No, the security measure is not forgivable. Don't even bother with hypothetical situations ("But if we could save someone's life... "). Student privacy is more important than a lost laptop. Grok that concept.
Once you've got that down the gullet, there are no hypothetical situations in which this behavior becomes permissible. If we can't take the photos by remote control, then there's no point discussing situations in which such a photo might be justified.
Others have pointed out that this is about the most worthless way possible of recovering a stolen laptop. True. (Yes, there are one or two anecdotal examples. Don't forget to figure these as a percentage of total stolen laptops.) But even this point is a footnote to the point above.
That could work. But I can already guess a huge unintended side effect of that (because among my many hats is desktop support): Hello? Yes, I sent a message to Bob and he said he didn't get it. When did I send it? Gee, it's been almost 10 minutes now...
So it still needs to see a certain volume of spams in order to figure out the template. Then it reacts to the template. Then when the spammers figure out it's uncovered the template, they change the template.
Spam will exist until the fundamental nature of e-mail operation changes.
Last time I had sushi in the US (and it wasn't my idea, definitely) I got very seriously ill. That's never happened to me in Japan.
I'm not saying I've never had one thing served me and called another in Japan (frankly, I'd hardly know apart from the varieties of tuna), but at least the chefs are trained well enough (and the people inculturated enough to know what's up and down) not to make me sick.
That's a possibility, but again, cultures and laws differ. There could well be examples in Japan of those who are already targets of harassment suddenly finding a totally innocent picture of their house being posted. Doesn't seem like much, but it could help to target the victims of harassment. And that's why I'm saying, "Examples, please."
It's not too bizarre. It puts the camera below the height of many privacy walls/fences. But still, the journalist should be calling Google out on this rather than simply regurgitating the press release.
The story lacks any examples of what might constitute malicious abuse. I'm aware of the Streisand Effect, but if there have been lots of complaints then there should be some examples.
But the main point is the Google is responding to criticism of an invasion of privacy with a rather blatant attempt to redirect the arrow. "Yes! We published these photos and we're here to help you prosecute anyone who republishes them!"
Please... Japanese value their privacy. (Well, some do anyway.) If republication of the photos has led to bullying, should Google share in the responsibility?
How is this insightful? This comment is akin to yelling at the cashier because you don't like the prices at Walmart. The OP didn't invent the policy; he's trying to cope with it.
Screw up by CNET reporting on CNET. T(original Japanese)FA clearly says it's a Chinese phone.
Now, off to read the Chinese article that the Japanese article almost certainly cribbed...
You're right! Knight-Ridder's corporate owners would never post their balance sheets on Google docs and give read permissions to those outside their enclaves. And members of the US administration would never use any but whitehouse.gov servers for e-mail. Why, that would be tantamount to a president carrying a blackberry!
Windows licenses tend to be keyed to the media. An OEM license key is not likely to work on a non-OEM source. By the same token, a site license key will not activate an OEM installation.
... from Verisign. If you're using one for each of your 900 subdomains, I guess it adds up. If you're a bank and do a lot of on-line transactions, you'd think pretty much one subdomain could handle it (or maybe one for commercial clients, one for retail, etc.). And yes, the cluster needs to be configured correctly.
Wait, all your users want e-mail? OK, you'll need a hardware upgrade. And don't forget the licenses. Sign here, please.
Oh, sure, user X can e-mail user Y. No problem.
... er, you mean you want to let user X also e-mail users A, B, C... and sometimes J? Harrumph. That wasn't in the spec. No mind. Just sign here, please.
Oh, yes, sure, we do printing. We have a license for printing. Word documents? No problem. Sign here. You say you also sometimes print e-mails? We might be able to do that without a hardware upgrade. Let me check with engineering. Meanwhile, please sign here for the license...
You get the idea. Multiply by the number of things you actually do and the factorial of your user numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
*Whew!*
No, the security measure is not forgivable. Don't even bother with hypothetical situations ("But if we could save someone's life ... "). Student privacy is more important than a lost laptop. Grok that concept.
Once you've got that down the gullet, there are no hypothetical situations in which this behavior becomes permissible. If we can't take the photos by remote control, then there's no point discussing situations in which such a photo might be justified.
Others have pointed out that this is about the most worthless way possible of recovering a stolen laptop. True. (Yes, there are one or two anecdotal examples. Don't forget to figure these as a percentage of total stolen laptops.) But even this point is a footnote to the point above.
... and the 20% are hot?
... brought to you by the Department of Community Relations (formerly HR)
The only thing you'd get out of such a document is protection from them suing you after they fire you!
You say that like it's a bad thing ...
That could work. But I can already guess a huge unintended side effect of that (because among my many hats is desktop support): Hello? Yes, I sent a message to Bob and he said he didn't get it. When did I send it? Gee, it's been almost 10 minutes now ...
So it still needs to see a certain volume of spams in order to figure out the template. Then it reacts to the template. Then when the spammers figure out it's uncovered the template, they change the template. Spam will exist until the fundamental nature of e-mail operation changes.
You're just reinforcing my point ...
If the sushi is prepared in the fish farm, you're doing it wrong. Sushi is prepared by the chef behind the counter.
Last time I had sushi in the US (and it wasn't my idea, definitely) I got very seriously ill. That's never happened to me in Japan. I'm not saying I've never had one thing served me and called another in Japan (frankly, I'd hardly know apart from the varieties of tuna), but at least the chefs are trained well enough (and the people inculturated enough to know what's up and down) not to make me sick.
A bar owner in Japan was ordered to pay royalties for playing the harmonica for his customers. As far as I know, the decision has stuck.
http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2006/11/10/elderly-harmoni.html
As I said, some. And it's their own privacy they value, not yours. So there.
That's a possibility, but again, cultures and laws differ. There could well be examples in Japan of those who are already targets of harassment suddenly finding a totally innocent picture of their house being posted. Doesn't seem like much, but it could help to target the victims of harassment. And that's why I'm saying, "Examples, please."
It's not too bizarre. It puts the camera below the height of many privacy walls/fences. But still, the journalist should be calling Google out on this rather than simply regurgitating the press release.
The story lacks any examples of what might constitute malicious abuse. I'm aware of the Streisand Effect, but if there have been lots of complaints then there should be some examples.
But the main point is the Google is responding to criticism of an invasion of privacy with a rather blatant attempt to redirect the arrow. "Yes! We published these photos and we're here to help you prosecute anyone who republishes them!"
Please ... Japanese value their privacy. (Well, some do anyway.) If republication of the photos has led to bullying, should Google share in the responsibility?
How is this insightful? This comment is akin to yelling at the cashier because you don't like the prices at Walmart. The OP didn't invent the policy; he's trying to cope with it.
Future generations will look back on this moment with their multifarious eyes as the moment that started it all. You know, the *other* singularity ...
http://www.kagi.com/sell.php
Screw up by CNET reporting on CNET. T(original Japanese)FA clearly says it's a Chinese phone. Now, off to read the Chinese article that the Japanese article almost certainly cribbed ...
WinXP has issues connecting to Win98 SMB printers via TCP or NetBEUI when connected to a DOS6 network running LANtastic.
Say no more!
Has anyone bothered to address the points in TFA?
You're right! Knight-Ridder's corporate owners would never post their balance sheets on Google docs and give read permissions to those outside their enclaves. And members of the US administration would never use any but whitehouse.gov servers for e-mail. Why, that would be tantamount to a president carrying a blackberry!
Windows licenses tend to be keyed to the media. An OEM license key is not likely to work on a non-OEM source. By the same token, a site license key will not activate an OEM installation.
... from Verisign. If you're using one for each of your 900 subdomains, I guess it adds up. If you're a bank and do a lot of on-line transactions, you'd think pretty much one subdomain could handle it (or maybe one for commercial clients, one for retail, etc.). And yes, the cluster needs to be configured correctly.
Think of the licensing fees! The humanity!
... er, you mean you want to let user X also e-mail users A, B, C ... and sometimes J? Harrumph. That wasn't in the spec. No mind. Just sign here, please.
...
You want E-mail? Sure, no problem. Sign here.
Wait, all your users want e-mail? OK, you'll need a hardware upgrade. And don't forget the licenses. Sign here, please.
Oh, sure, user X can e-mail user Y. No problem.
Oh, yes, sure, we do printing. We have a license for printing. Word documents? No problem. Sign here. You say you also sometimes print e-mails? We might be able to do that without a hardware upgrade. Let me check with engineering. Meanwhile, please sign here for the license
You get the idea. Multiply by the number of things you actually do and the factorial of your user numbers.