) can trust Google to give them relevant sites. If Google were to stop indexing a site—even somebody like the MPAA—that destroys that trust.
I don't know how it stands legally in the US, but lots of places I've seen have signs saying it's company policy to ask for ID when you make a credit card purchase. I've been asked to show my ID once, ever, for a credit card purchase (oddly, at a place I frequent regularly, and the cashier more than likely knew me by sight). It's just too much of a hassle to check it for every customer that comes through, I suppose.
I do get asked for ID when I buy things with checks—although the only time I write checks is out of my health savings account for prescription drugs, so there may be something else going on there.
Slashdot Mirror
I own a Fitbit. It was Fitbit's fault. Apparently, though, nobody at Slashdot thought to actually look at Fitbit's site:
It's sad that the sanest comment in this whole discussion comes from an Anonymous Coward.
But why do we have such laws [against murder]? To protect others' liberty to live.
No. We have such laws to protect others' right to live. Having the source code to a computer program, or ensuring that others do, is not, in any sense, a human right.
For the record, if you're 18–20, and in the US military, you can drink alcohol in those establishments on military property which serve it.
I doubt if billable hours are a concern. Sony needs lawyers so often, they probably have them on staff—i.e., on salary. There are a ton of lawyers who are willing to make less money if it also means having an 8–5, 5-days-a-week, job instead of a 90-hour workweek.
+1 FUTURAMA
And the Empire didn't finally fall for good until another thousand years later. Hardly "forever," but nothing to sneer at either.
Well, that's boring. And that picture doesn't look like a saucer at all!
Welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here.
Those are definitely neat, but it eliminates one of the most frequent uses of business cards: scratch paper. Unless you had a grease pencil, I guess.
I'm pretty sure it's both. Are you seriously expecting consistency from an elected official at the head of a vast bureaucracy?
Just because something existed in the 70's doesn't necessarily mean people should have known about it or that it had any impact on future developments.
You know, you're right. I am not a lawyer, but I deal with them on a day-to-day basis for my job. Many—most, even—of them are some of the nicest people on a personal level. But you start talking about legal matters with them and suddenly they are complete bastards. I don't know whether this is something inculcated in law school or what.
Because we don't. There's not a better answer to your question.
If you think the US should have a "loser pays" legal system, get elected to the Congress and introduce legislation for it.
And what government instituted among men is going to destroy something so potentially useful—to them, of course, not to the citizenry.
Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
One can use Evolution as a substitute for Outlook.
Maybe I'm alone here, but I won't use Evolution until it supports recurring tasks. And since that particular bug has gone unclosed for over eleven years, I'm not holding my breath. Well, not anymore.
Minors are not held—legally—to the same standard. This is for their protection. The legal presumption is that the judgment of minors is not as sound as adults', and that therefore they cannot be held accountable to the same extent as an adult would be. Basically, the law believes that minors are too dumb and easily-influenced to know what they're doing. (We can argue about whether that's a valid belief, but that's a different argument.)
That's not the same as being able to "say anything they please without consequence."
A sales tax in excess of 20% would kill the economy.
It would kill the legal economy. The shadow economy would blossom. Say I'm a widget vendor, and the tax is 20%. You want to buy a widget. So I tell you, "Sure, hedwards, tell you what: if you pay cash, I'll only charge you 10% tax." I then, of course, keep no record of the transaction and pocket the 10%. Calls for some creative bookkeeping, but nothing out of the ordinary as these things go.
Would you say the same thing if it was a student suspended for off-campus speach about his teachers? It seems Slashdot has a problem with punishing the students for this kind of behavior, and I don't see anything that would negate that principle here.
You mean besides the fact that they're minors and not held to the same standard as adults?
I'll stipulate for the purpose of this discussion that, of the people who know what the MPAA and RIAA are and what they've done, most believe those organization to be (at least on their way to becoming) obsolete. You can infer my argument from my caveat.
I was going to mention aphophasis, but that'd just be silly; so I won't.
It's all about context. Sure, Google delists sites all the time—for trying to game its algorithm. De-indexing a site in retaliation for some unrelated action is a different ball of wax.
They could do that, but it would be an amazingly stupid move, I think.
Google gained traction in the search engine world largely because they have an algorithm which ranks sites such that—theoretically, at least—the top listing is, by some measure, the best. Sites stand or fall on their own merits, which means that users (who have the eyeballs which are looking at Google's ads) can trust Google to give them relevant sites. If Google were to stop indexing a site—even somebody like the MPAA—that destroys that trust.
I don't know how it stands legally in the US, but lots of places I've seen have signs saying it's company policy to ask for ID when you make a credit card purchase. I've been asked to show my ID once, ever, for a credit card purchase (oddly, at a place I frequent regularly, and the cashier more than likely knew me by sight). It's just too much of a hassle to check it for every customer that comes through, I suppose.
I do get asked for ID when I buy things with checks—although the only time I write checks is out of my health savings account for prescription drugs, so there may be something else going on there.