Actually, it is very difficult to use another search engine. People tend to think like consumers since that is what most of us here are, but that is the wrong perspective in this case. In order to 'use another search engine' you need to convince millions of OTHER people to be switch, since it is the buyers of advertising that are the issue.
Which is why there is value in highlighting and dissecting cases of it happening. Maybe it would not happen so much if people were willing to learn from the mistakes of others.
In other words, 'nerds' will discover what the DIY and crafting communities have been doing for longer than any of us have been alive, but since THEY do not have those hobbies it must be a new revolutionary idea!
Which is kinda the pattern I see a lot in tech, people living in bubbles discovering what others have already been doing, giving it a new name, and claiming they came up with something new that all those non-makers couldn't have.
Not as much as one might think, esp if the person was a juvenile at the time. Though yeah, if they go through with this it could represent a rather long lived stain for the person. I am skeptical they would actually prosecute it as a federal crime though and probably scare the family into some kind of plea bargain involving community service and probation.
Well, maybe and maybe not. Even at the federal level such violations can result in a simple fine or probation depending on the severity of the offense and criminal history of the person in question. Involuntary manslaughter on the other hand generally has minimums in the year range.
The defense will probably (assuming it goes to trial) rest on the point that not only were the passwords public knowledge but were being used with the teacher's knowledge in other instances. To expand the analogy, it would be like keeping your key under a rock so any number of people can come in to feed your cat, but then one of those people scrawls something on the wall.
'hacking' needs to have some lower bounds, and this sounds more like a case of simple vandalism then any kind of intrusion.
*nod* which is why I suspect such a ban would not work in the US (culture + penetration), but might make sense in other countries that have other backgrounds and situations. My general point was not to say gun prohibition is always a good idea, but that prohibition can work or not depending on the situation and thus such rules need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
There are all sorts of places around the world where the legal system has broken down to the point the only deterrent against murder would be the victim's allies taking vengeance
Even within the US we have historical examples of where murder was either effectively legal or outright legal provided provided the parties involved were of the correct types.
One problem with that is people tend to overestimate their skillset and experience, so telling who actually has a useful background and who does not, well, it just is not possible. Anyone who thinks it is probably needs to reevaluate their own skillset and experience because they are overestimating it.
This highlights the basic problem with the hope that a reputation system is the key to making unregulated markets work, it presupposes that no manipulation of reputation will be done and all consumers have accurate information to base their buying decisions off of.
Depends on what you consider 'works'. For instance, we have a prohibition on murder in the US. It does not make murder go away, it does not 100% stop it, but it does shift the risk/reward in a way that significantly reduces it. 'Gun prohibition' does not need to remove every gun from circulation, it only needs to make them uncommon and hidden, maybe even drive up the black market prices up enough that common criminals do not have them and 'crimes of passion' occurrences drop, not to mention the reduction in accidental shooting.
It may or may not be a good idea for any particular country, but prohibition can be a good harm reduction mechanism for a wide range of problems. The issue is we tend to only think of the failures as 'prohabition'.
Ahm.. is not payola illegal and one of the major reasons cited for corruption and anti-competitive behavior within the music industry which gives us our limited consumer choice and lock in?
There is also the minor issue that music is an optional cultural consumption, while internet access is a core piece of our infrastructure which no modern business can operate without?
We can not rely on politicians because we can not rely on voters. If there were actual consequences for breaking pre-election promises then they would be less likely to do so, but under our system a candidate's biggest asset is NOT being the person from the other party and their party's ability to ensure more of their people vote then the other side.
Well, it kinda makes sense that the average person is not terribly concerned. The issues people have with this surveillance are largely symbolic and idealogical rather than pragmatic. It is similar to 'political correctness', the people who care feel it is important, the people who do not have trouble seeing it, and much of the difference comes from lack of perceivable effect on people's lives.
Statistically, the largest factor in predicting a person's income and success is how wealthy their parents and social community are. Take those away and pretty much any group who feel themselves hard working and morally superior end up the same way.
The systemic and wide spread part has been shown by data for decades, but that tends to be dull academic type stuff so it does not have much impact on the public imagination. On the other hand, videos of events register with people, so they are helping to convince people emotionally of an already known (but often discounted for ideological or emotional reasons) issue.
In the US companies hang deportation over H1B's heads, which can be used as a negotiation tactic for lower pay and push back against people asking for more.
That is part of a different problem, so many tech companies basing in the same region. Move a company out of SA area and the ease of hiring shoots up dramatically.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is very difficult to use another search engine. People tend to think like consumers since that is what most of us here are, but that is the wrong perspective in this case. In order to 'use another search engine' you need to convince millions of OTHER people to be switch, since it is the buyers of advertising that are the issue.
Which is why there is value in highlighting and dissecting cases of it happening. Maybe it would not happen so much if people were willing to learn from the mistakes of others.
In other words, 'nerds' will discover what the DIY and crafting communities have been doing for longer than any of us have been alive, but since THEY do not have those hobbies it must be a new revolutionary idea!
Which is kinda the pattern I see a lot in tech, people living in bubbles discovering what others have already been doing, giving it a new name, and claiming they came up with something new that all those non-makers couldn't have.
Question is, who is smuggiest.. the people buying Apple watches, or people saying they are too smart for that.
*nods* for example, anyone who has a car that is modded enough to no longer be street legal (or good for using on the street) for various hobbies.
Not as much as one might think, esp if the person was a juvenile at the time. Though yeah, if they go through with this it could represent a rather long lived stain for the person. I am skeptical they would actually prosecute it as a federal crime though and probably scare the family into some kind of plea bargain involving community service and probation.
Talk about creating a problem only you can solve, for a price.
Well, maybe and maybe not. Even at the federal level such violations can result in a simple fine or probation depending on the severity of the offense and criminal history of the person in question. Involuntary manslaughter on the other hand generally has minimums in the year range.
The defense will probably (assuming it goes to trial) rest on the point that not only were the passwords public knowledge but were being used with the teacher's knowledge in other instances. To expand the analogy, it would be like keeping your key under a rock so any number of people can come in to feed your cat, but then one of those people scrawls something on the wall.
'hacking' needs to have some lower bounds, and this sounds more like a case of simple vandalism then any kind of intrusion.
*nod* which is why I suspect such a ban would not work in the US (culture + penetration), but might make sense in other countries that have other backgrounds and situations. My general point was not to say gun prohibition is always a good idea, but that prohibition can work or not depending on the situation and thus such rules need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
There are all sorts of places around the world where the legal system has broken down to the point the only deterrent against murder would be the victim's allies taking vengeance
Even within the US we have historical examples of where murder was either effectively legal or outright legal provided provided the parties involved were of the correct types.
One problem with that is people tend to overestimate their skillset and experience, so telling who actually has a useful background and who does not, well, it just is not possible. Anyone who thinks it is probably needs to reevaluate their own skillset and experience because they are overestimating it.
This highlights the basic problem with the hope that a reputation system is the key to making unregulated markets work, it presupposes that no manipulation of reputation will be done and all consumers have accurate information to base their buying decisions off of.
Depends on what you consider 'works'. For instance, we have a prohibition on murder in the US. It does not make murder go away, it does not 100% stop it, but it does shift the risk/reward in a way that significantly reduces it. 'Gun prohibition' does not need to remove every gun from circulation, it only needs to make them uncommon and hidden, maybe even drive up the black market prices up enough that common criminals do not have them and 'crimes of passion' occurrences drop, not to mention the reduction in accidental shooting.
It may or may not be a good idea for any particular country, but prohibition can be a good harm reduction mechanism for a wide range of problems. The issue is we tend to only think of the failures as 'prohabition'.
On the other hand, fixing regional inconsistencies in might be worth doing for that alone.
Ahm.. is not payola illegal and one of the major reasons cited for corruption and anti-competitive behavior within the music industry which gives us our limited consumer choice and lock in?
There is also the minor issue that music is an optional cultural consumption, while internet access is a core piece of our infrastructure which no modern business can operate without?
We can not rely on politicians because we can not rely on voters. If there were actual consequences for breaking pre-election promises then they would be less likely to do so, but under our system a candidate's biggest asset is NOT being the person from the other party and their party's ability to ensure more of their people vote then the other side.
Well, it kinda makes sense that the average person is not terribly concerned. The issues people have with this surveillance are largely symbolic and idealogical rather than pragmatic. It is similar to 'political correctness', the people who care feel it is important, the people who do not have trouble seeing it, and much of the difference comes from lack of perceivable effect on people's lives.
Statistically, the largest factor in predicting a person's income and success is how wealthy their parents and social community are. Take those away and pretty much any group who feel themselves hard working and morally superior end up the same way.
Both of those had country-hood before being invaded.
But.. but.. the person did not respect their authorata! If people see that it will lead to the downfall of society!
The systemic and wide spread part has been shown by data for decades, but that tends to be dull academic type stuff so it does not have much impact on the public imagination. On the other hand, videos of events register with people, so they are helping to convince people emotionally of an already known (but often discounted for ideological or emotional reasons) issue.
It is easy to be poor when someone comes in with an army and takes all your shit away.
In the US companies hang deportation over H1B's heads, which can be used as a negotiation tactic for lower pay and push back against people asking for more.
That is part of a different problem, so many tech companies basing in the same region. Move a company out of SA area and the ease of hiring shoots up dramatically.