The summary is also pretty biased, intentionally or not. Using VPNs to dodge filters probably isn't the most common use however it may well be the most common use by people who aren't the contract owner and thus aren't able to turn the filter off.
I'm not in favour of auto-on filters, nor do I think they will be effective enough; that doesn't mean that blocking VPNs doesn't make a lot of sense if you are trying to limit someone's ability to get around a filter.
The issue with a technical solution, without an effective legislative or societal solution, is that the government can defeat almost any of them by asserting influence. If the government can knock on any door, demand access to your data and make it a crime to tell you then any service that government can reach is at risk. Yes in theory if you run your own mail client locally, running an open and publicly validated encryption program, on an open OS, with no untrusted programs and everyone you communicate with is doing the same then you might at least force the government to use it's supercomputers to bust the encryption if they want to see it enough.
You can't have things like Facebook and have information security.
Perhaps that's true but if it is then it simply shows that tools like darknets, encryption etc aren't going to protect most people any way. Taking a black and white view is not always helpful. If you use a credit or debit card then someone taking an even more stringent position could say you give up information security.
The issue with Darknets etc is that it'll only protect a limited proportion of what normal people do:
1/ Email, if you want to send or receive, from normal people won't be secret.
2/ Facebook, Youtube, Skype, Amazon etc won't be on it.
If you've got something you want to hide enough then the tools to try and do it are available. For the average person though it isn't a viable or effective proposition. We need to stop this happening, not just find ways for a few people to work around it.
Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that they should be able to keep it secret; only that it could explain why they would want to and try to do so via using 'national security'.
I'm not inclined to debate with people who can't even manage to start their post like a mature individual. If someone asked me to cross a bridge which had a 99% chance of staying standing because that meant it was 'beyond reasonable doubt' I would take exception to that classification; I fail to see why the standard for potentially ruining someone's life should be so much lower than I would accept with my own, but then I have considerably more confidence in my own position than that of someone immature enough to think "Bullshit." is an effective opening sentence.
If you don't think that Google can get a 95% accurate match to gender based on someone's email over a couple of years then that just highlights your lack of imagination or understanding of what people smarter than you can manage. Add in all the other accounts you'll link to Google, login to via google or use google for analytics etc. Frankly they don't really care whether you're a 'boy' or not, they care about whether you like 'football', 'fps games' and 'lady porn' and gender is just an outdated proxy they would have used to guestimate that in the past.
Hint: Unless you're intentionally trying to obfuscate then just checking whether you get any official emails starting with Mr/Mrs/Ms is all they need.
It's not impossible that a) He didn't consider that they might try and check for google maps searches b) that the google map search is recorded in some way that his efforts to delete data missed or c) that the summary/article includes a minor technical error and the search was retrieved from Google's infrastructure which he had not thought to wipe.
I think the last option may be quite likely and it is possible that is where the 'security' aspect came in. If the information was retrieved from Google via a government program they might not want to discuss what they can get hold of.
The problem with court in general is that the standard (at least in the UK) is the almost ephemeral 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If you are widely accepting of other possibilities then it is virtually impossible to reach that standard. Clearly based on some of the shoddy convictions we see the Jurors are willing to convict when there are considerable doubts.
Apparently enough that people are just copying MOS rather than making their own. I'm not sure I like the precedent it sets so I can't say I'm for it, however if I knew this would be restricted to stopping people lazily ripping off playlists instead of creating their own I wouldn't have any issue with it.
His tweet said "their customer service is horrendous." That clearly makes it a matter of opinion, which is protected by free speech laws in the US. However, British laws are much more "protective" of the "victims" of "big meanies" who share their opinions in public.
To try and put in context. As long as the guy had a genuinely difficult/unhelpful time dealing with BA customer service then he's fine. If that isn't true, for example they responded quickly and repeatedly but he ignored it. He shouted and was rude to them immediately on the phone making it impossible for them to capably serve him etc. In those circumstances they would have valid grounds for libel in the UK because what he is saying isn't true. Though BA would never pursue it because it would simply make it a bigger story.
On the other hand, pulling your school from public school takes away funding from that school, so there is a negative effect.
If your kid never went to school then they never got the funding so it isn't being taken away. Unless you mean that by not sending the kid to school the school wouldn't get the funding it would have gotten if they had, in which case it is exactly the same as saying if you only play with your kid then another kid gets less than if you had played with both.
Also check the bit I quoted. It clearly wasn't about school but about caring for everyone or only caring for yourself, which clearly is proposing that it is an either or decision, which it isn't.
Tough words there keyboard warrior, I bet the Chinese are running in fear after that...
We can limit Chinese, or any other country's, influence or control over whatever we want and we'll pay a price for doing so. How much money are we really willing to spend, as a premium, to avoid Chinese involvement? Do we put all Chinese hardware and software on a banned list for British government or government contractors?
We've got American nuclear bombs on UK soil alongside American controls means to deploy them. Do we really trust them that much more given the crap they get up to these days? Including spying on us and the rest of the EU?
Shut the school and allow it to be re-opened with a new staff, perhaps a little smaller and allow the best performing schools nearby to increase their capacity slightly if they want to.
Management and staff quality at a school have a huge influence on results. If you are hesitant to change these, which he US and many other countries are, then you will continue to see them under-perform.
The UK has begun employing some of these changes. We allow high performing schools to expand and the worst performing schools are put on special measures and eventually closed then re-opened with a largely fresh staff if required.
But it is the idea of "society" tha EVERYONE profits if people stop being egoistic maniacs only caring for their own wellbeing
Firstly it isn't an either or proposition. How many people are truly completely blind to family connection or themselves when deciding what to do with their money or their time?
The article was vacuous nonsense perhaps with a well intentioned core. Do you play with your kids when they are young but not with the neighbours kids who seem a little less well cared for? Then you're a bad person. Do you help your kid with homework but not the kid 2 roads down who's dad left and who's mum works nights? Then you're a bad person. Do you put your kids into a good kindergarten when many people can't afford that (like the slate article author)? Then you're a bad parent.
One reasonably wealthy parent deciding to screw her child over by sending them to the crap local school (even if they work hard to make it slightly less crap) isn't going to save the school system and will almost certainly negatively affect their child's life. Chances are that if they can afford provide school they have already done far more than their fair share for society so maybe they are entitled to spend some of that money on their kin. Furthermore maybe we should stop blaming them and start asking questions about the people who are having children when they can't afford, or be arsed, to provide their child with a decent education?
So you counter his claim of correlation one way without evidence with a claim the other way without evidence?
It's not unlikely that better teachers are attracted to better schools. I went to a school for children who couldn't be educated in normal schools due to behavioural issues (being a bunch of 'bad kids'). This school achieved better than average exam results even though it was entirely made up of some of the worst 'problem children'. How? Firstly spending extra money and secondly a teaching staff who were dedicated to, and chose knowingly, to work with those children.
So show us some research that supports the idea that good teachers teaching kids from poor areas can't get good results; or at least stop calling bs on alternative perspectives when all you're going by is your own unsupported opinion.
Seriously. The fucking summary points out that you need to 'know' they are going to read the message to risk being partially responsible. It's not that long and if you can't understand it then I really don't see why you think your opinion is so worthy of sharing.
but nobody would argue that giving Fred (who is over 21) sealed beer to take home with him with the intent of him drinking them later
Which is fine because it isn't equivalent to what the judge said (and is in the summary). The judge specifically said you would need to 'know', so to take your example you'd have to add the following a) Fred has been repeatedly caught drink driving before and you know this b) Fred has a drinking problem and finds it hard to stop once he starts and has already had a beer and you know this. That still might not be enough though. To know you'd be covered you'd probably have to have Fred ask for a drink for the road and hand him a bottle of beer for their to be no doubt.
Which is exactly what this kind of judgement is supposed to encourage. It is saying to employers that you can't continue to turn a blind eye to drivers reading texts you are sending them while driving when you know they have to do it to do their job. If you need to contact a driver with a time critical message then don't do it by text.
So should he not be able to text his driver or should we keep it simple and say its really the drivers responsibility to wait for a safe time to read and reply to messages?
It covers it clearly in the summary:
if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.
The texter needs to know the texter will view the text while driving. In a business context that would either mean that the texter a) knows the driver doesn't follow the no texting while driving rules and isn't dealing with it or b) knows that the job can't be viably performed without reading the texts while driving and isn't changing the processes to make it possible.
i text you at 5.30pm, and you read it and get in an accident. i know you typically commute at this time and are probably driving. am i at fault?
Did you also expect that he would read the text while driving? Because that's what the judge specifically mentioned. Consider it slightly differently: Your husband/wife/mother/son drives home from work from 17:00-17:30. You know from experience that they will check text messages when driving and think that is dangerous. Do you text them about something non-critical at 17:15 and if you did and they had an accident would you feel at all guilty?
I'm not entirely sure that criminal liability would be appropriate in that situation but I know I wouldn't text them because I would certainly feel partially responsible for the consequences.
Why couldn't the driver just pull over for a few min to correspond with his boss? How do you know that the boss didn't assume that is what the driver would do because it is illegal to text and drive
We don't and that's why the person who sent the sms wasn't prosecuted in this case. What the judge is saying is that if it were the case that the boss 'knew' the drivers couldn't ignore the messages or viably perform their job if they stopped and ignored that then they could be partially liable. It isn't unusual for shipping companies to be running on tight schedules with driving restrictions and getting off a major highway, stopping, checking a message, starting and getting back onto the highway in a truck isn't a 10 second process.
Its the drivers duty to turn off their phone and ensure they are not distracted while driving.
It sounds to me that the judge was talking about a situation where for example a delivery company regularly texts its drivers information knowing that drivers don't typically stop to read them and couldn't do their job effectively if they did. In that situation a company that 'pretends' it doesn't know this is going on could, reasonably, be said to be partially accountable for the consequences.
Lord do I hate people that think they know what's best for the rest of us & our children. Let me screw myself & children up in my own way. That's what my parent's did, and I turned out WAY better than the ones raised by the government(ie food stamps, "head start", etc).
Then screw them up in your own home rather than demanding that the school do everything the way you want it to be. Given that little tirade I really don't see evidence to back up your high opinion of yourself.
Wrong. If you asked it a question like what is the top speed etc and it gives a false answer chances are it is bringing the answer from an approved database. Your claim would be against BMW not the AI developer (although BMW may choose to sue them if they fucked up the app) and it wouldn't be an overly complex case.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary is also pretty biased, intentionally or not. Using VPNs to dodge filters probably isn't the most common use however it may well be the most common use by people who aren't the contract owner and thus aren't able to turn the filter off.
I'm not in favour of auto-on filters, nor do I think they will be effective enough; that doesn't mean that blocking VPNs doesn't make a lot of sense if you are trying to limit someone's ability to get around a filter.
The issue with a technical solution, without an effective legislative or societal solution, is that the government can defeat almost any of them by asserting influence. If the government can knock on any door, demand access to your data and make it a crime to tell you then any service that government can reach is at risk. Yes in theory if you run your own mail client locally, running an open and publicly validated encryption program, on an open OS, with no untrusted programs and everyone you communicate with is doing the same then you might at least force the government to use it's supercomputers to bust the encryption if they want to see it enough.
Perhaps that's true but if it is then it simply shows that tools like darknets, encryption etc aren't going to protect most people any way. Taking a black and white view is not always helpful. If you use a credit or debit card then someone taking an even more stringent position could say you give up information security.
The issue with Darknets etc is that it'll only protect a limited proportion of what normal people do:
1/ Email, if you want to send or receive, from normal people won't be secret.
2/ Facebook, Youtube, Skype, Amazon etc won't be on it.
If you've got something you want to hide enough then the tools to try and do it are available. For the average person though it isn't a viable or effective proposition. We need to stop this happening, not just find ways for a few people to work around it.
Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that they should be able to keep it secret; only that it could explain why they would want to and try to do so via using 'national security'.
I'm not inclined to debate with people who can't even manage to start their post like a mature individual. If someone asked me to cross a bridge which had a 99% chance of staying standing because that meant it was 'beyond reasonable doubt' I would take exception to that classification; I fail to see why the standard for potentially ruining someone's life should be so much lower than I would accept with my own, but then I have considerably more confidence in my own position than that of someone immature enough to think "Bullshit." is an effective opening sentence.
If you don't think that Google can get a 95% accurate match to gender based on someone's email over a couple of years then that just highlights your lack of imagination or understanding of what people smarter than you can manage. Add in all the other accounts you'll link to Google, login to via google or use google for analytics etc. Frankly they don't really care whether you're a 'boy' or not, they care about whether you like 'football', 'fps games' and 'lady porn' and gender is just an outdated proxy they would have used to guestimate that in the past.
Hint: Unless you're intentionally trying to obfuscate then just checking whether you get any official emails starting with Mr/Mrs/Ms is all they need.
It's not impossible that a) He didn't consider that they might try and check for google maps searches b) that the google map search is recorded in some way that his efforts to delete data missed or c) that the summary/article includes a minor technical error and the search was retrieved from Google's infrastructure which he had not thought to wipe.
I think the last option may be quite likely and it is possible that is where the 'security' aspect came in. If the information was retrieved from Google via a government program they might not want to discuss what they can get hold of.
The problem with court in general is that the standard (at least in the UK) is the almost ephemeral 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If you are widely accepting of other possibilities then it is virtually impossible to reach that standard. Clearly based on some of the shoddy convictions we see the Jurors are willing to convict when there are considerable doubts.
Apparently enough that people are just copying MOS rather than making their own. I'm not sure I like the precedent it sets so I can't say I'm for it, however if I knew this would be restricted to stopping people lazily ripping off playlists instead of creating their own I wouldn't have any issue with it.
If your kid never went to school then they never got the funding so it isn't being taken away. Unless you mean that by not sending the kid to school the school wouldn't get the funding it would have gotten if they had, in which case it is exactly the same as saying if you only play with your kid then another kid gets less than if you had played with both. Also check the bit I quoted. It clearly wasn't about school but about caring for everyone or only caring for yourself, which clearly is proposing that it is an either or decision, which it isn't.
Tough words there keyboard warrior, I bet the Chinese are running in fear after that...
We can limit Chinese, or any other country's, influence or control over whatever we want and we'll pay a price for doing so. How much money are we really willing to spend, as a premium, to avoid Chinese involvement? Do we put all Chinese hardware and software on a banned list for British government or government contractors?
We've got American nuclear bombs on UK soil alongside American controls means to deploy them. Do we really trust them that much more given the crap they get up to these days? Including spying on us and the rest of the EU?
Shut the school and allow it to be re-opened with a new staff, perhaps a little smaller and allow the best performing schools nearby to increase their capacity slightly if they want to.
Management and staff quality at a school have a huge influence on results. If you are hesitant to change these, which he US and many other countries are, then you will continue to see them under-perform.
The UK has begun employing some of these changes. We allow high performing schools to expand and the worst performing schools are put on special measures and eventually closed then re-opened with a largely fresh staff if required.
Firstly it isn't an either or proposition. How many people are truly completely blind to family connection or themselves when deciding what to do with their money or their time?
The article was vacuous nonsense perhaps with a well intentioned core. Do you play with your kids when they are young but not with the neighbours kids who seem a little less well cared for? Then you're a bad person. Do you help your kid with homework but not the kid 2 roads down who's dad left and who's mum works nights? Then you're a bad person. Do you put your kids into a good kindergarten when many people can't afford that (like the slate article author)? Then you're a bad parent.
One reasonably wealthy parent deciding to screw her child over by sending them to the crap local school (even if they work hard to make it slightly less crap) isn't going to save the school system and will almost certainly negatively affect their child's life. Chances are that if they can afford provide school they have already done far more than their fair share for society so maybe they are entitled to spend some of that money on their kin. Furthermore maybe we should stop blaming them and start asking questions about the people who are having children when they can't afford, or be arsed, to provide their child with a decent education?
So you counter his claim of correlation one way without evidence with a claim the other way without evidence?
It's not unlikely that better teachers are attracted to better schools. I went to a school for children who couldn't be educated in normal schools due to behavioural issues (being a bunch of 'bad kids'). This school achieved better than average exam results even though it was entirely made up of some of the worst 'problem children'. How? Firstly spending extra money and secondly a teaching staff who were dedicated to, and chose knowingly, to work with those children.
So show us some research that supports the idea that good teachers teaching kids from poor areas can't get good results; or at least stop calling bs on alternative perspectives when all you're going by is your own unsupported opinion.
Seriously. The fucking summary points out that you need to 'know' they are going to read the message to risk being partially responsible. It's not that long and if you can't understand it then I really don't see why you think your opinion is so worthy of sharing.
Which is fine because it isn't equivalent to what the judge said (and is in the summary). The judge specifically said you would need to 'know', so to take your example you'd have to add the following a) Fred has been repeatedly caught drink driving before and you know this b) Fred has a drinking problem and finds it hard to stop once he starts and has already had a beer and you know this. That still might not be enough though. To know you'd be covered you'd probably have to have Fred ask for a drink for the road and hand him a bottle of beer for their to be no doubt.
Which is exactly what this kind of judgement is supposed to encourage. It is saying to employers that you can't continue to turn a blind eye to drivers reading texts you are sending them while driving when you know they have to do it to do their job. If you need to contact a driver with a time critical message then don't do it by text.
It covers it clearly in the summary:
The texter needs to know the texter will view the text while driving. In a business context that would either mean that the texter a) knows the driver doesn't follow the no texting while driving rules and isn't dealing with it or b) knows that the job can't be viably performed without reading the texts while driving and isn't changing the processes to make it possible.
Did you also expect that he would read the text while driving? Because that's what the judge specifically mentioned. Consider it slightly differently: Your husband/wife/mother/son drives home from work from 17:00-17:30. You know from experience that they will check text messages when driving and think that is dangerous. Do you text them about something non-critical at 17:15 and if you did and they had an accident would you feel at all guilty?
I'm not entirely sure that criminal liability would be appropriate in that situation but I know I wouldn't text them because I would certainly feel partially responsible for the consequences.
We don't and that's why the person who sent the sms wasn't prosecuted in this case. What the judge is saying is that if it were the case that the boss 'knew' the drivers couldn't ignore the messages or viably perform their job if they stopped and ignored that then they could be partially liable. It isn't unusual for shipping companies to be running on tight schedules with driving restrictions and getting off a major highway, stopping, checking a message, starting and getting back onto the highway in a truck isn't a 10 second process.
It sounds to me that the judge was talking about a situation where for example a delivery company regularly texts its drivers information knowing that drivers don't typically stop to read them and couldn't do their job effectively if they did. In that situation a company that 'pretends' it doesn't know this is going on could, reasonably, be said to be partially accountable for the consequences.
Then screw them up in your own home rather than demanding that the school do everything the way you want it to be. Given that little tirade I really don't see evidence to back up your high opinion of yourself.
Wrong. If you asked it a question like what is the top speed etc and it gives a false answer chances are it is bringing the answer from an approved database. Your claim would be against BMW not the AI developer (although BMW may choose to sue them if they fucked up the app) and it wouldn't be an overly complex case.
Sounds exactly like a petulant child to me.